[
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A Practical Solution**\nThere are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented.  The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors.  Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled.  For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them.  The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied.  What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable).  Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor**\nThe greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives.  A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}.  Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible.  The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Organ donors are more deserving of organs**\nReciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive.  In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place.  However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality.  This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them.  And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity.  Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people.  The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society.  For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**People ought to donate their organs anyway**\nOrgan donation, in all its forms, saves lives.  More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor.  One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time.  If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}.  The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal.  This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects.  Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A Practical Solution**\nThere are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented.  The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors.  Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled.  For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them.  The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied.  What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable).  Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor**\nThe greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives.  A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}.  Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible.  The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Organ donors are more deserving of organs**\nReciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive.  In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place.  However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality.  This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them.  And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity.  Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people.  The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society.  For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People ought to donate their organs anyway**\nOrgan donation, in all its forms, saves lives.  More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor.  One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time.  If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}.  The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal.  This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects.  Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The right to access healthcare is absolute**\nHealthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death.  The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}.  While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated.  What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent.  The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t.  To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo**\nMost formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ.  Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act.  To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress.  Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.**\nFor the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate.  This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}.  One’s body is one’s most foundational possession.  Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory.  The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile.  This is a gross violation of body rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Deny Organs to Non-Donors",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs**\nMany major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death.  To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom.  This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one.  While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Internet governance must be multinational**\nThe internet is global, things on the internet do not just affect one country, indeed they often don’t just affect a small group of countries but affect every country. This is especially true of issues of internet governance as setting the rules for the internet and the architecture has to be for the whole internet not isolated bits of it. The function that ICANN currently performs is one that should rightfully be done internationally in the interests of all the nations. This is not the case at the moment as the United States has essentially has a monopoly on internet governance. While ICANN is an independent non-profit body it is under contract from the U.S. department of Commerce and is subject to U.S. laws.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Governments not ‘civil society’ must be in control of internet governance**\nIt is governments who are in charge of setting public policy within countries so it makes sense that these same governments should set public policy in the international sphere;[1] this is why international organisations have been set up and why it is governments that are represented in them. Internet governance should also be the purview of governments on account of the wide range of issues it covers. These include who gets access to the technical resources of the internet, intellectual property, participation in the online economy (which now has an immense impact on the physical economy as well - just consider how the financial markets around the world are interconnected in part as a result of the internet), freedom of expression, and security which ultimately can affect national security and the high politics if balance of power.[2] Private companies and civil society will inevitably only represent a minority of opinions within these countries and cannot be said to truly represent their country, the right place for them is in providing advice to their governments rather than through direct control such as that currently held by ICANN."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Simplicity**\nOne of the best things about the proposal to create CIRP is that it simply brings the internet into line with other areas of international communication and the global economy by bringing the internet into the United Nations system. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for example is the body that allocates radio spectrums and satellite orbits, in other words it does for telecommunications what ICANN does for the internet, and it is a United Nations agency.[1] The ITU has 193 countries as members but is also open to the private sector and academia, just as CIRP would be.[2] Having internet governance working through the United Nations would therefore mean using a tried and tested method of governance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Internet governance must be multinational**\nThe internet is global, things on the internet do not just affect one country, indeed they often don’t just affect a small group of countries but affect every country. This is especially true of issues of internet governance as setting the rules for the internet and the architecture has to be for the whole internet not isolated bits of it. The function that ICANN currently performs is one that should rightfully be done internationally in the interests of all the nations. This is not the case at the moment as the United States has essentially has a monopoly on internet governance. While ICANN is an independent non-profit body it is under contract from the U.S. department of Commerce and is subject to U.S. laws.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Governments not ‘civil society’ must be in control of internet governance**\nIt is governments who are in charge of setting public policy within countries so it makes sense that these same governments should set public policy in the international sphere;[1] this is why international organisations have been set up and why it is governments that are represented in them. Internet governance should also be the purview of governments on account of the wide range of issues it covers. These include who gets access to the technical resources of the internet, intellectual property, participation in the online economy (which now has an immense impact on the physical economy as well - just consider how the financial markets around the world are interconnected in part as a result of the internet), freedom of expression, and security which ultimately can affect national security and the high politics if balance of power.[2] Private companies and civil society will inevitably only represent a minority of opinions within these countries and cannot be said to truly represent their country, the right place for them is in providing advice to their governments rather than through direct control such as that currently held by ICANN."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Simplicity**\nOne of the best things about the proposal to create CIRP is that it simply brings the internet into line with other areas of international communication and the global economy by bringing the internet into the United Nations system. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for example is the body that allocates radio spectrums and satellite orbits, in other words it does for telecommunications what ICANN does for the internet, and it is a United Nations agency.[1] The ITU has 193 countries as members but is also open to the private sector and academia, just as CIRP would be.[2] Having internet governance working through the United Nations would therefore mean using a tried and tested method of governance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The internet should be governed in the interests of freedom**\nThe internet is used by everyone and so should be governed in such a way as reflects the desires of the users of the internet; and this is somewhere where internet users are often at odds with their governments. Where the freedom of individuals are concerned it is undoubtedly the bottom up system of ICANN which will be less restrictive than the option of top down control through an international organisation in which governments have the lion’s share of the power. While governments are meant to be protecting the interests of their people and their rights it is rare that this is actually the case. More usually it is states that are violating the rights of their citizens both online and offline as is shown by the human rights records of countries like Iran and China. On the internet government involvement equally regularly means attempts by states to create restrictions and prevent the internet from being a place where citizens have freedom of expression. This can even be the case in democracies, for example in South Korea a critic of the government who called the president names found his twitter account blocked as a result.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**CIRP would place power in the hands of authoritarian governments**\nThe intention for the creation of CIRP is to give more power to governments, and particularly to authoritarian governments that wish much greater control over the internet. If CIRP is meant to enable “enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet”[1] this may result in CIRP becoming an international organisation that would impose censorship on the internet. This is practically an inevitable result as the main tool of government is regulation. In the case of the internet such regulation will mean more controls on what users can and cannot do online."
  },
  {
    "topic": "Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The status quo has been very successful; don’t fix something that is not broken.**\nThe current system for control of the internet has been successful in managing phenomenal growth in the internet with very few problems. ICANN has been a success precisely because it does not focus on politics but on making the internet as efficient as possible, in contrast the telecommunications sector remained static and costly for a long time as a result of government interference.[1] Experts such as Rajnesh Singh argue ICANN’s “multi-stakeholder approach has proven to be nimble and effective in ensuring the stability, security, and availability of the global infrastructure, while still giving sovereign nations the flexibility to enact and enforce relevant Internet legislation within their borders… This model has been a key contributor to the breathtaking evolution and expansion of the Internet worldwide.”[2] It is this openness that has contributed to the internet generating 10% of GDP growth in the rich world over the last fifteen years.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.**\nMigrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.**\nBecause the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy.\"[1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so**\nMigrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, \"In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group.\"[1] Ratifying the U.N. convention would create specific changes in many countries that would finally make migrants less vulnerable. For example, Articles 26 and 40 provide all migrant workers the right to join and form trade unions, which is banned for them in all of the Arab Gulf states.[2] Protecting the right to unionize, allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, which is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.**\nThe economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries.**\nMigrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international problems."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.**\nMigrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.**\nBecause the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy.\"[1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so**\nMigrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, \"In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group.\"[1] Ratifying the U.N. convention would create specific changes in many countries that would finally make migrants less vulnerable. For example, Articles 26 and 40 provide all migrant workers the right to join and form trade unions, which is banned for them in all of the Arab Gulf states.[2] Protecting the right to unionize, allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, which is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.**\nThe economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries.**\nMigrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international problems."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.**\nEvery state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to ratify the U.N. Convention because of the burden it would put on their health, education, and welfare systems.**\nBecause immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries. Therefore it is not practical for countries to grant them the equal access to health, education, and welfare systems, as they would have to under the U.N. Convention. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons.[1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them detracts from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high**\nIncreasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. This implies an obligation of other states to receive them, and so it would protect increased migration. Further, the right to family reunification for documented migrants, found in Article 50, would also increase migration."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If states were to ratify the U.N. Convention, many of them would not be able to protect their national identities.**\nA state-by-state approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a \"Jewish state\"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country.**\nStates have the right to deport people who entered the country illegally, and the U.N. Convention would make that more difficult. The Convention gives extensive rights even to illegal immigrants, especially in the realm of the justice system (Article 17). Indeed, migrant activists often see deportation policies as immoral. Yet, a state has every right to arrest, imprison, and deport illegal immigrants. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime (in addition to unlawful entry into the country), states are often forced to pay to keep the criminal in prison, rather than deport him. The United States loses half-a-billion dollars each year this way.[1] Ultimately it's a matter of enforcing national laws, sovereignty, and the integrity of a nation's welfare-system."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:**\nPhysics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding.[1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief.[2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:**\nIf God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled.[1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:**\nMany people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason.[1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being.[2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:**\nA creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible.[1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:**\nGod, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim.[1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:**\nThe reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes.[1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions.[2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:**\nIt seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side.[1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:**\nPhysics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding.[1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief.[2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:**\nIf God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled.[1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:**\nMany people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason.[1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being.[2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:**\nA creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible.[1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:**\nGod, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim.[1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:**\nThe reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes.[1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions.[2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:**\nIt seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side.[1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism:**\nIn a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other.[1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:**\nAtheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power.[1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed.[2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes atheism is the only way",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist it must be caused:**\nEvery human, every being, every object in the Universe is a finite and contingent being. These all have causes, yet a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Humans are born, stars form from gases, even the Universe had a beginning 4.3 billion years ago. Nothing in the Universe causes itself. In order to escape the logical impossibility of the infinite causality loop it is necessary to posit the existence of an uncaused cause. This cause exists outside of the Universe, as it is cause of the Universe.[1] Without a creator, the Universe is a logical absurdity. Atheism cannot provide an alternative explanation to a creator, and thus fails quite literally from the beginning."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients**\nIf communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It blocks a significant amount of evidence**\nA system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It places excessive moral burden on solicitors**\nWith the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance**\nOne of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent[1]. In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations**\nMost obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients**\nIf communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It blocks a significant amount of evidence**\nA system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It places excessive moral burden on solicitors**\nWith the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance**\nOne of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent[1]. In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations**\nMost obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It supports the principle that everyone is entitled to a defence**\nIn criminal, civil or commercial matters, it is important that everyone has equal access to the law. This ensures a fair and just system. In order to facilitate this principle, even those in the wrong need to know that what they say to their legal representative will not be used against them at a later date. It is this principle that provides equality in the court room and therefore the principle of client attorney privilege needs to be maintained."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case**\nAn attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”.[1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately**\nIn exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications.[1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007[2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of**\nTerrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1]. In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.**\nNegative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’.[1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights[2]. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.**\nThe USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.**\nLet us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties[1]. It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security[2]. For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended.[3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.**\nIt would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of**\nTerrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1]. In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.**\nNegative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’.[1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights[2]. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.**\nThe USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.**\nLet us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties[1]. It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security[2]. For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended.[3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.**\nIt would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.**\nThe threat of terrorism is greatly over exaggerated. Western governments all over the world are effectively selling the threat of terrorism to their citizens in order to increase their powers of control. The threat, however, has to be exaggerated in order for the electorate to believe that the security measures are needed. The motives of governments doing this vary; some just want the new security measures to make their jobs easier; others however, see it as an opportunity to increase state control and power over the average citizen. There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since than it had been for several decades. For example there was the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 killing 270 people or the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut which killed 63.[1] While the scale is smaller than the 9/11 attacks they are just as terrible and were met with a much more measured response that did not involve infringing civil liberties. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.**\nThe proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans and many other groups were persecuted in World War II,[1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It would be letting the terrorists win**\nIt is the aim of all terrorists to influence by violent means government policy. If we changed how our country was run we would be letting the terrorists win – they would be getting what they wanted. If we changed the way we lived[1], greater security measures or something else, we would be shaping our society to the tune of the terrorist. So more security measures at airports limit the freedom to travel, turning the country into a surveillance society makes everyone nervous; ultimately the country is no longer the same as it was having lost the freedoms which are the best way to combat terrorism. This is something perversely wrong."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It impedes economic progress.**\nExtra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade[1], make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers.[2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone.**\nAlthough the anti-terrorist measures are supposed to be trying to catch certain people, it is the whole of the public who have to suffer on a daily basis: an abundance of security cameras, security checks, and anti-privacy measures continually invade innocent people’s lives and yet it is supposed to be the terrorists who are being punished. The issue of justice, and whether it is actually being done, has to be fully looked at properly. These measures are not solving the problem of terrorism as it does not address the core grievances. Instead other ways such as negotiation to address grievances is necessary, as happened in Northern Ireland[1]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.**\nRecent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor[i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage[iii]. Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Those unable to respond will be worst hit**\nSmaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This creates a dangerous precedent**\nThe idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.**\nRecent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor[i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage[iii]. Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Those unable to respond will be worst hit**\nSmaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This creates a dangerous precedent**\nThe idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sponsors pay for the privilege**\nSponsors pay an enormous amount of money to support events such as the Olympics, it is only fair that they can protect themselves against ‘ambush advertising’ by competitors. This is an issue of simple financial reality. Although there have been some unpleasant – and probably unwise – accounts of smaller traders getting caught up in the crossfire, and opposition concedes that should be rectified in future events – the purpose of this kind of legislation and the regulations  it spawns is to prevent direct competitors of sponsors finding ways to ambush the event[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’.**\nIt would be both illegal and impractical for a sponsor to ‘buy’ the word “London”. The rules make it clear that they are not attempting to infringe on, for example, the right of journalists to report the Games nor on people to discuss them. A simple Google search will bring up thousands of articles – like this one – using the Olympic rings, the phrase “London 2012” and many of the others words and phrases that concern Proposition. At no point have the news organisations concerned been asked to pay. There is clearly a world of difference between an existing magazine running a feature about the event – indeed several features – and the creation of a one-off special publication stuffed full of advertising for a direct competitor of the event."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events**\nIt is in the interests of communities and countries to attract sponsorship for events on this scale, as with other areas, such as transport, that requires a little sacrifice. Hosting major events, inevitably, requires some degree of inconvenience for those living in the area trying to go about their daily lives. These inconveniences are tolerated because there are wider benefits. In the instance of the Olympics, a core part of the initial bid was the assumption that hosting them would produce long term benefits for the city in the form of tourism[i] and regeneration.[ii] Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen although, given the number of historic venues used for events[iii], it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that it may be likely."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying Aim for Punishment**\nRehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Desert (retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself, in other words, punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no place in any enlightened society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender**\nRehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons.[1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying Aim for Punishment**\nRehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Desert (retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself, in other words, punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no place in any enlightened society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender**\nRehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons.[1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rehabilitation Does Not Serve The Needs of Society**\nThe primary goal of our criminal justice system is to remove offenders from general society and protect law abiding citizens. Many criminals are repeat offenders and rehabilitation can be a long and expensive process. In Jamaica, police claim repeat offenders are responsible for over 80% of local crime despite rehabilitation programmes in prisons.[1] Ideally therefore, retribution and rehabilitation should work hand in hand to protect citizens in the short and long term. There are some successful examples of this happening, where prisons encourage inmates to take part in group activities such as football. Some prisons have started cooking programmes where inmates learn to cook in a professional environment and leave with a qualification. However the first priority is the removal of the convicted criminal from society in order to protect the innocent. Rehabilitation should be a secondary concern. The primary concern of the criminal justice system should be the protection of the non-guilty parties. The needs of society are therefore met by the immediate removal of the offender."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rehabilitation Doesn’t Actually Work**\nWhile some rehabilitative programmes work with some offenders (those who would probably change by themselves anyway), most do not. Many programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminal behaviour. In Britain, where rehabilitation has long been purported to stop re-offending, 58 per cent of those over-21 find themselves in trouble with the law within two years of release.[1] The rehabilitation programs simply do not work. ‘Rehabilitation’ is therefore a false promise – and the danger with such an illusory and impossible goal is that it is used as a front to justify keeping offenders locked up for longer than they deserve and sometimes even indefinitely (‘if we keep him here longer maybe he might change’). We cannot justify passing any heavier or more onerous a sentence on a person in the name of “rehabilitation” if “rehabilitation” does not work."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**How Would One Know a System of Rehabilitation Is Really Working**\nThe question “does it work” must be joined by the second question: “even if it does work, how can you tell, with each individual offender, when it has worked?” How would we check if this system is really working? Tagging prisoners? Free counselling for the prisoner for the rest of their life? These measures would require huge administration costs and then the question follows would it even be feasible to enforce such a system?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rehabilitation Constitutes an Unjustifiable Further Expense**\nThe evidence from all over the world suggests that recidivism rates are difficult to reduce and that some offenders just can’t be rehabilitated. It therefore makes economic sense to cut all rehabilitation programs and concentrate on ensuring that prisoners serve the time they deserve for their crimes and are kept off the streets where they are bound to re-offend. As it can be seen that some deserving of a longer sentence only receive short sentences due to lack of time and space and some who have committed shorter sentences are given long sentences aimed at making a point or sending a message."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.**\nThere are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.**\nThe overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.**\nDiscrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 \"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.\"1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Gay people have the right to a family life.**\nGetting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states \"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.\"1) It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy2. But members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.**\nThere are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.**\nThe overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.**\nDiscrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 \"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.\"1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gay people have the right to a family life.**\nGetting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states \"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.\"1) It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy2. But members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gender roles.**\nChildren raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed1 there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development2. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The government's interest in protecting traditional families.**\nNumerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.**\nThe focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier**\nHuman history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known.[1] Mankind’s place is among the stars. Simply perusing pictures of space sent back by unthinking, unfeeling robots would never be enough to satisfy humanity’s curiosity. Governments should not try to slow Man’s progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed**\nSpace exploration and research have resulted many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program. Many of these developments arose due to the focus on the human element of space travel; scientists had to focus on the very real challenge of getting humans into space and back home safely.[1] Furthermore, there are some experiments that can only be conducted in space and that require the dexterity and problem-solving skills of humans. While robots are very good at carrying out pre-designed programs and collecting data, their ability to think critically and engage in problem solving is quite limited. In order to get the most of space travel and exploration, humans must be present to add their critical thinking and physical capacity to missions. For technology to continue to develop through the space program the paradigm of exploration must be maintained. This can only be done through manned space flight."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Manned space flight excites the human imagination more than unmanned missions, allowing members of nations everywhere to see themselves as part of the same human race**\nPeople do not get excited when they see robots launched into space; there is no romance or adventure in a computer attached to a rocket. To enflame people’s imaginations and enthusiasm for space travel, real-life astronauts must be involved. Furthermore, it is harder for people around the world to develop a sense of connection to an unmanned space flight. Manned missions, however, can become ambassadors of all humanity. In no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can.[1] When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the exploration of space, astronauts are not just citizens of their home countries, but are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity**\nThe Earth has suffered a number of catastrophic events in its history. The galaxy is permeated with giant meteors like the one that struck the Earth 16 million years ago, which succeeded in wiping out the dinosaurs and precipitating an ice age.[1] Other cosmic risks exist as well, such as the threat of deadly radioactive waves given off by supernovae that can span the gulfs between stars and scorch planets many light-years away. Likewise, risks closer to home could prove equally destructive. Intense solar flairs from our sun could scorch a whole side of the planet. While all these occurrences are very rare, they remain possibilities, and should any of them ever occur, it could prove the end of humanity, and even life on Earth. In order to guarantee the survival of the human race, manned space flight must be made viable. One day it may prove necessary to leave this cradle of life in pursuit of a new home, and it would be wise to invest in developing the technology to do so rather than to wait until it is too late and only be able to watch as mankind’s doom arrives."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier**\nHuman history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known.[1] Mankind’s place is among the stars. Simply perusing pictures of space sent back by unthinking, unfeeling robots would never be enough to satisfy humanity’s curiosity. Governments should not try to slow Man’s progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed**\nSpace exploration and research have resulted many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program. Many of these developments arose due to the focus on the human element of space travel; scientists had to focus on the very real challenge of getting humans into space and back home safely.[1] Furthermore, there are some experiments that can only be conducted in space and that require the dexterity and problem-solving skills of humans. While robots are very good at carrying out pre-designed programs and collecting data, their ability to think critically and engage in problem solving is quite limited. In order to get the most of space travel and exploration, humans must be present to add their critical thinking and physical capacity to missions. For technology to continue to develop through the space program the paradigm of exploration must be maintained. This can only be done through manned space flight."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Manned space flight excites the human imagination more than unmanned missions, allowing members of nations everywhere to see themselves as part of the same human race**\nPeople do not get excited when they see robots launched into space; there is no romance or adventure in a computer attached to a rocket. To enflame people’s imaginations and enthusiasm for space travel, real-life astronauts must be involved. Furthermore, it is harder for people around the world to develop a sense of connection to an unmanned space flight. Manned missions, however, can become ambassadors of all humanity. In no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can.[1] When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the exploration of space, astronauts are not just citizens of their home countries, but are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity**\nThe Earth has suffered a number of catastrophic events in its history. The galaxy is permeated with giant meteors like the one that struck the Earth 16 million years ago, which succeeded in wiping out the dinosaurs and precipitating an ice age.[1] Other cosmic risks exist as well, such as the threat of deadly radioactive waves given off by supernovae that can span the gulfs between stars and scorch planets many light-years away. Likewise, risks closer to home could prove equally destructive. Intense solar flairs from our sun could scorch a whole side of the planet. While all these occurrences are very rare, they remain possibilities, and should any of them ever occur, it could prove the end of humanity, and even life on Earth. In order to guarantee the survival of the human race, manned space flight must be made viable. One day it may prove necessary to leave this cradle of life in pursuit of a new home, and it would be wise to invest in developing the technology to do so rather than to wait until it is too late and only be able to watch as mankind’s doom arrives."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits:**\nSpace exploration costs enormous amounts of money. The United States spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its space program, and the Chinese and European space agencies are seeking to catch up technologically. Overall, the amount of money wasted is astronomical. Even if manned space flight were a desirable goal, the cost is far too great. Unmanned space flight offers the same benefits at far less expense, since unmanned vessels weigh less than those needed to carry humans, and do not require the expensive and sophisticated life-support technology necessary to sustain human life in the harsh wilderness of space.[1] Furthermore, the benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on manned space flight, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Manned space flight is a technological dead end**\nManned space flight appears to have little practical use. While its supporters talk about traveling to other planets, the technology simply does not exist, nor may ever exist, to send humans to worlds that could be even potentially habitable. It may be possible to send humans to Mars, or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but doing so would have little value other than for the sake of planting boots on alien soil.[1] Any research worth conducting on planets within the solar system can be done just as well by robots, at considerably less expense. The laws of physics seem to show that it is impossible for ships to travel at or past the speed of light, meaning any journey to planets beyond the solar system would take centuries at least. It is unlikely, for this reason, that manned space travel will ever be a practically useful endeavor. Research should be put into technology that can actually lead humanity somewhere. There is nowhere for humans to go in space that robots cannot, and nowhere worth the cost of their going."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in manned space flight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones**\nThe Earth is faced with many problems. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems. The resources poured into manned space travel that will likely serve no lasting purpose would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. Space exploration serves only as a distraction, keeping people’s minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. Furthermore, governments can use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like putting a man on the moon or on Mars than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity’s concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on exploring worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A two-state solution is best for peace**\nPalestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish**\nAs described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides**\nA two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A two-state solution is best for peace**\nPalestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish**\nAs described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides**\nA two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Only a one-state solution can end the conflict**\nIt was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution**\nA million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all**\nA one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.**\nWhen confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people[i]. It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.**\nWe now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates[i]. In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.**\nUltimately, the decision to die is a personal one, it may affect others but, clearly it has the greatest impact on the person who decides to die."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.**\nWhen confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people[i]. It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.**\nWe now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates[i]. In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.**\nUltimately, the decision to die is a personal one, it may affect others but, clearly it has the greatest impact on the person who decides to die."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others.**\nIn terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.**\nIt is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.**\nBy far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide[i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to die",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.**\nEven setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation[i], there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction.**\n[i]The right of reply goes a long way in balancing the playing field – especially for private citizens who may not be able to afford recourse to the law. It is also simpler and quicker than protracted arguments in court. Finally it respects the readership as a group accepting that they are capable of making a decision over whose version of events is more likely to be accurate – the journalist or the respondent."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note.**\nIn many countries corrections or clarifications in newspapers are buried away in the depths of the middle pages and are unlikely to be spotted by anyone other than the most ardent reader. Not only does this defy natural justice but having the correction prominent hits a newspaper for making mistakes as it loses space for a story that would attract both readers and advertisers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start.**\nIn response to an ever faster news agenda, produced by ever more pressured journalists, sloppiness may be seen as inevitable[i]. As a result, anything that is unlikely to result in legal action may be given a bye. In most situations, that sets the bar way too high. The mere mention of a private citizen in a negative light in a local paper may not be the stuff of national press attention and is unlikely to get far in the courts but can affect that persons standing in their community and with their neighbours in a profound way."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction.**\n[i]The right of reply goes a long way in balancing the playing field – especially for private citizens who may not be able to afford recourse to the law. It is also simpler and quicker than protracted arguments in court. Finally it respects the readership as a group accepting that they are capable of making a decision over whose version of events is more likely to be accurate – the journalist or the respondent."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note.**\nIn many countries corrections or clarifications in newspapers are buried away in the depths of the middle pages and are unlikely to be spotted by anyone other than the most ardent reader. Not only does this defy natural justice but having the correction prominent hits a newspaper for making mistakes as it loses space for a story that would attract both readers and advertisers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start.**\nIn response to an ever faster news agenda, produced by ever more pressured journalists, sloppiness may be seen as inevitable[i]. As a result, anything that is unlikely to result in legal action may be given a bye. In most situations, that sets the bar way too high. The mere mention of a private citizen in a negative light in a local paper may not be the stuff of national press attention and is unlikely to get far in the courts but can affect that persons standing in their community and with their neighbours in a profound way."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**What is a fact – there are few circumstances where this would be of significance.**\nThe line between factual inaccuracy and opinion is pretty slim. What about “Far right politician” statement or comment? The difficulty is that most publications work on the basis that there is a narrative that is already understood in order to function. It’s simply impossible to give the full backstory to everything that goes into print[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This undermines actual parity by creating a false sense of the right to reply.**\nA right to reply would be no more of a fig leaf than voluntary self-regulation that has so bedevilled the media in so many countries. Responsible journalists and publications are already involved in the process where it is useful and others would use it as an excuse to avoid real regulation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the right to reply",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This solution – if it is one - is now out of date.**\nWe are happy to concede that in the glacial world of academic journals, the right of reply mostly works. Two experts clarifying exactly what was said by whom and being appraised by an equally expert readership can make sense of this process through article, response, and counter response. That’s why it already happens."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs**\nSociety has a moral obligation to right its wrongs and compensate those they have treated unjustly."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination**\nAffirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Affirmative action reduces social prejudice**\nPast discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs**\nSociety has a moral obligation to right its wrongs and compensate those they have treated unjustly."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination**\nAffirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Affirmative action reduces social prejudice**\nPast discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Meritocracy is the only fair system by which society should be ordered**\nAny system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their merit is one that is unjust to those not in the group that is “preferred” and therefore benefitted by it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Affirmative action creates bad workplaces for all minorities**\nAffirmative action creates a negative workplaces for all minorities whose group receives affirmative action support."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes in the use of affirmative action",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Affirmative action perpetuates prejudice**\nAffirmative action causes prejudice against minorities in society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them**\nThe main goal of an umpire is to make accurate calls.  Umpires are meant to ensure that a player who is out is called out, for example, and that a foul ball is ruled a foul ball.  When an umpire makes an incorrect call, he is falling short of fulfilling his primary responsibility.  As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires, “The first requisite is to get decisions correctly....  Umpire dignity is important but never as important as ‘being right’” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05).[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill**\nUmpires must make split-second judgments, often from bad angles and with many elements to watch simultaneously.  Mistakes will happen.  Even the official rules acknowledge this when it tells umpires, “You no doubt are going to make mistakes” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05).[1]  Some calls will have to be made from a significant distance away from where the umpire is located—a commonly cited justification of MLB’s adoption of instant replay on boundary calls.[2]  Fans hold umpires to an exceptionally high standard; as former umpire Nestor Chylak put it, “They expect an umpire to be perfect on Opening Day and to improve as the season goes on.”[3]  But it is impossible for a human to attain perfection on his own, so we should provide him with the tools that will enable him to meet the exacting standards set out for him."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature**\nInstant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard.  This will occur in two ways."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires**\nUmpires are supposed to facilitate a smooth game.  When they are the center of attention, it is usually because something has gone wrong.  Legendary Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem accurately stated, “The best umpired game is the game in which the fans cannot recall the umpires who worked it.”[1]  The game is supposed to be decided by the feats of the players on the field, not the fallibility of the men in blue.  Instant replay will help make this happen."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games**\nThere are times when umpires make incorrect calls that determine the outcomes of games or, worse, World Series championships (e.g., Don Denkinger and the 1985 World Series, mentioned above).  These erroneous decisions lead to the team that deserved to win actually losing, and vice versa.  In short, the results of the games are illegitimate.  This is especially unfortunate when fans invest hours to watch a game (or hundreds of hours watching an entire season), only to see the wrong outcome—which could have been entirely avoidable if umpires were allowed to review their decision."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them**\nThe main goal of an umpire is to make accurate calls.  Umpires are meant to ensure that a player who is out is called out, for example, and that a foul ball is ruled a foul ball.  When an umpire makes an incorrect call, he is falling short of fulfilling his primary responsibility.  As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires, “The first requisite is to get decisions correctly....  Umpire dignity is important but never as important as ‘being right’” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05).[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill**\nUmpires must make split-second judgments, often from bad angles and with many elements to watch simultaneously.  Mistakes will happen.  Even the official rules acknowledge this when it tells umpires, “You no doubt are going to make mistakes” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05).[1]  Some calls will have to be made from a significant distance away from where the umpire is located—a commonly cited justification of MLB’s adoption of instant replay on boundary calls.[2]  Fans hold umpires to an exceptionally high standard; as former umpire Nestor Chylak put it, “They expect an umpire to be perfect on Opening Day and to improve as the season goes on.”[3]  But it is impossible for a human to attain perfection on his own, so we should provide him with the tools that will enable him to meet the exacting standards set out for him."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature**\nInstant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard.  This will occur in two ways."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires**\nUmpires are supposed to facilitate a smooth game.  When they are the center of attention, it is usually because something has gone wrong.  Legendary Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem accurately stated, “The best umpired game is the game in which the fans cannot recall the umpires who worked it.”[1]  The game is supposed to be decided by the feats of the players on the field, not the fallibility of the men in blue.  Instant replay will help make this happen."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games**\nThere are times when umpires make incorrect calls that determine the outcomes of games or, worse, World Series championships (e.g., Don Denkinger and the 1985 World Series, mentioned above).  These erroneous decisions lead to the team that deserved to win actually losing, and vice versa.  In short, the results of the games are illegitimate.  This is especially unfortunate when fans invest hours to watch a game (or hundreds of hours watching an entire season), only to see the wrong outcome—which could have been entirely avoidable if umpires were allowed to review their decision."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Instant replay will take too long**\nWe already see it with boundary calls: The umpires need to go to the review station, then they need to watch the footage of the play several times, then they need to weigh whether the footage is convincing enough to meet the requisite burden of proof, and then they need to return to the field and signal their decision.  In the meantime, tens of thousands of fans are sitting in the stands waiting, millions of people are watching at home, the pitcher is becoming less limber, and any momentum to the game is completely lost.  It’s often noted that baseball is a slow sport.  “Baseball has no clock,” the saying goes.[1]  Instant replay will slow down an already-slow game."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Instant replay will take the human element out of baseball**\nBaseball, like all sports, “is the pursuit of transcending imperfection.”[1]  It is not supposed to be executed with robotic perfection; it is supposed to involve human beings all trying their best to do the best they can."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used**\nOne of the beautiful aspects of baseball is how little it has changed over the years.  Just as it was a century ago, you have nine players on the field, batters swinging wooden bats, and umpires dressed in dark colors rendering the decisions.  Maintaining tradition honors baseball’s long history.  It also helps to promote comparability over time; the feats of today can be held side-by-side with those of 80 years ago.  Moreover, it protects baseball against fads and other calls for change that might be popular at a particular moment, but could prove to be disastrous if implemented."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Many plays don’t lend themselves to video review**\nThere are two types of plays that defy instant replay.  The first is one that would belong to a longer sequence of events, called “continuation plays.”  Often, when an umpire makes a call, the ball is still in play, and more plays might follow.  A commentator offers this scenario: “For example, if the umpire calls a ball foul and replay shows it was fair and the decision is overturned by replay, how do you handle the base runners?”[1]  There’s just no easy way for video replay to be used in continuation plays."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Instant replay might be deceptive or inconclusive**\nNot all video reviews will lead to an accurate ruling.  Sometimes, camera angles could give a tricky, incorrect impression.  Or they could shed little light on what actually happened.  In these cases, instant replay will afford the appearance of certainty when the reality is much more complicated.  In addition, all of the harms of inaccurate calls that Proposition is trying to solve will continue to exist."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.**\nBaseball is a form of entertainment, and few plays are as entertaining as bang-bang plays (a close call on whether the runner is thrown out) at the plate.  As a sport that’s often criticized for being too slow and boring—“baseball has no clock,” the saying goes[1]—it’s important that it hold onto perhaps the most dramatic, vivid play it has to offer.  One columnist described it this way: “When [collisions] do occur, they’re exciting.  We watch to see how well the catcher blocks the plate, how hard the runner slides, and whether the catcher can hold the ball.  As dangerous as that play may be, it’s exciting to watch.”[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Collisions are a part of the game.**\nFirst, collisions are part of the tradition of baseball.  They have been part of the game for a very long time.  Fans, players, and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time.  “Some things are part of the game.  There’s not a whole lot you can do,” said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career.[1]  Varitek’s manager at the time, Terry Francona, agreed: “Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but you got to play the game.”[2]  And former catcher Brad Ausmus, who had also been hit multiple times in his career, echoed the sentiment: “[I]t's part of the game.…  When you put on the shin guards and chest protector, you know that if there’s a play at the plate and you’re blocking the plate, you could take a hit at any moment.”[3]  As the Associated Press put it, many people believe “home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch.”[4]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.**\nSome hits lead to injury, but the vast majority do not.  One commentator challenged proponents of a rule change “to name as many as five MLB catchers in the last 30 years who have had their careers ended or shortened as a result of a home plate collision.  Personally, I can’t think of one.”[1]  In posing some—though not a substantial—risk, home plate collisions are very much like other aspects of the sport.  Every time a pitcher throws a pitch, the batter could get struck and hurt.  Every time two outfielders converge on a fly ball, there’s a risk of injury.  Baseball, as with many other sports, inherently involves the risk of injury.  It makes little sense to focus on this play, which doesn’t often result in significant injury."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.**\nThere are two often-discussed ways to change the rules: require the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases; or disallow catchers to block runners’ paths.  Each results in an imbalance between the catcher and runner.  A commentator describes this dynamic very well:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.**\nBaseball is a form of entertainment, and few plays are as entertaining as bang-bang plays (a close call on whether the runner is thrown out) at the plate.  As a sport that’s often criticized for being too slow and boring—“baseball has no clock,” the saying goes[1]—it’s important that it hold onto perhaps the most dramatic, vivid play it has to offer.  One columnist described it this way: “When [collisions] do occur, they’re exciting.  We watch to see how well the catcher blocks the plate, how hard the runner slides, and whether the catcher can hold the ball.  As dangerous as that play may be, it’s exciting to watch.”[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collisions are a part of the game.**\nFirst, collisions are part of the tradition of baseball.  They have been part of the game for a very long time.  Fans, players, and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time.  “Some things are part of the game.  There’s not a whole lot you can do,” said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career.[1]  Varitek’s manager at the time, Terry Francona, agreed: “Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but you got to play the game.”[2]  And former catcher Brad Ausmus, who had also been hit multiple times in his career, echoed the sentiment: “[I]t's part of the game.…  When you put on the shin guards and chest protector, you know that if there’s a play at the plate and you’re blocking the plate, you could take a hit at any moment.”[3]  As the Associated Press put it, many people believe “home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch.”[4]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.**\nSome hits lead to injury, but the vast majority do not.  One commentator challenged proponents of a rule change “to name as many as five MLB catchers in the last 30 years who have had their careers ended or shortened as a result of a home plate collision.  Personally, I can’t think of one.”[1]  In posing some—though not a substantial—risk, home plate collisions are very much like other aspects of the sport.  Every time a pitcher throws a pitch, the batter could get struck and hurt.  Every time two outfielders converge on a fly ball, there’s a risk of injury.  Baseball, as with many other sports, inherently involves the risk of injury.  It makes little sense to focus on this play, which doesn’t often result in significant injury."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.**\nThere are two often-discussed ways to change the rules: require the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases; or disallow catchers to block runners’ paths.  Each results in an imbalance between the catcher and runner.  A commentator describes this dynamic very well:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury.**\nRay Fosse and Buster Posey (mentioned above in the Introduction) are just two examples of players who suffered major injuries in crashes at home plate.  Texas Rangers star Josh Hamilton, reigning Most Valuable Player of the American League, broke his arm when he collided with a catcher in 2011.  In August 2010, Cleveland Indians catcher Carlos Santana suffered a season-ending knee injury when he was hit by Red Sox runner Ryan Kalish.  To go back a few more seasons, Braves catcher Greg Olson was having a career year in 1992 until Ken Caminiti broke his leg in a collision.  There have been literally dozens of severe injuries suffered in bang-bang plays at the plate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball.**\nBaseball is not a contact sport.  It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence.  This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football.  Or hockey.  Or MMA.  There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.”[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collisions are unnecessary.**\nBaseball doesn’t need collisions.  By requiring the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases, or disallowing catchers to block runners’ paths, or—best of all—requiring both those steps, baseball can eliminate collisions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collisions heighten antagonisms.**\nWhen someone gets hurt in a collision at the plate, the injured player’s teammates are more likely to hold a grudge—and to try to get even.  There are numerous opportunities to do that, whether by aiming a pitch at that player, or by seeking another opportunity to hurt him.  When Posey was injured, the Giants’ General Manager Brian Sabean said, “If I never hear from Cousins [who hit Posey] again or if he never plays another game in the big leagues, I think we’ll all be happy....  We’ll have a long memory.”[1]  This is exactly the unsportsmanlike behaviour engendered by these dangerous and unnecessary plays."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.**\nUnless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.**\nThe right to family is widely recognized as an essential human right. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the family is the fundamental unit of society. Within the right to family is the right to family reunification for migrants who are separated from their loved ones. The Human Rights Education Associates argue, “states are obliged to facilitate contacts and deal with requests to enter or leave a state party for the purpose of reunification in a humane and expeditious manner.”[1]  This right is especially important for refugees, who have often been torn from their families by force, and although they have not been separated by force economic migrants are also separated from their families and at the very least should be able to visit their families, and it is not granted by many countries."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.**\nWith an international regulatory body, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights, and migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has created a number of regulatory bodies that have helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy.\"[1] Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.**\nEconomic protections are not only good for the migrants themselves, but they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move from countries that have a lot of workers but not a lot work available, to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. Migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.**\nMigrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, \"In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.**\nUnless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.**\nThe right to family is widely recognized as an essential human right. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the family is the fundamental unit of society. Within the right to family is the right to family reunification for migrants who are separated from their loved ones. The Human Rights Education Associates argue, “states are obliged to facilitate contacts and deal with requests to enter or leave a state party for the purpose of reunification in a humane and expeditious manner.”[1]  This right is especially important for refugees, who have often been torn from their families by force, and although they have not been separated by force economic migrants are also separated from their families and at the very least should be able to visit their families, and it is not granted by many countries."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.**\nWith an international regulatory body, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights, and migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has created a number of regulatory bodies that have helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy.\"[1] Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.**\nEconomic protections are not only good for the migrants themselves, but they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move from countries that have a lot of workers but not a lot work available, to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. Migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.**\nMigrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, \"In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Universal migrant “protections” are an affront to state sovereignty.**\nInternational law, like the U.N. Migrant Rights Convention, and any international regulatory body that requires the nations of the world to increase protections for migrants would be a violation of state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many citizens from less-well-off ones."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Migration policy should be crafted on a state-by-state basis, allowing countries to protect their national identities.**\nEvery state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to improve their protections in some standard manner. Instead, immigration policy and even rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.**\nBecause immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries, and so they should not be further protected. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons.[1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them, takes away from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Protections of migrants will hurt the economies of receiving countries by overcrowding them and taking away jobs from citizens.**\nIncreasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Indeed, one policy goal of many migrant rights activists is for open borders and free and unrestricted migration across them. A right to family reunification would also increase migration. This can be problematic in many countries. It may worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration.[1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of \"protection\"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.**\nThe countries from which workers emigrate often struggle from failing economies, and through migration they can lose their most skilled workers, who are needed at home to turn their economy around. Strengthened protections of migrants would further incentivize migration, and so brain drain would become more of a problem. India for example has seen more than 300,000 people migrate to the United States and more than 75% of these migrants had a tertiary education[1] meaning the vast majority of these migrants were among the most educated from a country where only 7% of the population is able to goes to university.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide**\nSome cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the \"one-child\" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies**\nGender selection technology should be available, at whatever cost the market dictates, to those who can afford the process and wish to choose the sex of their children. There should be no other restrictions on the couples wishing to go through with the process, other than an assurance that the mother is physically able and willing. As it is not an essential procedure, the state should not be expected to subsidize either the process or the development of the technology. Nevertheless, the private sector should be encouraged to develop the technology and continue to provide the public with a path to maximise their own happiness."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Parents should have freedom of choice**\nPeople should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: \"Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family\" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided**\nSome parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide**\nSome cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the \"one-child\" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies**\nGender selection technology should be available, at whatever cost the market dictates, to those who can afford the process and wish to choose the sex of their children. There should be no other restrictions on the couples wishing to go through with the process, other than an assurance that the mother is physically able and willing. As it is not an essential procedure, the state should not be expected to subsidize either the process or the development of the technology. Nevertheless, the private sector should be encouraged to develop the technology and continue to provide the public with a path to maximise their own happiness."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Parents should have freedom of choice**\nPeople should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: \"Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family\" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided**\nSome parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes**\nThe treatment required for the pre-selection of gender was initially designed for the prevention of disease. Many of the patients now using the revolutionary new treatment are perfectly capable of conceiving healthy children naturally. Dr. Mark Hughes, a director the Genesis Genetics institute, says that 70% of patients wouldn't have needed IVF in the first place, meaning 'healthy, fertile couples are choosing this higher risk, expensive, sometimes painful process when they could conceive otherwise' 1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Children should not be designed to specifications**\nChildren are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. ‘It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an extension of the consumer society’ argues Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel 1. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a \"gay gene\" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want…"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with**\nHaving a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.**\nMany states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.**\nIn some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.**\nModern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.**\nMany modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.**\nMany states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.**\nIn some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.**\nModern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.**\nMany modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.**\nSimply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.**\nAcross the developed world, modern nation states are bound into a complex network of treaties and international organisations which together go a long way to guaranteeing citizens very similar rights wherever they live. These supra-national rules make it less and less important on what side of an international boundary you happen to live. What matters is not so much self-determination as whether or not an individual citizen is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the majority culture."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.**\nIf we accept self-determination as such an important principle that it trumps all others, this will encourage people to self-identify along nationalistic, racial or religious lines, at a time in human development when we are moving away from racist and nationalist ideologies. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Taken to its extremes, it encourages increased conflict, separatist terrorism. For example, the ethnic conflicts that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were fuelled by nationalist ideologies and the stressing of the differences between ethnic and religious groups that made up that country."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer**\nA law degree is first and foremost a requirement of being a lawyer. Anyone with any interest in working in the legal field, serving as a judge, or even working in a number of governmental and non-profit fields will quite simply need to attend law school at some point. If you are already a recipient of such a degree, it will increase the opportunities for advancement within your chosen career."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.**\nA JD is not simply a gateway to the legal world. Lawyers work as corporate executives, run movie studios, hold political office, and teach academically. Holding the degree will increase your qualifications, and make it far easier to move up the ladder in whatever field you chose to enter even if it is not a legal one."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.**\nLaw school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance**\nLawyers are often extremely high paid, and occupy a prestigious position in society. A law degree is key to entry to the top tier of society and high income earners."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.**\nLaw Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer**\nA law degree is first and foremost a requirement of being a lawyer. Anyone with any interest in working in the legal field, serving as a judge, or even working in a number of governmental and non-profit fields will quite simply need to attend law school at some point. If you are already a recipient of such a degree, it will increase the opportunities for advancement within your chosen career."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.**\nA JD is not simply a gateway to the legal world. Lawyers work as corporate executives, run movie studios, hold political office, and teach academically. Holding the degree will increase your qualifications, and make it far easier to move up the ladder in whatever field you chose to enter even if it is not a legal one."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.**\nLaw school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance**\nLawyers are often extremely high paid, and occupy a prestigious position in society. A law degree is key to entry to the top tier of society and high income earners."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.**\nLaw Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A stint at law school is of little value to those who are not pursuing a legal degree, but nonetheless many applicants treat it as a second shot at an Undergraduate degree.**\nIndividuals increasingly treat Law School as a second shot at their Undergraduate degree. Applicants who failed to get into Russell group or Ivy League institutions the first time around compete obsessively to achieve their dreams on “second chance” while many other applicants are suckered into the image of rich, successful, attractive lawyers presented by the media. Many universities in England, including Oxford, have begun to offer accelerated undergraduate law degrees, which are highly appealing to those seeking to improve on grades received in science or humanities oriented degrees."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The debt incurred in the pursuit of a law degree limits options both within the legal industry, and outside of it, by compelling recipients to seek out the highest paying jobs.**\nLegal Work is a dog-eats dog world. Law students are forced into a competition with each other for valuable internships, and then in turn face a brutal competition for summer associate positions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.**\nBecause of the supply and demand problems, the actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Failing a law degree can be extremely costly.**\nLaw School as a choice has to be weighed against its opportunity cost: what else could someone do with three years and $120,000? How might the long term benefits of this activity weigh up against the consequent benefits of time spent at law school?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There are too many advertisements in everyday life.**\nThe sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.**\nAdvertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.**\nPeople cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product**\nMany adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.**\nAdvertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There are too many advertisements in everyday life.**\nThe sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.**\nAdvertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.**\nPeople cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product**\nMany adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.**\nAdvertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known.**\nIf there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Advertising helps us choose between different goods.**\nAdvertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.**\nAdvertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 20071. Furthermore, adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that advertising is harmful",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Advertising is only as annoying as you want it to be.**\nNo-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. Manchester United's shirt sponsorship deal with Aon is worth £80 million. For the small annoyance of having to have a logo on the shirt, the football club can afford to buy new players and hopefully win more games. And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient**\nSentience is the property of being conscious.  Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Speciesism is wrong**\nJust as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Animals are equal to human beings.**\nIt is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights.**\nWe have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights**\nBabies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient**\nSentience is the property of being conscious.  Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Speciesism is wrong**\nJust as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Animals are equal to human beings.**\nIt is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights.**\nWe have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights**\nBabies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species.**\nWe have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Animals are not moral agents**\nIt makes no sense to give animals rights because they cannot makes decisions about what is right and wrong and will not try to treat us in an ethical manner in return. Why make them a moral agent by giving them rights?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**We only have indirect duties to animals**\nPhilosophers such as Immanuel Kant argue that we only have indirect duties towards animals. This means that we may not treat animals in such a manner that our actions are in conflict with our duties towards human beings. A human has no duty towards a dog not to kick it but a human has a duty towards the dog's owner not to damage his property. Pigs and cows are not loved by any human being so we cause no harm when we kill and eat them. Though the farmer may have owned the cow before, the beef becomes our possession when we purchase it. Wild animals are not owned by any human being so we may do to them what we wish."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Animals have no interests or rationality**\nSome philosophers argue that only beings that are able to make rational choices can have moral rights because the function of rights is to protect choice. Animals are not able to make rational choices because they can only follow instinct, they cannot follow logic."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that animals have rights.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Most rights have no bearing for animals**\nThe right to dignity would mean nothing to an animal. Animals are incapable of being humiliated and are not harmed by being reduced to human servitude. A dog is not ashamed of its nudity or having to eat out of a bowl and wear a leash. Animals happily copulate and defecate in front of humans and other animals. What exactly an undignified action might be for an animal it is difficult to say."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Religious belief is completely irrational**\nThere is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The problem of suffering**\nThe world is full of suffering and pain among innocent people. If God is good and all-powerful then why is this the case? Either God does not exist or he is not worth believing in since he does not care about human suffering."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The God hypothesis is unnecessary**\nScience provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in[1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge**\nReligions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force.  Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The Null Hypothesis**\nWith regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Religious belief is completely irrational**\nThere is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The problem of suffering**\nThe world is full of suffering and pain among innocent people. If God is good and all-powerful then why is this the case? Either God does not exist or he is not worth believing in since he does not care about human suffering."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The God hypothesis is unnecessary**\nScience provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in[1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge**\nReligions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force.  Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Null Hypothesis**\nWith regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Revealed wisdom**\nGodly wisdom is not the same as human wisdom and cannot be subject to the same criticism.  The nature of humanity means that our ability to understand God’s wisdom is fundamentally limited; and thus arguments based on morality or science are irrelevant – what matters is that God has revealed Himself."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Prime Mover**\nThe universe follows rules of causality – cause precedes effect.  But it cannot be the case that cause and effect regress infinitely into the past – there must be a ‘prime cause’.  There is an identifiable point for this – the Universe was formed about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang, before which we cannot detect any chain of causality.  What was the prime mover?  It had by definition to be a being existing outside of our conception of reality – the natural answer being ‘God’."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That belief in God is irrational",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The rareness of Life**\nLife requires an extremely fine set of conditions in order to exist. The right distance from the Sun, a magnetic field to deflect solar radiation, the right atmospheric composition and conditions etc.  These conditions are extremely rare; indeed only on Earth have we observed that they are just right for life to have evolved.[1]  This is so unlikely that it leads to the conclusion that God must have intervened."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies**\nIt is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.**\nAlthough cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated**\nMany of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner**\nCannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1.\n1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies**\nIt is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.**\nAlthough cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated**\nMany of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner**\nCannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1.\n1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Cannabis is a gateway drug**\nPeople who use cannabis will be more likely to move on to harder drugs. While the bad effects of cannabis may be disputed, the harmful effects of hard drugs cannot – they seriously damage people’s health. A major study in 2011 found that ‘smoking cannabis daily sets users up for a lifetime of multiple drug use’ 1. Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction. Their habit often harms their relationships with friends, colleagues and family. State money then has to be spent on benefits, on policing, and on rehabilitation programs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Uncertainty over the effects of cannabis means it is best to be prudent**\nThe debate over the effects of cannabis is based largely upon conflicting evidence. For example, some argue it can cause psychosis while others argue it only has positive effects on the mind. The effect of any illegal drug is a very difficult area to study 1. Most drug users use more than one drug and researchers are often limited to studying those who admit themselves into clinics with a crisis – something of a skewed sample."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**More people will use cannabis if legalized**\nIf cannabis is legalized, it will become socially acceptable and more people will smoke it. It will also become more readily available. In the Netherlands, cannabis usage went up after it was legalized1. With more people smoking, more people will experience the adverse physical and mental health effects - more people will be harmed. Furthermore, as Dr. David Murray has noted, 'marijuana use is the leading cause of treatment need for those abusing or dependent on illegal drugs'2; therefore not only will more people use cannabis, more of them will be addicted."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that cannabis should be legalised",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Cannabis is harmful**\nStudies have shown that cannabis may cause a number of physical and mental problems. It can cause respiratory problems, increase one's heart rate and lower one's sperm count. Cannabis use is also associated with causing or worsening some forms of psychosis. It has also been found to increase tiredness, depression and paranoia, impair short-term memory and hormone production and cause general cognitive decline1. As for cannabis' medicinal qualities, safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, cannabis' primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol.\n1 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Gender equality**\nMen and women deserve to enjoy equal rights. In China and India women do not enjoy equal rights. By encouraging couples to produce girls we contribute to the resolution of two problems. Female children are likely to be treated poorly in comparison their brothers. They may be given smaller quantities of food, less education etc. It is not only the physical differences in the upbringing of boys and girls that are noteworthy but also the emotional. Particularly in families without sons, daughters are led to experience guilt and a sense of inferiority because their parents are disappointed in their gender. These girls will grow up in a home without gender equality and therefore will come to accept a smaller share of family wealth as an adult and be unfit psychologically to denounce male dominance. The girls are likely to later perpetuate gender inequality amongst their own children.[1] By making it beneficial for parents to have female children, we make parents less likely to make their daughters feel guilty and inferior for their gender. Furthermore, educational grants will allow girls access to education – which is both intrinsically valuable and valuable in that it will allow the possible financial independence and the confidence to denounce male domination. Similarly, men will receive a message that it is more praiseworthy to produce a son. In essence, allowing selective abortions to take place without taking action against this practise is allowing gender inequality to stagnate in the popular wisdom. It is important to take a stance especially in a country like China where government ideology heavily effects the people."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The policy will help alleviate the social problems arising from the imbalance**\nA balanced gender ratio allows that every man has a woman to marry – theoretically of course as not every individual wants to marry and not every individual is heterosexual. The majority of men and women do want to get married. In China, men face such competition to find a wife that they spend several years living in horrific conditions in order to save up enough money to have a property with which to present a prospective wife. Without a property these men will never find a wife. These men clearly have a desperate desire to find a woman.[1] There are 3 problems with this situation. 1) The dissatisfaction men experience when they strongly desire to marry but cannot is an unhappy thing and surely lowers their quality of life. By 2020 there will be 24 million Chinese men of marrying age with no wives. It has even been suggested that this dissatisfaction is contributing to a rising crime rate in China. [2] 2) Because men are so desperate they will take any woman they can get. The dating agency industry has grown massively in China and parents even gather in town squares to advertise their daughters, rejecting or accepting candidates based only on whether or not they have a property and a good job. This means couples are less likely to be compatible and, though divorce is not as popular in China as in the west, couples are more likely to be unhappily married. Divorce has increased a huge amount as the gender imbalance has increased. [3] 3) Those men who do not find wives often look to prostitution or possibly women trafficked into the country for companionship and sex. 42 000 women were rescued from kidnappers in China between 2001 and 2003. There are clear harms to the women involved in such activities and to women’s rights as a whole when this occurs. There are harms to society as a whole when this occurs in the name of HIV and other STDs.[4] 4) The prevalence of prostitution and trafficking as well as the focus on male wealth when it comes to dating and marriage placed women in a position where they are seen only as a financial asset or commodity to be sold, bought or traded. Placing women in this position will have psychological harms such as lowered self-esteem and more tangible harms when society treats them with less respect and women’s rights cease to develop in a positive direction."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Ineffectiveness of alternatives**\nOne possible alternative to our possibly is to better police prenatal sex determination. This is highly unfeasible. In 1982 the Chinese government distributed masses of small, light ultrasound devices to ensure that women who’d already had one child were either sterilized or continuing to wear their intrauterine device. Women started using these devices for prenatal sex determination and therefore “more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.” In China prenatal sex determination is illegal and, though ultrasounds are allowed in certain cases for medical reasons so long as they are on security camera, doctors who reveal the gender of the child can no longer work as doctors. The masses of distributed ultrasound devices, however, are the basis for a large and successful black market."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Abortion**\nIt is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India.[1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gender equality**\nMen and women deserve to enjoy equal rights. In China and India women do not enjoy equal rights. By encouraging couples to produce girls we contribute to the resolution of two problems. Female children are likely to be treated poorly in comparison their brothers. They may be given smaller quantities of food, less education etc. It is not only the physical differences in the upbringing of boys and girls that are noteworthy but also the emotional. Particularly in families without sons, daughters are led to experience guilt and a sense of inferiority because their parents are disappointed in their gender. These girls will grow up in a home without gender equality and therefore will come to accept a smaller share of family wealth as an adult and be unfit psychologically to denounce male dominance. The girls are likely to later perpetuate gender inequality amongst their own children.[1] By making it beneficial for parents to have female children, we make parents less likely to make their daughters feel guilty and inferior for their gender. Furthermore, educational grants will allow girls access to education – which is both intrinsically valuable and valuable in that it will allow the possible financial independence and the confidence to denounce male domination. Similarly, men will receive a message that it is more praiseworthy to produce a son. In essence, allowing selective abortions to take place without taking action against this practise is allowing gender inequality to stagnate in the popular wisdom. It is important to take a stance especially in a country like China where government ideology heavily effects the people."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The policy will help alleviate the social problems arising from the imbalance**\nA balanced gender ratio allows that every man has a woman to marry – theoretically of course as not every individual wants to marry and not every individual is heterosexual. The majority of men and women do want to get married. In China, men face such competition to find a wife that they spend several years living in horrific conditions in order to save up enough money to have a property with which to present a prospective wife. Without a property these men will never find a wife. These men clearly have a desperate desire to find a woman.[1] There are 3 problems with this situation. 1) The dissatisfaction men experience when they strongly desire to marry but cannot is an unhappy thing and surely lowers their quality of life. By 2020 there will be 24 million Chinese men of marrying age with no wives. It has even been suggested that this dissatisfaction is contributing to a rising crime rate in China. [2] 2) Because men are so desperate they will take any woman they can get. The dating agency industry has grown massively in China and parents even gather in town squares to advertise their daughters, rejecting or accepting candidates based only on whether or not they have a property and a good job. This means couples are less likely to be compatible and, though divorce is not as popular in China as in the west, couples are more likely to be unhappily married. Divorce has increased a huge amount as the gender imbalance has increased. [3] 3) Those men who do not find wives often look to prostitution or possibly women trafficked into the country for companionship and sex. 42 000 women were rescued from kidnappers in China between 2001 and 2003. There are clear harms to the women involved in such activities and to women’s rights as a whole when this occurs. There are harms to society as a whole when this occurs in the name of HIV and other STDs.[4] 4) The prevalence of prostitution and trafficking as well as the focus on male wealth when it comes to dating and marriage placed women in a position where they are seen only as a financial asset or commodity to be sold, bought or traded. Placing women in this position will have psychological harms such as lowered self-esteem and more tangible harms when society treats them with less respect and women’s rights cease to develop in a positive direction."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Ineffectiveness of alternatives**\nOne possible alternative to our possibly is to better police prenatal sex determination. This is highly unfeasible. In 1982 the Chinese government distributed masses of small, light ultrasound devices to ensure that women who’d already had one child were either sterilized or continuing to wear their intrauterine device. Women started using these devices for prenatal sex determination and therefore “more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.” In China prenatal sex determination is illegal and, though ultrasounds are allowed in certain cases for medical reasons so long as they are on security camera, doctors who reveal the gender of the child can no longer work as doctors. The masses of distributed ultrasound devices, however, are the basis for a large and successful black market."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Abortion**\nIt is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India.[1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Ineffectiveness**\nThe policy will be ineffective in two ways. Firstly it will not even achieve the goal of a balanced gender ratio but secondly, even if it did, it will not reduce the divide between men and women and make women a more valued part of society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Commodifying women.**\nSurely providing a financial incentive for families to produce women causes women to be likened to a product that needs to be manufactured. Families will continue to have a social stigma against female children and they will be viewed simply as a financial asset. This is not only bad for women in general in the country but for babies that are only alive because they provide income. These children are unlikely to be loved and cared for as a male child might be and it is cruel to encourage them to be brought into the world to live life in such a condition."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The proposition policy will interfere with current government policies**\nProp's plan is not only redundant with some current government programs but is also wasteful of worthwhile government funds. For example, the plan pays for the education of young girls up through the high school level. This is targeting a problem that has been addressed with significant success. Currently, the rates for primary school enrolment among young girls and young boys are 94% and 97% respectively in 2007. This is a drastic change from the year 2000 when it was 77% and 94%, a 17% disparity.[1] Additional policies in the same area are inefficient and the additional bureaucracy risks disrupting this positive trend."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Financial incentives do not break down cultural bias**\nThe reason why there is a bias towards male children in India is cultural. When women get married in India they become a part of their husband’s family and a dowry must be paid. As one Hindu saying goes, \"Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbours’ garden.\" In order to change the gender ratio imbalance in India, therefore, it is important to deal with the underlying prejudices in society, not merely throw money at the problem. There are similar cultural prejudices in other countries with gender disparities. In China there is concern that female children cannot continue the family name as lineage is something male."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)**\n42% of the Indian population is under the international poverty line and it is they that contribute the most to imbalanced sex ratio due to economic concerns.[1] Offering a financial incentive for people to produce female children will undermine the autonomy of parents. In order for there to be autonomy, the individual needs to be able to make a rational, unforced decision. When someone is extremely impoverished, as many people are in developing economies like those of China and India, financial incentives are an offer that cannot be refused. Proposition would have you believe that we offer the parents an autonomous choice between having a female child and receiving money or not having the child and not receiving money. Of course they will take the money! Poverty removes the possibility of choice. In this way, poor parents are being forced to have female children to ensure their own survival and the survival of their already existing family."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The fossil evidence**\nFossils allow us a glimpse into the development of life on Earth. Fossils show a development from earlier, less complex forms of life, through to newer, more complex forms of life, with characteristics developed from earlier organisms. This progression is strong evidence for evolution. Since fossilization is a rare event, there are some gaps in the fossil record, but all the available evidence is consistent with, and fully explained by, evolution.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The Age of the Earth**\nEvidence from many different disciplines shows that the Earth is very old, allowing enough time for life as it exists today to evolve and contradicting a Creationist belief in a young earth."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Falsifiability**\nEvolutionary theory is open to change and is in principle falsifiable: if enough evidence was found, scientists would change their views. Scientists make their reputations by making new discoveries, so if evolution could be disproved, someone would have done it, but it is still standing after over 150 years of research since Darwin, showing how strong it is.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The fossil evidence**\nFossils allow us a glimpse into the development of life on Earth. Fossils show a development from earlier, less complex forms of life, through to newer, more complex forms of life, with characteristics developed from earlier organisms. This progression is strong evidence for evolution. Since fossilization is a rare event, there are some gaps in the fossil record, but all the available evidence is consistent with, and fully explained by, evolution.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Age of the Earth**\nEvidence from many different disciplines shows that the Earth is very old, allowing enough time for life as it exists today to evolve and contradicting a Creationist belief in a young earth."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Falsifiability**\nEvolutionary theory is open to change and is in principle falsifiable: if enough evidence was found, scientists would change their views. Scientists make their reputations by making new discoveries, so if evolution could be disproved, someone would have done it, but it is still standing after over 150 years of research since Darwin, showing how strong it is.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Bible says God created the world**\nThe Bible is God’s Word, inspired and infallible, and it reveals that the world was created by him in 6 days within recent history (Genesis 1-2). God says it, so we should accept what he reveals as truth.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Naturalistic assumptions**\nEvolutionary science rules out the possibility of God on principle, rather than on the basis of evidence. On an unbiased assessment, without the presupposition of naturalism, Creationism offers a better interpretation of the evidence. But most scientists refuse to allow the possibility of God creating the world, blinding them to the facts."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Chance cannot produce complexity**\nEvolution depends on chance mutations in genes producing changes that make it more complex and introduce survival benefits. Mutations do not increase the complexity of organisms, but damages them: for example, cancer. Mutants might gain new powers in comic books, but not in real life.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Evolution undermines meaning and morality**\nEvolution gives no basis for morality or human dignity. If we evolved from animals rather than being uniquely created in the image of God, then humanity should be accorded no more status than an animal, plant or amoeba. Acceptance of evolution leads to Social Darwinism and eugenics."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Federal states are economically stronger**\nFederal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.1 Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.2Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.3\n1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,'\nDepartment for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,'\n2BBC, 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute \n3Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.**\nFederal states allow local decision making to suit local needs due to their tiered decision making structures. This ensures that citizens are able to determine how they should live their lives without infringing upon the rights of citizens in other federal units who may have different opinions. However on security matters which affect the entire federal state, citizens are better protected because the federal units are stronger together than apart. A federal state also creates a common sense of purpose than can dissuade conflict between the federal units. A good historical example of this behaviour was the agreement of the Swiss Cantons to come together to collectively protect and enrich themselves from outside threats in 1848.1\n1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences**\nIt is not clear what the logical end point for splitting countries over political differences would be. Since each individual has a unique set of preferences, or at least there are large numbers of groups of people with different preferences, the state must aggregate preferences at some point. It makes more sense for the state to aggregate preferences in such a way that creates effective states that can meet their (aggregate) goals rather than attempting to find \"pure\" nation states. Furthermore, nations are often scattered in areas which do not provide a clear location for a state. An example of this is Eastern Europe or Africa where ethnic groups and tribes regularly cross state boundaries and exist as unconnected pockets.1 It would be impossible to create states to cater to these groups.\n1 Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance**\nFederal states tend to be larger and have different economic cycles. This allows the overall state to cope with different economic cycles by using fiscal transfers (tax) between wealthier states and poorer states to fund government programmes.1 So for example if Mississippi and New Mexico were paying for all their services themselves from their own taxes they would have debts of over 500% of GDP,2however at the beginning of the Republic it was the Southern States who were the richest due to their cotton wealth.\n1Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer\n2The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Federal states are economically stronger**\nFederal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.1 Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.2Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.3\n1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,'\nDepartment for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,'\n2BBC, 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute \n3Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.**\nFederal states allow local decision making to suit local needs due to their tiered decision making structures. This ensures that citizens are able to determine how they should live their lives without infringing upon the rights of citizens in other federal units who may have different opinions. However on security matters which affect the entire federal state, citizens are better protected because the federal units are stronger together than apart. A federal state also creates a common sense of purpose than can dissuade conflict between the federal units. A good historical example of this behaviour was the agreement of the Swiss Cantons to come together to collectively protect and enrich themselves from outside threats in 1848.1\n1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences**\nIt is not clear what the logical end point for splitting countries over political differences would be. Since each individual has a unique set of preferences, or at least there are large numbers of groups of people with different preferences, the state must aggregate preferences at some point. It makes more sense for the state to aggregate preferences in such a way that creates effective states that can meet their (aggregate) goals rather than attempting to find \"pure\" nation states. Furthermore, nations are often scattered in areas which do not provide a clear location for a state. An example of this is Eastern Europe or Africa where ethnic groups and tribes regularly cross state boundaries and exist as unconnected pockets.1 It would be impossible to create states to cater to these groups.\n1 Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance**\nFederal states tend to be larger and have different economic cycles. This allows the overall state to cope with different economic cycles by using fiscal transfers (tax) between wealthier states and poorer states to fund government programmes.1 So for example if Mississippi and New Mexico were paying for all their services themselves from their own taxes they would have debts of over 500% of GDP,2however at the beginning of the Republic it was the Southern States who were the richest due to their cotton wealth.\n1Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer\n2The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is harder to deal with internal repression than the invasion of another sovereign state.**\nFederal states offer convenient guises for the exploitation of resource rich areas or areas of strategic importance. The Niger Delta is used by the Nigerian government to provide oil wealth that is insufficiently invested in the Delta leading to insurgencies1. The Nigerian government is able to remove international pressure to reform by allying itself with UN principles of non-intervention in sovereign states which is only rarely overridden in cases of serious, systemic and widespread human rights abuses when 'all peaceful means have failed'.2 In reality, this gives government's considerable leeway to commit abuses within their own territory. If the Niger Delta were a separate country, there would be much more political capital to ensure it was appropriately treated and a stronger legal basis to hold Nigeria to account.\n1Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007. \n2 United Nations, 'An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-making,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Independent States can suit their populations.**\nFirstly, Federal states involve compromise between different parties in order to reach proposals which can be acceptable to all members of the federation. This often means that states are forced to compromise on important issues. An example of this is Abortion in the USA.1\r\nOften, in order to protect minorities, voting is skewed towards smaller federal units (for example the US Senate with two Senators per state, regardless of population). This does not fulfil the principles of equal democratic representation. Such an issue exists to far less a degree in independent states, which can be more homogenous in preferences and more reflective of local needs.2\r\nMoreover, given that it is unlikely that any state has chosen the appropriate position of compromise, all federal units will end up with a policy which is sub-optimal for them.\r\nSecondly, Federal arrangements tend to be complex, inhibiting transparency as vested interests at different levels of government defend their spheres.2\n1 USA Today, 2010, 'Abortion deal helps ensure enough votes for health care,' \n2Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.**\nThe proposition arguments repeatedly rely on the federal state being limited in strength enough to allow local differences and choices. However, historically, federal states have moved to extend their control from the centre often with the justification of necessity. Both the USA and Russia are examples of this trend.1 In the USA, debates about overstretch of federal control are numerous and time consuming. This argument is especially likely if one or a group of federal units are significantly stronger than the other unit, for example the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1871 German Union. In this case, Prussia was able to use its financial strength and size to eventually dominate the Union and control the other federal units.2\n1Garratt, Thomas and Rhine, Russell. 'On the Size and Growth of Government.' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 88 (1). 2006. \nWorld Savvy, 2008, 'Centralization of Power in Modern Russia,' \n2 Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Federal States often have persistent losers.**\nWithin federal states, some federal units are often persistently weaker within the state that others and thus have to repeatedly accommodate (this links to the argument above).1 In countries such as Nigeria, resource rich parts of the country are consistently used by the rest of the country as a source of wealth with insufficient investment in return.2\n1Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, 'Poor States, Rich Federal Government- Winners and Losers of the Emissions Trading Scheme,' \nHouseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'\n2Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve**\nFeminism is still of relevance today, and is indeed needed. In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. In countries such as Ireland and Malta abortion is still not legal for all women, this can be seen as an important part of equality for woman that has not been achieved yet and needs to be fought for.  If we take feminism as a global movement then the movement is still of huge importance. That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) [1] These are all real problems, on which feminists continue to campaign - as they should."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Males Still Dominate the Top Positions**\nOut of over 250 countries, only a few are currently headed by women.[1]  Women still account for only about 14% of members of parliament worldwide in 2002.[2] Some argue that gender quotas should be established to ensure equal input of men and women in parliament. Therefore, the feminist movement is still needed to fight this battle."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal**\nEmployers worry when they hire young/middle aged women. They fear that after hiring a woman, she will only cost the company money by getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. To combat this attitude, maternity and paternity leave should be equal. Currently, paternity leave is a maximum of two consecutive weeks. These two weeks must be taken within 56 days of the child’s birth. This can be contrasted with the long maternity leave that is allowed for. Women are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave from day one of employment. Women are entitled to maternity pay for 39 weeks if they have been working for their employer for 26 weeks."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve**\nFeminism is still of relevance today, and is indeed needed. In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. In countries such as Ireland and Malta abortion is still not legal for all women, this can be seen as an important part of equality for woman that has not been achieved yet and needs to be fought for.  If we take feminism as a global movement then the movement is still of huge importance. That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) [1] These are all real problems, on which feminists continue to campaign - as they should."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Males Still Dominate the Top Positions**\nOut of over 250 countries, only a few are currently headed by women.[1]  Women still account for only about 14% of members of parliament worldwide in 2002.[2] Some argue that gender quotas should be established to ensure equal input of men and women in parliament. Therefore, the feminist movement is still needed to fight this battle."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal**\nEmployers worry when they hire young/middle aged women. They fear that after hiring a woman, she will only cost the company money by getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. To combat this attitude, maternity and paternity leave should be equal. Currently, paternity leave is a maximum of two consecutive weeks. These two weeks must be taken within 56 days of the child’s birth. This can be contrasted with the long maternity leave that is allowed for. Women are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave from day one of employment. Women are entitled to maternity pay for 39 weeks if they have been working for their employer for 26 weeks."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Men Have Big Problems Too**\nBy focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise that there are inequality issues in which men are the victims. For example: boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement; far less money is spent on combating ‘male’ than ‘female’ diseases (the difference between the amount of research into breast cancer and prostate cancer is a striking.)[1]Single fathers are discriminated against over child custody and child support; fear of being accused of sexism is so widespread that it often leads to unfair discrimination against men.[2]Even the way men are portrayed in the media is a cause for concern. Last year, an oven cleaner ad drew a thousand-plus complaints for the slogan, “So easy, even a man can use it.” These can only be tackled by recognising that feminism has gone too far. The battle for equality is no longer needed but rather, we must remember feminism was never a tool for women to get their own back."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Feminist Cause No Longer Appeals to Women**\nMany women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hating humourlessness, and seeing it as a relic of the 1970s. Modern women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms, and they resent suggestions that they need special treatment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Now Damaging Gender Roles?**\nThere is certainly a case to be made that women, in modern-western society have completely shattered the traditional values and roles that are best suited to them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently**\nHate crime enhancements are unjust because they respond to two equal results (i.e. assault vs. racial mugging) with different punishments. We need to judge solely on the concrete actions of the aggressor in order to prevent punishments from being based on arbitrary judgements as to an offender’s “intent”, which can be very difficult to prove. Otherwise “intent” may be supposed or argued in cases where it did not exist, leading to perverse sentencing whereby a crime is punished more harshly despite the true absence of intent. There is a danger of unjustly branding someone as bigoted and punishing them excessively, e.g. for their involvement in a bar fight where the victim coincidentally belonged to a minority group."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech**\nHate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished more harshly. Why is this so? Because we are punishing an idea. All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions**\nBy defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labelling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.(1) These effects spread beyond the hate crimes themselves."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently**\nHate crime enhancements are unjust because they respond to two equal results (i.e. assault vs. racial mugging) with different punishments. We need to judge solely on the concrete actions of the aggressor in order to prevent punishments from being based on arbitrary judgements as to an offender’s “intent”, which can be very difficult to prove. Otherwise “intent” may be supposed or argued in cases where it did not exist, leading to perverse sentencing whereby a crime is punished more harshly despite the true absence of intent. There is a danger of unjustly branding someone as bigoted and punishing them excessively, e.g. for their involvement in a bar fight where the victim coincidentally belonged to a minority group."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech**\nHate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished more harshly. Why is this so? Because we are punishing an idea. All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions**\nBy defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labelling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.(1) These effects spread beyond the hate crimes themselves."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Hate crimes uniquely harm through terror**\nHate crimes should be given a more severe penalty because the harm done to the victim and society is greater. Given that the intent of hate crimes is more malicious than simple premeditative murder; it is just to enhance hate crime laws to reflect stronger punishment. Hate crimes don't merely victimize the individual upon whom violence is inflicted, they also victimize a community or minority group that the hate crime was intended to terrorize. This is why hate crimes frequently include highly public acts such as lynchings in town squares, dragging hate crime victims behind cars along streets inhabited by certain communities, and graffiti on significant buildings -they are intended to send a message."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements help prevent hate crimes**\nThe additional punishment given to hate crimes under enhancements can help deter people who hold hateful views from acting on them, as they fear going to prison for any amount of time, and so any additional punishment affects their risk calculation before they commit a hate crime."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Hate crime enhancements can help emphasize tolerance and inter-community relations**\nHate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mould society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Most governments have already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. To simply leave these issues unaddressed would be to make many communities, especially minority communities, feel that their grievances were ignored and that the state allowed discrimination and violence against them. Such feelings would further polarize communities against each other and make racial tensions and further hate crimes more likely."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school**\nEven if no agenda is being consciously or subconsciously pursued, school pupils are presented with oversimplified information in History. This is a result of the limited time available, the limited intellectual capacity of pupils, the limited knowledge of many teachers (who may not be history specialists, especially in primary schools) and the desire for answers that can be labelled as \"correct\" or \"incorrect\" in examinations. Much school history teaching is therefore concerned simply with memorising \"facts\". However, such learning needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of events, lacking definitive answers but providing a narrative to give the 'facts' (often figures) meaning. As schools recognize this is beyond most students, they struggle to make time spent in history lessons conducive; a study in America found that only 20 percent of fourth graders were proficient in history, while that dropped to 12 per cent for high school seniors1.\n1 Resmovits, Joy. \"U.S. History Test Scores Stagnate As Education Secretary Arne Duncan Seeks 'Plan B'.\" Huffington Post. June 14, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum**\nHistory is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of \"Britishness\" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous.\n1 BBC News. \"Schools 'must teach Britishness'.\" BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past**\nHistory taught in schools sometimes involves flagrant distortion of historical evidence either by the State or by individual teachers. Attempts may be made to avoid nasty aspects of a nation's past (e.g. the massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers at Nanking in 1937) and/or to put down other peoples (e.g. the presentation of Australian Aboriginals as uncivilized until the 1960s). Japan's attempt to erase the memory of Nanking in its schoolchildren began in 1950s when it banned a third of all textbooks and 'Nanking Massacre simply disappeared' from their history1. As well as these extreme examples, low-level anti-Americanism is arguably pervasive in modern French school textbooks, reflecting tensions between France and the USA arising from the latter's Gaullist heritage and the recent \"War on Terror\". It is highly undesirable for school pupils to be exposed to misinformation peddled in History classes, which can lead to violence, hatred or discrimination.\n1 Chapel, Joseph. \"Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre.\" University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school**\nEven if no agenda is being consciously or subconsciously pursued, school pupils are presented with oversimplified information in History. This is a result of the limited time available, the limited intellectual capacity of pupils, the limited knowledge of many teachers (who may not be history specialists, especially in primary schools) and the desire for answers that can be labelled as \"correct\" or \"incorrect\" in examinations. Much school history teaching is therefore concerned simply with memorising \"facts\". However, such learning needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of events, lacking definitive answers but providing a narrative to give the 'facts' (often figures) meaning. As schools recognize this is beyond most students, they struggle to make time spent in history lessons conducive; a study in America found that only 20 percent of fourth graders were proficient in history, while that dropped to 12 per cent for high school seniors1.\n1 Resmovits, Joy. \"U.S. History Test Scores Stagnate As Education Secretary Arne Duncan Seeks 'Plan B'.\" Huffington Post. June 14, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum**\nHistory is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of \"Britishness\" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous.\n1 BBC News. \"Schools 'must teach Britishness'.\" BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past**\nHistory taught in schools sometimes involves flagrant distortion of historical evidence either by the State or by individual teachers. Attempts may be made to avoid nasty aspects of a nation's past (e.g. the massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers at Nanking in 1937) and/or to put down other peoples (e.g. the presentation of Australian Aboriginals as uncivilized until the 1960s). Japan's attempt to erase the memory of Nanking in its schoolchildren began in 1950s when it banned a third of all textbooks and 'Nanking Massacre simply disappeared' from their history1. As well as these extreme examples, low-level anti-Americanism is arguably pervasive in modern French school textbooks, reflecting tensions between France and the USA arising from the latter's Gaullist heritage and the recent \"War on Terror\". It is highly undesirable for school pupils to be exposed to misinformation peddled in History classes, which can lead to violence, hatred or discrimination.\n1 Chapel, Joseph. \"Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre.\" University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Teaching history ensures that events of the past are not forgotten, and lessons are learned**\n\"Organized forgetting\" of the past does not lead to harmony: those who allege historic wrongs are unlikely to forget them and will be aggrieved at attempts to deny the significance of the events concerned. This is seen in the Chinese outcry at Japanese attempts to forget the Rape of Nanking; the international attention drawn to the issue led to attempts within Japan itself to re-introduce the event into history textbooks1. By 1997, all Japanese textbooks included the event, signalling a shift towards a closer relationship with China, their long-term rivals1. Friendship often results from shared recognition of past wrongs, and a resolve not to repeat past injustices and mistakes; studying the past is essential for this. History teaching in schools is especially important when tensions are present: those who set and teach the curriculum can and should strive to be impartial, to counter one-sided historical narratives to which pupils may be exposed by their families and the media."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren**\nFor most post-medieval periods, it is possible to establish such \"facts\" with a very high degree of probability. To take the Holocaust as an example, fears of the events being erased out of history books drove Dwight Eisenhower to travel to Germany to witness the aftermath first-hand. The future American President was driven by a desire to be able to 'testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief that the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda'1. Furthermore, even if the historical facts are not as clearly evident as the Holocaust, and have to be simplified, this need not be \"intellectually dangerous\": it is impossible to prove that a real harm results from only knowing the academically dominant interpretation of a historical episode, even if it might be theoretically desirable to consider minority viewpoints too. Indeed, all school teaching involves simplification and generalization: much school science teaching entails discussion of how general rules (learned earlier during a pupil's school career) are not always applicable.\n1 Chapel, Joseph. \"Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre.\" University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**History should be taught to school-children, they form an integral part of understanding oneself and one's nation**\nHistorical events, no matter how tragic, gruesome or embarrassing, should be taught in schools in order to provide a basis for the youth to explore their own identity and that of their nation. Children should therefore not be shielded from reality, but be taught, in an appropriate manner, about all manner of relevant historical events. In so doing, they will not leave school with a false image of reality, or of whom they are and where they live. Only then will they be prepared for the very worst life will throw at them. For example, Australian school children are unlikely to fully appreciate the plight of their Aboriginal compatriots without a thorough understanding of the British discovery of the island and subsequent governmental policy that oppressed the native population. As the future leaders of tomorrow, it is essential that the youth are given the broadest, most accurate platform on which to build their own perceptions of life."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that history has no place in the classroom",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**History teaches useful skills applicable in other areas of education and life**\nHistory teaches many useful skills, which are of great value to both individuals and the economy. These include the ability to think critically and construct reasoned arguments, an awareness of differing points of view and understanding of cultures (both one's own and those of others). Essays on historical events or figures require an original, structured argument and an evaluation of sources, skills that have relevance in other areas of education. Furthermore, the humility necessary to accept the limitations of historical research are instrumental in encouraging multi-culturalism in society and respect for views one might not initially understand."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Internet access as a new human right.**\nAccess to the internet can be considered a separate human right in and of itself. The UN special rapporteur in June 2011 published a report that implied that access to the internet is a human right “The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations.”[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.**\nIn our traditional human rights there is a hole when it comes to a right to receive and be able to seek out information. Almost everyone would consider freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be human rights but these rights are not very effective if there is not a way for those who wish to access that information. Michael L Best contends that Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on freedom of expression implies some symmetry but that freedom of authorship is privileged over freedom of readership.[1] In short governments could allow freedom of expression while ensuring that those expressing dissenting views have a very minimal audience without breaking human rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.**\nFreedom of expression and speech and freedom of information is a fundamental freedom and is article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights. This is usually taken to have three parts for governments to uphold: a duty to respect, for the government not to interfere with the freedom to impart information, a duty to protect, preventing interference with lawful communications and, a duty to fulfil, a duty to provide government held information.[1] Access to the internet falls within this. The duty to respect means that governments cannot block access for people wishing to use the internet to express themselves. The duty to protect means government should prevent others from interfering with internet users and the duty to fulfil could easily be taken just a little bit further to having to provide access to the internet. Freedom of expression therefore covers a freedom to access the internet as it already provides for a freedom to access mediums to express ones’ self."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Internet access as a new human right.**\nAccess to the internet can be considered a separate human right in and of itself. The UN special rapporteur in June 2011 published a report that implied that access to the internet is a human right “The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations.”[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.**\nIn our traditional human rights there is a hole when it comes to a right to receive and be able to seek out information. Almost everyone would consider freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be human rights but these rights are not very effective if there is not a way for those who wish to access that information. Michael L Best contends that Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on freedom of expression implies some symmetry but that freedom of authorship is privileged over freedom of readership.[1] In short governments could allow freedom of expression while ensuring that those expressing dissenting views have a very minimal audience without breaking human rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.**\nFreedom of expression and speech and freedom of information is a fundamental freedom and is article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights. This is usually taken to have three parts for governments to uphold: a duty to respect, for the government not to interfere with the freedom to impart information, a duty to protect, preventing interference with lawful communications and, a duty to fulfil, a duty to provide government held information.[1] Access to the internet falls within this. The duty to respect means that governments cannot block access for people wishing to use the internet to express themselves. The duty to protect means government should prevent others from interfering with internet users and the duty to fulfil could easily be taken just a little bit further to having to provide access to the internet. Freedom of expression therefore covers a freedom to access the internet as it already provides for a freedom to access mediums to express ones’ self."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Human rights are dependent upon the state**\nThere is clearly not universal or even widespread acceptance of the idea that internet access should be a human right. Human rights are dependent upon the state, the desires of the community, and that depends upon the state’s socio economic context.[1] The internet cannot therefore be considered a universal human right because not all states are advanced enough to take responsibility for this right."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Internet access is a commodity not a human right.**\nIf a human right is inherent and inalienable then if something is to be a human right it has to be freely available for all rather than being much more available to those who are rich. The internet however is a commodity. We are charged for access to it and can be cut off for not paying our bills. We are charged more to be able to download more, in effect to have greater access to this human right. There has never been any suggestion that the equally great media advances of TV and telephones are technologies worthy of being considered a human right. As with the internet these increased the ability to express opinions to a wide audience, they helped democratise news and making it much more international. They meant that human rights violations could be much more easily told to the world in much the same way the internet does."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Internet access is an enabler of rights not a right in itself.**\nThe internet is an enabler and so has little value on its own.[1] No one would consider the internet a human right if there was no content or information on the internet, what good would be a right to stare at a screen? It is not therefore access to the internet that is the human right it is access to information. The internet is obviously useful for this but it is not essential. If someone was denied access to the internet while being locked in a library would he or she really have had any right to information infringed? In such a case the only argument for a right to the internet is that it faster to access the information through the internet than it would be to look it up in the books that are all around. There cannot therefore be considered to be a right to the internet even as part of any right to information because the right to information would simply require that a government provides access to this information not that it has to be via the internet. Moreover as an enabling technology it is quite possible that the internet may at some point be out of date and replaces by some new method of storing information. As something that is transitory it does not make sense to consider there to be any kind of inalienable right to the internet."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that internet access is a human right",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Internet access cannot be a human right when it is not available to all.**\nIf human rights are inalienable and inherent in humans then no technology can be a human right as not everyone can ever expect access all of the time. Certainly at the moment huge swathes of the world have no internet access and this does not mean that their governments are violating their human rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done**\n\"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.\"[1] Shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong because doing so creates a clear and present danger of harm to others."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Protection of Minors**\nWe need to protect minors (those under the age of majority) from exposure to obscene, offensive or potentially damaging materials. While this would be a restriction on the freedom of speech it should be something that the government is responsible for and we would all agree needs some kind of restriction or regulation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It may be necessary in the interests of national security**\nThe Government must protect its citizens from foreign enemies and internal enemies - thus freedom of speech can be acceptably curtailed during times of war in order to prevent propaganda and spying which might undermine the national interest. This has happened in almost all states during times of war, during the second world war the United States even had a government department dedicated to it; The Office of Censorship.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Holocaust Denial**\nSpeech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done**\n\"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.\"[1] Shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong because doing so creates a clear and present danger of harm to others."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Protection of Minors**\nWe need to protect minors (those under the age of majority) from exposure to obscene, offensive or potentially damaging materials. While this would be a restriction on the freedom of speech it should be something that the government is responsible for and we would all agree needs some kind of restriction or regulation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It may be necessary in the interests of national security**\nThe Government must protect its citizens from foreign enemies and internal enemies - thus freedom of speech can be acceptably curtailed during times of war in order to prevent propaganda and spying which might undermine the national interest. This has happened in almost all states during times of war, during the second world war the United States even had a government department dedicated to it; The Office of Censorship.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Holocaust Denial**\nSpeech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Free speech allows challenges to orthodox beliefs**\nFree speech is not merely a ‘nice thing to have’, it is a mechanism which brings real, tangible benefits to society by allowing people to challenge orthodoxy.  States that do not allow orthodox beliefs to be challenged stagnate and decline."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Individual Liberty outweighs any potential harms**\nWhatever the potential harms that may arise from unrestrained free speech; they pale in comparison to the harm that arises from banning an individual from freely expressing his own mind."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Cutting off bit of children’s  bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong**\nIf this is simply a matter of performing a procedure with no apparent benefit to the patient – in most cases a young child – then it does rather raise the question of “Why”. If the procedure were, say, cutting off a toe or an earlobe then all involved would require a clear and compelling case for such a practice. There are grown adults that think that cutting off a finger is the next stage up from getting a tattoo or a piercing[i]. At best most people would consider such a practice odd, at worst unstable. However, these are grown adults who have made the decision to mutilate their bodies for themselves and as a statement they feel appropriate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible**\nA report by the Royal Dutch Medical Association noted that there was not a single medical body in the world that could point, categorically to a medical need for circumcision of infants. It further concluded that “The fact that this practice is not medically necessary and entails a genuine risk of complications means that extra-stringent requirements must be established with regard to this type of information and advice.” Yet this is a practice that is performed around the world by people with little or no medical training and accepted by parents as an instruction from God."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied**\nAny risk needs to be justified against some benefit. In the absence of any demonstrable benefit then there is no need to tolerate any risk, particularly in the case of a newborn baby who cannot express his opinion one way or another and will not be able to do so for years to come."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Cutting off bit of children’s  bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong**\nIf this is simply a matter of performing a procedure with no apparent benefit to the patient – in most cases a young child – then it does rather raise the question of “Why”. If the procedure were, say, cutting off a toe or an earlobe then all involved would require a clear and compelling case for such a practice. There are grown adults that think that cutting off a finger is the next stage up from getting a tattoo or a piercing[i]. At best most people would consider such a practice odd, at worst unstable. However, these are grown adults who have made the decision to mutilate their bodies for themselves and as a statement they feel appropriate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible**\nA report by the Royal Dutch Medical Association noted that there was not a single medical body in the world that could point, categorically to a medical need for circumcision of infants. It further concluded that “The fact that this practice is not medically necessary and entails a genuine risk of complications means that extra-stringent requirements must be established with regard to this type of information and advice.” Yet this is a practice that is performed around the world by people with little or no medical training and accepted by parents as an instruction from God."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied**\nAny risk needs to be justified against some benefit. In the absence of any demonstrable benefit then there is no need to tolerate any risk, particularly in the case of a newborn baby who cannot express his opinion one way or another and will not be able to do so for years to come."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise**\nCircumcision is akin, in many ways, to vaccination; a routine and simple procedure with miniscule risks and compelling probable benefits. We acknowledge the right of parents to take these decisions on the behalf of their children, even if the benefits in question are primarily cultural and spiritual, and relativistic in character."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now**\nWhere there compelling evidence from medical science that a process that predates it had some proven harm then there might be good reason to restrict it but that evidence simply isn’t there. What is known is that circumcisions have been performed for millennia without causing widespread difficulties. In addition, historically, the procedure has been performed in circumstances far less safe than the confines of a modern, well-equipped hospital where it usually takes place now, and to no apparent ill effect."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child**\nThere is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship**\nThe main objective of marriage is often said to be bringing up children in a stable environment. However in 2010 in the UK there were 119589 divorces; 11.1 per 1000 married population. Furthermore in the same year, the median duration of a marriage remained at a low level of 11.4 years.(Rogers, 2011) This clearly does not fulfill the initial basic aim of marriage as so many marriages end In divorce with the resulting splits affecting the children. In fact, a much more stable environment can be provided by a better relationship, even without matrimonial vows (Cherlin 2009). This relationship should not have to be through marriage; rather it would simply be a partnership in the way that many couples already live today."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Unreasonable commitment to expect of people**\nThe average age, in the UK, to get married is approximately 30 years old. (Office for National Statistics 1999) Life expectancy in the UK is approximately 80 years. (Office for National Statistics 1999) This means the average marriage expects people to commit to maintain a certain way of life for a period that is longer than they have actually been alive. This goes hand in hand with the rise of social acceptability of people having more than one life partner in their life to show that either marriage is an unreasonable expectation of someone or a meaningless charade that is not actually expected to be maintained.(Cherlin 2009)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage**\nWith pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion**\nThe proposition believes that they have proven that marriage no longer has a social or practical function. This leaves its only function as one of religious significance. However, with the percentage of people in the UK who identify as having no religion having risen by nearly 20% in the last 20 years and the percentage of people who identify as religious having dropped by approximately the same amount (British Social Attitudes Surveys 2007). Church attendance is even lower at a mere 6%(whychurch.org.uk). As a result there needs to be a new more inclusive institution that is open to all religions and those of no religion. It is clear that marriage can no longer perform this function for everyone in society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children**\nAs explained in the first proposition point, one of the primary functions of marriage is seen to be to raise children. Marriage is therefore seen as the best way to raise children. This undermines same-sex couples and single parent families raising children."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship**\nThe main objective of marriage is often said to be bringing up children in a stable environment. However in 2010 in the UK there were 119589 divorces; 11.1 per 1000 married population. Furthermore in the same year, the median duration of a marriage remained at a low level of 11.4 years.(Rogers, 2011) This clearly does not fulfill the initial basic aim of marriage as so many marriages end In divorce with the resulting splits affecting the children. In fact, a much more stable environment can be provided by a better relationship, even without matrimonial vows (Cherlin 2009). This relationship should not have to be through marriage; rather it would simply be a partnership in the way that many couples already live today."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unreasonable commitment to expect of people**\nThe average age, in the UK, to get married is approximately 30 years old. (Office for National Statistics 1999) Life expectancy in the UK is approximately 80 years. (Office for National Statistics 1999) This means the average marriage expects people to commit to maintain a certain way of life for a period that is longer than they have actually been alive. This goes hand in hand with the rise of social acceptability of people having more than one life partner in their life to show that either marriage is an unreasonable expectation of someone or a meaningless charade that is not actually expected to be maintained.(Cherlin 2009)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage**\nWith pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion**\nThe proposition believes that they have proven that marriage no longer has a social or practical function. This leaves its only function as one of religious significance. However, with the percentage of people in the UK who identify as having no religion having risen by nearly 20% in the last 20 years and the percentage of people who identify as religious having dropped by approximately the same amount (British Social Attitudes Surveys 2007). Church attendance is even lower at a mere 6%(whychurch.org.uk). As a result there needs to be a new more inclusive institution that is open to all religions and those of no religion. It is clear that marriage can no longer perform this function for everyone in society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children**\nAs explained in the first proposition point, one of the primary functions of marriage is seen to be to raise children. Marriage is therefore seen as the best way to raise children. This undermines same-sex couples and single parent families raising children."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Removes the transient and casual aspects of a monogamous relationship, thus giving a child a far more stable environment.**\nMarriage represents a commitment and a bond that is, although not unbreakable, difficult to break. This may not be appropriate for couples who wish to have a more casual relationship, however, it offers a more stable and official relationship, which is far preferable to a more transient relationship when it comes to raising a child. (Waite 2000)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage**\n50% of all divorcees in the UK go on to remarry. (National Office for Statistics 1999) This shows that, although their own marriage failed, they retain faith in the institution of marriage. The fact that, even when marriage has failed to work for them once, many people wish to give it another go shows that it is still meaningful to society. If an institution is so meaningful and relevant to modern society in this way, it cannot possibly be outdated."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship**\nMarriage has relevance to modern society in not only an emotional, religious and practical sense but also in a legal sense. According to Sir Mark Potter in English Law marriage is regarded as an \"age-old institution\" that is \"by longstanding definition and acceptance\" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. It gives many rights in areas like property rights and pension benefits.(Travis, 2011) A marital bond gives important rights to both parties in cases of events such as severe injury, bereavement or even divorce. An institution cannot be outdated if it retains legal importance in modern society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Marriage is an important institution to religious people**\nNearly 50% of people in the UK identify as being part of some religion. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) Marriage is an integral part of most major religions, particularly Christianity, where it is one of the sacraments(Lehmkuhl, 1910) which are necessary for salvation (Vatican.va). which encompasses over 40% of the population of the UK. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) While there are still such huge numbers of people who practice religions to which marriage is integral, marriage cannot be outdated."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Marriage promotes a better way to raise children**\nMarriage promotes raising children as part of a monogamous couple. Without marriage, the frequency of single parent families would rise. Statistically, children who come from single parent families are more likely to live under the poverty line, more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence, more likely to become ill, less likely to complete every level of education and more likely to grow up to have low incomes themselves. (O’Neill 2002) Clearly then, marriage provides a lot of goods to children of married families, thus it provides goods in modern society and therefore cannot be outdated."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Nationalism promotes cooperation and social cohesion**\nNationalism is a sense of fellow-feeling between group members. This promotes cooperation and social cohesion within the group. Nationalism  and the identity it brings creates a social glue which binds otherwise different people together, that sense of social cooperation makes welfare, social security and medical programs much more likely and stronger. It also may make for a smoother political process when there is a solid basis for consensus. Those who are net contributors to the system need something to make them feel that what they are doing is worthwhile and in their interests; something a national identity provides as it creates a sense of belonging that transcends economic interests. In Canada for example those who strongly identify with Canada are much more likely to support redistribution and healthcare than those with low identification with Canada.[1] Societies with a healthy sense of nationalism are more likely to provide for each other and avoid the plight of poverty or poor health."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**National identity was necessary for independence**\nNationalism has been a potent force for self-determination in colonial territories. The profoundly misunderstood Vietnamese independence movement, as well as most African liberation movements of the 1940s and 1950s drew heavily on the idea of nationhood to mobilise their people against a foreign exploitative power. Other examples include India, Indonesia, Guinea, and Guyana. Most often these states, once independence has been achieved, see a fracturing of nationalism that prevents those nationalist impulses from being used to condone violence against minority populations. Meanwhile in big multi-ethnic states, most notably India and Indonesia nationalism has been used positively to keep the state and its many ethnicities united my making a higher level of identity above the regional identities that in many other areas of the world would have become a national identity.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Not all nationalism is exclusive**\nNationalism can take many benign forms, such as that of civic nationalism, where a shared sense of national identity is created and reinforced by institutions, not ethnicity or history. The starting point of civic nationalism is not an ethnic group but the state’s territorial borders. It focuses on citizenship, civic rights and legal codes where all citizens are equal.[1] Civic nationalism has taken firmest root in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is an inclusive kind of nationalism that accepts any individual into its institutions. Nationalism can provide cultural and political glue for strong democratic institutions that can win out over forms of ethnic exclusion or political repression."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Nationalism creates diversity**\nAccording to Isaiah Berlin, “The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable.”[1] A plurality of nations, especially in the modern era, can allow for cultural development and cultural exchange that benefits both parties. The human variety offered by national feeling makes the world a better place, through the diversity offered by the cultures that nationalism nurtures and protects."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nationalism promotes cooperation and social cohesion**\nNationalism is a sense of fellow-feeling between group members. This promotes cooperation and social cohesion within the group. Nationalism  and the identity it brings creates a social glue which binds otherwise different people together, that sense of social cooperation makes welfare, social security and medical programs much more likely and stronger. It also may make for a smoother political process when there is a solid basis for consensus. Those who are net contributors to the system need something to make them feel that what they are doing is worthwhile and in their interests; something a national identity provides as it creates a sense of belonging that transcends economic interests. In Canada for example those who strongly identify with Canada are much more likely to support redistribution and healthcare than those with low identification with Canada.[1] Societies with a healthy sense of nationalism are more likely to provide for each other and avoid the plight of poverty or poor health."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**National identity was necessary for independence**\nNationalism has been a potent force for self-determination in colonial territories. The profoundly misunderstood Vietnamese independence movement, as well as most African liberation movements of the 1940s and 1950s drew heavily on the idea of nationhood to mobilise their people against a foreign exploitative power. Other examples include India, Indonesia, Guinea, and Guyana. Most often these states, once independence has been achieved, see a fracturing of nationalism that prevents those nationalist impulses from being used to condone violence against minority populations. Meanwhile in big multi-ethnic states, most notably India and Indonesia nationalism has been used positively to keep the state and its many ethnicities united my making a higher level of identity above the regional identities that in many other areas of the world would have become a national identity.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Not all nationalism is exclusive**\nNationalism can take many benign forms, such as that of civic nationalism, where a shared sense of national identity is created and reinforced by institutions, not ethnicity or history. The starting point of civic nationalism is not an ethnic group but the state’s territorial borders. It focuses on citizenship, civic rights and legal codes where all citizens are equal.[1] Civic nationalism has taken firmest root in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is an inclusive kind of nationalism that accepts any individual into its institutions. Nationalism can provide cultural and political glue for strong democratic institutions that can win out over forms of ethnic exclusion or political repression."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nationalism creates diversity**\nAccording to Isaiah Berlin, “The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable.”[1] A plurality of nations, especially in the modern era, can allow for cultural development and cultural exchange that benefits both parties. The human variety offered by national feeling makes the world a better place, through the diversity offered by the cultures that nationalism nurtures and protects."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nationalism is no longer relevant**\nNationalism is a movement of the past, linked the evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The future lies in an internationalist approach that stresses our common humanity, rather than emphasising those small differences that have been used by nationalists to divide us. In particular, nationalism stands against the widespread establishment of human rights, as it places absolute national sovereignty above the individual rights of all citizens. China for example rejects interference in domestic affairs subordinating human rights to the state.[1] This makes it impossible for the international community to protect properly the human rights of those living under oppression and dictatorship."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nationalism is used as a fig leaf for bad government**\nNationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership regimes that are politically and economically corrupt, such as the National Salvation Front of Romania, Communist China, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and North Korea, exploit existing senses of nationalism to disguise the fact that they mismanage and oppress their countries. Oppression can be justified as being for the country while the country’s resources are mismanaged with justifications that the resources should only be used for natives, such policies lead to land takeovers in Zimbabwe and the subsequent collapse of the economy.[1] They use nationalism as an irrational base of support for irrational policies. The people would do more to change their regimes if their minds were not clouded by emotionally-charged feelings of nationalism."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nationalism as an ideology is oppressive towards women**\nNationalism oppresses women. Inherent in nationalism is the notion of blood descent; a nation's health and security is tied to its birth rate. This leads to pro-\"natalist\" policies that violate the reproductive and civil rights of women. Romania is a good example of when nationalist thinking tramples the rights of women, leading to forced birthing for most Romanians and horrifying illegal sterilisations for the minority Roma population."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Increasing voter engagement**\nA major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics**\nBy creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities**\nA major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power**\nPolitical Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices**\nOpen Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Increasing voter engagement**\nA major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics**\nBy creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities**\nA major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power**\nPolitical Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices**\nOpen Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate**\nPrimary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties**\nPrimaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is more ideological."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries are open to manipulation**\nBecause political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities**\nElections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests (See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club[1])."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties**\nPrimary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is close (See the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments**\nIt is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify**\nParticularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are**\nAlthough in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially. In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and others already persecuted in society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments**\nIt is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify**\nParticularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are**\nAlthough in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially. In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and others already persecuted in society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Religious organisations remind societies and the world that there are other important things in life beyond economics and that moral and other concerns should be taken into account in public life**\nIn a world consumed by the belief that the only thing in life that genuinely matters is money, religious bodies serve as a welcome reminder that other activities- besides “wealth creation”- can be meaningful and valuable too. In addition to promoting morality and spirituality within society they have also, historically, been sponsors of great art and music."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Religious ceremonies and organisations provide solace and celebration for the great changes in life such as birth, marriage and death, there is democratic support for this around the world**\nAt times of great need or celebration, religious communities and organisations are often the only organisations that seem fit to the task of marking them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes that religion does more harm than good",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Religious organisations are by far the largest providers of charity in the world**\nWhether sending food support in famine zones, providing education, hospices or a vast range of other charitable activities, religious organisations are streets ahead. In addition they frequently are the only organisations willing to go into certain high risk areas throughout the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum**\nThe LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws**\nThis will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community**\nGlobal consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum**\nThe LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws**\nThis will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community**\nGlobal consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty**\nAsylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights**\nThis policy damages international discourse and progress in LGBT rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community**\nLasting change to anti-homosexual attitudes will only happen from the ground-up. This hinders the ability of governments to engineer more accepting attitudes toward the LGBT community."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state.**\nThe role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ‘save souls’ brining people into its own perceived afterlife.[1] The Anglican church itself considers its mission to be “transformation - transforming individual lives, transforming communities and transforming the world.” “that calling is carried out at the national level of the Church of England in evangelism, development of parish congregations”.[2] Such a mission is inherently aimed solely at benefiting those within the church or those who can be converted not society as a whole."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Separation would show acceptance of other religions.**\nIt is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued.**\nIn the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount.[1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**International signalling.**\nAs a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state.**\nThe role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ‘save souls’ brining people into its own perceived afterlife.[1] The Anglican church itself considers its mission to be “transformation - transforming individual lives, transforming communities and transforming the world.” “that calling is carried out at the national level of the Church of England in evangelism, development of parish congregations”.[2] Such a mission is inherently aimed solely at benefiting those within the church or those who can be converted not society as a whole."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Separation would show acceptance of other religions.**\nIt is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued.**\nIn the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount.[1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**International signalling.**\nAs a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity.**\nThe reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as severely damaging to British national identity. As a national church the Church of England has been at the heart of the country’s political and cultural life since the sixteenth century, religion helped make Britain the country it is today.[1] A separation would be the country turning its back on this history and its own culture."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Separation would create animosity towards immigrants and non-Christians.**\nCurrently, we already see problems in the UK with extremist groups blaming immigrants and non-Christian religious groups for pretty much everything from unemployment among whites to a lack of patriotism. Completely separating the church and the state could be seen as a move made due to political correctness and/or to try not to offend immigrants or those from non-Christian religious backgrounds."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Disestablishment sidelines all religious people.**\nRather than other religious groups seeing the removal of the Church of England’s involvement of the state as them all being put on a level playing field, it is more likely to be seen as a total removal of religion from the government.[1] Bishop John Pritchard of Oxford argues that Anglican Bishops can be seen as acting as community leaders for all faiths and are respected as such, as a result they often support other religion’s such as Pritchard himself arguing a mosque in Oxford should be allowed to issue the call to prayer.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Minimal practical effect.**\nAs it stands, the Church of England’s involvement in the state actually has little effect on it. Decisions are taken by the Prime Minister and his/her government rather than by religious officials and indeed the Church of England can often be a vehicle for the government’s views rather than the Church having an influence on government. As Bishop of Rochester Nazir-Ali states ‘The church is seen simply as the religious aspect of society, there to endorse any change which politicians deem fit to impose upon the public.’[1] Therefore, separating the church and the state will make little difference in terms of the way the state is actually run but may result in a reduction of the influence of the government on some of the population.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The policy has been effective in the past**\nThe main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program[1]. Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP[2]. Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.**\nParents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1.\r\nWhile attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance.\n1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), \"Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development\", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]\n2 http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.**\nWhen society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.**\nIn the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves.\r\nWelfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3.\r\nSchool can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education.\n1 Family Facts, \"A Closer Look at Welfare\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. \n2Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), \"Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development\", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]\n3http World Bank, \"Facts about Primary Education\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The policy has been effective in the past**\nThe main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program[1]. Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP[2]. Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.**\nParents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1.\r\nWhile attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance.\n1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), \"Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development\", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]\n2 http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.**\nWhen society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.**\nIn the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves.\r\nWelfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3.\r\nSchool can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education.\n1 Family Facts, \"A Closer Look at Welfare\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. \n2Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), \"Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development\", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]\n3http World Bank, \"Facts about Primary Education\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend.**\nThis problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused.\n1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. \n2 Feeding America (2010), \"Hunger in America: Key Facts\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, \"Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Connecting welfare to failure of parents is unfair.**\nThis policy requires that parents be held accountable and punished for the actions of their children. It suggests that their failure in instilling good values is because they care less than middle-class, educated parents. That is a broad and stereotypical assumption. Such parents, many of whom are single mothers, find it harder to instill good values in their children because they live in corrupt environments, surrounded by negative influences[1]. They should be aided and supported, not punished for an alleged failure. Just encouraging putting children in schools does not recognize the larger problems. Some families cannot control their children, who would rather make money than go to school. And caps on the number of children these programs can apply to, as is the case in Brazil, creates problems as well for the families[2]. People are doing their best, but the environment is difficult. Providing safer and more low income housing could be a solution versus punishing people for what is sometimes out of their control.\n1 Cawthorne, Alexandra (2008), \"The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty\", Center for American Progress, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. \n2"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**School does not an education make**\nSchool attendance is not a positive outcome in and of itself. It should be encouraged only if it is conducive to learning and acquiring the meaningful education needed to break out of the poverty trap. Blaming the poverty cycle on kids failing to attend school ignores the fact that schools are failing children. Public schools are often overcrowded, with poor facilities and lacking the resources necessary to teach children with challenging backgrounds. In 2011, 80% of America's schools could be considered failing according to Arne Duncan who is the secretary of education1. Schools in developing countries often lack qualified teachers, and can suffer from very high staff absenteeism rates2.\r\nA more effective school system would result in fewer kids dropping out, not the other way around. Additionally, involved parents are integral to effective education3. Simply blackmailing them with money to do the right thing will not work. In fact, you might actually experience backlash from parents and kids, who'll see school as a burdensome requirement that is met just so you can keep the electricity on. Throwing kids into school where they do not have confidence, support, and the necessary facilities is not productive.\n1Dillon, Sam (2011), \"Most Public Schools May Miss Targets, Education Secretary Says\", New York Times, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. \n2 World Bank, \"Facts about Primary Education\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. \n3Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), \"Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education\", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is unjust to make welfare conditional**\nWelfare should not be used as a tool of social engineering. These are people who cannot provide even basic necessities for their families. Asking them to take on obligations by threatening to take away their food is not requiring them to be responsible, it's extortion. It is not treating them as stakeholders and equal partners in a discussion about benefits and responsibilities, but trying to condition them into doing what the rest of society thinks is good for them and their families. There is a difference between an incentive and coercion. An incentive functions on the premise that the person targeted is able to refuse it. These people have no meaningful choice between 'the incentive' or going hungry. This policy does not respect people's basic dignity. There is no condition attached to healthcare and Medicaid that says people have to eat healthily or stop smoking, so why should welfare be conditional? Allowing them and their children to go without food if they refuse is callous. Making welfare conditional is taking advantage of people's situation and telling them what they need to do to be considered valuable to society; it is inherently wrong. It impedes on people's rights to free choice and demeans them as worthless."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The one child policy skews gender demographics**\nMany Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite**\nThe one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout the one child policy. This has shown itself in the form of many wealthy Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and celebrities who have been caught ignoring the one child policy. For example between 2000 and 2005 1968 government officials in Hunan violated the one child policy.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations**\nThe One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the precautions that parents may take. Whether as a result of defective medication, irresponsible behaviour, or simple bad luck, sufficiently frequent sexual activity will always lead to pregnancy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The one child policy skews gender demographics**\nMany Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite**\nThe one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout the one child policy. This has shown itself in the form of many wealthy Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and celebrities who have been caught ignoring the one child policy. For example between 2000 and 2005 1968 government officials in Hunan violated the one child policy.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations**\nThe One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the precautions that parents may take. Whether as a result of defective medication, irresponsible behaviour, or simple bad luck, sufficiently frequent sexual activity will always lead to pregnancy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The one child policy is needed for population control**\nThe One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**One child benefits women**\nIt is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health services for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pregnant women to closely monitor their health. In various places in China, the government rolled out a ‘Care for Girls’ programme, which aims at eliminating cultural discrimination against girls in rural and underdeveloped areas through subsidies and education."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Single child families are economically efficient**\nThe one child policy is economically beneficial because it allows China to push its population growth rate well below its growth rate in GDP."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex**\nThe population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare**\nThis has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.”[i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect**\nPerhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family.[i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity.[ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex**\nThe population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare**\nThis has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.”[i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect**\nPerhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family.[i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity.[ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This is a victory for democracy – a precious Filipino value - clear majorities in both houses and in the wider public support it**\nOpposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support[i]. It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result[ii]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There are clear and proven benefits to the health of the Filipino families, especially women**\nBoth sides of this debate have spoken about the need to respect the rights and lives of women. It is, however, difficult to see how exactly opponents of the legislation reconcile this with their actions. Decades’ worth of research demonstrates that educational, health and nutritional levels all fall once a family outgrows its means. In the slums of Manila that research is unnecessary as it is all too apparent at a glance. However the research is there[i] to provide grisly commentary to the narrative folding out on the streets."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose**\nEven the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender**\nFrom late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack**\nThe US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised**\nThere was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them”[1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender**\nFrom late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack**\nThe US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised**\nThere was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them”[1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It was not necessary to use atomic weapons on a population centre**\nThe first bomb, on Hiroshima was sufficient to achieve the objective of surrender without the use of the second bomb after only a very short period of time. There was only three days between the two bombings, an unpardonably short period. Communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo had unsurprisingly been severed, so the full effect had yet to sink in on some policy makers by the time ‘Fat Man’ was dropped. It had however already convinced Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and crucially the Emperor himself. He said upon hearing the news of Hiroshima:  “Now that things have come to this impasse, we must bow to the inevitable. ... We should lose no time in ending the war so as not to have another tragedy like this.”[1] The rest of the cabinet was as yet unmoved, but even if they had been it is unlikely they would have been able to actually surrender before the second bomb was dropped."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A negotiated peace would have been preferable to the dropping of the atomic bombs**\nIt is conventional to argue that Japan was defeated already and so the bombings were unnecessary as Sadao Asada points out this confuses defeat with surrender. However such a position seems equally to confuse surrender with peace. That there had to be an unconditional surrender seems almost unquestioned. Most wars do not end in an unconditional surrender of one side or the other, Japanese defeat was plain so a negotiated peace would normally have been set in motion when the US saw the terrible casualties it might be forced to take in its push for total victory. The Americans learnt of Japanese willingness to negotiate in July, on the 13th Secretary of the Navy Forrestal wrote in his diary “The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today... Togo said further that the unconditional surrender term of the Allies was about the only thing in the way of termination of the war”[1] Stimson, Grew and Forrestal aimed at persuading president Truman to offer the Japanese promise of the preservation of the monarchy as an alternative to unconditional surrender.[2] Ultimately the Potsdam declaration set the unconditional surrender policy in stone.[3] Offering such a condition would certainly have strengthened the peace party within the Japanese cabinet and allowed them to present further resistance by the generals and admirals as endangering the monarchy.[4] However, on its own this would probably not have lead to peace, the cabinet would still have been split 3-3 with the Army and Navy ministers both opposed and with vetoes on policy. Even the most belligerent of the Japanese Cabinet, Army Minister Anami’s conditions were preservation of the Imperial institution, no military occupation of the home islands, Japanese forces were to demobilize and disarm themselves and war criminals were to be prosecuted by the Japanese themselves.[5] While these conditions are obviously ripe for exploitation, would they really disarm and try war criminals? they are not unreasonable. Just because there was no hope that the US would accept these conditions, they fly in the face of the Potsdam Declaration from which the allies would not deviate, does not mean that another alternative to unconditional surrender should not be considered as an alternative to the dropping of the Nuclear bombs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The bombing was immoral and illegal**\nThe use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.**\nHuman beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. \"While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false\"1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.**\nAccording to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.**\nOne of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A maximum working week provides protection for workers.**\nIn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.**\nHuman beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. \"While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false\"1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.**\nAccording to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.**\nOne of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A maximum working week provides protection for workers.**\nIn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Policing such a policy creates its own set of problems for the society and costs for the economy**\nComplying with any regulation has a cost attached, and so does policing that regulation in order to make it effective. How would anyone know who was working where and for how long without either a very accepting populace or a very draconian state?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The market already limits worker hours when left to its own devices, no intrusion is required.**\nLong hours which reduce worker effectiveness already make a business less competitive. The invisible hand will remove those businesses which exploit their workers, or who don't take into account employee motivation and what they need to get maximum productivity far more effectively as they are beaten in the marketplace by those companies which do take those things into account."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There should be no legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours as it limits economic growth.**\nThe transaction, hiring and human resource costs of forcing businesses to take on more workers mean that productivity is reduced and resources are wasted. While GDP might rise because of these actions, GDP will rise due to a fallacy of the \"labour theory of value\"1 kind. Effort isn't in and of itself productive, though it will add to many measures of GDP. Currently displaced workers would be better served inventing new products and services for the economy they are in."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Small and mid sized businesses cannot afford the extra costs involved in complying with such a policy.**\nEach new worker has certain fixed costs associated with their employment. Tax, insurance, training, office space, record keeping, background checks, sickness, disciplinary as well as necessary equipment, the actual cost of hiring them and advertising for them and other benefits (usually this adds up to 1.25-1.4x base salary per worker.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.**\nThe primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it.  Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Compelling public bodies to publish information ensures that non-citizens, minors, foreign nationals and others have access to information that affects them.**\nGenuine transparency and accountability of government action is not only in the interests of those who also have the right to vote for that government or who support it through the payment of taxes. The functioning of immigration services would seem to be a prime example. Maximising access to information relating to government decisions by dint of its automatic publication of information relating to those decisions ensures that all those affected will have recourse to the facts behind any decision."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field**\nPeople have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A faster, cheaper and simpler process**\nThere are cost concerned with processing FoI requests both in terms of time and cash terms.[i] To take one example Britain’s largest local authority, Birmingham, spends £800,000 a year dealing with FoI requests.[ii] There is also a delay from the point of view of the applicant. Such a delay is more than an irritant in the case of, for example, immigration appeals or journalistic investigations. Governments know that journalists usually have to operate within a window of time while a story is still ‘hot’. As a result all they have to do is wait it out until the attention of the media turns elsewhere to ensure that if evidence of misconduct or culpability were found, it would probably be buried as a minor story if not lost altogether. As journalism remains the primary method most societies have of holding government to account, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the methodology for releasing data should, at least in part, reflect the reality of how journalism works as an industry."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.**\nThe primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it.  Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Compelling public bodies to publish information ensures that non-citizens, minors, foreign nationals and others have access to information that affects them.**\nGenuine transparency and accountability of government action is not only in the interests of those who also have the right to vote for that government or who support it through the payment of taxes. The functioning of immigration services would seem to be a prime example. Maximising access to information relating to government decisions by dint of its automatic publication of information relating to those decisions ensures that all those affected will have recourse to the facts behind any decision."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field**\nPeople have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A faster, cheaper and simpler process**\nThere are cost concerned with processing FoI requests both in terms of time and cash terms.[i] To take one example Britain’s largest local authority, Birmingham, spends £800,000 a year dealing with FoI requests.[ii] There is also a delay from the point of view of the applicant. Such a delay is more than an irritant in the case of, for example, immigration appeals or journalistic investigations. Governments know that journalists usually have to operate within a window of time while a story is still ‘hot’. As a result all they have to do is wait it out until the attention of the media turns elsewhere to ensure that if evidence of misconduct or culpability were found, it would probably be buried as a minor story if not lost altogether. As journalism remains the primary method most societies have of holding government to account, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the methodology for releasing data should, at least in part, reflect the reality of how journalism works as an industry."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Considering the amount of data governments produce, compelling them to publish all of it would be counterproductive as citizens would be swamped.**\nIt is a misnomer in many things that more is necessarily better but that is, perhaps, more true of information than of most things. Public bodies produce vast quantities of data and are often have a greater tendency to maintain copious records than their private sector equivalents. US government agencies will create data that would require “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with text,” over the next two years.[i] Simply dumping this en masse would be a fairly effective way of masking any information that a public body wanted kept hidden. Deliberately poor referencing would achieve the same result. This ‘burying’ of bad news at a time when everyone is looking somewhere else is one of the oldest tricks in press management. For example Jo Moore, an aide to then Transport Secretary Stephen Byers suggested that September 11 2001 was “a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” Suggesting burying a u turn on councillors’ expenses.[ii]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Public bodies require the ability to discuss proposals freely away from public scrutiny**\nKnowing that everything is likely to be recorded and then published is likely to be counter-productive. It seems probable that anything sensitive – such as advice given to ministers by senior officials – would either not be recorded or it would be done in a way so opaque as to make it effectively meaningless[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours’, employers’, former-partners’ or other citizens who maythose who work for public bodies.**\nThe right to access allows people to see information that affects them personally or where there is reasonable suspicion of harm or nefarious practices. It doesn’t allow them to invade the privacy of other citizens who just happen to work for public bodies or have some other association[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Tibet is a distinct nation with a distinct history that China illegally invaded**\nTibet has a long history of independence going back more than 1500 years. Even in times of Chinese “domination”, Tibetans largely governed themselves independently of the small number of Chinese officials in Lhasa.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority in their own country**\nDue to systematic campaign of Sinocization, millions of Han Chinese have been encouraged to settle in Tibet, and with the support of the government they now dominate the economy and upper echelons of the administration. Demographically Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority within their own country, and administratively this has already taken place."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**An independent Tibet would serve as a buffer state between India and China, reducing the chances of a regional clash**\nAn independent Tibet would serve a useful purpose as a neutral and demilitarized buffer state between India and China. Given the rising economic and military clout of both powers, a future conflict is becoming ever more likely, and they already fought one war against one another in 1962."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Tibet presents an explosive domestic political issue for China which the latter would benefit from eliminating**\nTibet, and the resistance Tibetans continue to show to Chinese rule presents a toxic domestic and international political problem that costs far more than it worth.\n\r\nDomestically, violence in Tibet is the most serious domestic disturbance facing the Chinese government, and the fact that there is nearly constant violence between Han Settlers and Tibetans forces the Chinese to alienate everyone in order to contain it. Furthermore, the economic and political disenfranchisement of the Tibetan people is an enormous domestic problem, as it has led to large numbers becoming unemployed and moving to other parts of China where they form an underclass."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tibet is a distinct nation with a distinct history that China illegally invaded**\nTibet has a long history of independence going back more than 1500 years. Even in times of Chinese “domination”, Tibetans largely governed themselves independently of the small number of Chinese officials in Lhasa.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority in their own country**\nDue to systematic campaign of Sinocization, millions of Han Chinese have been encouraged to settle in Tibet, and with the support of the government they now dominate the economy and upper echelons of the administration. Demographically Tibetans are rapidly becoming a minority within their own country, and administratively this has already taken place."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**An independent Tibet would serve as a buffer state between India and China, reducing the chances of a regional clash**\nAn independent Tibet would serve a useful purpose as a neutral and demilitarized buffer state between India and China. Given the rising economic and military clout of both powers, a future conflict is becoming ever more likely, and they already fought one war against one another in 1962."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tibet presents an explosive domestic political issue for China which the latter would benefit from eliminating**\nTibet, and the resistance Tibetans continue to show to Chinese rule presents a toxic domestic and international political problem that costs far more than it worth.\n\r\nDomestically, violence in Tibet is the most serious domestic disturbance facing the Chinese government, and the fact that there is nearly constant violence between Han Settlers and Tibetans forces the Chinese to alienate everyone in order to contain it. Furthermore, the economic and political disenfranchisement of the Tibetan people is an enormous domestic problem, as it has led to large numbers becoming unemployed and moving to other parts of China where they form an underclass."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule**\nContrary to the impressions forwarded by the proposition, Tibet has made enormous strides under Chinese rule. The urban population has increased seven-fold since 1950,[1] literacy has increased from the teens to being as high as 95%,[2] and the average life expectancy has increased from the low 30s to the 60s."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tibet is almost 50% Han Chinese and they dominate the economy. Expelling them would be catastrophic**\nWhatever the reasons or the moral legitimacy behind the move, Tibet is a very different place today than it was in 1950. According to the 2000 census, 2.3 million of Tibet’s 7.3 Million citizens are Han Chinese, and if temporary residents are added the numbers nearly double."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**China has viewed the last century and a half as non-stop efforts by Westerners to divide China. This looks like another.**\nThe last century and a half of relations between China and the West have from the Chinese perspective been one long period of national dismemberment. In 1842 the British took control of Hong Kong after the first Opium war, and after its sequel,  China lost control of Shanghai and its own customs service. Efforts were made to sever Manchuria, Taiwan from China in the 20th, and Korea and Vietnam were fully removed from Chinese authority."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes that tibet should be an independent state",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tibet could never be a viable independent state and would either become a Chinese puppet or a launching pad for American and Indian power against China.**\nGiven the realities of geography, Tibet has little prospect of real independence. Landlocked, with few natural resources, and no clear way to get any resources it does have out, Tibet would be poor, and overshadowed by its much larger neighbours, China and India."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals.**\nZero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role**\nA custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce re-offending."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Zero tolerance improves the standard of policing**\nThey are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance Sydney’s has been similarly racist[1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals.**\nZero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role**\nA custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce re-offending."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Zero tolerance improves the standard of policing**\nThey are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance Sydney’s has been similarly racist[1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime**\nUrban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime, and zero tolerance policing detracts from that effort. The most important element of urban regeneration is the way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far more likely when it is not associated with police persecution, antagonism with the government and constant fear of arrest. No police presence is sufficient to properly defend a business which has not fostered good relations with the local community. Regeneration has worked on its own to solve crime problems; this can be seen in Hong Kong and Brixton in London."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Zero tolerance policing is enormously expensive**\nThe enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these are rarely reported. [1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is no concrete proof that a zero tolerance approach to crime exists0**\nThere is no proof that zero tolerance is effective and yet it comes at the great expense of full police accountability and practical financial outlay."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There are preexisting institutions in Arab countries.**\nMany middle eastern states already have institutions that are similar to the representative institutions that a stable democracy needs so can easily become the real thing. Arab dictators have grown adept at holding elections, setting up parliaments; constitutional courts etc. as window dressing to show either to their people or to the outside world that they are reforming and are ‘democratic’. No matter how undemocratic these regimes have been the simple existence of these institutions is useful when there is a revolution as they allow some continuity and the possibility of a transition to democracy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Progress has been made.**\nEgypt as the biggest Arab state and one of only two so far that have had largely peaceful revolutions is perhaps the best example of the progress that has been made. There was a referendum in Egypt in March on amending the constitution that passed with a yes vote of 77.2%. That there was a referendum at all surely counts as progress. It limits the number of presidential terms to two, promises to strengthen the judiciary and abolish some of the emergency laws. A turnout of 41% is not as good as it could have been but it was a great advance compared to other polls in recent Egyptian history. Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee that supervised the elections, explained its significance as being “the first real referendum in Egypt's history, we had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.”[1] Because Egypt has historically been at the center of the Arab world success in Egypt will be vital to show that a stable Arab democracy can be created."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Islamic parties have led governments before**\nThe economic, social, and political history of the region show there are many obstacles to establishing stable democracies in the Middle East. Many in the West fear that Islam is among these barriers, with claims that Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahda in Tunisia will turn their countries into theocracies like Iran. However, there are majority-Muslim states with Islamist parties that have succeeded in creating stable democracies, including Turkey and Indonesia. Both countries are good case studies that disprove the widespread notion that Islam is incompatible with democracy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There are preexisting institutions in Arab countries.**\nMany middle eastern states already have institutions that are similar to the representative institutions that a stable democracy needs so can easily become the real thing. Arab dictators have grown adept at holding elections, setting up parliaments; constitutional courts etc. as window dressing to show either to their people or to the outside world that they are reforming and are ‘democratic’. No matter how undemocratic these regimes have been the simple existence of these institutions is useful when there is a revolution as they allow some continuity and the possibility of a transition to democracy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Progress has been made.**\nEgypt as the biggest Arab state and one of only two so far that have had largely peaceful revolutions is perhaps the best example of the progress that has been made. There was a referendum in Egypt in March on amending the constitution that passed with a yes vote of 77.2%. That there was a referendum at all surely counts as progress. It limits the number of presidential terms to two, promises to strengthen the judiciary and abolish some of the emergency laws. A turnout of 41% is not as good as it could have been but it was a great advance compared to other polls in recent Egyptian history. Mohamed Ahmed Attia, the chairman of the supreme judicial committee that supervised the elections, explained its significance as being “the first real referendum in Egypt's history, we had an unprecedented turnout because after Jan. 25 people started to feel that their vote would matter.”[1] Because Egypt has historically been at the center of the Arab world success in Egypt will be vital to show that a stable Arab democracy can be created."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Islamic parties have led governments before**\nThe economic, social, and political history of the region show there are many obstacles to establishing stable democracies in the Middle East. Many in the West fear that Islam is among these barriers, with claims that Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahda in Tunisia will turn their countries into theocracies like Iran. However, there are majority-Muslim states with Islamist parties that have succeeded in creating stable democracies, including Turkey and Indonesia. Both countries are good case studies that disprove the widespread notion that Islam is incompatible with democracy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Factionalism is too strong**\nSince the 1970s, Arab state governments have become especially corrupt and oppressive, and have failed to provide essential social services on a consistent basis. Over the past forty years, people in the region have had to become increasingly reliant on informal networks and institutions in order to ensure personal and familial security and livlihood. This has degraded hopes of a relationship of trust between the state and people, causing people to committ themselves to differing factions, gangs, tribes, and parties in order to sustain themselves. It is apparent that the resulting factionalism may stand as a barrier to democracy, as parties hold fast to ideological committments and interest groups instead of political compromise and power-sharing."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view.**\nFincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2006 and the US and EU immediatey froze nearly all the funds and resources that were reaching the occupied territory. Furthermore, support from the West is necessary to provide the financial resources to rebuild after the revolutions damaged business and scared tourists away."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Outside powers want oil so support dictatorial regimes who can deliver it.**\nOil creates interdependence between the producing states in the Middle East and the consumers in Asia and the West. Although rising prices are good for producers they can also threaten the world economy and create inflation that in turn will damage the producers by reducing demand.[1] The consumers have to listen to Saudi Arabia and the other Arab regimes who provide their oil whereas they often don’t for poor countries in Africa who would otherwise be no different.  Oil is the main reason for external interest in Arab regimes some of the strongest alliances in the Middle East are built with oil as their foundations.[2] Saudi Arabia is a US ally due to it being a major supplier while Egypt is an ally due to its vital position controlling a major trade route – the Suez canal. In neither case would any external powers such as the EU nor the U.S. really want a long an unstable transition to a democracy making a strong man a much easier option. This is shown by how the Obama administration has always been behind events, being unwilling to call for democracy in Egypt and President Mubarak to go. Instead the administration made statements such as that by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”.[3] Many previous administrations would probably have been even more supportive of Mubarak."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the Arab Spring revolutions can create stable democracies.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rentier economies lead to dictatorships.**\nMost economies in the middle east are oligarchic with the wealth in the hands of a few. Oil has created rentier economies. These economies rely upon systems of patronage relying upon kinship groups, merchant communities and patron-client relationships, economic considerations become subservient to political considerations.[1] This occurred because of the small size of Middle Eastern private sectors forced the creation of state centred development programs.[2] While it remains the case there is a very small group of people in each Arab country that need to keep political power in order to perpetuate their economic power. As they already have the economic power and are often the best educated they are the most capable of forming any new government. In such an oligarchic society it would be very risky for these people to allow the creation of a democracy that may well wish to redistribute resources more equally."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This was a piece of art, advertised and described as such, those likely to be offended were quite welcome not to watch it.**\nThe allegation made by those who objected to the airing of this show was that it was blasphemous. There were also objections to the graphic nature of the language and sexual reference. It seems staggeringly unlikely that 55,000[i] people had accidently been watching opera on BBC 2 having failed to watch any of the warnings in advance or the fairly extensive media discussion in advance of the broadcast."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.**\nThe role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest[i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.**\nThe BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests.**\nThe BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This was a piece of art, advertised and described as such, those likely to be offended were quite welcome not to watch it.**\nThe allegation made by those who objected to the airing of this show was that it was blasphemous. There were also objections to the graphic nature of the language and sexual reference. It seems staggeringly unlikely that 55,000[i] people had accidently been watching opera on BBC 2 having failed to watch any of the warnings in advance or the fairly extensive media discussion in advance of the broadcast."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.**\nThe role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest[i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.**\nThe BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests.**\nThe BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If this work had been an attack on Mohammed it would never have been broadcast, the BBC is applying double standards.**\nA week before the broadcast of the opera, protest by Sikhs in Birmingham about the play Bezthi by the Birmingham Rep, brought the show to a close. Like many organisations, the BBC panics when it believes it has caused offence to some religions and yet Christianity – by far the world’s most populous and diverse creed[i] - is routinely ignored or expected to ‘take it on the chin."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tens of thousands of licence fee payers objected to this, ultimately they are the BBC’s key stakeholder and that view is worthy of respect.**\nAs an institution, the BBC may like to position itself as a global media brand but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is funded by, and chartered to serve, the British population. The whole British population. That combination – paying the pipers and calling the tune – would suggest that the corporation might be sensitive to that group."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the BBC should be free to blaspheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Why should those who foot the bill have chunks of airtime from which they are, effectively, excluded.**\nHow can it be okay for a broadcaster, funded by a compulsory levy on anyone who owns a television, to willingly produce programmes they know will cause offence to that consumer?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**EU expansion is right.**\nIt is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours.  Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**EU expansion is good for current members politically.**\nExpansion means extending a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. This was the original purpose of the European project. The European Union started out as the European Coal and Steel Community which shared these important strategic resources that were necessary to fight a war. It was argued that this integration is the only way to keep France and Germany, enemies that had fought three wars in the previous eighty years, from attacking each other. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, the most recent two wars; World War I and World War II expanded to include the whole of Europe and much of the rest of the world. The European Union also means that there is no concern that there will be conflict. This both allows members of the European Union to spend less on defence – only the UK, France and Greece meet NATO’s 2% of GDP target[1]and frees up European forces for Peacekeeping missions such as those in the in the western Balkans in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but also further afield, for example 3700 troops were deployed as an EU force in Chad in 2008-9.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**EU expansion is good for current members economically.**\nThe current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP.[1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Expansion furthers EU ideals.**\nThe prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**EU expansion is right.**\nIt is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours.  Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**EU expansion is good for current members politically.**\nExpansion means extending a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. This was the original purpose of the European project. The European Union started out as the European Coal and Steel Community which shared these important strategic resources that were necessary to fight a war. It was argued that this integration is the only way to keep France and Germany, enemies that had fought three wars in the previous eighty years, from attacking each other. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, the most recent two wars; World War I and World War II expanded to include the whole of Europe and much of the rest of the world. The European Union also means that there is no concern that there will be conflict. This both allows members of the European Union to spend less on defence – only the UK, France and Greece meet NATO’s 2% of GDP target[1]and frees up European forces for Peacekeeping missions such as those in the in the western Balkans in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but also further afield, for example 3700 troops were deployed as an EU force in Chad in 2008-9.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**EU expansion is good for current members economically.**\nThe current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP.[1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Expansion furthers EU ideals.**\nThe prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Expansion will create conflicts of interest between members.**\nContinuing expansion will mean a dilution of common national interests between the member states. National interests are to a large extent based upon geography and the economy. The EU-15 could be said to have both a unity of purpose; preventing another war between France and Germany as well as similar cultures, similar levels of wealth, and even a similarity in social policy. This has meant that the EU-15 member states had a lot of common interests so could agree to continuing integration. Newer member states have very different post World War II national experiences, shaped in particular by communist occupation. This makes many new EU members less willing to share sovereignty or contemplate the Union deepening. Moreover as the European Union gets bigger and more geographically diverse other interests diverge. For example some countries such as Germany are already inclined to conciliate Russia while others have been much more outspoken. This was particularly highlighted during Russia’s conflict with Georgia in 2008 where Poland strongly supported Georgia.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The European Union is no longer in a financial position to be taking in new members.**\nThe financial crisis and European Union member states’ having to bail each other out means that there will be less money available for any new members. The bailouts have cost the EU more than $500 billion plus financing the European Stability Mechanism with $650 billion.[1] Hence current prospective entrants will not have such auspicious conditions for adoption as there were for all previous entrants into the EU. This means that all the benefits will have to come from the extension of Free Trade, something which could happen without full membership. Joining the EU as full members would at the same time work against these poorer countries’ competitive advantages. European labor regulations will make many workers in these countries less competitive and stringent environmental regulations will impose a cost that countries at their level of development cannot afford. For example Croatia will require an extra 10.5 billion Euros to implement the EU’s environmental regulations.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There will be an even greater brain drain from poorer countries to richer.**\nAs the EU expands allows poorer and poorer countries to join there are likely to be increasing problems with internal migration creating a brain drain. The EU will not in the future be able to be nearly as generous in terms of funds to develop new members’ economies. If any new members are allowed freedom of movement their will almost certainly be even greater migration flows than there were as a result of the 2004 enlargement. Poland for example despite being the only European country to avoid recession has still had a net loss of 1.4million people who have stayed abroad more than a year.[1] If the talented and skilled from a country that is experiencing rapid economic growth are staying abroad when the rest of Europe is in the middle of a downturn how many more would move from the poorer potential members such as Macedonia?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Expansion would be unpopular.**\nAs expansion moves outward to places that are further and further away from the western European countries and into countries that are culturally less ‘European’ there is bound to be less enthusiasm for allowing them to join. Turkey is the country most likely to be a victim of public opinion against membership. Polling in 2010 showed 52% against membership and only 41% backing it if voting in a referendum. The main reason for being against was Turkey being “a Muslim country… not compatible with the common Christian roots” of Europe.[1] The trend has been for a decline in support for further enlargement falling from a high of 49% in 2004 to 41% two years later in 2006.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy.**\nMedia can be one of the most important factors in democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests, violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to those violations 1. Without external sources of information people do not question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users 2. Even when the government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light 3. The internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government transparency."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Websites can strengthen democratic institutions.**\nThe promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The internet allows political dissidents to communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement.**\nAnother extremely important requirement for successful opposition movements advocating democratic reform is the ability to organize mass numbers of people. It is one thing if you hate your government, but don’t think anyone else does. It is entirely different if you can access the thoughts of thousands of others and realize that you are in fact not alone 1. Proportionally the number of people benefiting from repressive authoritative regimes is very small in comparison to the people who are suffering. Therefore, if the people who are hurt by the regimes realize the numbers that they have, it spells trouble for the governments. The internet has 2 billion users, and 950 million people have mobile broadband 2. Mobile phones with pay-as-you-go access plans are more available and affordable than ever before. Protesters do not need to own a computer: they can access social networking and news sites from their phones. The internet means that opposition groups don’t have to be organized under a particular leader, as there can now be many leaders and various causes that fit under the same umbrella and band together. These loose connections, as in Egypt, strengthen the movement 3.  The internet also reduces the cost of organization, which can be the difference between success and failure 4. In the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia which called for democracy, the internet was first used to create events on Facebook to increase the number of people aware of and attending protests 5. Then the videos, photographs, and twitter posts that became available on the internet increased the support for the movement as citizens became aware of the violence the government was subjecting the country to. The internet allows users to communicate, then organize demonstrations, and then grow the movement. All of these functions of the internet are essential factors of a grassroots push for democratic reforms."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The internet enhances communication between countries.**\nThe internet does not only make information available to oppressed people within a country, but also communicates that situation to the rest of the world. People also learn about other authoritarian—and democratic—governments around the world. For example, the internet allowed information about Tunisia’s revolution to reach Egypt, which made it clear that overthrowing a government was entirely possible1. Information about the actions of other countries, and their governments can lead to a push for democratic reforms around the world. In addition, as information flows out of a country it becomes more difficult for the globe’s powers to ignore the events that are ensuing, and makes it more likely that they will take action. This action can create the internal and external pressure necessary for democratic reform as was seen in both the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia2. Contact between countries can also have a more subtle impact as well. It enhances communication between open and closed societies particularly in the form of business, which can bring about an exchange of values. Thanks in part to the internet; Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. For example, while China is not a democracy it has made some government and economic reforms that are on the right track3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy.**\nMedia can be one of the most important factors in democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests, violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to those violations 1. Without external sources of information people do not question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users 2. Even when the government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light 3. The internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government transparency."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Websites can strengthen democratic institutions.**\nThe promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The internet allows political dissidents to communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement.**\nAnother extremely important requirement for successful opposition movements advocating democratic reform is the ability to organize mass numbers of people. It is one thing if you hate your government, but don’t think anyone else does. It is entirely different if you can access the thoughts of thousands of others and realize that you are in fact not alone 1. Proportionally the number of people benefiting from repressive authoritative regimes is very small in comparison to the people who are suffering. Therefore, if the people who are hurt by the regimes realize the numbers that they have, it spells trouble for the governments. The internet has 2 billion users, and 950 million people have mobile broadband 2. Mobile phones with pay-as-you-go access plans are more available and affordable than ever before. Protesters do not need to own a computer: they can access social networking and news sites from their phones. The internet means that opposition groups don’t have to be organized under a particular leader, as there can now be many leaders and various causes that fit under the same umbrella and band together. These loose connections, as in Egypt, strengthen the movement 3.  The internet also reduces the cost of organization, which can be the difference between success and failure 4. In the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia which called for democracy, the internet was first used to create events on Facebook to increase the number of people aware of and attending protests 5. Then the videos, photographs, and twitter posts that became available on the internet increased the support for the movement as citizens became aware of the violence the government was subjecting the country to. The internet allows users to communicate, then organize demonstrations, and then grow the movement. All of these functions of the internet are essential factors of a grassroots push for democratic reforms."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The internet enhances communication between countries.**\nThe internet does not only make information available to oppressed people within a country, but also communicates that situation to the rest of the world. People also learn about other authoritarian—and democratic—governments around the world. For example, the internet allowed information about Tunisia’s revolution to reach Egypt, which made it clear that overthrowing a government was entirely possible1. Information about the actions of other countries, and their governments can lead to a push for democratic reforms around the world. In addition, as information flows out of a country it becomes more difficult for the globe’s powers to ignore the events that are ensuing, and makes it more likely that they will take action. This action can create the internal and external pressure necessary for democratic reform as was seen in both the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia2. Contact between countries can also have a more subtle impact as well. It enhances communication between open and closed societies particularly in the form of business, which can bring about an exchange of values. Thanks in part to the internet; Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. For example, while China is not a democracy it has made some government and economic reforms that are on the right track3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The internet can be successfully censored so that it only promotes pro-regime propaganda.**\nThe internet is said to promote democracy based on the claim that it leads to the free flow of information. Unfortunately, this is false in many parts of the world. 40 countries around the globe actively censor the internet, and 25 have blocked Google over the past few years1. This gives their governments a false legitimacy by removing material critical of anti-democratic policies and as acting as a psychological bulwark against discontent and dissent. The government retains the ability to control the information that its citizens have access to and can use this power to promote pro-regime information and prevent anti-regime, pro-democratic content from ever seeing the light of day. The internet is a new tool, but governments can become more sophisticated as well and harness the internet to repress dissent2. For example, China has almost no internet freedom and the terms “Tiananmen Square” and “Inner-Mongolia” provides no search results because protests occurred there3. Google in 2010 refused to uphold their firewalls and were therefore no longer allowed to operate in the country. The internet can be used by authoritarian government for enhanced media repression."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The digital divide leaves the same people in places of influence and power.**\nThe internet doesn’t necessarily put power in the hands of the vulnerable; in many places it strengthens the influence of the traditional elite. In low-income countries the cost of broadband is 900% of average monthly income1. Most people simply cannot afford to have internet access. Internet penetration is not up to par in low income, developing, and traditionally non-democratic countries. For example, Africa has 15% of the world’s population and only 5% of its internet users. There are only about 100 million internet users on the continent, which accounts for only 11% of its population2. As the lower income members of society remain unable to afford internet access, the power that the internet boasts remains with those who can afford it. The traditional elites are the ones that maintain the ability to access the internet, and they can use it for their own purposes and to strengthen their position and power – i.e. the internet may actually increase inequalities on the ground, against democracy.  The internet could play a positive role in society, but until it is affordable, the oppressed who long for democracy will not have the tools to advocate for it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Citizens often use the internet in ways that detract from democracy.**\nThe idea that the internet promotes democracy also operates under the assumption that the people with internet access will use the tool for ‘good’. Yet, this is also not the case. The internet is the primary medium of coordination for Jihadist groups looking to undermine the few Middle-Eastern states which are in the process of transition to democracy. In April 2007, groups of hackers (allegedly backed by the Russian government) attacked the websites of key politicians, ministries and utilities in Estonia in retaliation for the removal of a Soviet war memorial. Hackers can block access, destroy content, and organize in malicious activity as in the case of terrorism and the Estonian ‘hactivists’ 1. Information can also be misused.In the US, neo-Nazism has always been an issue of contention and use the internet to further promote their viewpoints.For example, UK animal rights activists post information about people they feel to be targets, which can lead to intimidation. The internet can often be hijacked for less-than-ideal purposes and therefore does not directly promote democracy, but can be used by the people to counter reform 2."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house believes the internet encourages democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The internet can be used to quash democratic movements.**\nThe internet makes it much easier for states to target and locate dissidents. They can be located by their IP addresses or records kept by internet cafes. It is almost impossible by today’s standards to remain anonymous on the internet1. Surveillance used to be the only technique for governments to track down dissidents, however the internet has made governments’ task of quashing opposition easier. Since 2003, 202 bloggers have been arrested around the world and 162 of the arrests were for political reasons. The government doesn’t need a true reason because only 37 of the cases were tried in the judicial system. Political parties, ethnic and religious groups, civil rights movements, and leaders can all be targeted through government internet surveillance2. When the government can find the names of political dissidents and arrest them, it makes it more difficult for successful movements to occur, because they lack leaders and potential participants are intimidated. The internet can also be used to reverse democratic momentum"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Those in power need to be held to account**\nAll people that are considered public figures have, to one degree or another, the power to affect society; be it in an overt way via politics or economics or more subtly via changing peoples’ perceptions of the world. These people need to held to account and the media is the most effective way of doing this as normal people do not have the time or resources to scrutinize everything pubic figures are doing whereas the media can. If the private lives of public figures are conflicting with their actual public persona it is in the wider interest to reveal this. For example, in 2009 during the UK’s “MPs expenses scandal” it was revealed that some MPs, whose responsibility it is to create and review laws, were breaking their own tax laws in their private lives. This clearly demonstrates a misuse of their position and deserves to be known.[1] Another such example can be seen with golfer Tiger Woods who was seen to represent excellence and determination in sport and most importantly was presented as an ideal clean-cut role model. However this image was found to be a sham when stories into his private life revealed he was unfaithful to his wife and he subsequently admitted to numerous affairs. This came to light as a direct result of media reporting into his turbulent private life and it is in the public interest to know such information due to both the power he and others wield as public icons and the money generated from their public image."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It’s what the public want to know about**\nNewspapers are simply publishing the kind of stories the public want to read, it is no accident that the best-selling newspapers in the UK are the tabloids which regularly publish stories into the private lives of celebrities and that some of the highest rating news shows in the US are loaded with celebrity gossip. The News of the World, which pushed the boundaries of intrusion right up to its closure in 2011, was consistently Britain’s most-read newspaper.[1] When you enter a career which is in the public domain, in particular those such as acting, which often requires courting the media to gain publicity, it is well known that intrusion into your private life may occur. It could even be argued that by entering such a profession you agree to forfeit your right to privacy as a condition of entry. Thereafter, when success has been gained via manipulating the press it is hypocritical to complain of “press intrusion”. Celebrities should not bemoan the media for simply providing information that the public wish to read."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**No clear dividing line between public and private can be made.**\nNo clear dividing line can be drawn between public and private behavior; drawing up rules would be arbitrary and would prevent some corrupt, dubious or dishonest behavior from being exposed. For example, President Mitterrand of France hid his cancer from the French electorate for years. Was this a public or a private matter? He also had a mistress and illegitimate daughter, who were secretly taken on some of his foreign visits at state expense.[1] Again, is this a private or a public matter? The creation of solid distinctions would undermine the power of the press to carry out its watchdog role because in a scenario where such strict rules existed something in the public interest could be transpiring in the private lives of public figures and the media powerless to report it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Those in power need to be held to account**\nAll people that are considered public figures have, to one degree or another, the power to affect society; be it in an overt way via politics or economics or more subtly via changing peoples’ perceptions of the world. These people need to held to account and the media is the most effective way of doing this as normal people do not have the time or resources to scrutinize everything pubic figures are doing whereas the media can. If the private lives of public figures are conflicting with their actual public persona it is in the wider interest to reveal this. For example, in 2009 during the UK’s “MPs expenses scandal” it was revealed that some MPs, whose responsibility it is to create and review laws, were breaking their own tax laws in their private lives. This clearly demonstrates a misuse of their position and deserves to be known.[1] Another such example can be seen with golfer Tiger Woods who was seen to represent excellence and determination in sport and most importantly was presented as an ideal clean-cut role model. However this image was found to be a sham when stories into his private life revealed he was unfaithful to his wife and he subsequently admitted to numerous affairs. This came to light as a direct result of media reporting into his turbulent private life and it is in the public interest to know such information due to both the power he and others wield as public icons and the money generated from their public image."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It’s what the public want to know about**\nNewspapers are simply publishing the kind of stories the public want to read, it is no accident that the best-selling newspapers in the UK are the tabloids which regularly publish stories into the private lives of celebrities and that some of the highest rating news shows in the US are loaded with celebrity gossip. The News of the World, which pushed the boundaries of intrusion right up to its closure in 2011, was consistently Britain’s most-read newspaper.[1] When you enter a career which is in the public domain, in particular those such as acting, which often requires courting the media to gain publicity, it is well known that intrusion into your private life may occur. It could even be argued that by entering such a profession you agree to forfeit your right to privacy as a condition of entry. Thereafter, when success has been gained via manipulating the press it is hypocritical to complain of “press intrusion”. Celebrities should not bemoan the media for simply providing information that the public wish to read."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**No clear dividing line between public and private can be made.**\nNo clear dividing line can be drawn between public and private behavior; drawing up rules would be arbitrary and would prevent some corrupt, dubious or dishonest behavior from being exposed. For example, President Mitterrand of France hid his cancer from the French electorate for years. Was this a public or a private matter? He also had a mistress and illegitimate daughter, who were secretly taken on some of his foreign visits at state expense.[1] Again, is this a private or a public matter? The creation of solid distinctions would undermine the power of the press to carry out its watchdog role because in a scenario where such strict rules existed something in the public interest could be transpiring in the private lives of public figures and the media powerless to report it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Those in public positions deserve the same privacy rights as the general public**\nMany public figures achieve celebrity status largely by mistake; it is a by-product of their pursuit of success in their particular field. For example, most professional footballers when young simply wanted to become the best player they could be, at the highest level they could reach. As Tottenham Hotspur Football Club defender Benoit Assou-Ekotto has stated, he had no desire to end up in an office job he wasn’t suited to so football became the means to ensure he could live out his life comfortably. Expelled from school, he assumed the profession he was naturally good at, just as a natural mathematician goes into engineering.[1] They do not wish to be “role models” and claim no special moral status, so why should their private lives be subjected to such public scrutiny? Individuals who happen to be public figures still deserve the same rights to privacy as the rest of us; simply because they may have a degree of fame does not make them fair-game."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unrestricted scrutiny into private lives could be a detriment to democracy**\nContinual probing into the private lives of public figures actually harms the functioning of democracy. Very few potential political candidates, for example, will have entirely spotless private lives, free from embarrassing indiscretions committed while young and irresponsible. The prospect of fierce and unforgiving press scrutiny will thus deter many from seeking public office and deny their talents to the public good. Those who do present themselves for election will therefore tend to be rather unrepresentative individuals of a puritanical nature, whose views on sex, family life, drugs to name but a few may be skewed and intolerant as a result. The sex scandals of Elliott Spitzer and Anthony Weiner, to use just New York politicians, are not therefore representative of New York as a whole, but rather a system that is only attractive to those who believe in their own invincibility and potentially lack the necessary humility to truly represent their constituents."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the private lives of public figures should be open to press scrutiny.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The media could be endangering peoples’ mental and physical health.**\nPursuing stories regarding the lives of public figures could be putting the health of the person being pursued and their families lives in danger. The most extreme and infamous case of this would most arguably be the events which are said to have contributed to the untimely death of Princess Diana, whereby her car crashed into the wall of a tunnel having been pursued by tabloid journalists and paparazzi seeking an ultimately trivial story. While this was an extraordinary event it does show the extent to which journalists have been known to pursue public figures for a story which undoubtedly places stress on the targets and their families lives which could leave to both health issues and psychological distress.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The information age demands a right to broadband access**\nAs information technology has come more and more to pervade people’s lives, it has become abundantly clear that a new set of positive rights must be considered. In the forefront of this consideration stands broadband. Broadband allows for far more rapid access to the internet, and thus access to the world of information the internet represents. Today, a citizen of a free society must be able to access the internet if he or she is to be able to fully realise their potential. This is because the ability to access the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and civic and social participation are now contingent upon ready access to the internet. Thus access to the internet has itself become a right of citizens, and their access should be guaranteed by the state. This right has been enshrined by several countries, such as France, Finland, Greece, and Spain, thus leading the way toward a more general recognition of this service as a right in the same way other public services are guaranteed.[1] It is a right derived from the evolution of society in the same fashion that the right to healthcare has grown out of countries’ social and economic development."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It would provide an efficient service for everyone**\nA single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access.[1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do.[2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel**\nInformation technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress.[1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge.[2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend.[3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids**\nAdvanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens.[1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The information age demands a right to broadband access**\nAs information technology has come more and more to pervade people’s lives, it has become abundantly clear that a new set of positive rights must be considered. In the forefront of this consideration stands broadband. Broadband allows for far more rapid access to the internet, and thus access to the world of information the internet represents. Today, a citizen of a free society must be able to access the internet if he or she is to be able to fully realise their potential. This is because the ability to access the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and civic and social participation are now contingent upon ready access to the internet. Thus access to the internet has itself become a right of citizens, and their access should be guaranteed by the state. This right has been enshrined by several countries, such as France, Finland, Greece, and Spain, thus leading the way toward a more general recognition of this service as a right in the same way other public services are guaranteed.[1] It is a right derived from the evolution of society in the same fashion that the right to healthcare has grown out of countries’ social and economic development."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It would provide an efficient service for everyone**\nA single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access.[1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do.[2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel**\nInformation technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress.[1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge.[2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend.[3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids**\nAdvanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens.[1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**State intervention would crowd out private firms**\nThe imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies.[1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The state can work more effectively through the private sector**\nIf the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address.[1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes the state should provide broadband internet through nationalized companies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet**\nMonopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength.**\nThe Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the lynchpins on which the current Western-led international political and diplomatic order is dependent.1,2 Just as any normal legal system requires laws that are predictable and enforceable, so too does the international system. The Non-Proliferation Treaty provides this level of consistency and control over states’ nuclear assets."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The possession of nuclear weapons by some states drives others to militarize, creating arms races.**\ner, the government possesses nuclear weapons it can threaten to use them, and thereby deter a counter-invasion or prevent the International community from being able to intervene to depose it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands.**\nEven if states do not use nuclear weapons themselves, or attempt to threaten their neighbours, they can sell their technology to other, less savoury states and individuals."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The development of nuclear weapons creates a self-perpetuating cycle of proliferation among other states.**\nThe development of nuclear weapons encourages other countries to develop them as well. Rationally governed states without a nuclear deterrent are unlikely to allow themselves to be placed in a position where a nuclear armed neighbour can mount attacks against them with impunity. They therefore feel that they too need nuclear weapons in order to prevent the new nuclear power from taking advantage of their new capability."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**[Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel**\nIran has explicitly threatened to destroy Israel, President Ahmadinejad described Israel as a \"disgraceful blot\" that should be \"wiped off the face of the earth\".[1] Such a prospect would be disastrous, not just in its initial consequences, but for the entire region. Even an unsuccessful attack on Israel would provoke a counter strike. The US would take much of the blame for the casualties of such a strike even if it counselled Israel against it. The United States must prevent Iran from ever being able to put such threats into action which may mean having to engage in military action to prevent Iran gaining the capability."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**[Iran specific] Others, particularly Israel, would act if the United States did not**\nA failure of the United States to act would motivate Israel to do so.[1] Israel is under much more pressure to act as it would be the most affected by Iran going nuclear. The result would be catastrophic, as Iran would be able to portray itself as a victim of Israeli aggression, leading to a massive outpouring of pro-Iranian and anti-American sentiment in the middle east and central asia. It could easily spark a regional war across the middle east as Iranian proxies strike back against Israel and U.S. forces around the region.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength.**\nThe Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the lynchpins on which the current Western-led international political and diplomatic order is dependent.1,2 Just as any normal legal system requires laws that are predictable and enforceable, so too does the international system. The Non-Proliferation Treaty provides this level of consistency and control over states’ nuclear assets."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The possession of nuclear weapons by some states drives others to militarize, creating arms races.**\ner, the government possesses nuclear weapons it can threaten to use them, and thereby deter a counter-invasion or prevent the International community from being able to intervene to depose it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands.**\nEven if states do not use nuclear weapons themselves, or attempt to threaten their neighbours, they can sell their technology to other, less savoury states and individuals."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The development of nuclear weapons creates a self-perpetuating cycle of proliferation among other states.**\nThe development of nuclear weapons encourages other countries to develop them as well. Rationally governed states without a nuclear deterrent are unlikely to allow themselves to be placed in a position where a nuclear armed neighbour can mount attacks against them with impunity. They therefore feel that they too need nuclear weapons in order to prevent the new nuclear power from taking advantage of their new capability."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**[Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel**\nIran has explicitly threatened to destroy Israel, President Ahmadinejad described Israel as a \"disgraceful blot\" that should be \"wiped off the face of the earth\".[1] Such a prospect would be disastrous, not just in its initial consequences, but for the entire region. Even an unsuccessful attack on Israel would provoke a counter strike. The US would take much of the blame for the casualties of such a strike even if it counselled Israel against it. The United States must prevent Iran from ever being able to put such threats into action which may mean having to engage in military action to prevent Iran gaining the capability."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**[Iran specific] Others, particularly Israel, would act if the United States did not**\nA failure of the United States to act would motivate Israel to do so.[1] Israel is under much more pressure to act as it would be the most affected by Iran going nuclear. The result would be catastrophic, as Iran would be able to portray itself as a victim of Israeli aggression, leading to a massive outpouring of pro-Iranian and anti-American sentiment in the middle east and central asia. It could easily spark a regional war across the middle east as Iranian proxies strike back against Israel and U.S. forces around the region.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power.**\nThe Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is inherently unfair, in that it prevents countries that did not have nuclear weapons as of 1964 from developing them, but makes no effort to force those who already possess nuclear devices to disarm."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**No country has an inherent right to invade or use aggression against another.**\nGiven the moral bankruptcy of the NPT, and existing views of the United States in much of the developing world,[1] any move by the United States to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by force will be seen for what it is: an act of neo-colonialism. This would be the case with any act to enforce a treaty that is considered unfair towards most of the world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction makes war less likely.**\nStates are fundamentally rational, and as such, nuclear proliferation has generally made war less likely, by promulgating the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Believes the US is Justified in Using Force to Prevent States From Acquiring Nuclear Weap",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**[Iran specific] Iran has not invaded any other country in three and a half centuries; the same cannot be said for US allies including Israel, Pakistan, etc.**\nFor all the censure Iran has faced as a rogue state, it has not, in fact, invaded another country for more than three centuries and despite internal aggression against western embassies the Iranian revolution seems to have made little difference. On the other hand, it has faced invasion on numerous occasions, whether from Russia, Britain or Iraq. Both Britain – whom the Iranians are still extremely suspicious off due to events such as the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mosadeq[1] – and Russia – who together with Britain occupied Persia during world war II[2] - are nuclear weapons states."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Individuals have a right to the experience of higher education**\nUniversity offers personal, intellectual, and often spiritual, exploration. In secondary school and in professional life, no such opportunities exist as they are about instruction and following orders, not about questioning norms and conventions in the same way university so often is.[1] A life without the critical thinking skills provided by university will be less useful to society, as citizens will be unable to engage with political debate effectively – citizens need to be critical of what politicians tell them. The state has a responsibility to provide citizens with the skillset to take partake in the democratic process.[2] Free universities benefit both the citizen, as an exploration for his/her own development, and to society, for an educated and active populace."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The state benefits from the skills of a university educated populace**\nA university educated society is of great value to any state, and provides three main benefits. Firstly, it provides extensive economic benefits. There is a profound advantage to countries that actively promote a culture of “smart economy”3, with a highly educated and technically able workforce. They are more likely to be innovative and highly productive. Secondly, higher education leads to an increase in cultural awareness via subjects like the arts, history, and the classics. The third benefit is the development of leaders in society. The barrier created by university fees will prevent some potentially high­ worth individuals from ever reaching their potential."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Individuals have a right to equal opportunities that free university provides.**\nThe employment prospects created by a university degree are substantial, and many lines of work are only available to university graduates. True merit should define the ability to attend university, not the accident of birth. With the institution of fees, access becomes more difficult, and will certainly lead to lower attendance by poorer groups. This serves to lock people into the economic situation when they are born, as getting out is much more difficult when denied access to most high­income jobs.5"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder**\nUniversity fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Individuals have a right to the experience of higher education**\nUniversity offers personal, intellectual, and often spiritual, exploration. In secondary school and in professional life, no such opportunities exist as they are about instruction and following orders, not about questioning norms and conventions in the same way university so often is.[1] A life without the critical thinking skills provided by university will be less useful to society, as citizens will be unable to engage with political debate effectively – citizens need to be critical of what politicians tell them. The state has a responsibility to provide citizens with the skillset to take partake in the democratic process.[2] Free universities benefit both the citizen, as an exploration for his/her own development, and to society, for an educated and active populace."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The state benefits from the skills of a university educated populace**\nA university educated society is of great value to any state, and provides three main benefits. Firstly, it provides extensive economic benefits. There is a profound advantage to countries that actively promote a culture of “smart economy”3, with a highly educated and technically able workforce. They are more likely to be innovative and highly productive. Secondly, higher education leads to an increase in cultural awareness via subjects like the arts, history, and the classics. The third benefit is the development of leaders in society. The barrier created by university fees will prevent some potentially high­ worth individuals from ever reaching their potential."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Individuals have a right to equal opportunities that free university provides.**\nThe employment prospects created by a university degree are substantial, and many lines of work are only available to university graduates. True merit should define the ability to attend university, not the accident of birth. With the institution of fees, access becomes more difficult, and will certainly lead to lower attendance by poorer groups. This serves to lock people into the economic situation when they are born, as getting out is much more difficult when denied access to most high­income jobs.5"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder**\nUniversity fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The cost to the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education**\nThe system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt countries. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high.[1] In the OECD 1.9% of GDP, a third of education expenditure, is spent on tertiary education.[2] For countries to survive, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. It seems fair that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non­essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but it is not an entitlement owed by the state."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Maintaining a system of free university education leads to an inefficient allocation of state resources.**\nFirst, tax money is wasted on paying civil servants to deal with university bureaucracy. Second, when the state funds all university education for free, funding will be allocated to unprofitable courses. Thirdly a moral hazard problem emerges among such students attending for free. They are allowed to reap all the benefits of education, while needing to incur none of the costs so won’t feel they need to work at their degree. The fourth problem of free university education is saturation of degree­holders in the market.[1] When everyone has a degree, the value of such a qualification plummets. Thus, a system of fees is superior to free education as it allows for more efficient allocation of resources to universities determined by which universities produce the best educated students and research."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The quality of education suffers when university education is free**\nWithout university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. This leads to larger class­sizes and less spending per student.[1] Yet with fees, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality requiring hiring the best lecturers. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education. An example of higher quality education from fee­paying is that of the United States, which has eighteen of the top fifty ranked universities in the world.[2] Quality is clearly improved when university is not free."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Free university education unjustly benefits one subset of society at the expense of everyone**\nThe state funds essential services, but higher education is not such a service. The specific subset free university education tends to benefit not the disadvantaged, but rather the middle and upper classes who would have paid fees, but are now relieved of this burden. This pattern has been seen in Ireland where poorer communities still view higher education as something for the rich even though it is free. These groups continue to enter the workforce in similar numbers as they had before the ending of fees, and they still tend to prefer trade schools to universities if they do seek qualifications beyond the secondary level.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes university education should be free",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**State control of  acceptance/curriculum criteria has negative effects**\nWhen the state has control of the purse strings, it wields a great deal of power over universities. In the case of Ireland, for example, the government has so much influence over higher education that it altered the governing structures of the major universities in 2000 through legislation and has representation on the Boards of each university. This degree of control is negative to the academic independence of universities.1 Universities operate best when they are independent of outside control and agendas. For the sake of free scholarship, free university education should not be instituted."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**450 PPM**\nThe IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Developing world**\nDeveloping countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, \"China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature\" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Failure to reach global accord**\nThe Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Consequences of increased GHGs**\nIncreased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**450 PPM**\nThe IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Developing world**\nDeveloping countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, \"China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature\" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Failure to reach global accord**\nThe Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Consequences of increased GHGs**\nIncreased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Carbon Trading Schemes**\nThe EU ETS is an example of a viable carbon market, it covers thirty countries from the EU as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Countries within the ETS are using market mechanisms to force domestic emitters to meet national caps as the amount of allowances reduces over time emissions fall. In 2020 under the ETS emissions will be 21% lower than in 2005 1. The IPCC report contains recommendations for how emissions can be abated through the simultaneous application of numerous small reductions and the implementation of abatement technologies and this is exactly what schemes like the ETS encourage. Part of the reason that the ETS is successful is that it is ensuring an even playing field between countries by (more or less) applying its rules equally across borders and industries.2"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Earth's Resiliency**\nAll the conclusions about the effects of rising atmospheric GHGs are based on computerized climate models. Even those that develop and use the models admit that the models are not nearly complex enough to be 100% accurate. Climate science is incredibly complicated and different models sometimes produce vastly different results 1.Increased carbon dioxide will increase plant life which may mitigate other damages of climate change and protect species currently considered threatened by climate change. Therefore, it is far too early to conclude that humanity is going to be destroyed. The earth's climate is continuously changing, with or without anthropogenic effects, and life has always found a way to continue."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House believes we're too late on global climate change",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**New Technology**\nHumanity has revolutionized the world repeatedly through such monumental inventions as agriculture, steel, anti-biotics, and microchips. And as technology has improved, so too has the rate at which technology improves. It is predicted that there will be 32 times more change between 2000 and 2050 than there was between 1950 and 2000. In the midst of this, many great minds will be focussed on emissions abatement and climate control technologies. So, even if the most severe climate predictions do come to pass, it is unimaginable that humanity will not find a way to intervene. Even small changes will make a difference – more efficient coal power stations can emit a third less emissions than less efficient ones 1. Renewable energy will become more competitive and scalable and technology develops we may even be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere so undoing the damage. 1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Supports India’s Ban on the Satanic Verses",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**People have a right to choose their cultural values**\nSociety has a right to choose and structure its values as it sees fit and there is no reason why the Western construction of values is right or should take priority over any other."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Supports India’s Ban on the Satanic Verses",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**India has a specific need to main social cohesion**\nIndia’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory.  There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this basis, along with frosty relations with a nuclear-capable Pakistan."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Supports India’s Ban on the Satanic Verses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People have a right to choose their cultural values**\nSociety has a right to choose and structure its values as it sees fit and there is no reason why the Western construction of values is right or should take priority over any other."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Supports India’s Ban on the Satanic Verses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**India has a specific need to main social cohesion**\nIndia’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory.  There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this basis, along with frosty relations with a nuclear-capable Pakistan."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Supports India’s Ban on the Satanic Verses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right**\nFreedom of speech and expression exists in any modern list of human rights.  It is a fundamental right that is necessary for any society to function properly and for individuals to achieve happiness and fulfilment in their lives."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Profiling is effective and necessary:**\nIt is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists.  As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: \"As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Profiling is consistent with individual rights:**\nProfiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: \"It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Profiling is preferable to the alternatives:**\nExpanding the use of profiling will help to restrict the use of invasive security monitoring strategies such as body scanners and intimate, full contact pat-downs. Body-scanning and patting-down all travelers, including older disabled men and women, is an excessive, expensive and humiliating approach to passenger safety."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Profiling is effective and necessary:**\nIt is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists.  As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: \"As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Profiling is consistent with individual rights:**\nProfiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: \"It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Profiling is preferable to the alternatives:**\nExpanding the use of profiling will help to restrict the use of invasive security monitoring strategies such as body scanners and intimate, full contact pat-downs. Body-scanning and patting-down all travelers, including older disabled men and women, is an excessive, expensive and humiliating approach to passenger safety."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Profiling is ineffective at increasing security:**\nTerrorists simply do not conform to a neat profile. Many suspects linked to past terrorist attacks that have been apprehended or identified  come from within the United States and European Union countries. Profiling does not help against individuals with names and ethnic backgrounds like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, David Headley and Michael Finton.[1] Many terrorists have been European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. A significant number of domestic and aspiring terrorists have been found to be “clean skins” – individuals with no prior link to known fundamentalists, who have radicalised themselves by seeking out terror related materials on the internet."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Profiling is racist:**\nProfiling in many ways would simply result in institutionalized racism, as Mark German argues:  “racial profiling is wrong, un-American and unconstitutional. It is institutionalized racism.”[1] Mark Thompson adds: “So it’s not 'political correctness' (aka the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment) that is standing in the way of replacing full-body scans with a strong and effective profiling system: its reality. All that 'political correctness' is preventing is the implementation of an equally (and likely even more) ineffective piece of security theater in which we single out one minority group for intensive screening while giving a pass to everyone else. This would certainly annoy fewer people, but it wouldn’t make us safer and its sole benefits would be accomplished by treating an entire minority group as second-class citizens.\"[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports security profiling at airports",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it:**\nProfiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism.  Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be counter-productive as they would be less inclined to come forward. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father for example gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot.[1] Even if security profiling did make airport security more effective as supporters claim (although it would not) without  personal intelligence and assistance the security situation will be far worse than it is now..  Normal security screening does not alienate these groups in the same way, as it is applied to everyone (and so they do not feel singled out) and it can be applied in culturally sensitive ways (for example, ensuring that pat-downs of Muslim women are always carried out only by female security officers).[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically.**\nTurkey has a booming economy with one of the fastest growing economies of the world[1]. Turkey has a young, skilled and vibrant workforce contributing in the fields of innovation, industry and finance. Having a young and growing population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation to the European Union, whose population is declining. As a result Turkey joining would be very complementary to the European Economy. In Turkey 26.6% of the population are under 15[2] while in the EU only 15.44% is.[3] This is significant because the population of the European Union as a whole will be declining by 2035[4] and because of the aging population the working population will be declining considerably before this. Aging obviously means that the EU will not be able to produce as much, but also that much more of EU resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly with a result that there is likely to be an drag on GDP per capita of -0.3% per year.[5] One way to compensate for this is to bring new countries with younger populations into the Union."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Turkey is actually part of the European continent both geographically and historically.**\nGeographically, Turkey is astride the divide between Europe and Asia, it is uncontestable that Turkey is in part a European country and so has the right to become a member of the European Union. Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, is located within Europe. One of the core values of the EU stands as “every country on the European continent after having completed all the necessary preparations has the right to join the EU’’[1]. Furthermore, Turkey and its predecessors, the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire were major European and World powers from the end of the Roman Empire until the breakdown of the World War I. The Ottoman Empire took part in the European state’s system from its birth even if as in some ways an outsider, until the end of the eighteenth century Turkey was considered to be much more a part of the European system than Russia.[2] Turkey since the first world war has been orientated towards the west using western methods to modernize including for example making the state secular; building a law system based not on Islamic law but on Swiss civil law.[3] Turkey can therefore be said to be as much a western nation as an Islamic one."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Strategic position and energy benefits**\nThere would be immense strategic benefits both to Europe and to Turkey if she were allowed to join the European Union. Turkey is already a important regional power with a lot of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and it is already a member of NATO, which most members of the EU are also a part of.[1] This is in part because Turkey is in an immensely strategic geographic situation as the border between Europe and Asia. Historically this has meant Turkey is ideally located for trade, today it means it is strategically close to the oil and gas fields advanced economies like the EU’s depend on."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically.**\nTurkey has a booming economy with one of the fastest growing economies of the world[1]. Turkey has a young, skilled and vibrant workforce contributing in the fields of innovation, industry and finance. Having a young and growing population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation to the European Union, whose population is declining. As a result Turkey joining would be very complementary to the European Economy. In Turkey 26.6% of the population are under 15[2] while in the EU only 15.44% is.[3] This is significant because the population of the European Union as a whole will be declining by 2035[4] and because of the aging population the working population will be declining considerably before this. Aging obviously means that the EU will not be able to produce as much, but also that much more of EU resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly with a result that there is likely to be an drag on GDP per capita of -0.3% per year.[5] One way to compensate for this is to bring new countries with younger populations into the Union."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey is actually part of the European continent both geographically and historically.**\nGeographically, Turkey is astride the divide between Europe and Asia, it is uncontestable that Turkey is in part a European country and so has the right to become a member of the European Union. Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, is located within Europe. One of the core values of the EU stands as “every country on the European continent after having completed all the necessary preparations has the right to join the EU’’[1]. Furthermore, Turkey and its predecessors, the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire were major European and World powers from the end of the Roman Empire until the breakdown of the World War I. The Ottoman Empire took part in the European state’s system from its birth even if as in some ways an outsider, until the end of the eighteenth century Turkey was considered to be much more a part of the European system than Russia.[2] Turkey since the first world war has been orientated towards the west using western methods to modernize including for example making the state secular; building a law system based not on Islamic law but on Swiss civil law.[3] Turkey can therefore be said to be as much a western nation as an Islamic one."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Strategic position and energy benefits**\nThere would be immense strategic benefits both to Europe and to Turkey if she were allowed to join the European Union. Turkey is already a important regional power with a lot of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and it is already a member of NATO, which most members of the EU are also a part of.[1] This is in part because Turkey is in an immensely strategic geographic situation as the border between Europe and Asia. Historically this has meant Turkey is ideally located for trade, today it means it is strategically close to the oil and gas fields advanced economies like the EU’s depend on."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey is not enough economically developed to join the EU.**\nTurkey has many economic problems ranging from high inflation, high regional disparities, high wealth disparity, unemployment, bad infrastructure and poverty among others. The country must solely focus itself onto improving those problems, before obtaining EU-membership. Not resolving economic problems before joining the EU can lead to problems as exemplified by Greece, Portugal and Italy, countries which had their big economic problems that were overlooked upon joining the Eurozone. Turkey’s GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU[1] and as a large country with more than seventy million people it would pose an immense strain on the rest of the Union."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey is not yet up to European standards of human rights.**\nTurkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity.[1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th.[2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide[3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the admission of Turkey to the EU",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey must recognize Cyprus.**\nThe biggest problem facing Turkey that will prevent its entry to the European Union is that it does not recognize Cyprus, a state that is already an EU member. It is clear that Cyprus and relations with it are the main sticking point as the EU President Van Rompuy has admitted “Were it not for some challenges from one of the members of the European Union, Cyprus, we would have made more progress when it comes to Turkey, I acknowledge that negotiations on enlargement are stalled for the time being because one of the members of the club has problems with the process.”[1] Negotiations towards reunification of the island have stalled since the EU backed UN peace plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriots in 2004 just before they joined the EU. Neither Cyprus nor Turkey are willing to take any possible steps that would help build confidence and break down the barriers to agreement such as reopening ports and airports.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Students are more engaged in material to which they feel a connection.**\nSchools in the US focus primarily on European history and a version of American history that does not adequately cover African-American history. A few experimental schools with all black students have incorporated an \"Afrocentric\" curriculum, which focuses more on African history than European history and places a greater emphasis on the role of African-Americans in United States history.1When students learn history as something that includes them, rather than the story of some other people, they are more likely to be engaged in the subject matter as they have a personal connection to the history, they will be learning their own history not someone else's.1 Ibid, 37."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Single race schools would prevent black students from being assigned to lower classes.**\nIn mainstream schools which track students by ability, as many as 1/3 of black male students are incorrectly placed in slower classes.1 These lower-end classes are often assigned the worst teachers, reserving the better teachers for a school's honor classes.2Consequently, black males are often prevented from receiving an equal education in integrated schools. Allowing black males to be educated in an environment isolated from racial tensions and inequalities eliminates the psychological impact of \"tracking\" in integrated public schools."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Other efforts have not proven sufficiently effective,1 and so even sceptics should give single-race, single-sex schools a chance.1 Lewis, 3.**\nDespite almost sixty years of integration, black students lag behind whites, and the difference is even greater for males.1 Only 12 percent of black fourth-grade boys are proficient in reading, compared with 38 percent of white boys, and only 12 percent of black eighth-grade boys are proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white boys.2 Figures that are not explained just by poverty. The idyllic image of integrated schools does not line up to reality; black males are still at great risk for dropping out of school, being imprisoned and murdered at rates several times higher than young white men. There is evidence to show that this alternative school system may benefit its students; educators should not reject the opportunity without giving it a fair chance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Students are more engaged in material to which they feel a connection.**\nSchools in the US focus primarily on European history and a version of American history that does not adequately cover African-American history. A few experimental schools with all black students have incorporated an \"Afrocentric\" curriculum, which focuses more on African history than European history and places a greater emphasis on the role of African-Americans in United States history.1When students learn history as something that includes them, rather than the story of some other people, they are more likely to be engaged in the subject matter as they have a personal connection to the history, they will be learning their own history not someone else's.1 Ibid, 37."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Single race schools would prevent black students from being assigned to lower classes.**\nIn mainstream schools which track students by ability, as many as 1/3 of black male students are incorrectly placed in slower classes.1 These lower-end classes are often assigned the worst teachers, reserving the better teachers for a school's honor classes.2Consequently, black males are often prevented from receiving an equal education in integrated schools. Allowing black males to be educated in an environment isolated from racial tensions and inequalities eliminates the psychological impact of \"tracking\" in integrated public schools."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Other efforts have not proven sufficiently effective,1 and so even sceptics should give single-race, single-sex schools a chance.1 Lewis, 3.**\nDespite almost sixty years of integration, black students lag behind whites, and the difference is even greater for males.1 Only 12 percent of black fourth-grade boys are proficient in reading, compared with 38 percent of white boys, and only 12 percent of black eighth-grade boys are proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white boys.2 Figures that are not explained just by poverty. The idyllic image of integrated schools does not line up to reality; black males are still at great risk for dropping out of school, being imprisoned and murdered at rates several times higher than young white men. There is evidence to show that this alternative school system may benefit its students; educators should not reject the opportunity without giving it a fair chance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Single-race schools are likely to do more harm than good.**\nThe landmark Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, was based on the fact that deliberate separation cannot be equal.1To separate black students from white students teaches black students that they are unable to function competitively with whites. Because the majority of the United States is white, black students are learning that they are better off if they are removed from mainstream society; that they cannot handle being around most students. This implied assertion teaches black students that they are incompetent and lowers their academic performance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the creation of single-race public schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Segregation is wrong.**\nChildren must learn to interact with all kinds of people, especially those that are different from them. Separating children from anyone of a different background teaches them that they are inherently incompatible with these other people. Children learn that they cannot get along, and are therefore more likely to develop an \"us versus them\" attitude. This mentality has been the cause of centuries of oppression and racial violence; going back to race-segregated schools is a step in the wrong direction."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The 'Middle Way' is the most realistic path for Tibet and China**\nThe Dalai Lama believes complete independence is not a viable solution for the Tibet crisis. Rather, his advocacy is aimed at creating common understanding between the Chinese and the Tibetans. He points to the model of the European Union as an example of a modern supranational political system in which different ethnicities and nationalities can cooperate to achieve an agreed ideal of prosperity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The 'Middle Way' has international support**\nThe USA, the most powerful nation in the world, has been vocal in its support for the 'Middle Way' strategy. Concurrently, the US has not given any indication that it would support complete Tibetan independence – nor is it likely to. America is unlikely to jeopardise trade relations with China over the Tibetan issue by giving political legitimacy to those advocating complete independence.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrity**\nThe Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”.[1] Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union if the United States as a much more decentralized federal union cannot sanction such a division then a much more centralized China cannot. China can put forth the same rationale as Lincoln for forcing Tibet to remain part of China, for example when it notes argues that the concept of an independent Tibet has historically been used by what it calls ‘foreign imperialists’ to interfere in China internally and split it up so that it can more easily be controlled from abroad. As an example of this, the CIA’s support for Tibetan separatists during the Cold War is cited.[2][3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The 'Middle Way' is the most realistic path for Tibet and China**\nThe Dalai Lama believes complete independence is not a viable solution for the Tibet crisis. Rather, his advocacy is aimed at creating common understanding between the Chinese and the Tibetans. He points to the model of the European Union as an example of a modern supranational political system in which different ethnicities and nationalities can cooperate to achieve an agreed ideal of prosperity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The 'Middle Way' has international support**\nThe USA, the most powerful nation in the world, has been vocal in its support for the 'Middle Way' strategy. Concurrently, the US has not given any indication that it would support complete Tibetan independence – nor is it likely to. America is unlikely to jeopardise trade relations with China over the Tibetan issue by giving political legitimacy to those advocating complete independence.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrity**\nThe Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”.[1] Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union if the United States as a much more decentralized federal union cannot sanction such a division then a much more centralized China cannot. China can put forth the same rationale as Lincoln for forcing Tibet to remain part of China, for example when it notes argues that the concept of an independent Tibet has historically been used by what it calls ‘foreign imperialists’ to interfere in China internally and split it up so that it can more easily be controlled from abroad. As an example of this, the CIA’s support for Tibetan separatists during the Cold War is cited.[2][3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Tibetans want independence, not the 'Middle Way'**\nThe Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' is far from popular amongst the Tibetan population. Many ordinary Tibetans have criticised the Dalai Lama's conciliatory approach to China. His refusal to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games is symbolic of this conciliatory approach where the majority of the Tibetan population, particularly the young disagreed with him. \"China does not deserve to host the Olympics. It's evident that they do not deserve the Olympics,\" said Tsewang Rigzin, the leader of the Tibetan Youth Congress, at Dharamshala in 2008.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Dalai Lama is no longer relevant to Tibet's future**\nThe Dalai Lama's influence and significance in the debate over Tibet’s future has been fading; he has resigned from all ‘formal authority’ and handed over his political role[1], and his support for the 'Middle Way' strategy- over attempts to secure full independence- may well have reduced his influence. During the 2008 riots and protests in Lhasa in favour of Tibetan independence, a feeling of incongruity between the Dalai Lama and the desires of the Tibetan people was vocalized. A Tibetan teacher at the protests stated “We are demanding a peace dialogue between His Holiness and the Chinese. But at the moment, Dalai Lama is out of the picture. It's a Tibetan people's movement.”[2] Tibet appears to have moved beyond the 'Middle Way', but the Dalai Lama has not. For a new generation of Tibetans the Middle Way is considered to be an ineffective negotiation strategy, one that will not allow them to obtain the rights and political equality that they seek."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘third way’ in Tibet.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Chinese government is exploiting the 'Middle Way' against Tibet's interests**\nThe Chinese government manipulates people every day, and it is clear how Beijing is manipulating the good intentions of the Dalai Lama and his 'Middle Way'. The Middle Path is therefore not only hopeless, but also dangerous."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none.**\nThe content of the book is not grounds for supressing its publication or use and so, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of publication. There is an entirely understandable interest in the publication of the book in a country where it is so notorious. It’s important to bear in mind that this is not a bomb making manual and most experts feel that the arguments are weak to the point of absurdity[i] – and the commentary will serve to enforce that point. The content of the book, in and of itself, were not therefore grounds for continued suppression of the text."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Banning the book would have simply increased its role as an iconic symbol.**\nExtreme parties frequently thrive when they are able to present themselves as being suppressed by a supposed elite. Their ability to portray themselves as being unfairly silenced by a capricious elite has long been used to attract support by parties on the far-right in Europe and elsewhere. For example the far right National Democratic Party went to court to get its newsletter delivered by the postal service.[i] Indeed, given the weakness of many of the arguments they make, silencing them has frequently been far more self-defeating than opening up their beliefs to scrutiny[ii]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The ban achieved no practical impact in the Internet age as it was not global.**\nIf there were not already easy access to the book through the Internet[i], then it might be possible to argue that there was some practical purpose to be served by continuing its suppression. However, when any disaffected teenager can gain easy access to the text while sitting alone in their bedroom, it seems foolish that it cannot also be examined in the cooler light of their history class."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none.**\nThe content of the book is not grounds for supressing its publication or use and so, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of publication. There is an entirely understandable interest in the publication of the book in a country where it is so notorious. It’s important to bear in mind that this is not a bomb making manual and most experts feel that the arguments are weak to the point of absurdity[i] – and the commentary will serve to enforce that point. The content of the book, in and of itself, were not therefore grounds for continued suppression of the text."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning the book would have simply increased its role as an iconic symbol.**\nExtreme parties frequently thrive when they are able to present themselves as being suppressed by a supposed elite. Their ability to portray themselves as being unfairly silenced by a capricious elite has long been used to attract support by parties on the far-right in Europe and elsewhere. For example the far right National Democratic Party went to court to get its newsletter delivered by the postal service.[i] Indeed, given the weakness of many of the arguments they make, silencing them has frequently been far more self-defeating than opening up their beliefs to scrutiny[ii]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The ban achieved no practical impact in the Internet age as it was not global.**\nIf there were not already easy access to the book through the Internet[i], then it might be possible to argue that there was some practical purpose to be served by continuing its suppression. However, when any disaffected teenager can gain easy access to the text while sitting alone in their bedroom, it seems foolish that it cannot also be examined in the cooler light of their history class."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Without appropriate legislation, neo-Nazi groups will publish their own version as a propaganda tool.**\nOne of the principle reasons for the production of this text was that “Once anyone is free to publish Hitler’s work, now-Nazis will inevitably churn out editions favourable to the Nazi leader.”[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Money for blood.**\nIf Mein Kampf were presented by a contemporary writer to a contemporary publisher, nobody would go near it; simply because nobody would buy it. There is virtually no market for books of its kind, of which it is a poor example, and even those who might be interested in what it has to say tend not to be known for their book buying enthusiasm."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the decision of the state of Bavaria to publish Mein Kampf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Publication is inconsistent with other legislation.**\nPublication of the book provides another symbol for European neo-Nazis who present a very real threat. The Swastika and Nazi salute remain banned in Germany and other jurisdictions; this should be added to that list.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty**\nRepresentative democracy is oppressive because it takes more power away from the people than is strictly necessary. Whilst a completely direct democracy is impractical, we should nevertheless recognise that there is no reason not to have as much direct democracy as possible. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves”.[1] The key point is that merely holding an election every four years does not fundamentally alter our state of subservience: at election time, we are given a choice of three or four manifesto programmes on an all-or-nothing basis, manifestos which may never be honoured. The only power over our government we as citizens have is the power to punish politicians retrospectively, by voting them out after years of obeying them. It is quite possible to create an authoritarian system that has regular representative elections, even with several competitive candidates and yet still not be giving power to the people, as is shown by Iran.[2] This is wrong. The presumption should always be that the people keep as much power over their own lives and hand as little to their masters as possible because they never get to consent to the powers that rule them. Given that we are born under governments which exist whether we like it or not, it as an offense to our natural liberty and equality that those governments should hold any more power over us than is absolutely necessary. Besides, when the interests of the state are not the interests of the people, we have the government of the few over the rest.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites**\nRepresentative democracy is less legitimate because it empowers unelected elites. Representative democracy is systematically biased against ordinary people, particularly poor people. Unelected elites like wealthy businessmen, trade union leaders, civil servants, party officials and media proprietors are able to bypass the democratic process and exert direct pressure on elected politicians. This happens because decisions are made behind closed doors by individual politicians who can be easily bullied or bought out. This allows elites to effectively wield public power even when they are not elected themselves. If decisions were made more directly by the people there would be less scope for elites to manipulate the process by simply appealing to a politician’s self-interest. Elite influence is a systematic problem because it is self-reinforcing: elites lobby for laws to preserve their own power and disempower the public. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes lobbying for the repeal of regulations preventing him from dominating the media market.[1] Considering that at any past time in the human history the conditions of equality in labour division, education and technological tools were not as favourable as nowadays in terms of allowing citizen political involvement, a more participatory political decision-making must be now taken into account.[2] A clear example is the Iceland's \"wiki constitution\" (2011).[3] Then, although the classic criticism against direct democracy formulas based on the premise that size creates problrms –referring to the difficulties to shape participatory citizen deliberation in our enormous current nation-states– may still be true, cultural, social and technological conditions for participation have become much more favourable."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics**\nRepresentative systems struggle to sustain popular trust, which is bad for democracy. Public trust in politics always tends to be dented by three specific features of representative systems. Firstly, the perception of elite influence over the political process is a largely unavoidable feature of electoral democracy because such elites are easily placed to manipulate politics, even if they do not actually do so. Secondly, the spotlight in representative democracy is on individual politicians (rather than on policies) and consequently exposing scandals and smearing the characters of politicians is an essential part of the political game: media coverage of politicians is largely hostile (particularly problematic if it diverts discussion from the merits and demerits of particular policies). A third feature of the system is that, since public opinion has no direct power, unpopular decisions don’t have to be properly justified. Governments often defy public opinion when they think a policy will pay off in the long run, and often they don’t really bother explaining why they are doing so (a good example of this is Gordon Brown’s signing of the Lisbon treaty in 2007). These three factors all tend to undermine trust in politics in representative systems. Trust is essential for democracy because without it people will not bother following politics or voting, leaving the door open for elites and aggressive minorities to wield undue influence. A clear example of this phenomenon is in the United States, where Christian fundamentalists – despite being a minority – wield enormous power. The reason for this is that turnout in American elections is very low, whilst fundamentalist Christians are politically very active and organised, allowing them huge influence."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Participation Is Good In Itself**\nGiving people more responsibility for making political decisions is itself a good thing. Participating in political decision-making allows citizens to achieve a higher state of intellectual and moral maturity, letting them lead better and wiser lives. Since the difficult business of government forces them to learn how to make tough choices and compromise they will quickly abandon their simplistic prejudices and assumptions. Representative democracy is the opposite: it treats the public as if they are incapable of making important choices themselves, and thus denies most citizens a chance to meaningfully participate. Representative democracy often implies a mercantile vision of the political performance, where the politicians play the role of the sellers and the voters act as a simple buyers of political options.[1] This means that the vast majority of voters remain ignorant at best, and apathetic at worst. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by deceitful politicians and political commentators. Furthermore, since many government decisions involve major moral dilemmas, citizens who participate in such decision-making will develop a more nuanced moral understanding and more thoughtful personal conduct. Thus, all democratic participation is beneficial. Participatory forms of democracy allows people to participate more than they otherwise would. Evidence for the impact of democratic participation is that radical and intolerant views are frequently expressed in young democracies but fade away as participation in democratic politics implants in the people respect for due process and different points of view. A good example of this is that intolerant far-right parties are much more successful in the young democracies of Eastern Europe than the old democracies of Western Europe.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Participatory Democracy Produces Better Decisions**\nParticipatory democracy will lead to better decisions because laws will only be passed if they can be justified to the people. Professional politicians are disproportionately drawn from the privileged classes and are often ignorant of the effects their policies will have on ordinary people – as are the civil servants who advise them. Moreover, professional politicians are susceptible to corruption, lobbying or bullying by powerful vested interests seeking to direct government policy away from the general interest represented by the vast majority of the individual citizens, who generally lack such a determinant influence over the decision-making. Participatory democracy will therefore make sure that the legislation that is passed will help the people as much as possible; for example they will limit unecessary bureaucracy and make sure that policies are fair. Thus for example Switzerland has passed with 68% of the vote in a referendum  a proposal that prevents big payouts for managers known as ‘golden handshakes’ and ‘golden parachutes’ and shareholders will have a veto over saleries.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty**\nRepresentative democracy is oppressive because it takes more power away from the people than is strictly necessary. Whilst a completely direct democracy is impractical, we should nevertheless recognise that there is no reason not to have as much direct democracy as possible. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves”.[1] The key point is that merely holding an election every four years does not fundamentally alter our state of subservience: at election time, we are given a choice of three or four manifesto programmes on an all-or-nothing basis, manifestos which may never be honoured. The only power over our government we as citizens have is the power to punish politicians retrospectively, by voting them out after years of obeying them. It is quite possible to create an authoritarian system that has regular representative elections, even with several competitive candidates and yet still not be giving power to the people, as is shown by Iran.[2] This is wrong. The presumption should always be that the people keep as much power over their own lives and hand as little to their masters as possible because they never get to consent to the powers that rule them. Given that we are born under governments which exist whether we like it or not, it as an offense to our natural liberty and equality that those governments should hold any more power over us than is absolutely necessary. Besides, when the interests of the state are not the interests of the people, we have the government of the few over the rest.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites**\nRepresentative democracy is less legitimate because it empowers unelected elites. Representative democracy is systematically biased against ordinary people, particularly poor people. Unelected elites like wealthy businessmen, trade union leaders, civil servants, party officials and media proprietors are able to bypass the democratic process and exert direct pressure on elected politicians. This happens because decisions are made behind closed doors by individual politicians who can be easily bullied or bought out. This allows elites to effectively wield public power even when they are not elected themselves. If decisions were made more directly by the people there would be less scope for elites to manipulate the process by simply appealing to a politician’s self-interest. Elite influence is a systematic problem because it is self-reinforcing: elites lobby for laws to preserve their own power and disempower the public. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes lobbying for the repeal of regulations preventing him from dominating the media market.[1] Considering that at any past time in the human history the conditions of equality in labour division, education and technological tools were not as favourable as nowadays in terms of allowing citizen political involvement, a more participatory political decision-making must be now taken into account.[2] A clear example is the Iceland's \"wiki constitution\" (2011).[3] Then, although the classic criticism against direct democracy formulas based on the premise that size creates problrms –referring to the difficulties to shape participatory citizen deliberation in our enormous current nation-states– may still be true, cultural, social and technological conditions for participation have become much more favourable."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics**\nRepresentative systems struggle to sustain popular trust, which is bad for democracy. Public trust in politics always tends to be dented by three specific features of representative systems. Firstly, the perception of elite influence over the political process is a largely unavoidable feature of electoral democracy because such elites are easily placed to manipulate politics, even if they do not actually do so. Secondly, the spotlight in representative democracy is on individual politicians (rather than on policies) and consequently exposing scandals and smearing the characters of politicians is an essential part of the political game: media coverage of politicians is largely hostile (particularly problematic if it diverts discussion from the merits and demerits of particular policies). A third feature of the system is that, since public opinion has no direct power, unpopular decisions don’t have to be properly justified. Governments often defy public opinion when they think a policy will pay off in the long run, and often they don’t really bother explaining why they are doing so (a good example of this is Gordon Brown’s signing of the Lisbon treaty in 2007). These three factors all tend to undermine trust in politics in representative systems. Trust is essential for democracy because without it people will not bother following politics or voting, leaving the door open for elites and aggressive minorities to wield undue influence. A clear example of this phenomenon is in the United States, where Christian fundamentalists – despite being a minority – wield enormous power. The reason for this is that turnout in American elections is very low, whilst fundamentalist Christians are politically very active and organised, allowing them huge influence."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Participation Is Good In Itself**\nGiving people more responsibility for making political decisions is itself a good thing. Participating in political decision-making allows citizens to achieve a higher state of intellectual and moral maturity, letting them lead better and wiser lives. Since the difficult business of government forces them to learn how to make tough choices and compromise they will quickly abandon their simplistic prejudices and assumptions. Representative democracy is the opposite: it treats the public as if they are incapable of making important choices themselves, and thus denies most citizens a chance to meaningfully participate. Representative democracy often implies a mercantile vision of the political performance, where the politicians play the role of the sellers and the voters act as a simple buyers of political options.[1] This means that the vast majority of voters remain ignorant at best, and apathetic at worst. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by deceitful politicians and political commentators. Furthermore, since many government decisions involve major moral dilemmas, citizens who participate in such decision-making will develop a more nuanced moral understanding and more thoughtful personal conduct. Thus, all democratic participation is beneficial. Participatory forms of democracy allows people to participate more than they otherwise would. Evidence for the impact of democratic participation is that radical and intolerant views are frequently expressed in young democracies but fade away as participation in democratic politics implants in the people respect for due process and different points of view. A good example of this is that intolerant far-right parties are much more successful in the young democracies of Eastern Europe than the old democracies of Western Europe.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Participatory Democracy Produces Better Decisions**\nParticipatory democracy will lead to better decisions because laws will only be passed if they can be justified to the people. Professional politicians are disproportionately drawn from the privileged classes and are often ignorant of the effects their policies will have on ordinary people – as are the civil servants who advise them. Moreover, professional politicians are susceptible to corruption, lobbying or bullying by powerful vested interests seeking to direct government policy away from the general interest represented by the vast majority of the individual citizens, who generally lack such a determinant influence over the decision-making. Participatory democracy will therefore make sure that the legislation that is passed will help the people as much as possible; for example they will limit unecessary bureaucracy and make sure that policies are fair. Thus for example Switzerland has passed with 68% of the vote in a referendum  a proposal that prevents big payouts for managers known as ‘golden handshakes’ and ‘golden parachutes’ and shareholders will have a veto over saleries.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives**\nPeople should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the \"liberty of the ancients\" and the \"liberty of the moderns\".[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Referenda Produce Snap Decisions**\nReferendums will lead to poor-quality snap decisions. The problem with referendums is that they are called and voted on quickly, without a series of lengthy parliamentary debates or review by committees. This means that decisions are essential made by short-term popular opinion. This is a problem because there are many policies that are painful and unpopular in the short term but essential in the long run, such as cutting unaffordable public debts. Under representative democracy, governments can make these tough decisions and hope that they pay off before the next election. Harmful short-termism is particularly likely because voters, unlike professional politicians, may lack the technical or economic expertise to realise the necessity of adopting long-term solutions. A clear example is the effect of referenda over the fiscal policy in California.[1] Then, when short-terminism is at the heart of political decisions in a given society, it becomes very difficult to govern. Furthermore, it establishes a more instable political ground for the future generations, who may suffer from the irresponsible political measures adopted by their predecessors, for example inheriting disproportionate amounts of public debt."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Participatory Democracy Facilitates the Misrepresentation of Issues**\nAn intrinsic problem with participatory democracy is that issues are easily misrepresented to the public. Whilst most voters may be intelligent and informed enough to understand a single issue in isolation, they will almost certainly not understand its complex relationship with other issues, and what a “yes” or “no” vote would mean for everything else – this is because only a full-time politician has the time and the resources to properly understand how dozens of different government policies fit together. An example of this effect is that in 1978 Californians voted to pass an amendment making it almost impossible to raise taxes, and then in 1994 voted for the “Three Strikes” Law that tripled their prison population. As a result, California is now almost bankrupt.[1] The reason why this happened was that these issues were presented in isolation from one another and from other issues as a simple yes-or-no choice – the public just didn’t connect the fact that if they were going to lock up more people for life, they would need higher taxes."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house supports the idea of participatory democracy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Representative Democracy Prevents Domination by Special Interests**\nGovernments often have to pass decisions which anger small, well-organised special interest groups – like teachers unions – but are in the long-term interest of the country. Under representative democracy, the government can simply make the decisions it has to, and resist the political pressure these groups put on them. But under more direct forms of participatory democracy, the special interest groups can organise their members to campaign and vote against proposals which are good for the country but against their private interests. The reason why they are likely to be successful is that most voters won’t have the technical knowledge to recognise the importance of the proposal (curbing unaffordable public sector pensions, for example), they may be uninterested if they do not see how it directly affects them, and will probably be exhausted and bored of referendums if they are held very regularly – an effect observed in Switzerland called “election fatigue”.[1] As a result, turnout amongst regular voters is likely to be low, but the unions or interest groups will be well organised and will be active in campaigning and voting, since they know that they are fighting for their interests. The effect of this will be to enable organised interest groups to dictate policy on issues where they have a major conflict of interest. An example of this is a Californian initiative in 1990 to raise billions of dollars on the bond markets to invest in railways. The initiative was passed after a campaign funded by railway companies.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**People should be free to take drugs**\nIndividuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Prohibition does not work; instead, it glamorizes drugs**\nThose who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not – and more are doing so than ever before. In 1970 there was something like 1,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are over 250,000.[1] Legalization will also remove the glamour which surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics suggest that cannabis use in the UK declined after its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Drugs are safer when legal**\nCurrently in the UK, purity of illegal Amphetamine is normally under 5%, and some tablets sold as ecstasy contain no MDMA at all. Instead, drugs are adulterated (“cut”) with substances from chalk and talcum powder to completely different drugs.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Legalisation reduces crime**\nThe illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. For example, an Italian Mafia family were making around $44bn a year from cocaine smuggling. [1] This represents something like 3% of Italy’s entire GDP – and that from only one crime syndicate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Drugs currently fund terrorism and regional instability**\nThe Taliban gets most of its revenue from poppies, which provide the opium for heroin. They do this by intimidating local farmers who would otherwise sell their harvest at market. They then demand “protection money” as well, or else either another local warlord or the ‘protectors’ themselves would rob the farmer. Something like 22,700 people have died in Mexico since January 2007 from gangsters who want to protect their revenue and almost the entire continent of South America, from Brazil to Colombia, has had their governments destabilised by drug lords.[1]  The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The law is hypocritical**\nIn most countries where drugs are illegal, tobacco and alcohol, which arguably have equally devastating consequences in society, are legal. In a UK study, alcohol was shown to have the worst effects of any drug, yet the current law recognises that people should be able to choose whether they drink or not.[1] The same should be true of drugs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Legal drugs would increase tax revenue**\nIn 2009-2010, the tax revenue from tobacco in the UK was £10.5 billion.[1] If the state legalizes drugs, it can tax them and use the revenue from this practise to fund treatment. At the moment such treatment is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary taxpayers’ money on junkies."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People should be free to take drugs**\nIndividuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Prohibition does not work; instead, it glamorizes drugs**\nThose who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not – and more are doing so than ever before. In 1970 there was something like 1,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are over 250,000.[1] Legalization will also remove the glamour which surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics suggest that cannabis use in the UK declined after its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Drugs are safer when legal**\nCurrently in the UK, purity of illegal Amphetamine is normally under 5%, and some tablets sold as ecstasy contain no MDMA at all. Instead, drugs are adulterated (“cut”) with substances from chalk and talcum powder to completely different drugs.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Legalisation reduces crime**\nThe illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. For example, an Italian Mafia family were making around $44bn a year from cocaine smuggling. [1] This represents something like 3% of Italy’s entire GDP – and that from only one crime syndicate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Drugs currently fund terrorism and regional instability**\nThe Taliban gets most of its revenue from poppies, which provide the opium for heroin. They do this by intimidating local farmers who would otherwise sell their harvest at market. They then demand “protection money” as well, or else either another local warlord or the ‘protectors’ themselves would rob the farmer. Something like 22,700 people have died in Mexico since January 2007 from gangsters who want to protect their revenue and almost the entire continent of South America, from Brazil to Colombia, has had their governments destabilised by drug lords.[1]  The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The law is hypocritical**\nIn most countries where drugs are illegal, tobacco and alcohol, which arguably have equally devastating consequences in society, are legal. In a UK study, alcohol was shown to have the worst effects of any drug, yet the current law recognises that people should be able to choose whether they drink or not.[1] The same should be true of drugs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Legal drugs would increase tax revenue**\nIn 2009-2010, the tax revenue from tobacco in the UK was £10.5 billion.[1] If the state legalizes drugs, it can tax them and use the revenue from this practise to fund treatment. At the moment such treatment is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary taxpayers’ money on junkies."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Drugs are dangerous, and the governement should discourage its use**\nThe government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; if a substance will do people and society significant harm, then that substance should be banned.  There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. Legalization can only make drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**More people will take drugs if they are legal**\nConsidering that drug use has so many negative consequences, it would be disastrous to have it increase. However, the free availability of drugs once they are legal will make it far easier for individuals to buy and use them. In most cases, under 1% of the population of OECD countries regularly use illegal drugs; many more drink alcohol or smoke tobacco.[1] This must at least partly to do with the illegality. Indeed, in an Australian survey, 29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as their reason for never using the drug, while 19% of those who had ceased use of cannabis cited its illegality as their reason.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House supports the legalisation of drugs",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive**\nLow prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House wants a line-item veto amendment",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The constitution should not be amended**\nPOINT"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House wants a line-item veto amendment",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Has made little difference in the past**\nPOINT"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House wants a line-item veto amendment",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The constitution should not be amended**\nPOINT"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House wants a line-item veto amendment",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Has made little difference in the past**\nPOINT"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Free trade and aid distribution**\nGovernment intervention in the marketplace contradicts the values of free-trade advocated by western liberal democracies. The complexities of agricultural subsidies, price supports, regulations and protective tariffs means that farming in the US and the EU now has the air of a command economy. Coupled with highly liberal international trade markets and the relative ease of shipping foodstuffs around the world, subsidy schemes are increasingly subject to manipulation by farmers seeking to maximise the size of their support payments without engaging in additional productive activity. For example, “set-aside”[i] payments have been used by both European and American administrations to encourage farmers to leave a proportion of their fields fallow, in order to maintain the productivity and fertility of farming soil. However, many farmers have claimed set-aside payments by designating fertile land that is difficult or impossible cultivate (land on steep inclines, land obstructed by streams) as fallow fields."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Subsidies exacerbate poverty**\nSubsidies cause poverty, both domestically and internationally. By maintaining the price of certain goods at a low level that does not reflect their market price, subsidies prevent farmers in the developing world from selling comparable goods to international customers for a comparable price. Despite higher labor costs wealthy western farmers are able to undercut their poorer counterparts in the developing world, with any shortfall in their incomes accounted for by their government subsidy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Subsidies incentivise environmentally harmful farming practices**\nSubsidies can contribute significantly to longer term ecological and environmental damage. By rendering the export of food so profitable, subsidies increase the use of air freight and rapid road haulage, increasing the emissions cost of trading produce."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Free trade and aid distribution**\nGovernment intervention in the marketplace contradicts the values of free-trade advocated by western liberal democracies. The complexities of agricultural subsidies, price supports, regulations and protective tariffs means that farming in the US and the EU now has the air of a command economy. Coupled with highly liberal international trade markets and the relative ease of shipping foodstuffs around the world, subsidy schemes are increasingly subject to manipulation by farmers seeking to maximise the size of their support payments without engaging in additional productive activity. For example, “set-aside”[i] payments have been used by both European and American administrations to encourage farmers to leave a proportion of their fields fallow, in order to maintain the productivity and fertility of farming soil. However, many farmers have claimed set-aside payments by designating fertile land that is difficult or impossible cultivate (land on steep inclines, land obstructed by streams) as fallow fields."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Subsidies exacerbate poverty**\nSubsidies cause poverty, both domestically and internationally. By maintaining the price of certain goods at a low level that does not reflect their market price, subsidies prevent farmers in the developing world from selling comparable goods to international customers for a comparable price. Despite higher labor costs wealthy western farmers are able to undercut their poorer counterparts in the developing world, with any shortfall in their incomes accounted for by their government subsidy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Subsidies incentivise environmentally harmful farming practices**\nSubsidies can contribute significantly to longer term ecological and environmental damage. By rendering the export of food so profitable, subsidies increase the use of air freight and rapid road haulage, increasing the emissions cost of trading produce."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Subsidies foster growth in developing economies**\nAmerican and European food subsidies actually act to support growth and productivity in the developing world. The kinds of foodstuffs typically exported to poorer states are staples like wheat, maize, milk products and sugar. Subsidy and food aid schemes ensure that basic goods are available to consumers in poorer states at prices lower than a domestic market could comfortably sustain.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Subsidy reform is already taking place in many areas of the world**\nThere is much about the proposition side case that smacks of orientalism. The quality of life of individuals in many of the world’s poorest states has been immeasurably improved by the ready availability of cheap western food imports.[i] The ability of western farmers to provide food at lower prices than their competitors in the developing world’s domestic market is actually driving growth and productivity among poor agricultural producers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish agricultural subsidies",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Subsidy reform of the type proposed will undermine agricultural businesses in the developing world**\nEven adamant anti subsidy advocates agree that abolishing current financial assistance measures will do more harm than good. Reform of current subsidy policies would achieve more than their complete elimination. Many family farms in the US and the EU are running on extremely slim profit margins, which are squeezed by supermarkets,[i] and eliminating their subsidy payments would devastate their incomes, forcing the sale of land and the sale or slaughter of livestock."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining is not a right**\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector**\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process**\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of  the public sector’s stakeholders, the public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining is not a right**\nWhilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector**\nThe public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process**\nThe bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of  the public sector’s stakeholders, the public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy**\nCollective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies**\nMany public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right**\nCollective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Intellectual property slows the dissemination of essential information and products**\nAn individual or firm with a monopoly right to the production of something may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Intellectual property rights slow, or even stop the dissemination of such ideas and inventions, as it may prove impossible to sway the creator to license or to market the product. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with the free sharing of ideas, an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public1. A similar harm arises from the enervating effect intellectual property rights can generate in people and firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting to for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of intellectual property, firms and individuals are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of intellectual property rights will invigorate economic dynamism. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent ideas do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves do to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for predominantly developing world diseases, which exist but are unprofitable to distribute to where they are needed most, in part of Africa and Asia.2 With no intellectual property rights, the access to such drugs would be facilitated and producers interested in helping the sick rather than simply profiting would be able to help those in need left to die due to intellectual property.\n1 Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo.\n2 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. \"Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'\".The Guardian."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The complicated legal arrangements created by intellectual property raise costs of doing business:**\nMany firms cannot act independently, but rather rely on the technology and systems of other firms. The complicated, and often convoluted, licensing arrangements needed by many firms to function sap resources and effort, slowing productivity and causing general economic sluggishness. In high-tech and science research firms particularly, mutual licensing pacts are needed that often slow production and advancement due to the complicated legal arrangements that must be entered into to allow firms to go about their business. For example, the recent battle over rights to computer technology between Hewlett-Packard and Oracle, which has cost both firms millions of dollars in legal fighting1. These costs are entirely mitigated in the absence of intellectual property rights, as ideas flow freely and people can go about their business without the complications of licensing.\n1 Orlowski, Andrew. 2011. \"Oracle and Itanic: Tech's Nastiest Ever Row?\". The Register."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:**\nIntellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently.\n1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. \"Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform\". National Health Federation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Costs of monitoring intellectual property rights by states and companies outweigh the benefits, and is often ineffective:**\nThe state incurs huge costs in monitoring for intellectual property right infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain. The United States government, for example, projects costs of investigating intellectual property claims will cost $429 million between 2009 and 20131. Firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to intellectual property piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. This is because in many cases intellectual property rights are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned in recent years. Only a tiny handful of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it does little to stop it. Intellectual property, in many cases, simply does not work in practice; firms should move with the times and recognize they need to innovate in ways that will compensate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There is no such thing as intellectual property, since you cannot own an idea:**\nAn individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone.\n1 Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Intellectual property slows the dissemination of essential information and products**\nAn individual or firm with a monopoly right to the production of something may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Intellectual property rights slow, or even stop the dissemination of such ideas and inventions, as it may prove impossible to sway the creator to license or to market the product. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with the free sharing of ideas, an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public1. A similar harm arises from the enervating effect intellectual property rights can generate in people and firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting to for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of intellectual property, firms and individuals are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of intellectual property rights will invigorate economic dynamism. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent ideas do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves do to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for predominantly developing world diseases, which exist but are unprofitable to distribute to where they are needed most, in part of Africa and Asia.2 With no intellectual property rights, the access to such drugs would be facilitated and producers interested in helping the sick rather than simply profiting would be able to help those in need left to die due to intellectual property.\n1 Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo.\n2 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. \"Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'\".The Guardian."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The complicated legal arrangements created by intellectual property raise costs of doing business:**\nMany firms cannot act independently, but rather rely on the technology and systems of other firms. The complicated, and often convoluted, licensing arrangements needed by many firms to function sap resources and effort, slowing productivity and causing general economic sluggishness. In high-tech and science research firms particularly, mutual licensing pacts are needed that often slow production and advancement due to the complicated legal arrangements that must be entered into to allow firms to go about their business. For example, the recent battle over rights to computer technology between Hewlett-Packard and Oracle, which has cost both firms millions of dollars in legal fighting1. These costs are entirely mitigated in the absence of intellectual property rights, as ideas flow freely and people can go about their business without the complications of licensing.\n1 Orlowski, Andrew. 2011. \"Oracle and Itanic: Tech's Nastiest Ever Row?\". The Register."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:**\nIntellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently.\n1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. \"Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform\". National Health Federation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Costs of monitoring intellectual property rights by states and companies outweigh the benefits, and is often ineffective:**\nThe state incurs huge costs in monitoring for intellectual property right infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain. The United States government, for example, projects costs of investigating intellectual property claims will cost $429 million between 2009 and 20131. Firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to intellectual property piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. This is because in many cases intellectual property rights are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned in recent years. Only a tiny handful of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it does little to stop it. Intellectual property, in many cases, simply does not work in practice; firms should move with the times and recognize they need to innovate in ways that will compensate."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is no such thing as intellectual property, since you cannot own an idea:**\nAn individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone.\n1 Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Policing intellectual property rights is self-sustaining**\nWhile there is a cost to implementing intellectual property rights and policing them this cost is mostly met by those who apply for the patents. Each country’s patent office charges for the patent application, in the case of the UK this is between £230-280.1 It also costs to renew the patent year on year with the cost often rising. This means that the government offices that process intellectual property meet their costs through the user fees.2 Much of the costs of enforcement are also met by those who own the intellectual property as their patents enable them to go to court against those who they believe are infringing their intellectual property rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The product of an individual's intellectual endeavour is the property of that individual, who deserves to profit from it**\nEvery individual deserves to profit from his creative endeavours, and this is secured through the application of intellectual property rights. When an individual mixes his labour with capital or other resources, part of him inheres in the product that arises from his effort. This is the origin of property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function.[1] Intellectual property rights are protected by law in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should be. Individuals generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new invention, piece of replicable art, etc. have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Often the product of intellect is the source of income of an individual; the musician who is too old to play any longer, for example, may rely entirely upon revenues generated by their intellectual property rights to survive. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like intellectual property, and in practice they are a necessity to many people's livelihood."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Intellectual property rights incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products**\nWhen a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product, or writing a new song, people put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries’ investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The 2000 largest global companies invest more than €430 billion a year in researching new products1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment, which is why countries with less robust intellectual property rights schemes are not home to research and development firms. Without the protection of intellectual property rights, new inventions lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the invention and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Furthermore, intellectual property is particularly important to firms with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, or with low reverse engineering costs, such as computer, software, and pharmaceutical firms. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea2. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished. Within a robust intellectual property rights system, firms and individuals compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to “invent around” one another’s patents, leading to gradual improvements in technologies, benefiting consumers. Clearly, intellectual property is essential for a dynamic, progressive business world."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The salable and conferrable nature of intellectual property allows for the efficient and just distribution of ideas**\nIntellectual property rights are extremely important in the efficient and equitable allocation of ideas to firms and individuals1. The ability to sell intellectual property rights allows the price mechanism to assign ownership to the firms most likely to make a profit, and that are thus most likely to produce the product most efficiently, which will benefit all consumers. Furthermore, the ability to confer intellectual property rights on others is important, as often intellectual property, like licensing and patents, can support inventors' and artists' families after they are incapacitated or die. This is no different from the fact that ownership of physical property can be conferred for the betterment of dependents and family. It is only just that intellectual property be recognized and protected by law, so that it may be efficiently and fairly sold and transferred between parties."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would abolish intellectual property rights",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Intellectual property rights allow individuals to release their inventions into the public domain**\nWithout the protection of intellectual property, artists, inventors, and innovators may develop ideas without ever releasing them to the public because they lack the ability to market them successfully, or to profit by their endeavours. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. The recognition of intellectual property rights encourages the release of ideas, inventions, and art to be released to the public, which serves to benefit society generally. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas and inventions to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by \"inventing around\" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the intellectual property right expires1. If the idea never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset.\n1 Business Line. 2007. \"Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around\". Hindu Business Line."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic**\nIt’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men**\nThe influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support**\nSuperdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic**\nIt’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men**\nThe influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support**\nSuperdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal**\nThe superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was the first time the system had been used – the party had already decided and the superdelegates were just ensuring a clear majority."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate**\nMost delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Abolish the Superdelegate System for Democratic Party Conventions.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes**\nIt is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A right to privacy – even if you are famous**\nJust because somebody chooses to be an actor, singer or an entertainer of any kind does not mean that they lose their right to a private life. In the context of the UK (the Scope of the Leveson Enquiry) it’s worth mentioning that this right is guaranteed under both the Human Rights Act of 1998, which in turn is predicated on the European Convention of Human Rights[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Redressing the balance**\nSuch a register would, presumably still allow reporting when there was a genuine public interest – just as is the case for any other member of the public[i]. Presumably in such a circumstance, judicial approval could be sought – a process considerably quicker and easier than grinding an apology out of a magazine or newspaper; let alone winning a libel case."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Making editor’s think twice**\nA paparazzo’s shot of a second or third rate celeb doing something stupid, or something perfectly sensible but just not in makeup – or clothes – makes for an easy page lead. Anything that makes editors pause and consider whether they have something that might actually pass for news might do a great deal to pull large chunks of the British media – along with the readers they claim to serve – out of the gutter."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A right to privacy – even if you are famous**\nJust because somebody chooses to be an actor, singer or an entertainer of any kind does not mean that they lose their right to a private life. In the context of the UK (the Scope of the Leveson Enquiry) it’s worth mentioning that this right is guaranteed under both the Human Rights Act of 1998, which in turn is predicated on the European Convention of Human Rights[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Redressing the balance**\nSuch a register would, presumably still allow reporting when there was a genuine public interest – just as is the case for any other member of the public[i]. Presumably in such a circumstance, judicial approval could be sought – a process considerably quicker and easier than grinding an apology out of a magazine or newspaper; let alone winning a libel case."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Making editor’s think twice**\nA paparazzo’s shot of a second or third rate celeb doing something stupid, or something perfectly sensible but just not in makeup – or clothes – makes for an easy page lead. Anything that makes editors pause and consider whether they have something that might actually pass for news might do a great deal to pull large chunks of the British media – along with the readers they claim to serve – out of the gutter."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It simply won’t work in an internet age**\nWhatever one thinks about the morality of this idea – and Opposition believes it is an attack on free expression – the simple and compelling fact is that it won’t work. The super-injunctions[i] fiasco demonstrated that keeping information silent in an internet age is simply impossible when there is a keen public interest."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It would allow for an entirely false image to be created**\nIf celebrities were, in fact simply hard-working entertainment professionals who finished rehearsals and then returned to their private lives then the idea of protecting that privacy might make sense. The reality is that it just isn’t so. It is routine for celebrities to use their status to express opinions on political or social matters on which they have no expertise whatsoever – and expect the media to cover it. Whether it’s the modest but routine endorsing of political parties in the build-up to elections[i] to Paul McCartney on animal rights to Matt Damon on virtually everything – why are we listening to their opinions rather than, say, a professor of economics or ethics?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It would allow for an entirely false image to be created**\nIf celebrities were, in fact simply hard-working entertainment professionals who finished rehearsals and then returned to their private lives then the idea of protecting that privacy might make sense. The reality is that it just isn’t so. It is routine for celebrities to use their status to express opinions on political or social matters on which they have no expertise whatsoever – and expect the media to cover it. Whether it’s the modest but routine endorsing of political parties in the build-up to elections[i] to Paul McCartney on animal rights to Matt Damon on virtually everything – why are we listening to their opinions rather than, say, a professor of economics or ethics?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow celebrities to switch off the limelight",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It sets a very dangerous precedent for controlling the output of the media – who is a celebrity?**\nWhat and who else should the media not be allowed to cover. By the same logic as banning the coverage of the private lives of those celebs that make a living out of publicity, why not the financial lives of those bankers who make their living out of money? There’s no doubt that it caused embarrassment and inconvenience to those concerned and the collapse of banks could have been reported perfectly well without mentioning the tens of millions made by their directors and traders."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The status quo discourages interdependence**\nThe status quo discourages interdependence: the absence of property rights under the status quo encourages unmarried couples to act as individuals, protecting their own financial interests, rather than supporting each other. In UK law, “their relationship with one another is not recognised as having any legal standing, and they have no special status in the eyes of the English legal system”[1] Individuals are usually more able to pursue their own ambitions when they have the support of another. For example, financial support and security makes it easier to take risks which may be economically beneficial, such as setting up a new business, or undergoing further education to improve employment prospects."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The courts have a duty to develop services that will meet the needs of society**\nFairness requires that cohabiting couples share their property on separation: when couples have lived together for a long period (such as five years or more) they will have gained benefits at each other’s expense but also suffered disadvantages for the other’s benefit. If one partner gives up a career to raise children or support the other in their career, they are seriously disadvantaged upon separation. Where the other partner has gained as a result of this sacrifice, they should compensate the former, so that the two parties can move towards independence in equal positions. Parties may choose not to marry, but this should not have to cause such financial harm to one partner."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Property rights for cohabiting couples will undermine the institution of marriage**\nProperty rights for unmarried couples undermine marriage as an institution, harming society. The societal shift away from marriage is harmful. Marriages tend to be more stable than cohabitation because of the greater level of commitment involved: the mutual support of a marriage is beneficial for individuals and can create a more secure environment for raising children. Because of the higher exit costs (divorce is difficult and time-consuming), married couples are more likely to resolve their problems than cohabiting couples who can walk away more easily. Giving legal rights to cohabiting couples endorses more diverse relationships, suggesting that marriage is less important. This is harmful as it is likely in the long term to further reduce the number of marriages, leading to fewer stable relationships."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The status quo discourages interdependence**\nThe status quo discourages interdependence: the absence of property rights under the status quo encourages unmarried couples to act as individuals, protecting their own financial interests, rather than supporting each other. In UK law, “their relationship with one another is not recognised as having any legal standing, and they have no special status in the eyes of the English legal system”[1] Individuals are usually more able to pursue their own ambitions when they have the support of another. For example, financial support and security makes it easier to take risks which may be economically beneficial, such as setting up a new business, or undergoing further education to improve employment prospects."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The courts have a duty to develop services that will meet the needs of society**\nFairness requires that cohabiting couples share their property on separation: when couples have lived together for a long period (such as five years or more) they will have gained benefits at each other’s expense but also suffered disadvantages for the other’s benefit. If one partner gives up a career to raise children or support the other in their career, they are seriously disadvantaged upon separation. Where the other partner has gained as a result of this sacrifice, they should compensate the former, so that the two parties can move towards independence in equal positions. Parties may choose not to marry, but this should not have to cause such financial harm to one partner."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Property rights for cohabiting couples will undermine the institution of marriage**\nProperty rights for unmarried couples undermine marriage as an institution, harming society. The societal shift away from marriage is harmful. Marriages tend to be more stable than cohabitation because of the greater level of commitment involved: the mutual support of a marriage is beneficial for individuals and can create a more secure environment for raising children. Because of the higher exit costs (divorce is difficult and time-consuming), married couples are more likely to resolve their problems than cohabiting couples who can walk away more easily. Giving legal rights to cohabiting couples endorses more diverse relationships, suggesting that marriage is less important. This is harmful as it is likely in the long term to further reduce the number of marriages, leading to fewer stable relationships."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Legal supervision will discourage independent planning**\nThe law should encourage people to plan adequately: individual people are different and one size does not fit all. If the state plans how your property should be owned, this fails to provide for each individual’s specific lifestyle and circumstances. An increasing number of couples enter cohabitation contracts (where they agree how to split property if they separate) and this should be encouraged instead of automatic rights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The creation of such a law would strengthen trends toward paternalist law making**\nWhen couples choose not to get married, perhaps because one party is not willing to do so, this does not indicate the same commitment to each other. Where there are considerable disparities in income or wealth couples may have no desire to divide their assets and the choice not to get married may reflect this. Those who desire financial protection can choose to marry but the state should not intervene when couples do not make this choice, beyond ensuring that provision is made for children. Such intervention undermines the autonomy of individuals within cohabiting couples because it suggests that they cannot make these decisions competently for themselves."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow cohabiting couples who wish to end their relationships to request that the co",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The current situation discourages altruistic in a relationship**\nThe status quo discourages care for children and the elderly: a further consequence of the perceived need for independence is that individuals are less able to reduce their working hours in order to care for young children or elderly relatives, in case they suffer significantly as a result, for example if their relationship ends. Children who see more of their parents often develop stronger relationships with their parents which are valuable in later life when they need advice or support. In addition, studies show that it is beneficial for their emotional development. Elderly people, on the other hand, often feel particularly vulnerable and isolated and care from relatives plays an important role in maintaining their inclusion within society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.**\nIt is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage**\nTo allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples**\nThe state is charged with the responsibility of both providing registrars to conduct marriage ceremonies and authenticating marriages certificates. If gay marriage was to be legalized, all registrars could be thereafter forced, by the state and their commitment to the law, to legally bind themselves to avoid discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples who ask for their service. All registrars who refused to marry homosexual couples could be fired. There could be no difference in the process or the paperwork required for either a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. The dismissal of discriminating registrants would have a legal precedent in the charges brought upon hotel owners who refused gay couples and adoption agencies who refused to deal with gay couples."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Gay marriage is good for society**\nGay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry**\nOne of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.**\nIt is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage**\nTo allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples**\nThe state is charged with the responsibility of both providing registrars to conduct marriage ceremonies and authenticating marriages certificates. If gay marriage was to be legalized, all registrars could be thereafter forced, by the state and their commitment to the law, to legally bind themselves to avoid discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples who ask for their service. All registrars who refused to marry homosexual couples could be fired. There could be no difference in the process or the paperwork required for either a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. The dismissal of discriminating registrants would have a legal precedent in the charges brought upon hotel owners who refused gay couples and adoption agencies who refused to deal with gay couples."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gay marriage is good for society**\nGay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry**\nOne of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, leading to an increase in out of wedlock births and divorce rates**\nThe legalization of gay marriage undermines the principles that have traditionally linked marriage and the family. Marriage is no longer viewed as a necessary rite of passage before a family is started, leading to a rise in out of wedlock births. As Stanley Kurtz discovered in a study of Norway, where gay marriage is legal, 'an extraordinary 82.7% of first-born children' in one specific county were born out of wedlock; he goes on to explain 'many of these births are to unmarried, but cohabitating, couples'. Yet, without the bonds of marriage, such couples are two to three times more likely to break up and leave children thereafter to cope with estranged parents1. The most conservative religious counties in Norway, in comparison, 'have by far the lowest rates' of out-of-wedlock births1. The legalization of gay marriage and the, often concurrent, ban on clergy eager to discourage the practise of out-of-wedlock only serves to undermine the institution of marriage; and it is the children that pay the price."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Gay couples can declare their union without resort to marriage**\nThere are alternative means for gay couples to formalize their love without resort to marriage. In the United Kingdom, gay couples are able to form civil partnerships, which offer all the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage without the actual ceremony. Moreover, also known as the \"love contract\", the registration of the union of gay couples has been carried out successfully in countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Spain. Both of these would be avenues for gay couples to declare their union to the world. The practice in countries which implement this system is to allow registered couples to be entitled to joint insurance coverage and to allow them to file for joint tax returns as well as inheritance and tenants' rights. On the other hand, such a proposal makes no incursions into the sanctity of the institution of marriage itself, thereby proving acceptable to the religious sections of society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Marriage should be between a man and a woman**\nMarriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has therefore always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. It confirms the natural truth that marriage, as the traditional rite of passage required before procreation, requires a man and a woman. Barack Obama, whilst on the presidential campaign trial, reaffirmed his personal belief that marriage 'is between a man and a woman', one that he shared with the majority of candidates1. Indeed, marriage, throughout its thousands of years of existence, has only been used to describe the union of a man and woman, toward the general end of starting a family and raising children."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow gay couples to marry",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality**\nMarriage is historically a religious institution. As most of the major religions in the world (e.g. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) frown upon homosexuality itself, it would thus be unacceptable to extend the right to marry to gay couples. In Christianity, the Bible is clear in Genesis that marriage is between that of a man and a woman; ‘it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him…a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ 1. In the Quran, it is stated that ‘Allah has given you spouses of your own kind, and has given you, from your spouses, sons and grandsons’ 2. There is little room for conjecture with such statements; marriage, so finely entwined with the religious roots of modern societies, renders marriage an institution between a man and a woman."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible**\nIn many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Modernisation**\nIn modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices[1][2][3][4]. Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people[5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor[6], it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’[7], indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election[8]. In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Efficiency**\nBecause it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise**\nElectronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.**\nOur online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible**\nIn many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Modernisation**\nIn modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices[1][2][3][4]. Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people[5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor[6], it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’[7], indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election[8]. In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Efficiency**\nBecause it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise**\nElectronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.**\nOur online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion**\nNo networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability**\nThe numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Voter apathy**\nThe need to travel to a polling station might be a minor consideration, but growing disillusionment with the political system in general is a far bigger cause of voter apathy. Young people in particular believe that their vote will not make a difference[1], or are confused over politician’s aims[2] and intentions. Others do not believe that a change in government necessarily means a change in real life situations[3], or state that they do not feel as if they know enough about politics to make a decision[4]. Some have even stated that they are embarrassed and patronised by politicians’ eagerness over using the internet to ‘harness’ the votes of young people[5]. Using the internet to portray party policies does not necessarily tackle the problems with the policies themselves. It is politics more generally, rather than the practical system of voting, which is seen as inaccessible."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Democratisation**\nIf it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Engagement with democracy**\nIf voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Homosexuality exists in nature and is therefore part of God’s plan**\nHomosexual behaviour occurs naturally – both in humans and in the animal world, it has been observed in over 1500 animal species of all different types from mammals to crabs to worms.[1]  It must be a misunderstanding of God’s plan to say that homosexuality is unnatural – it forms a part of the world that He has created and therefore must form part of His plan."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Sexuality is an intrinsic part of personality**\nSexuality is an indivisible part of personhood; people need to be able to express their sexuality openly in order to fully actualise themselves. It is wrong therefore to use sexuality as an individual metric by which they are eligible to become priests or not – they should be taken on the whole of their personhood."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Priests have to represent their congregations**\nPriests have a responsibility to represent the members of their congregations. A large number of Christians are gay, and they can receive better spiritual direction from gay ministers than from heterosexuals who do not understand their lifestyles or relationships as well."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The Church has adapted before, it can adapt now**\nThe Church has adapted over the centuries on a number of social and natural issues as it seeks to re-interpret and re-explain God’s message of love in the terms of modern society. For example Churches have adapted to the problems that science has thrown up, even the Catholic church, often the slowest to embrace change did eventually agree with Galileo over the earth going round the sun.[1] The acceptance of homosexuality and admission of gay priests is a necessary next step for the Church today. There will be others in the future."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Homosexuality exists in nature and is therefore part of God’s plan**\nHomosexual behaviour occurs naturally – both in humans and in the animal world, it has been observed in over 1500 animal species of all different types from mammals to crabs to worms.[1]  It must be a misunderstanding of God’s plan to say that homosexuality is unnatural – it forms a part of the world that He has created and therefore must form part of His plan."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sexuality is an intrinsic part of personality**\nSexuality is an indivisible part of personhood; people need to be able to express their sexuality openly in order to fully actualise themselves. It is wrong therefore to use sexuality as an individual metric by which they are eligible to become priests or not – they should be taken on the whole of their personhood."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Priests have to represent their congregations**\nPriests have a responsibility to represent the members of their congregations. A large number of Christians are gay, and they can receive better spiritual direction from gay ministers than from heterosexuals who do not understand their lifestyles or relationships as well."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Church has adapted before, it can adapt now**\nThe Church has adapted over the centuries on a number of social and natural issues as it seeks to re-interpret and re-explain God’s message of love in the terms of modern society. For example Churches have adapted to the problems that science has thrown up, even the Catholic church, often the slowest to embrace change did eventually agree with Galileo over the earth going round the sun.[1] The acceptance of homosexuality and admission of gay priests is a necessary next step for the Church today. There will be others in the future."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible**\nHomosexuality is \"a grievous sin\" in the Bible (Gen 18:20), a capital crime (Lev 20:13), and punishable by exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10). Christians - especially priests - must accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. Christian ministry is therefore incompatible with homosexuality. Jesus was a radical teacher and overturned Jewish tradition where He saw it was necessary to do so; His silence on homosexuality indicates that He saw no need in this case."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature**\nThere can be no doubt that the Bible and Jesus strongly condemn sex outside of Christian marriage (or ‘fornication’). Indeed for much of Christian history sex even within marriage has been seen as a necessary evil that should only be for creating children, as a result priests, monks and nuns had to be celibate.[1] Although Jesus spent time in the company of adulterers, He loved \"the sinner, not the sin\" - and ordered them to cease their behaviour. His response to homosexuals would have been just as unequivocal."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Ordination is not a right.**\nOrdination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough in all aspects of their lives to be able to be faithful to that service"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Genetic testing ensures the best quality of life for children vulnerable to heritable diseases**\nWe have a duty to the child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is available to determine whether a baby is brought into the world with or without a genetic neurological disease such as Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, we should exercise that right."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information**\nThis argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Liberal societies have a duty to minimise avoidable suffering that might affect their members**\nSome of the genetic diseases tested include great suffering for the individual, one of them is the Tay Sachs syndrome. Where nerve cells become fatty from reoccurring infections.(1) This is a disease, where even with the best of care; a child dies at the age of 4."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Genetic testing ensures the best quality of life for children vulnerable to heritable diseases**\nWe have a duty to the child to give it the best possible start in life, and if the technology is available to determine whether a baby is brought into the world with or without a genetic neurological disease such as Huntington’s, cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, we should exercise that right."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information**\nThis argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Liberal societies have a duty to minimise avoidable suffering that might affect their members**\nSome of the genetic diseases tested include great suffering for the individual, one of them is the Tay Sachs syndrome. Where nerve cells become fatty from reoccurring infections.(1) This is a disease, where even with the best of care; a child dies at the age of 4."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Genetic screening may lead the marginalisation of those living with genetic disorders**\nSeen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A screening culture may lead to the value of human life becoming distorted**\nGenetic engineering treats embryos like commodities: “if the product isn’t sufficiently equipped, doesn’t produce the desired results – we will not launch it”. Even if we weren't considering embryos to be \"human life\", it is inappropriate to treat them as commodities with an \"option to purchase\". This cheapens at least the potential life-forms these embryos can become."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Genetic screening may lead to the pooling and centralised storage of genetic information**\nMost diseases people will not have heard of. Such tests can be used also to store DNA in a database. The hotly debated idea of a DNA database has received much criticism. By framing the question of the ethics of a DNA database in this light is much more positively received by the public, and this is a way governments and insurance companies will change the public perception of a DNA database."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow parents to genetically screen foetuses for heritable diseases",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Genetic destabilisation**\nNatural selection is the process whereby people mate, have children and those children enrich the gene pool – if they survive. Occasionally genetic mistakes are made in that reproduction. As long as the result is not fatal, that mistake can begin to infiltrate the gene pool. More people may come to have this mistake in built into their genome. Whilst we may see it as a mistake in our current living conditions, that mutant gene may be a defense to future conditions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Beauty contests are patriarchal**\nBeauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate and ugly by comparison to this ‘ideal’ that is promoted. Moreover, these contests force the models and contestants to look even slimmer and perfect all the time, thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Beauty contests objectify women**\nWomen in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a ‘talent’ element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren’t going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Beauty contests are culturally insensitive**\nThe image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn’t matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. This clash of cultures has led to numerous protests, demonstrations and even violence when beauty contests are going on. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Beauty contests are patriarchal**\nBeauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate and ugly by comparison to this ‘ideal’ that is promoted. Moreover, these contests force the models and contestants to look even slimmer and perfect all the time, thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Beauty contests objectify women**\nWomen in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a ‘talent’ element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren’t going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Beauty contests are culturally insensitive**\nThe image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn’t matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. This clash of cultures has led to numerous protests, demonstrations and even violence when beauty contests are going on. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Beauty contests are an avenue of opportunity that women are entitled to pursue**\nIn an environment where women are valued on solely on their appearance, and in which there are more opportunities for men, beauty contests give women an opportunity to improve their situations. Winning a beauty contest can be a first step toward a successful life in the future; the most attractive earn 12% more.[1] Many Hollywood actresses are former beauty queens, and they would not have reached their success without the beauty contests they won. In addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests are able to publicize charities and causes they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they could not otherwise have gained."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Beauty pagents are about moral than physical aesthetics**\nModern Beauty pageants have mandatory talent portions and are more about establishing and striving for an ‘ideal’ than rating physical beauty.  This was specifically made mandatory by Lenora Slaughter in the 1938 Miss America Pageant in order to attract “ladies” to participate in the competitions. The modern form of the beauty pageant was designed by women in order to attract women.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban beauty contests",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Self defined feminists do not have the right to dictate how other women relate to their femininity**\nA ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty contests would do little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of society which are unrelated to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the entertainment industry. The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women – who of course do choose to participate. Choice is fundamentally a good thing and everyone should have as much choice as possible so long as they are not limiting the choice of others."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Being a performer limits a child’s formal education**\nSpending so much time either performing or training limits the amount of formal education the child can receive. For example, in the UK and other countries, child performers are only required to be educated for three hours each day.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**performers are at risk of exploitation**\nChildren are generally considered to be too young to make important decisions for themselves, and so decision-making falls to parents, teachers, etc. For child performers, there are additional decision-makers: their agents. Since agents benefit financially from the child’s getting a role or doing well in a sporting event, there is a definite risk of exploitation. Exploitation can also come from parents, as in the famous case of American television child stars Jackie Coogan and Gary Coleman, who both sued their parents for spending the money they had earned as children[1][2] or of Macaulay Culkin, who blocked his parents from having access to his earnings."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing**\nEven experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Being a performer can make the child physically vulnerable**\nChildren involved at a professional level in sports are at a higher risk than their peers of physical problems like breaking bones. In some cases, these physical problems can be fatal; e.g., Julissa Gomez, who died from complications of a vaulting injury contracted when she was 15 in warm-ups for a gymnastics competition.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon**\nChild performers are exposed to a much higher level of responsibility than their peers, without the maturity to deal with it. They may be exposed to sex, drugs, or alcohol, in a context too far removed from a normal life that they don’t learn adequate coping mechanisms. It is no surprise that many child performers “burn out” by the time they reach adulthood, often experiencing problems long before, as in the case of actress Drew Barrymore, who entered rehab at the age of 13.[1] Children should not be encouraged to enter into these adult worlds of acting, modeling, dancing, etc.  Michael Jackson attributed his obsession with children and childhood as a consequence of having missed out on a childhood himself."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Just as the state creates laws to protect child performers it could ban child performers**\nChild performers are currently protected by laws about all sorts of things from the minimum amount of education they may get to their pay and how many hours they can work. Many of these laws would be much more difficult to enforce than a blanket ban. It would be simple to enforce as child performers would in most cases be easy to spot – as they are performing for the public. The government could then bring charges against those who are employing the child and fine them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Being a performer limits a child’s formal education**\nSpending so much time either performing or training limits the amount of formal education the child can receive. For example, in the UK and other countries, child performers are only required to be educated for three hours each day.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**performers are at risk of exploitation**\nChildren are generally considered to be too young to make important decisions for themselves, and so decision-making falls to parents, teachers, etc. For child performers, there are additional decision-makers: their agents. Since agents benefit financially from the child’s getting a role or doing well in a sporting event, there is a definite risk of exploitation. Exploitation can also come from parents, as in the famous case of American television child stars Jackie Coogan and Gary Coleman, who both sued their parents for spending the money they had earned as children[1][2] or of Macaulay Culkin, who blocked his parents from having access to his earnings."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing**\nEven experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Being a performer can make the child physically vulnerable**\nChildren involved at a professional level in sports are at a higher risk than their peers of physical problems like breaking bones. In some cases, these physical problems can be fatal; e.g., Julissa Gomez, who died from complications of a vaulting injury contracted when she was 15 in warm-ups for a gymnastics competition.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon**\nChild performers are exposed to a much higher level of responsibility than their peers, without the maturity to deal with it. They may be exposed to sex, drugs, or alcohol, in a context too far removed from a normal life that they don’t learn adequate coping mechanisms. It is no surprise that many child performers “burn out” by the time they reach adulthood, often experiencing problems long before, as in the case of actress Drew Barrymore, who entered rehab at the age of 13.[1] Children should not be encouraged to enter into these adult worlds of acting, modeling, dancing, etc.  Michael Jackson attributed his obsession with children and childhood as a consequence of having missed out on a childhood himself."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Just as the state creates laws to protect child performers it could ban child performers**\nChild performers are currently protected by laws about all sorts of things from the minimum amount of education they may get to their pay and how many hours they can work. Many of these laws would be much more difficult to enforce than a blanket ban. It would be simple to enforce as child performers would in most cases be easy to spot – as they are performing for the public. The government could then bring charges against those who are employing the child and fine them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports**\nIn some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection.**\nWhile being a child performer is legal, these children’s working circumstances are under the protection of the law and monitored by government departments such as the Inland Revenue, Health and Safety, etc. Were child performers to be banned, it is certain that some children would still perform, but would not be thus protected. This has already happened in certain professional sports where athletes can benefit by lying about their age. For example, it is easier for Latin American baseball players to sign with U.S. Major League teams if the teams think they are young. As a result, countless players have lied about their age, including a number of high-profile cases, such as Miguel Tejada who was named Most Valuable Player in 2002.[1] Many of these young players, however, have been less successful. There are too many unfortunate examples of players who came to the United States at a young age and, under the increased pressure, fell victim to serious drug problems, often resulting in overdose and death.[2][3] A ban would not prevent children from performing; it would actually further expose them to whatever risks may be involved."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban child performers",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at**\nMany child performers would undoubtedly protest if their right to perform were taken away from them, and justly so. This can be seen in quotes from the likes of Roddy McDowall, who said in an interview in 1963 that he “had a particularly wonderful time” as a child actor,[1] and would presumably have been quite upset had a ban been enforced in his lifetime. It is beyond the rights of the government to make illegal an opportunity that allows those talented on the stage, in front of a camera, on the pitch, etc. (who might well not be so strong in other, e.g., academic, areas) to make a living from doing what they do best."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Buyers benefit from grey imports, in the form of greater consumer choice.**\nConsumers benefit from grey imports. The economics of grey importation drives sourcing to low-cost economies. Even if retailers take some of this benefit as improved profit margins, typically at least some of it will be passed on to consumers in the form of reduced prices. Grey imports also allow consumers to buy products that may not yet be available in their own market, because they have not yet been released, or because in their market the manufacturer feels there is insufficient demand. Thus, grey imports expand consumer choice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Allowing grey goods breaks down monopolies and passes on lower prices to consumers.**\nAllowing grey imports means that manufacturers do not concentrate economic power in a monopolistic way which can be damaging to free trade (even Adam Smith1believed certain monopolies were antithetical to free trade). Banning them is tantamount to granting a licensed monopoly or cartel on a country-by-country basis, which inevitably means higher prices for consumers. As manufacturing has increasingly been relocated into a smaller number of offshore countries, rather than in the country of purchase, it makes sense that other parts of the supply chain should make a similar move so that they too can realise the efficiency benefits of a globalised economy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Impossible to Stop.**\nGovernments might as well accept that allowing retailers to sell grey goods has benefits because government will never be able to completely prevent such imports. Government regulation may prevent most retailers from selling grey goods but it won't stop all. For example Tesco in the UK sold cut price Levi jeans for years, and fought Levi Strauss in the courts for four years to try and keep selling them.1 If even the biggest retailers are willing to sell grey goods unless stopped by the courts many smaller ones will be getting through the net. Moreover consumers will simply buy the goods elsewhere, particularly online. The government should instead legalise the import of grey goods so that it can make sure that these imports are of a high standard and do not break any other standards"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The free movement of goods is consistent with the basic principles of free trade**\nAllowing grey imports is consistent with the basic principles of free trade. (Free trade principles – WTO1) If a manufacturer/distributor is selling the same item at different prices in two countries, free market economics suggests that the rational purchaser will purchase in the cheaper of the two, presuming, for example, that the difference will not be wholly swallowed up by transaction and transportation costs or taxes. If this logic holds for a consumer choosing between two jeans shops in his town, it must also hold for a retailer choosing between a jeans manufacturer’s price lists in two countries. Until recently, there was an information asymmetry (rational markets requiring information symmetry), as the manufacturer knew about their differential pricing, but the purchaser did not; information technology has now changed the equation and allowed the market to operate more efficiently. Not only this, but consumers can already buy products from pretty much anywhere in the world, as long as they can pay the postage."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Buyers benefit from grey imports, in the form of greater consumer choice.**\nConsumers benefit from grey imports. The economics of grey importation drives sourcing to low-cost economies. Even if retailers take some of this benefit as improved profit margins, typically at least some of it will be passed on to consumers in the form of reduced prices. Grey imports also allow consumers to buy products that may not yet be available in their own market, because they have not yet been released, or because in their market the manufacturer feels there is insufficient demand. Thus, grey imports expand consumer choice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Allowing grey goods breaks down monopolies and passes on lower prices to consumers.**\nAllowing grey imports means that manufacturers do not concentrate economic power in a monopolistic way which can be damaging to free trade (even Adam Smith1believed certain monopolies were antithetical to free trade). Banning them is tantamount to granting a licensed monopoly or cartel on a country-by-country basis, which inevitably means higher prices for consumers. As manufacturing has increasingly been relocated into a smaller number of offshore countries, rather than in the country of purchase, it makes sense that other parts of the supply chain should make a similar move so that they too can realise the efficiency benefits of a globalised economy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Impossible to Stop.**\nGovernments might as well accept that allowing retailers to sell grey goods has benefits because government will never be able to completely prevent such imports. Government regulation may prevent most retailers from selling grey goods but it won't stop all. For example Tesco in the UK sold cut price Levi jeans for years, and fought Levi Strauss in the courts for four years to try and keep selling them.1 If even the biggest retailers are willing to sell grey goods unless stopped by the courts many smaller ones will be getting through the net. Moreover consumers will simply buy the goods elsewhere, particularly online. The government should instead legalise the import of grey goods so that it can make sure that these imports are of a high standard and do not break any other standards"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The free movement of goods is consistent with the basic principles of free trade**\nAllowing grey imports is consistent with the basic principles of free trade. (Free trade principles – WTO1) If a manufacturer/distributor is selling the same item at different prices in two countries, free market economics suggests that the rational purchaser will purchase in the cheaper of the two, presuming, for example, that the difference will not be wholly swallowed up by transaction and transportation costs or taxes. If this logic holds for a consumer choosing between two jeans shops in his town, it must also hold for a retailer choosing between a jeans manufacturer’s price lists in two countries. Until recently, there was an information asymmetry (rational markets requiring information symmetry), as the manufacturer knew about their differential pricing, but the purchaser did not; information technology has now changed the equation and allowed the market to operate more efficiently. Not only this, but consumers can already buy products from pretty much anywhere in the world, as long as they can pay the postage."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Grey goods come into the country, but money goes out, weakening the economy.**\nGrey imports damage the importing economy. By reducing the profitability of the manufacturer/distributor in the importing country, grey imports accordingly often lessen the amount of money that the company can invest in its operations in that country. This is a vicious circle which may reduce demand and so lead to greater inefficiencies in official importation. An acceptance of imports – especially of unclear provenance – hastens the demise of the manufacturing base of the importing country.1 The manufacturer will have less reason to support the brand locally through, for example, advertising, as the benefit does not show up in their local results and, in any case, grey imports tends to start focusing consumers’ minds on price rather than the brand identity. This can be detrimental to the advertising and media spend in the importing country, which for a premium consumer goods brand (e.g. perfume, clothing) could represent quite a significant economic benefit."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Once a good has been sold, manufacturers have no business telling their customers how to use it. This includes selling that good on.**\nIn general we do not accept as moral or socially permissible the idea that the makers of a good can tell their customers where and when they may use that good, who they may give it to, where and when. Car manufacturers do not sell cars on the basis you will only drive to the shops and back, clothes makers do not sell clothes on the basis you will only wear them on Sundays or every full moon. Limiting customer ability to resell items they have paid for in full is irrational and immoral."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would allow retailers to import for resale \"grey\" goods from abroad.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Grey imports limit a company's control over its own products.**\nA free flow of goods is not always an automatic good. The extra transport and pollution involved in grey imports alone is a serious argument against it. Grey importers often do not make clear that products sold under the same brand name in different markets are in fact sometimes tailored to suit the local market environment. So, for example, one of the reasons for lower pricing in some products in particular countries is that they do not include all of the same ingredients as a product sold under the same brand name in another country. This can be, for example, because the performance needs (e.g. the climate), regulatory framework, or consumers' willingness to pay in the two countries vary. Accordingly, in the importing country, consumers may end up paying for a familiar brand that is not actually as well designed for their needs as the domestically marketed version. 1 There are many practical problems with grey importation. For example, consumers may not understand usage instructions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent**\nThis measure introduces a strong deterrent against those who allow and facilitate abusive training methods."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team**\nThis ban is, admittedly, highly punitive and may be called harsh. It will punish hundreds of athletes and coaches who aren’t implicated in cases of abuse. Yet, on a balance of harms, the disappointment those people feel can’t be compared to the suffering of an athlete who is beaten and starved and conditioned into a mode of thinking where they accept this without putting up a fight."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Athletes are vulnerable to their coaches**\nAthletes dedicate their lives to their sport and becoming the world’s best at what they do. They are willing to put their body and minds through all sorts of punishment to do this. As such, they’re not in a position to judge what is and isn’t an acceptable training method. If they’re told that starvation makes them more likely to win gold then their intense desire for Olympic glory often clouds their judgment and ability to make rational choices for themselves. Their coaches are authority figures who assumed to have their best interests in mind, and most athletes also assume their coaches know more than them about how to achieve glory. So, if a gymnastics coach tells her athlete that she needs to starve herself to win gold, the athlete will think themselves a bad athlete if they refuse.[1] This is shown by the long history of drug use in the Olympics where both coaches and athletes know it is wrong to use drugs but still do so in the hope it will bring them gold.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes.**\nJust as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’,[1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent**\nThis measure introduces a strong deterrent against those who allow and facilitate abusive training methods."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team**\nThis ban is, admittedly, highly punitive and may be called harsh. It will punish hundreds of athletes and coaches who aren’t implicated in cases of abuse. Yet, on a balance of harms, the disappointment those people feel can’t be compared to the suffering of an athlete who is beaten and starved and conditioned into a mode of thinking where they accept this without putting up a fight."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Athletes are vulnerable to their coaches**\nAthletes dedicate their lives to their sport and becoming the world’s best at what they do. They are willing to put their body and minds through all sorts of punishment to do this. As such, they’re not in a position to judge what is and isn’t an acceptable training method. If they’re told that starvation makes them more likely to win gold then their intense desire for Olympic glory often clouds their judgment and ability to make rational choices for themselves. Their coaches are authority figures who assumed to have their best interests in mind, and most athletes also assume their coaches know more than them about how to achieve glory. So, if a gymnastics coach tells her athlete that she needs to starve herself to win gold, the athlete will think themselves a bad athlete if they refuse.[1] This is shown by the long history of drug use in the Olympics where both coaches and athletes know it is wrong to use drugs but still do so in the hope it will bring them gold.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes.**\nJust as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’,[1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Harsh training methods aren’t necessarily abusive.**\nConsider that athletes already subject themselves to the kinds of environments that most people actively avoid, and would probably be considered ‘harsh’ by the average person. These routinely involve long days, week after week, often planned out years in advance, practicing special diets and routines[1] and in some countries this may mean being isolated from home and family for years at a time."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The policy is counter productive**\nIf your goal is, ultimately, to reduce the amount of coaches using this method, this policy is massively counter-productive. For people to get punished, you need athletes to report abuse, this policy makes that less likely to happen."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban countries with very harsh training methods from participating in international",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Collective punishment is unjust**\nUnder this policy the victim is punished for the crimes of coach. This seems unfair, why should someone have their professional dream denied to them because somebody else did something wrong? Banning an entire nation from a sporting competition expands this, individuals with no or little attachment to cases of abuse will also be punished and suffer, when they have taken no steps that deserve punishment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Banning Fraternities Will Prevent Chauvinistic Behaviour**\nOne of the main impetuses for young men to join fraternities comes from the idea that it will be easy to have sex with women should they do. This idea has two affects on fraternities. The first, detailed in this point is more indirect. The people who apply to fraternities do so because of these preconceptions and often are able to get in to fraternities."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Fraternities Lead to the Direct Sexual Exploitation of Women**\nWhilst the initial proposition argument claims that fraternities lead to the objectification of women and how this harms women indirectly, this argument claims that the men included in fraternities are more likely to physically harm and rape women.7"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Fraternities Encourage Binge Drinking**\nAs mentioned in the first point, many people join fraternities with preconceptions of the lifestyle available to them. Many people believe fraternities are all about binge drinking for example. Because of this, the applicants that fraternities get are often people looking to engage in that kind of lifestyle. As such, a large number of people who do join fraternities do so under the assumption that they will get to consume large amounts of alcohol. This means that fraternities initially attract people who are already into drinking, but secondly those people that do join also wish to live up to their conception of what a fraternity should be, further encouraging binge drinking. Therefore, those people who join because of the drinking are likely to be accompanied by a large number of people who do not see the problems associated with drinking and encourage their habit. Those who are not initially into drinking may start drinking simply to fit in with the others and this may well be encouraged by initiation rituals which encourage drinking themselves. In this case a ban on fraternities would stop such people coming together in the first place and as such halt peer pressure that might result in unhealthy drinking behaviour."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning Fraternities Will Prevent Chauvinistic Behaviour**\nOne of the main impetuses for young men to join fraternities comes from the idea that it will be easy to have sex with women should they do. This idea has two affects on fraternities. The first, detailed in this point is more indirect. The people who apply to fraternities do so because of these preconceptions and often are able to get in to fraternities."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Fraternities Lead to the Direct Sexual Exploitation of Women**\nWhilst the initial proposition argument claims that fraternities lead to the objectification of women and how this harms women indirectly, this argument claims that the men included in fraternities are more likely to physically harm and rape women.7"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Fraternities Encourage Binge Drinking**\nAs mentioned in the first point, many people join fraternities with preconceptions of the lifestyle available to them. Many people believe fraternities are all about binge drinking for example. Because of this, the applicants that fraternities get are often people looking to engage in that kind of lifestyle. As such, a large number of people who do join fraternities do so under the assumption that they will get to consume large amounts of alcohol. This means that fraternities initially attract people who are already into drinking, but secondly those people that do join also wish to live up to their conception of what a fraternity should be, further encouraging binge drinking. Therefore, those people who join because of the drinking are likely to be accompanied by a large number of people who do not see the problems associated with drinking and encourage their habit. Those who are not initially into drinking may start drinking simply to fit in with the others and this may well be encouraged by initiation rituals which encourage drinking themselves. In this case a ban on fraternities would stop such people coming together in the first place and as such halt peer pressure that might result in unhealthy drinking behaviour."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There Are Many Better Options**\nFirstly, the ban on fraternities is an overreaction to a problem that only exists within a few fraternities. Many fraternities exist as helpful parts of the community which support students in all parts of their lives through creating bonds of friendship and brotherhood that persist over long periods of time."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Fraternities Help Academics**\n\"Fraternities might actually convey benefits on members and even their host institutions. While fraternity membership has been associated with cheating on exams and poor academic performance, other evidence suggests that fraternity members declare majors earlier, obtain higher-paying entry-level jobs and donate more to their alma maters. Anecdotally, simply requiring a higher G.P.A. to permit membership than simply to remain academically eligible might boost school performance among current and would-be fraternity members.\" Says Jeffrey DeSimone in “The Role of Drinking”"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Ban Fraternities",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There are Many Different Forms of Fraternity**\nImplicitly the motion assumes that all fraternities are about binge drinking, illicit sex and partying. However, there are many different types of fraternity that for example, admit members not based on old social connections of general likeability but on other criteria, such as academic success or commitment to certain causes. Indeed there are academic fraternities, religious fraternities and social justice fraternities. Whilst these fraternities aren’t immune to the harms mentioned on proposition, it is clear that their purpose and likely their members are significantly different in their attitudes to the “typical” fraternity member. These groups often do a significant level of good both for their members and for the wider community. It seems unjust therefore to ban all fraternities when these people are not doing anything to significantly harm the rest of the university community.3"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Undermines separation of religion and the state.**\nSince education is something that the state is obligated to provide, any organisation that provides education is a representative of the state, even in private education. If religious groups are allowed to run schools then this means they are acting on behalf of the state, which undermines the separation of religion and the state, which the proposition believes is inherently harmful and undermining to the concept of democracy.[1]  Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes having greater separation of church and state would be beneficial arguing \"I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness.”[2] This separation has to include the education of children."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**State has a responsibility to protect and educate its citizens.**\nThe state should not allow the education of a child to be polluted by what is tantamount to brainwashing. Amartya Sen argues “Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention.”[1] Instead they have to learn about all religions to encourage tolerance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Faith schools are inherently divisive.**\nAt the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship[1]  which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Shows that religion is not a higher authority than the state.**\nWhen the government allows religion to act on its behalf, it confuses the role of the state and the role of religious groups. As it stands, religious groups do not appear to be truly answerable to the state and, therefore, it is unclear whether they or the government are the higher authority.[1] For example in the UK faith schools set their own admission standards and increasingly have control over their curriculum, which in other state funded schools is set by the government, as well as they are being converted to academies.[2]  This legislation would make it completely clear that the state is the ultimate authority."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Creates animosity towards religious groups**\nFaith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion.[1]  As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Undermines separation of religion and the state.**\nSince education is something that the state is obligated to provide, any organisation that provides education is a representative of the state, even in private education. If religious groups are allowed to run schools then this means they are acting on behalf of the state, which undermines the separation of religion and the state, which the proposition believes is inherently harmful and undermining to the concept of democracy.[1]  Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes having greater separation of church and state would be beneficial arguing \"I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness.”[2] This separation has to include the education of children."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**State has a responsibility to protect and educate its citizens.**\nThe state should not allow the education of a child to be polluted by what is tantamount to brainwashing. Amartya Sen argues “Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention.”[1] Instead they have to learn about all religions to encourage tolerance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Faith schools are inherently divisive.**\nAt the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship[1]  which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Shows that religion is not a higher authority than the state.**\nWhen the government allows religion to act on its behalf, it confuses the role of the state and the role of religious groups. As it stands, religious groups do not appear to be truly answerable to the state and, therefore, it is unclear whether they or the government are the higher authority.[1] For example in the UK faith schools set their own admission standards and increasingly have control over their curriculum, which in other state funded schools is set by the government, as well as they are being converted to academies.[2]  This legislation would make it completely clear that the state is the ultimate authority."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Creates animosity towards religious groups**\nFaith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion.[1]  As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Parents have a right to ensure their child is brought up with the values they consider important.**\nParents send their children to school so that they can be properly educated. For many parents, this education includes proper moral codes and values. Sending their child to a faith school that they know will adhere to the moral codes and values of that particular faith is one of the only ways that they can guarantee their child will be brought up with the values they consider important.[1] It is this that in part makes the schools popular as Ed Balls, then UK education secretary recognises \"One thing we've learnt as a government is that having a distinct ethos, strong leadership, a commitment to promoting opportunity for all, those are the kind of schools where parents want to send their children.”[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Relationship with organised religion.**\nPassing this legislation with be sending a signal to the religious groups that are running faith schools that we do not think they are capable of running schools. The state’s relationship with organised religion is already a fractured one. This legislation would cause a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Relationship with religious people.**\nThis legislation would send a message of no confidence in religion and would be tantamount to the government condemning religion. It is wrong for government to suggest that faith schools are divisive as “the average grade awarded by Ofsted to secondary-level faith schools for promoting community cohesion was \"substantially and significantly\" better than the average grade awarded to community schools.”[1] This will lead to religious people feeling undermined and insulted by their government who would be attacking their faith with no justification based upon the performance of the schools."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Faith schools perform better than ordinary schools.**\nFaith schools consistently perform better than ordinary schools. According to Ofsted, the UK schools inspectors, 73% of Catholic secondary Faith schools are good or outstanding, compared with 60% of English schools nationally. At primary level, 74% of Catholic schools are rated outstanding or good, compared with 66% nationally.[1] This shows that the religious aspect of their education must have some positive impact on the children who are educated there. Banning faith schools, therefore, would be condemning many children to a poorer standard of education than necessary. The opposition believes that it is the government’s role to provide the best it can for its citizens and banning faith schools would, therefore, be the opposite of this.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would ban faith schools.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Faith schools can be necessary for a religious upbringing.**\nSometimes faith schools are necessary for children to get a full picture of the religion that they have been born into, particularly religions, like Islam, that are based mainly in societies unlike our own and far away from our countries. In these cases, banning faith schools is tantamount to preventing parents from bringing their children up in the faith they want them brought up in. The opposition believes that this legislation is, therefore, equivalent to depriving people of religion.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil**\nCurrently, the United States imports nearly two-thirds of its Petroleum, with the leading suppliers including nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Job creation**\nThe XL Pipeline project has the potential to create a large number of jobs, both in its construction, and in refining and processing at its terminal points within the United States."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Rejecting the pipeline bid would worsen US relations with Canada**\nCanada’s Oil reserves will be of major strategic value in the next century. Currently the United States is Canada’s preferred trading partner and strategic ally, both because of a history of past cooperation, and because the US is both more willing and able to support Canadian claims to the Arctic than China. The Pipeline would consolidate this relationship, ensuring that the development of Canada’s reserves would occur with the American market in mind, because once built, it would be far more expensive to build a second Pipeline than to simply use the existing one."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil**\nCurrently, the United States imports nearly two-thirds of its Petroleum, with the leading suppliers including nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Job creation**\nThe XL Pipeline project has the potential to create a large number of jobs, both in its construction, and in refining and processing at its terminal points within the United States."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rejecting the pipeline bid would worsen US relations with Canada**\nCanada’s Oil reserves will be of major strategic value in the next century. Currently the United States is Canada’s preferred trading partner and strategic ally, both because of a history of past cooperation, and because the US is both more willing and able to support Canadian claims to the Arctic than China. The Pipeline would consolidate this relationship, ensuring that the development of Canada’s reserves would occur with the American market in mind, because once built, it would be far more expensive to build a second Pipeline than to simply use the existing one."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Environmental risks**\nThere are serious environmental factors that should be fully examined before any decision is made to approve the Pipeline project."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would build the Keystone XL pipeline",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**America should not become more dependent on oil**\nA successful development of the Pipeline would deepen the Unite States’ dependence on Oil, and undermine the drive towards renewable fuels."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Local cuisine deserves to be celebrated**\nShopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food cultures. The Slow Food movement emphasises the cultural importance of local cuisines based upon the range of foods that are available within a particular region. By treating the whole world as our larder we have gained an enormous choice of foods, but at the cost of our own culinary heritage and folk traditions. This can cause problems as for example with local varieties of rice in Africa being lost due to competition from cheaper rice producers like Thailand.[1] Each individual cuisine deserves to be preserved and encouraged. We have also lost a sense of seasonality, expecting asparagus and strawberries all year round. Local food restores this connection with the rhythm of the seasons, and connects us to the land around us and to our ancestors who helped to shape it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Prevents Monoculture**\nBy creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage local farmers to grow and rear a wide variety of crops and animals. Intensive modern farming often consists of huge agribusinesses growing monocultures of wheat, corn, rape or soya over vast areas, with little room left for nature. In Britain this has led to a decline in farmland birds with numbers at a 44 year low,[1]  Even livestock farming can impose one type of farming practice upon the environment and drive out plants and animals which cannot cope with those methods. More varied farming practices are valuable for promoting biodiversity, encouraging a whole range of birds, animals and plants to establish themselves in field margins and adjacent wild areas.[2] Local variety is also good farming practice, as it means that any disease or pest infestation will not be able to spread quickly to devastate a whole region."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Supports the local economy**\nShopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – and if it is the retailer who is buying locally then whether the retailer itself is not local will not matter. Typically farmers are forced to sell to middlemen or big business, such as huge supermarket corporations. This means growers see only a small fraction of the price the public eventually pays in the store[1] (as little as 18 cents of every dollar in the USA). This drives down farm incomes and is forcing many farmers off the land as they can no longer make a living. By selling directly to the public at farmers’ markets and farm shops instead, producers can ensure that they get a fair price for their crops and livestock.[2] The income this provides is particularly crucial for small producers, and for farmers committed to more sustainable, less intensive methods, such as organic production."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Fresher produce**\nBuying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket fruit and vegetables are often picked 4-7 days before they make it on to the shelves, and so may be nearly two weeks old before they are actually eaten, by which time much of their goodness will have long departed.[1] To cope with these long delays, many fruits are picked in an unripe state, so that they do not start to rot on the supermarket shelves – meaning their full flavour has never developed out in the sun on the tree or plant. By buying locally consumers can ensure that they get the tastiest, healthiest food as it is often picked the afternoon before going to market or if going to stores can get there in much less time.[2] Local produce will also encourage people to vary their diet by trying new foods if they come from local producers, who can offer tastings and recipe advice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Local cuisine deserves to be celebrated**\nShopping for local produce is also part of a wider movement to rediscover and celebrate local food cultures. The Slow Food movement emphasises the cultural importance of local cuisines based upon the range of foods that are available within a particular region. By treating the whole world as our larder we have gained an enormous choice of foods, but at the cost of our own culinary heritage and folk traditions. This can cause problems as for example with local varieties of rice in Africa being lost due to competition from cheaper rice producers like Thailand.[1] Each individual cuisine deserves to be preserved and encouraged. We have also lost a sense of seasonality, expecting asparagus and strawberries all year round. Local food restores this connection with the rhythm of the seasons, and connects us to the land around us and to our ancestors who helped to shape it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Prevents Monoculture**\nBy creating a market for a wide variety of agricultural produce, shopping locally will encourage local farmers to grow and rear a wide variety of crops and animals. Intensive modern farming often consists of huge agribusinesses growing monocultures of wheat, corn, rape or soya over vast areas, with little room left for nature. In Britain this has led to a decline in farmland birds with numbers at a 44 year low,[1]  Even livestock farming can impose one type of farming practice upon the environment and drive out plants and animals which cannot cope with those methods. More varied farming practices are valuable for promoting biodiversity, encouraging a whole range of birds, animals and plants to establish themselves in field margins and adjacent wild areas.[2] Local variety is also good farming practice, as it means that any disease or pest infestation will not be able to spread quickly to devastate a whole region."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Supports the local economy**\nShopping locally supports local farmers and the local economy – and if it is the retailer who is buying locally then whether the retailer itself is not local will not matter. Typically farmers are forced to sell to middlemen or big business, such as huge supermarket corporations. This means growers see only a small fraction of the price the public eventually pays in the store[1] (as little as 18 cents of every dollar in the USA). This drives down farm incomes and is forcing many farmers off the land as they can no longer make a living. By selling directly to the public at farmers’ markets and farm shops instead, producers can ensure that they get a fair price for their crops and livestock.[2] The income this provides is particularly crucial for small producers, and for farmers committed to more sustainable, less intensive methods, such as organic production."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Fresher produce**\nBuying locally-produced food means that it will be much fresher and healthier. Typical supermarket fruit and vegetables are often picked 4-7 days before they make it on to the shelves, and so may be nearly two weeks old before they are actually eaten, by which time much of their goodness will have long departed.[1] To cope with these long delays, many fruits are picked in an unripe state, so that they do not start to rot on the supermarket shelves – meaning their full flavour has never developed out in the sun on the tree or plant. By buying locally consumers can ensure that they get the tastiest, healthiest food as it is often picked the afternoon before going to market or if going to stores can get there in much less time.[2] Local produce will also encourage people to vary their diet by trying new foods if they come from local producers, who can offer tastings and recipe advice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Trade means lower costs**\nBuying only local produce means making a commitment to paying much more money for your weekly shop. 250 years ago, Adam Smith demonstrated that there is an economic law of comparative advantage. This states that each country or region should focus on producing those crops and manufactures to which it is best suited, exporting these and using the income to purchase things which other countries can produce more cheaply and efficiently. This way everyone prospers, gaining the most profit from their special areas of economic expertise, while spending less to buy those things in which others excel. Deciding to buy only local produce flies in the face of economic reality, because much of the food that can be produced nearby would be much cheaper if imported from another country with cheaper land and labour, a more suitable climate and greater economies of scale. The bottom line here is that shopping local can only ever be an indulgence of the rich – ordinary working families must follow the rules of comparative advantage and buy their food cheaply from supermarkets, which can seek out the cheapest and most efficient sources of each foodstuff. In Zimbabwe, for example, this means even the middle class mainly buys South African (neighbor) products. The local consumers explain that without much disposable income, the cheapest option is the best option.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Localism is Protectionism**\nBuying local produce acts as a form of protectionism (which is why farm lobbies are keen on it). As well as artificially increasing family food bills in developed countries, the cult of localism also hits farmers in the developing world by denying them an export market. Over the past decade or so countries like Kenya and Peru have begun to develop their way out of poverty by exploiting their comparative advantages in agriculture, while other countries such as Afghanistan agriculture is necessary to rebuild the economy after conflict.[1] Developing countries commercial farming operations provide fresh fruit and vegetables for rich consumers in developing countries. Farms growing crops like beans, broccoli, plums and cherries have provided good jobs for hundreds of thousands of poor people, and brought their countries valuable income and investment. We should not sacrifice this massive benefit to the pursuit of protectionist “localism”."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Greater consumer choice**\nSupermarkets thrive because they provide what consumers want, a wide choice of products at competitive prices.  We should be grateful for the advances of transport and economic globalisation, which have brought such a wide range of foods to our shops. Our grandparents ate largely local produce, and this gave them a very dull diet with a very limited choice of fruit and vegetables. They understood the importance of seasonal variation all right, but that meant they had little access to vitamins in the cold winter and spring months. Our diet today is much healthier and more varied as a result of globalisation, and we should not try to turn the clock back to the bad old days when only local produce was available. Even when there is no question of nutrition why should consumers not have the choice both of a British apple and a French apple? Many may prefer the taste of the French apple or it may be better for producing a certain type of chutney."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would buy locally produced food",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Shops and consumers should buy their produce based upon their overall environmental impact**\nBuying local is not actually environmentally friendly. The idea of food miles sounds wonderfully green, but the concept is deeply flawed. Often it takes much more energy (for heated glasshouses and fertilisers) to grow fruit and vegetables locally than it does to grow them in a country with a more suitable climate and then transport them by road, sea or air. Studies have found that it is better for the environment to produce butter, cheese, lamb and apples in New Zealand and then ship them to Britain, than it is to buy the same items from English producers.[1] And most of the food miles travelled by products come from refrigeration and consumers driving to and from the shops.[2] Indeed, the carefully packed lorries of the huge supermarkets are a more energy efficient way of distributing food than having lots of small producers driving pick-up trucks to farmers markets. Therefore consumers and retailers should concentrate much more on the overall environmental impact rather than just upon food miles."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe**\nColonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon**\nThe idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years.[i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**We are already losing the technology and knowledge necessary for manned extra-terrestrial travel – critically that required to land people, we owe it to future generations to retain it.**\nIf we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**We already know something about it and so have a clearer idea of what to look for**\nIn many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe**\nColonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon**\nThe idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years.[i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**We are already losing the technology and knowledge necessary for manned extra-terrestrial travel – critically that required to land people, we owe it to future generations to retain it.**\nIf we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**We already know something about it and so have a clearer idea of what to look for**\nIn many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is impossibly expensive and lacks the kind of popular support required to get the 1969 mission of the ground**\nTo make the kind of funding this project would require available, massive public and political will would be needed. This simply doesn’t exist."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There’s nothing more to find out, at least nothing that can’t be done with much cheaper unmanned missions**\nThere are simply no good scientific reasons to send a manned flight to the moon. The desire to do so may have good justification in science fiction but not science fact[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would colonize the moon",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There are simply better things to be spending money on**\nWhichever argument you pursue for going to the moon there are better and cheaper ways to achieve those designated goals. Whether it’s scientific, business-related, or as a ‘practice’ for exploration of deep space, there are better ways of spending the money and deploying the scientists, engineers and technicians. To waste not only the money but, more importantly, the time and expertise in the name of extending a national mythology or a political ego-fix is absurd. The cost of a moon landing, let alone an extended colonization, is foolish when there are other projects in all of those fields that are crying out for public funding."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public**\nEveryone benefits from the public spreading of knowledge and information. Universities are central loci of the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of science, technology, history, the arts, and all many and varied forms of intellectual enquiry. When the state opts to fund research and development in the university setting, it becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth from that funding, just as it belongs to the researchers who directly produce it. State funding is given to universities not simply to further the bounds of human discovery for its own sake, but so that those boundaries can be pushed for the benefit of the citizens of the polity. This is because the state is fundamentally a servant of the people, using the people’s money to further the society’s aims, such as better health and a more productive workforce. Ultimately the purpose of the state in all its functions is to provide safety and services so that people can all avail of what they consider to be the good life. In order to serve this obligation to the people, the state ensures that the research it funds is publicly available. By conditioning all of its research funding to universities on their agreeing to make all of their work publicly available the state can effectively serve the people and guarantee that the citizenry gets the full benefit of their money spent on those researches. This obligation of states has been echoed in new laws passed in Australia, Canada, and other countries that now seek to expand public access to state funded research, particularly academic research produced in universities and other dedicated research organizations.[1] The ultimate purpose of the state is to serve the public interest, and it is remiss in that duty when it fails to have the products of its monetary investments serve benefit the public. Universities are the great repositories and breeding grounds of knowledge, and the state must ensure that that knowledge, when it is produced because of the state’s largesse, is available for all to enjoy and benefit from."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone**\nThe creators and producers of novel work, literary, scientific, other research, etc. enjoy large and sweeping protections due to the intellectual property rights enshrined in law in all developed countries. These laws restrict public use of these researches, which can only occur with the express permission of the owners of these works. But the research that is deemed worthy of state funding must pass a test of importance, and must be of enough social significance to make it worth doling out limited research and development money. Universities, as the important and vibrant centres of learning and research in the world, are a critical part of states’ efforts to remain relevant and competitive in a world of rapid technological change. States fund many universities, in much of Europe accounting for the vast majority of university funding as a whole, across the EU almost 85% of funding is from public sources,[1] and they currently do not get their money’s worth. Even when states gain partial ownership of the products of research and the patents that arise from state funding to university scientists and researchers they do not serve their full duty to the people they represent. Rather, the state should be ensuring that the information produced is made fully available to the people for their use and for the real benefit of all, not just the profit of a few institutions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The opening up of information to the public encourages further research and development**\nBy making publicly funded academic work freely available to society, the state throws open the door to far more long term progress and invention that has been so long shut by the jealous hoarding of information and research. The arenas of science, literature, critical theory, and all other fields of academic pursuit, benefit most from a proliferation of voices and opinions, this is why the peer review system exists. This is much as how crowdsourcing and openness helps with software development, there are more eyeballs to spot mistakes, as a result research, particularly of large data capture projects is increasingly being crowdsourced itself.[1] By expanding the range of people able to utilize the information produced, more new and interesting things can be developed from it. The state funds important work, work that might never be able to attract private investment but is still important to the public interest. But this funding must then be available so that it may be best used in that public interest. And oftentimes it is only after an unprofitable, academic pursuit is explored with state support that someone else finds a profitable new use for it. That new endeavour can only be realised if academic work is made available to the public. In 2011 universities in the United States earned $1.8 billion in royalties from research.[2] Rather than simply being allowed to profit on their own, the inventions and developments of state-funded academic work should be made freely available to the public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public**\nEveryone benefits from the public spreading of knowledge and information. Universities are central loci of the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of science, technology, history, the arts, and all many and varied forms of intellectual enquiry. When the state opts to fund research and development in the university setting, it becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth from that funding, just as it belongs to the researchers who directly produce it. State funding is given to universities not simply to further the bounds of human discovery for its own sake, but so that those boundaries can be pushed for the benefit of the citizens of the polity. This is because the state is fundamentally a servant of the people, using the people’s money to further the society’s aims, such as better health and a more productive workforce. Ultimately the purpose of the state in all its functions is to provide safety and services so that people can all avail of what they consider to be the good life. In order to serve this obligation to the people, the state ensures that the research it funds is publicly available. By conditioning all of its research funding to universities on their agreeing to make all of their work publicly available the state can effectively serve the people and guarantee that the citizenry gets the full benefit of their money spent on those researches. This obligation of states has been echoed in new laws passed in Australia, Canada, and other countries that now seek to expand public access to state funded research, particularly academic research produced in universities and other dedicated research organizations.[1] The ultimate purpose of the state is to serve the public interest, and it is remiss in that duty when it fails to have the products of its monetary investments serve benefit the public. Universities are the great repositories and breeding grounds of knowledge, and the state must ensure that that knowledge, when it is produced because of the state’s largesse, is available for all to enjoy and benefit from."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone**\nThe creators and producers of novel work, literary, scientific, other research, etc. enjoy large and sweeping protections due to the intellectual property rights enshrined in law in all developed countries. These laws restrict public use of these researches, which can only occur with the express permission of the owners of these works. But the research that is deemed worthy of state funding must pass a test of importance, and must be of enough social significance to make it worth doling out limited research and development money. Universities, as the important and vibrant centres of learning and research in the world, are a critical part of states’ efforts to remain relevant and competitive in a world of rapid technological change. States fund many universities, in much of Europe accounting for the vast majority of university funding as a whole, across the EU almost 85% of funding is from public sources,[1] and they currently do not get their money’s worth. Even when states gain partial ownership of the products of research and the patents that arise from state funding to university scientists and researchers they do not serve their full duty to the people they represent. Rather, the state should be ensuring that the information produced is made fully available to the people for their use and for the real benefit of all, not just the profit of a few institutions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The opening up of information to the public encourages further research and development**\nBy making publicly funded academic work freely available to society, the state throws open the door to far more long term progress and invention that has been so long shut by the jealous hoarding of information and research. The arenas of science, literature, critical theory, and all other fields of academic pursuit, benefit most from a proliferation of voices and opinions, this is why the peer review system exists. This is much as how crowdsourcing and openness helps with software development, there are more eyeballs to spot mistakes, as a result research, particularly of large data capture projects is increasingly being crowdsourced itself.[1] By expanding the range of people able to utilize the information produced, more new and interesting things can be developed from it. The state funds important work, work that might never be able to attract private investment but is still important to the public interest. But this funding must then be available so that it may be best used in that public interest. And oftentimes it is only after an unprofitable, academic pursuit is explored with state support that someone else finds a profitable new use for it. That new endeavour can only be realised if academic work is made available to the public. In 2011 universities in the United States earned $1.8 billion in royalties from research.[2] Rather than simply being allowed to profit on their own, the inventions and developments of state-funded academic work should be made freely available to the public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts**\nThe developer of a new idea, theory, technology, invention, etc. has a fundamental intellectual property right. Academics in universities, through deliberate effort create new things and ideas, and those efforts demand huge amounts of personal sacrifice and invention in order to bear fruit. State funding is often given to pioneering researchers who eschew traditional roads in pursuit of new frontiers. Often there are no obvious profits to be immediately had, and it is only because of the desire of these individuals to expand the canon of human knowledge that these boundaries are ever pushed. It is a matter of principle that these academics be able to benefit from the fruits of their hard-won laurels.[1] The state stripping people of these rights is certainly a kind of theft. Certainly no amount of public funding to an institution can alter the fundamental relationship that exists between creator and the product of their endeavour. The state-funded University of Illinois, for example, has led the way in many technologies, such as fast charging batteries, and has spawned dozens of high-tech start-ups that have profited the university and society generally.[2] The state can easily gain a return on its investments in universities by adopting things like licensing agreements that can provide the state with revenue without taking away the benefits from the developers of research. Furthermore, this policy strips control of researchers’ control over their works’ use. State funding should obviously come with some requirements in terms of some sharing of revenues, etc., but it is also important to consider the extent of the impact work may offer the world. For example, the team that produced the atomic bomb at the University of Chicago became extremely worried after seeing what their invention could wreak, yet the power over their invention was taken over entirely by the state.[3] Certainly that is an extreme example, but it highlights the risks of stripping originators of control over what they produce."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It reduces the ability of universities to be self-sufficient and to fund other less potentially profitable pursuits**\nUniversities often use the revenues from their more profitable researches to fund the less financially valuable intellectual fields. This often takes the forms of patent revenues from science and engineering departments going to pay for philosophy and English departments. While there is always a chance a new development in polymers or chemicals will generate some future profit, this is rarely the case for experts in medieval history. Yet universities, as the centres of learning and knowledge in society, value all avenues of academic exploration. State funding tends to go toward the development of new technology and other “hard” disciplines, as they can be explained to voters as valuable investments in society’s future. It is easy for them to sell investment in engineering projects. It is much harder for a politician to explain the need for funding a study in 19th century feminist critical theory. The result of this policy is to create a serious depletion of universities’ resources for cross-discipline funding, meaning that the study of the humanities and arts becomes less tenable. It is essential that universities retain the freedom to invest in all aspects of human knowledge, not merely those that might provide economic benefits. The quality of the human experience cannot be measured in euros or dollars alone, but must account for the understanding of things like the human condition. Only by allowing universities to keep the well-earned fruits of their researches can society hope to be able to explore all fields of human understanding."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would condition state funding to universities upon all academic work being made available",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The disincentive to take public funding will stifle advancement in valuable fields that rely on the university infrastructure**\nResearch and development relies on the profit motive to spur it on, even in the hallowed halls of academia. Without the guarantee of ownership over the products of state-funded research the desire to engage in such activities is significantly blunted. This is a major blow to the intellectual development of society because it serves as a breaker between two institutions that work best when their interests are aligned, the state and the university. Universities are the great bastions of learning, institutions that bring together the best and brightest to dedicate themselves to the furtherance of human understanding. The state has the resources of a nation to deploy in the public interest. By funding academic research in universities, the state can get more valuable information more cheaply it can through setting up its own research institutions. The universities have the expertise and the basic infrastructure that the state is best served not duplicating unnecessarily. But partnerships between universities and the state are only possible when the universities and their researchers are guaranteed the protections necessary to merit their own investment and attention to the state-funded project. Thus the best system is one that harnesses the brain power and financial incentives of the universities and channels their efforts to the public interest."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:**\nSpace exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well.\n1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. \"Benefits of Space"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.**\nThere is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life.\n1http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/25/how_do_you_say_realpol... \">Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say \"realpolitik\" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe:**\nHuman history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself.\n1 Dick, Steven. 2009. \"Why We Explore\". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The knowledge and technology to be gained from interaction with extraterrestrials is potentially limitless:**\nHumanity has built, in the relatively few millennia since formal writing was invented, compiled a truly gigantic quantity of information and knowledge, to which it is constantly adding, at increasingly rapid rates. To imagine the treasure trove of knowledge and experience that would become available to humanity in the event of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life of similar, or even greater, technological and social development is almost impossible1. The wisdom that could be gained, especially considering that alien life would likely have evolved along very different lines than humans, could be of a kind that mankind could never have conceived without such contact. This great potential for the gaining of knowledge is reason enough to devote resources to the effort of making contact.\n1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:**\nSpace exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well.\n1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. \"Benefits of Space"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.**\nThere is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life.\n1http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/25/how_do_you_say_realpol... \">Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say \"realpolitik\" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe:**\nHuman history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself.\n1 Dick, Steven. 2009. \"Why We Explore\". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The knowledge and technology to be gained from interaction with extraterrestrials is potentially limitless:**\nHumanity has built, in the relatively few millennia since formal writing was invented, compiled a truly gigantic quantity of information and knowledge, to which it is constantly adding, at increasingly rapid rates. To imagine the treasure trove of knowledge and experience that would become available to humanity in the event of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life of similar, or even greater, technological and social development is almost impossible1. The wisdom that could be gained, especially considering that alien life would likely have evolved along very different lines than humans, could be of a kind that mankind could never have conceived without such contact. This great potential for the gaining of knowledge is reason enough to devote resources to the effort of making contact.\n1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Extraterrestrials might prove unintelligible, or even hostile toward humanity:**\nWere extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, an unlikely event in itself, the ability to share in any form of meaningful communication might well prove more difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they said, even if they could be heard. Language is built largely on frames of reference, and when an extraterrestrial, evolving on an entirely alien world, perhaps possessing an entirely alien thought process, and certainly having an entirely alien linguistic frame of reference, no level of communication might be possible. With no conceptual similarities or cognitive common ground, the potential for sharing knowledge between species would likely prove impossible to decipher. They could simply be too alien. Furthermore, the hope that technologically advanced extraterrestrials would be friendly towards humanity is entirely unfounded. They might well prove hostile, and if they are more technologically advanced, they could prove an existential threat to the survival of mankind1. This is especially true if the extraterrestrials were actually capable of physically reaching Earth, which would require an understanding of physics and engineering centuries ahead of that of mankind. Welcoming such creatures to Earth could well spell ruin for humanity, as so advanced a civilization might well consider humanity to be of no higher an order of life than we might consider insects. It is far better than humanity not make such a habit of broadcasting its position. It could prove dangerous, especially if the Universe is not as friendly a place as scientists hope."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than our own could lead to mass existential crises, putting the existence of human civilization at risk:**\nAlmost every human belief system, religious or secular, is based on an anthropocentric outlook. Humanity is the collective center of its Universe; the cognitively aware being that can interact with physical reality not simply by impulse, but by self-aware, conscious agency. Human belief in itself is based upon its conception of dominion over the physical world. Mankind shapes its own environment; while weaker, slower, and smaller than many other species, the intelligence of Man makes Him the apex predator. Mankind's image of itself is compromised by the existence of other intelligent life, especially more advanced intelligent life. It seems that most religious belief systems could not effectively survive with such knowledge, since the existence of intelligent, advanced extraterrestrials seems to imply the nonexistence of a creator God with any active interest in humanity over any other species1. The realization that we are not the center of the Universe could shake many people to their cores, particularly the religious, many of whom would likely find great difficulty coming to terms with that reality. It would be better that humans not seek out such revelations about the Universe. If intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the Universe, better not to invite it to Earth. The cost to people's beliefs and sense of being is too high.\n1 Peters, Ted. 2011. \"The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion\". Philosophical Transactions of the"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Attempts to contact extraterrestrial life are a waste of time and money:**\nBillions of dollars have been spent by a number of countries, principally the United States, on great projects seeking to make contact and signal extraterrestrials. None of these has received so much as a peep in reply. The reason for this is likely that intelligent life is an extreme rarity, with humanity its only exemplar in this part of the galaxy1. If there were intelligent life within receiving range of Earth-based transmissions, the extraterrestrials would have had ample opportunity to respond, or at least make their presence known. The fact that they have not suggests that there are no extraterrestrials within contactable range, or at least none with any interest in talking to Earthlings. If there were extraterrestrials on more distant planets, efforts to contact them would be pointless, as they would be so far away that communication would take many years and would be unreachable physically. Furthermore, the search for extraterrestrials violates reason. Money should only be spent on projects after phenomena worth analyzing have been detected. There is no evidence that intelligent lie other than our own exists at all. Trying to contact little green men in space is just a waste of time.\n1 Ward, Peter. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Philadelphia: Springer."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would continue funding attempts to contact Extra-terrestrial life",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones:**\nThe Earth is faced with many problems that people should be focusing their efforts on addressing, not on the stars and what may or may not be out there. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, poverty, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems1. The resources poured into space exploration and the contacting of extraterrestrials, which will likely serve no lasting purpose, would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. The search for extraterrestrials serves only as a distraction, keeping people's minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. To make things worse, governments use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like efforts to contact extraterrestrials than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. As is shown by developing countries like China and India having space programs while helping to block progress on climate talks and while they still have millions in poverty. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity's concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on trying to get in touch with worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life.\n1 Carreau, Mark. 2009. \"NASA Urged to Keep Feet On Earth\". The Chronicle."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.**\nIn recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases[1][2]. Given that both physical[3] and psychological[4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals[5]. Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens[6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.**\nWe already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’[1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’[2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.**\nSome governments, such as the Vietnamese government[1], have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham[2]. Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage[3], which resulted in the destruction of property[4], physical violence towards others[5], and even the deaths of three young men[6]. These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands[7]. To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.**\nUnder the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship[1], and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation[2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet[3], alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves[4]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.**\nIn recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases[1][2]. Given that both physical[3] and psychological[4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals[5]. Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens[6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.**\nWe already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’[1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’[2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.**\nSome governments, such as the Vietnamese government[1], have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham[2]. Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage[3], which resulted in the destruction of property[4], physical violence towards others[5], and even the deaths of three young men[6]. These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands[7]. To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.**\nUnder the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship[1], and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation[2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet[3], alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves[4]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.**\nCensoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.**\nGiven that the Internet is used as an international[1] and public space[2], the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’[3], demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would Censor the Internet",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People often react poorly to being censored by their governments.**\nIn countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the government’s constant censorship has led to public outrage[1], and political satire which heavily criticises the government[2]. Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would criminalise blasphemy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Blasphemy a free expression**\nBlasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would criminalise blasphemy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Social cohesion and hate speech**\nLaws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would criminalise blasphemy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Blasphemy a free expression**\nBlasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would criminalise blasphemy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Social cohesion and hate speech**\nLaws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would criminalise blasphemy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Language and subjectivity**\n“Blasphemy” is a very subjective term. The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed referred to above were regarded by many as blasphemy, but to others they were a form of incisive commentary. (Badkhen A. 2006). Side proposition seems content to trigger a prosecution for blasphemy based on ideas of offence that might be confined to only a very small group of religious believers. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to determine how wide spread a sense of offense must be before a comment moves from being insulting to actively blasphemous. Zororastrian, Bahai and Yezidi religious communities exist in vanishingly small numbers in the UK, but members of each of these faiths have been subject to continual historical persecution. Should their experience of victimisation entitle them to more robust protection than the (relatively) large and wealthy Anglican church? Similarly, should the size of these communities mark them out as vulnerable, and deserving of some sort of legal advantage that allow them to more easily access the protection of anti-blasphemy laws?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would criminalise blasphemy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Oppression within religious communities**\nBlasphemy laws can be used to enforce oppressive and exclusionary practices within religions. The proposition side have gone out of their way to highlight the harm that can be done to religions by actors external to the religious group. However, this analysis does not fit so comfortably with the problems that occur when a member of a religious community wishes to make controversial and divisive statements about their own religion."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Overlong copyright protection stifles the creativity and saps the time of artists**\nIn some instances, when artists achieve success they face the enervating impulse that their achievement brings. They become satisfied and complacent with what they have, robbing them of their demiurgic drive. Worse, and more frequently, successful artists become embroiled in defending their work from pirates, downloaders, and other denizens of the internet. The result is artists wasting time in court, fighting lawsuits that sap them of time to actually focus on creating new works. Artists should be incentivized to look forward, not spend their time clinging to what they have already made. Obviously, they have a right to profit from their work to an extent, which is why a certain, reduced length of copyright is still important. But clearly the current length is far too great as artists retain their copyright until their death and many years after. Moreover once the artist has died it is difficult to see how copyright can be considered to be enhancing or even rewarding creativity; it simply becomes a negative weight on others creativity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Lengthy copyright protection is extremely inefficient for the dissemination of works**\nOnly a tiny fraction of copyrighted works ever become massive successes, breeding the riches of a JK Rowling or the like. Far more often, artists only make modest profits from their artistic works. In fact, almost all income from copyright comes immediately after publication of a work.[1] Ultimately, copyright serves to protect a work from being used, while at the same time that work does little to benefit the original artist. Freeing up availability of artistic works much faster would serve to benefit consumers in the extreme, who could now enjoy the works for free and engage in the dissemination and reexamination of the works. If artists care about having their work seen and appreciated, they should realize that they are best served by reduced copyright. Ultimately, long copyrights tend only to benefit corporations that buy up large quantities of work, and exploit it after artists’ deaths. Notably when the United States has a system that required a renewal of copyright after 28 years only 15% of copyrights were actually renewed.[2] It would be far better for everyone that copyright be shortened and to increase appreciation of works."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Long copyrights serve to severely limit access by the public to creative works**\nBecause copyrights are so long, they often result in severely limiting access to some works by anyone. Many “orphan works”, whose copyright holders are unknown, cannot be made available online or in other free format due to copyright protection. This is a major problem, considering that 40% of all books fall into this category.[1] A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available.[2] The public is robbed of a vast quantity of artistic work, often simply because no one can or is willing to publish it even in a commercial context. Reducing copyright length would go a long way to freeing this work for public consumption."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Long copyright stifles creative responses to and re-workings of the original work**\nArtistic creations, be they books, films, paintings, etc. serve as a spark for others to explore their own creativity. Much of the great works of art of the 20th century, like Disney films reworking ancient fairy tales, were reexaminations of existing works.[1] That is the nature of artistic endeavor, and cutting it off by putting a fence around works of art serves to cut off many avenues of response and expression. When copyright is too long, the work passes beyond the present into a new status quo other than that in which it was made. This means contemporary responses and riffs on works are very difficult, or even impossible. In the United States tough copyright law has prevented the creation of a DJ/remix industry because the costs of such remixing is prohibitive.[2] While a certain length of copyright is important, it is also critical for the expression of art to develop that it occur within a not overlong time. Furthermore, it is valuable for artists to experience the responses to their own work, and to thus be able to become a part of the discourse that develops, rather than simply be dead, and thus voiceless."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Overlong copyright protection stifles the creativity and saps the time of artists**\nIn some instances, when artists achieve success they face the enervating impulse that their achievement brings. They become satisfied and complacent with what they have, robbing them of their demiurgic drive. Worse, and more frequently, successful artists become embroiled in defending their work from pirates, downloaders, and other denizens of the internet. The result is artists wasting time in court, fighting lawsuits that sap them of time to actually focus on creating new works. Artists should be incentivized to look forward, not spend their time clinging to what they have already made. Obviously, they have a right to profit from their work to an extent, which is why a certain, reduced length of copyright is still important. But clearly the current length is far too great as artists retain their copyright until their death and many years after. Moreover once the artist has died it is difficult to see how copyright can be considered to be enhancing or even rewarding creativity; it simply becomes a negative weight on others creativity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Lengthy copyright protection is extremely inefficient for the dissemination of works**\nOnly a tiny fraction of copyrighted works ever become massive successes, breeding the riches of a JK Rowling or the like. Far more often, artists only make modest profits from their artistic works. In fact, almost all income from copyright comes immediately after publication of a work.[1] Ultimately, copyright serves to protect a work from being used, while at the same time that work does little to benefit the original artist. Freeing up availability of artistic works much faster would serve to benefit consumers in the extreme, who could now enjoy the works for free and engage in the dissemination and reexamination of the works. If artists care about having their work seen and appreciated, they should realize that they are best served by reduced copyright. Ultimately, long copyrights tend only to benefit corporations that buy up large quantities of work, and exploit it after artists’ deaths. Notably when the United States has a system that required a renewal of copyright after 28 years only 15% of copyrights were actually renewed.[2] It would be far better for everyone that copyright be shortened and to increase appreciation of works."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Long copyrights serve to severely limit access by the public to creative works**\nBecause copyrights are so long, they often result in severely limiting access to some works by anyone. Many “orphan works”, whose copyright holders are unknown, cannot be made available online or in other free format due to copyright protection. This is a major problem, considering that 40% of all books fall into this category.[1] A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available.[2] The public is robbed of a vast quantity of artistic work, often simply because no one can or is willing to publish it even in a commercial context. Reducing copyright length would go a long way to freeing this work for public consumption."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Long copyright stifles creative responses to and re-workings of the original work**\nArtistic creations, be they books, films, paintings, etc. serve as a spark for others to explore their own creativity. Much of the great works of art of the 20th century, like Disney films reworking ancient fairy tales, were reexaminations of existing works.[1] That is the nature of artistic endeavor, and cutting it off by putting a fence around works of art serves to cut off many avenues of response and expression. When copyright is too long, the work passes beyond the present into a new status quo other than that in which it was made. This means contemporary responses and riffs on works are very difficult, or even impossible. In the United States tough copyright law has prevented the creation of a DJ/remix industry because the costs of such remixing is prohibitive.[2] While a certain length of copyright is important, it is also critical for the expression of art to develop that it occur within a not overlong time. Furthermore, it is valuable for artists to experience the responses to their own work, and to thus be able to become a part of the discourse that develops, rather than simply be dead, and thus voiceless."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Artists deserve to profit from their work and copyright provides just recompense**\nArtists generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new song, painting, film, etc. have a property right over those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone’s head that he or she does not act upon, and an artistic creation brought forth into the world. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment, if only from earnings forgone in the time necessary to produce the work. Artists deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation.[1] For this reason, robbing individuals of lifelong and transferable copyright is tantamount to stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Copyright is the only real scheme that can provide the necessary protection for artists to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their very real labours."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Control of an artistic work and its interaction in the public sphere is the just province of the creator and his or her designated successors**\nThe creator of a piece of copyrighted material has brought forth a novel concept and product of the human mind. That artist thus should have a power over that work’s use. Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her. How that work is then used thus remains an active issue for the artist, who should, as a matter of justice be able to retain a control over its dissemination. That control can extend, as with the bequeathing of tangible assets, to designated successors, be the trusts, family, or firms. In carrying out the wishes of the artist, these successors can safeguard that legacy in their honor. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of lengthy copyrights."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Artists often rely on copyright protection to support dependents and family after, including after they are dead**\nArtists may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists rarely have pensions of the sort that people in other professions have as they are rarely employed by anyone for more than a short period.[1] As a result artists who depend on their creations for their wherewithal look to their art and copyright as a guaranteed pension, a financial protection they can rely on even if they are too old to continue artistic or other productive work for their upkeep. They also recognize the need of artists to be able to support their dependents, many of whom too rely on the artist’s output. In the same way financial assets like stocks can be bequeathed to people for them to profit, so too must copyright be. Copyright is a very real asset and financial protection that should be sustained for the sake of artists’ financial wellbeing and that of their loved ones."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would cut the length of copyright protection",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The promise of copyright protection galvanizes people to develop creative endeavors**\nThe incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavours. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is significantly diminished. Within a robust copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the fruits of their efforts will be theirs to reap.[1] With these protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually writing a novel rather than doing more hours at their job, will take the opportunity. Even if the number of true successes is very small in the whole of artistic output, the chance of riches and fame can be enough for people to make the gamble. If their work were to quickly leave their control, they would be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The law would act as a deterrent against attempts to conceal a smoking habit to procure healthcare**\nThere are realistic ways a policy of denying healthcare access to smokers could be carried out. Insurance companies already ask lots of health-related questions, often including whether their client is a smoker, when assessing life insurance premiums. In these cases, you are required to give details of your lifestyle by law. Of course, some people do not, however this is to be expected since no law is one hundred per cent effective. Sanctions exist to discourage dishonest behaviour. A similar model could be put in place requiring a declaration of smoker status to the health authority. Indeed, many doctors already enquire about their patients' smoking statuses on an informal basis.\r\nIt is also particularly hard to lie about being a smoker for two reasons. First, other people inevitably see you smoking. This means an abundance of witnesses in the case of a dispute, and thus a disincentive to lie. Second, people require doctors to undertake detailed examinations for treatment purposes, thereby allowing them to see obvious outward signs of smoking: tar deposits, tar in cough, yellowed fingernails, etc."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Smokers are a drain on economic resources**\nSmokers contribute a disproportionately large amount to the cost of healthcare. They are a drain on resources. In the UK it is estimated that up to 9,500 beds are blocked daily by smokers, and that up to eight million doctor consultations are required on their behalf each year. A well-informed smoker, unable or unwilling to quit, might assume an increased risk for himself but he would also be indirectly increasing the likelihood of others being unable to access necessary healthcare and this is not fair. Allowing smokers to take scarce beds or organs needed for transplants - that could otherwise go to those suffering from genuine misfortunes - is an unjust allocation of resources."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The added cost to public healthcare that comes as a result of diseases brought upon by smoking is vastly outweighed by the amount of money governments around the world receive in taxes on tobacco. The UK currently takes around 60% of the cost of a pack of**\nMany people have to wait for surgery when they have fallen ill or gotten injured through no fault of their own. Many of the people they are waiting behind have fallen ill out of choice. This includes smokers who have contracted diseases as a result of their habit. There is a vast array of information, easily available to smokers, on the dangers of cigarettes. If despite this, a person chooses to smoke anyway then it is unfair that others who have fallen ill out of genuine misfortune should have to wait in line behind them for healthcare. This problem is particularly in acute in states that have universal healthcare, where non-smokers are forced to wait in a queue for treatment behind those who have negligently made themselves ill smoking. In Britain for example, they have attempted to avoid this by establishing standards under which surgery is denied to obese patients1. Thomas Condliff, the patient, was denied gastric band surgery due to having a body mass index lower than the threshold under which they believed the surgery would be effective2. The priority in such cases is and should be with those who have made a conscious decision to develop an unhealthy habit.\n1 BBC News, 11 Jul 11, Man appeals for NHS gastric bypass surgery. Accessed 14 Jul 11."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Denying access to healthcare for smokers would act as a deterrent, discouraging smokers**\nGovernments should do everything they can to discourage smoking. They already attempt to do so in a number of ways, such as through ensuring graphic health warnings are present on all tobacco packaging. Many states have also introduced legislation banning smoking indoors in an attempt to discourage the habit. However, smoking is still a massive problem - millions of people still do it. The refusal of medical treatment to smokers would surely be a massive deterrent to current/potential smokers from continuing/starting the habit. The safety net of modern healthcare being pulled from underneath them would be a powerful incentive to give up the habit, and reduce the estimated $100 billion that the White House believes smokers cost the economy annually through loss of productivity1.\n1 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**As smokers have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, it is more efficient to prioritize non-smokers**\nFailure to quit smoking before surgical procedures increases cardiac and pulmonary complications, impairs tissue healing, and is associated with more infections and other complications at the surgical site. For example, in a study of wound and other complications after hip or knee surgery, no smoker who quit beforehand developed a wound infection compared with 26% of ongoing smokers and 27% of those who only reduced tobacco use. Overall complications were reduced to 10% in those who quit smoking compared with 44% in those who continued1. This means that surgery costs more on average for smokers and is also less likely to be effective. Treating more smokers means devoting more resources for lower results. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers, at least in certain areas of healthcare, would be beneficial to society as a whole.\n1http Peters, M.J. (2007) Should smokers be refused surgery? British Medical Journal,"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The law would act as a deterrent against attempts to conceal a smoking habit to procure healthcare**\nThere are realistic ways a policy of denying healthcare access to smokers could be carried out. Insurance companies already ask lots of health-related questions, often including whether their client is a smoker, when assessing life insurance premiums. In these cases, you are required to give details of your lifestyle by law. Of course, some people do not, however this is to be expected since no law is one hundred per cent effective. Sanctions exist to discourage dishonest behaviour. A similar model could be put in place requiring a declaration of smoker status to the health authority. Indeed, many doctors already enquire about their patients' smoking statuses on an informal basis.\r\nIt is also particularly hard to lie about being a smoker for two reasons. First, other people inevitably see you smoking. This means an abundance of witnesses in the case of a dispute, and thus a disincentive to lie. Second, people require doctors to undertake detailed examinations for treatment purposes, thereby allowing them to see obvious outward signs of smoking: tar deposits, tar in cough, yellowed fingernails, etc."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Smokers are a drain on economic resources**\nSmokers contribute a disproportionately large amount to the cost of healthcare. They are a drain on resources. In the UK it is estimated that up to 9,500 beds are blocked daily by smokers, and that up to eight million doctor consultations are required on their behalf each year. A well-informed smoker, unable or unwilling to quit, might assume an increased risk for himself but he would also be indirectly increasing the likelihood of others being unable to access necessary healthcare and this is not fair. Allowing smokers to take scarce beds or organs needed for transplants - that could otherwise go to those suffering from genuine misfortunes - is an unjust allocation of resources."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The added cost to public healthcare that comes as a result of diseases brought upon by smoking is vastly outweighed by the amount of money governments around the world receive in taxes on tobacco. The UK currently takes around 60% of the cost of a pack of**\nMany people have to wait for surgery when they have fallen ill or gotten injured through no fault of their own. Many of the people they are waiting behind have fallen ill out of choice. This includes smokers who have contracted diseases as a result of their habit. There is a vast array of information, easily available to smokers, on the dangers of cigarettes. If despite this, a person chooses to smoke anyway then it is unfair that others who have fallen ill out of genuine misfortune should have to wait in line behind them for healthcare. This problem is particularly in acute in states that have universal healthcare, where non-smokers are forced to wait in a queue for treatment behind those who have negligently made themselves ill smoking. In Britain for example, they have attempted to avoid this by establishing standards under which surgery is denied to obese patients1. Thomas Condliff, the patient, was denied gastric band surgery due to having a body mass index lower than the threshold under which they believed the surgery would be effective2. The priority in such cases is and should be with those who have made a conscious decision to develop an unhealthy habit.\n1 BBC News, 11 Jul 11, Man appeals for NHS gastric bypass surgery. Accessed 14 Jul 11."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Denying access to healthcare for smokers would act as a deterrent, discouraging smokers**\nGovernments should do everything they can to discourage smoking. They already attempt to do so in a number of ways, such as through ensuring graphic health warnings are present on all tobacco packaging. Many states have also introduced legislation banning smoking indoors in an attempt to discourage the habit. However, smoking is still a massive problem - millions of people still do it. The refusal of medical treatment to smokers would surely be a massive deterrent to current/potential smokers from continuing/starting the habit. The safety net of modern healthcare being pulled from underneath them would be a powerful incentive to give up the habit, and reduce the estimated $100 billion that the White House believes smokers cost the economy annually through loss of productivity1.\n1 USA Today, 15 Jul 11, Do smokers cost society money.. Accessed 15 Jul 11."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**As smokers have a higher chance of harm from surgery due to complications arising from their habit, it is more efficient to prioritize non-smokers**\nFailure to quit smoking before surgical procedures increases cardiac and pulmonary complications, impairs tissue healing, and is associated with more infections and other complications at the surgical site. For example, in a study of wound and other complications after hip or knee surgery, no smoker who quit beforehand developed a wound infection compared with 26% of ongoing smokers and 27% of those who only reduced tobacco use. Overall complications were reduced to 10% in those who quit smoking compared with 44% in those who continued1. This means that surgery costs more on average for smokers and is also less likely to be effective. Treating more smokers means devoting more resources for lower results. Therefore, prioritizing non-smokers, at least in certain areas of healthcare, would be beneficial to society as a whole.\n1http Peters, M.J. (2007) Should smokers be refused surgery? British Medical Journal,"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Denying healthcare to smokers is impractical**\nThere are several reasons why limiting access to healthcare for smokers could prove impractical. Ultimately they surround the issue of how you define who is a smoker. One man might have chain smoked for 20 years but given up for a year, since a bill limiting access to healthcare for smokers was passed. Meanwhile, another might have been smoking cigarettes now and again just for the past year. Who would be prioritized if the two were on a waiting list for the same operation? If the law penalizes anyone who has ever smoked then it would not provide nearly as strong an incentive to stop smoking. But, if the law does not penalize anyone who has smoked, then choosing whom to punish would seem quite arbitrary.\r\nFurthermore, what is stopping people from simply lying about how much/whether they smoke? They might not show any obvious signs of being a smoker. Even if they do, they could claim to have given up, work around fumes or be a victim of passive smoking."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Denying access to healthcare for smokers will lead to thousands of people being turned away and potentially dying from preventable illnesses**\nThe denial of access to healthcare for smokers is a policy that will directly lead to the turning away of millions of people, merely for making one perfectly legal, if ill-advised lifestyle choice. In a state like France, where 20 per cent of the population, 12 million people, are smokers, such a policy would leave a large minority unable to access basic healthcare for issues that may be unrelated to their smoking habit . Furthermore, it may lead to the ridiculous situation whereby smokers are dying from preventable diseases despite hospitals being under-utilized, as a fifth of the population is no longer allowed in."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Denying access to healthcare for smokers will hurt the economy**\nEconomically, the healthcare of the nation is important for maintaining a productive workforce. Do we really want to lose otherwise functional members of the workforce the first time they contract an aggravated throat infection and cannot afford, or delay for financial reasons, a simple course of antibiotics? Quite apart from productivity, as The Guardian notes, smokers in the United Kingdom also contribute over £10 billion to government coffers through the tobacco tax 1. To lose this source of revenue will do more to hurt national health services than the occasional complication in surgery granted to a smoker. Lastly, because smokers die younger than non-smokers, though they cost more per year, over their lifetime their average health costs are lower than those of longer-living, non-smokers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Denying healthcare to smokers alone is victimization**\nThe denial of healthcare, an established right, without the citizen doing anything either immoral or wrong is pure and simple victimization. Suppose you are a doctor and you have two patients waiting for a heart transplant. Patient A is 65. He does not exercise, has never had a job and has committed a series of crimes throughout his life. Patient B is in his 20s, with a first class degree from a good university. He is a trained doctor himself and wants to go and work in the developing world, to help people suffering from leprosy. But Patient B is a heavy smoker. Should you therefore prioritize patient A? It seems problematic to victimize smokers, particularly considering smoking is legal. If you are going to discriminate against smokers then surely you should discriminate against alcohol drinkers and people who do extreme sports as they are also knowingly endangering themselves. Smoking reduces life expectancy by 2.5 years for men, but obesity reduces life expectancy by 1.3 years and if high blood pressure is added to that by a total of 2.8 years all are preventable so why should only smoking be discriminated against?1 Maybe you should discriminate against people who choose to live in polluted cities. And then there are drug users. What about people who could afford private health care? Should age, occupation and past convictions be taken into account?\r\nIt seems arbitrary and unfair to single out smokers. Yet, if we start to take into account all the factors that determine who \"deserves\" to be prioritized for healthcare, then we are left with the unsavory, illiberal practice of Social Darwinism.\n1 Harvard School of Public Health, \"Four Preventable Risk Factors Reduce Life Expectancy in U.S. and Lead to Health Disparities\", 22 March 2010, accessed 24 August 2010."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would deny smokers access to state healthcare.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Denying healthcare to smokers is a restriction on people's liberties**\nWhether or not you believe it should be, smoking tobacco is legal. At the same time, healthcare is regarded as a fundamental human right, alongside rights to education, food and water. Denying someone healthcare is to impede upon his/her basic liberties and this cannot be justified when, in the eyes of the law, they have done nothing wrong. Criminals have the right to healthcare – it is often that you hear that the trial of a war criminal is being delayed while they receive treatment. Take the cases of Ratko Mladic or Slobodan Milosevic for example 1. If healthcare is given to men who have committed genocide then surely it should be given to smokers. Also, if a Government adopts the line that one's behavior determines the kind of health service one receives then what is to stop that Government applying such a mantra beyond smoking and controlling the practices of those they govern in any number of ways?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries**\nAs new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU[1]; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration**\nThe borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany[1]. For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives[2]. France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part.**\nThe Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe.**\nThe Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult to receive entry visas to enter the Schengen area. As the Schengen area continues to expand, it enforces more and more restrictions on countries that lie outside its borders, turning borders that have historically been open into real fortresses and thus significantly affecting the political and economic relations between long-term allies. For example, the eastern borders of East European States that already enjoy some Schengen privileges are hardening in order to be allowed fully into Schengen as the existing members need to agree that they are implementing border controls satisfactorily.[1] The result is that they are cutting their inhabitants off from neighbours such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in order to give them better access to western Europe. Former members of Yugoslavia that before Schengen was implemented could travel to all the members of the EC (such as Macedonia) have had travel restrictions imposed and this burden has been increasing as more of their neighbours, such as Slovenia,  join the zone or make free travel arrangements with it (such as Serbia and Croatia).[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age.**\nSince the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders.[1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order.[2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries**\nAs new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU[1]; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration**\nThe borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany[1]. For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives[2]. France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part.**\nThe Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe.**\nThe Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult to receive entry visas to enter the Schengen area. As the Schengen area continues to expand, it enforces more and more restrictions on countries that lie outside its borders, turning borders that have historically been open into real fortresses and thus significantly affecting the political and economic relations between long-term allies. For example, the eastern borders of East European States that already enjoy some Schengen privileges are hardening in order to be allowed fully into Schengen as the existing members need to agree that they are implementing border controls satisfactorily.[1] The result is that they are cutting their inhabitants off from neighbours such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in order to give them better access to western Europe. Former members of Yugoslavia that before Schengen was implemented could travel to all the members of the EC (such as Macedonia) have had travel restrictions imposed and this burden has been increasing as more of their neighbours, such as Slovenia,  join the zone or make free travel arrangements with it (such as Serbia and Croatia).[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age.**\nSince the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders.[1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order.[2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Schengen Agreement is both a symbol of and fundamental means of upholding the unity of the European Union**\nThe Schengen Agreement has been supported by the majority of EU members since its inception in 1985 (it covers all the continental states of the EU) and has not caused any of the feared divisions in the 20 years of its existence. Indeed, the idea of freedom of movement creates a united Europe. Most EU leaders, together with a majority in the European Parliament, oppose any major restrictions to Schengen, which they see as a core value of European integration – both as a potent symbol (ranking close to the euro) and a fundamental reality of European solidarity. European Parliament negotiator Carlos Coelho said \"Schengen is free movement and, like the euro, is one of the symbols of Europe\"[1]. There is thus little reason to believe that major divisions will occur any time in the future. Italy and France’s disagreement actually produced a unified response about how to reform the Schengen Agreement for the good of all within it[2]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for**\nThe freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union[1], and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa[2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this”[3]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime**\nCriminality has become globalized, particularly in areas such as drugs that have long supply chains. The response to these threats has to involve large numbers of countries as well and Schengen has provided the impetus for such cooperation. The Schengen Information System (SIS) has been a very successful tool for managing and curbing crime and illegal immigration in the Schengen area[1]. Between August and November 2008, in the first months since the introduction of the SIS database in Switzerland, Swiss authorities queried it about 130,000 times a day[2]. Of an average 30 hits a day, the SIS has found 25 people wanted by another European country in connection with serious crimes[3]. About 900 hits have been for people who have been denied entry into the Schengen area, while another 500 hits have been for missing persons[4]. The database produced about 600 hits for stolen property within its first few months in operation[5]. The Schengen members are now working on developing the SIS II system which will make it easier to manage a constantly expanding Schengen area[6]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The criminalisation of sadomasochism infringes on individual liberty**\nControl of one’s own body is the most fundamental of human rights. No government should be permitted to define how its citizens can express themselves. The distinction between the permissible and the impermissible should be drawn at the line of consent. This is not a novel distinction. Your property cannot be stolen from you if you agree to give it away. You have no legal remedy if your property is damaged by another with your consent, or if you damage it yourself. Why should there be a moral difference when this property is flesh and blood? Paternalism in this instance only protects those who do not want to be protected."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Decriminalisation will protect practitioners of sadomasochism**\nThe criminalisation of S&M removes legal protection from individuals who suffer an abuse of consent while submitting to sadistic practices. Where a dominant partner ignores safe words or pushes a session too far, the criminal status of S&M may lead to a victim being prosecuted alongside a perpetrator. Alternately, victims may be disincentivised from approaching the police altogether."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Sadomasochistic practices should be legal between informed, consenting adults.**\nIt is sufficient for the decriminalization of sadomasochism that each participant is aware of the hazards inherent in the fetishes they will be exploring and consents to them. No law prohibits people from refusing to wear a condom during sexual intercourse, notwithstanding the peril of infection."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Western ideals of beauty already permit individual to endure intense physical pain in order to achieve sexual gratification**\nThe idealization of physical beauty within American and European culture has created a demand for increasingly interventionist forms of cosmetic enhancement. Women and men are prepared to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to have their faces, breasts and genitals maimed and modified by surgeons, to have their skin bleached or their facial muscles temporarily paralyzed by “beauticians” and to be badgered, bullied and blackmailed into complying with restrictive diets and extensive regimes of physical exertion by domineering personal trainers. Except in the most extreme and obvious cases of emotional or psychological disturbance, adults are automatically assumed to be capable of consenting to these acts."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The criminalisation of sadomasochism infringes on individual liberty**\nControl of one’s own body is the most fundamental of human rights. No government should be permitted to define how its citizens can express themselves. The distinction between the permissible and the impermissible should be drawn at the line of consent. This is not a novel distinction. Your property cannot be stolen from you if you agree to give it away. You have no legal remedy if your property is damaged by another with your consent, or if you damage it yourself. Why should there be a moral difference when this property is flesh and blood? Paternalism in this instance only protects those who do not want to be protected."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Decriminalisation will protect practitioners of sadomasochism**\nThe criminalisation of S&M removes legal protection from individuals who suffer an abuse of consent while submitting to sadistic practices. Where a dominant partner ignores safe words or pushes a session too far, the criminal status of S&M may lead to a victim being prosecuted alongside a perpetrator. Alternately, victims may be disincentivised from approaching the police altogether."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sadomasochistic practices should be legal between informed, consenting adults.**\nIt is sufficient for the decriminalization of sadomasochism that each participant is aware of the hazards inherent in the fetishes they will be exploring and consents to them. No law prohibits people from refusing to wear a condom during sexual intercourse, notwithstanding the peril of infection."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Western ideals of beauty already permit individual to endure intense physical pain in order to achieve sexual gratification**\nThe idealization of physical beauty within American and European culture has created a demand for increasingly interventionist forms of cosmetic enhancement. Women and men are prepared to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to have their faces, breasts and genitals maimed and modified by surgeons, to have their skin bleached or their facial muscles temporarily paralyzed by “beauticians” and to be badgered, bullied and blackmailed into complying with restrictive diets and extensive regimes of physical exertion by domineering personal trainers. Except in the most extreme and obvious cases of emotional or psychological disturbance, adults are automatically assumed to be capable of consenting to these acts."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The pursuit of pain for the purpose of achieving pleasure is an immoral act**\nNot only does the state have the right and obligation to uphold the morals of society and stop deviant behavior, but it also has an obligation to prevent escalation of deviance. Acts such as sadomasochism are good indicators of the propensity for escalation to further deviant acts."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is not possible to meaningfully consent to sadomasochistic sex**\nMeaningful consent requires both that the person is informed and of age when consenting, but also requires the ability to withdraw consent at any point in time. Sadomasochism does not afford this crucial requisite of consent to the individual, and therefore no individual can legitimately and fully consent to the act."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated**\nA distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&M[i]. Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would decriminalise sadomasochism",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The right to privacy counterbalances the state's obligation to ban sadomasochistic sex**\ny the proposition, those who want to engage in violent sexual activities will do so, irrespective of laws to the contrary. Without undermining core liberal concepts of privacy and freedom of association, the state will be unable to regulate private sexual interaction. This being the case, when is violent activity most likely to be detected and prosecuted under the status quo? When such acts become too visible, too public or too risky. When the bonds of trust and consent that (as the proposition has agreed) are so vital to a sadomasochistic relationship break down."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Malls promote competition and serve consumers well**\nHypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Out of town centres bring development in their wake.**\nOut of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing \"brownfield\" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience**\nOut of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of \"free\" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Malls promote competition and serve consumers well**\nHypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Out of town centres bring development in their wake.**\nOut of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing \"brownfield\" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience**\nOut of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of \"free\" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment**\nOut of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Out of town malls damage town centres**\nOut of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would drive to an out of town shopping centre",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Out of town centres damage local communities' identities**\nOut of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can \"hollow out\" the community identity and economic viability of the original town."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**NATO expansion would benefit eastern European and post Soviet states**\nThe opportunity of NATO membership creates the incentive for the newly independent republics to achieve internal stability. The criteria for NATO membership include stable democracy; civilian control of the armed forces; a sufficient military capacity to make a meaningful contribution to collective security; and the absence of active disputes on or within the borders of the State.[1] This incentivisation is critical given the  European Union was and still is expanding slower than NATO – many new NATO members such as Albania are years away from achieving EU membership.[2] NATO membership will help these fledging States to help themselves."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**NATO expansion was, and is, necessary for international stability**\nEnlargement was necessary to prevent Europe “reverting to type”. The rise once again of the ethnic and religious causes of war.[1] And this is still a reason for NATO to expand to help stabilise Europe. The Balkans is only the worst area for Ethnic tensions; there are similar cases all over Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The history of Eastern Europe has been one of empires not the nation state. Stalin had a policy of divide and rule; he made sure each soviet republic included substantial minorities in order to prevent the growth of nationalist movements.[2] Stalin only continued a long tradition of ethnic movements within empires in Eastern Europe. The Balkan problem for example is considered an effect of the Ottoman empire; hence the Christian/Moslem divides in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Austrian Empire settled people on its frontiers in much the same way; the result is that none of the eastern European states is ethnically homogeneous. The Violent break-up of Yugoslavia showed the way many other states could potentially go, NATO wished to avoid this and enlargement was its best solution."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**NATO is a fundamental part of the international architecture used to further peace and prosperity in Europe**\nPeace has many foundations and no one international organisation can create all these foundations itself. NATO is therefore just as necessary to the peace of Europe as the OSCE or EU and all of these organisations need to expand to cover the states within Europe to promote peace. NATO therefore in its Message from Turnberry – its response to the end of the cold war - “express our determination to seize the historic opportunities resulting from the profound changes in Europe to help build a new peaceful order in Europe, based on freedom, justice and democracy.”[1] Collective defence is as necessary as economic cooperation in creating peace, this is something that in Europe only NATO can provide. Peace is also promoted by NATO through the security cooperation that it provides; building trust between the member states. This need for trust and equality between the parts of Europe was also explicitly stated by NATO’s Secretary General when he stated “Without enlargement, we would permanently frustrate the ambitions of countries of Central and Eastern Europe for inclusion in the transatlantic security and defence community. That would perpetuate an unnatural and potentially dangerous division between a prosperous, secure and self-confident West and an insecure and uncertain East.”[2] NATO enlargement helps heal this fault line and shows the cold war in Europe is really over."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**NATO expansion would benefit eastern European and post Soviet states**\nThe opportunity of NATO membership creates the incentive for the newly independent republics to achieve internal stability. The criteria for NATO membership include stable democracy; civilian control of the armed forces; a sufficient military capacity to make a meaningful contribution to collective security; and the absence of active disputes on or within the borders of the State.[1] This incentivisation is critical given the  European Union was and still is expanding slower than NATO – many new NATO members such as Albania are years away from achieving EU membership.[2] NATO membership will help these fledging States to help themselves."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**NATO expansion was, and is, necessary for international stability**\nEnlargement was necessary to prevent Europe “reverting to type”. The rise once again of the ethnic and religious causes of war.[1] And this is still a reason for NATO to expand to help stabilise Europe. The Balkans is only the worst area for Ethnic tensions; there are similar cases all over Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The history of Eastern Europe has been one of empires not the nation state. Stalin had a policy of divide and rule; he made sure each soviet republic included substantial minorities in order to prevent the growth of nationalist movements.[2] Stalin only continued a long tradition of ethnic movements within empires in Eastern Europe. The Balkan problem for example is considered an effect of the Ottoman empire; hence the Christian/Moslem divides in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Austrian Empire settled people on its frontiers in much the same way; the result is that none of the eastern European states is ethnically homogeneous. The Violent break-up of Yugoslavia showed the way many other states could potentially go, NATO wished to avoid this and enlargement was its best solution."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**NATO is a fundamental part of the international architecture used to further peace and prosperity in Europe**\nPeace has many foundations and no one international organisation can create all these foundations itself. NATO is therefore just as necessary to the peace of Europe as the OSCE or EU and all of these organisations need to expand to cover the states within Europe to promote peace. NATO therefore in its Message from Turnberry – its response to the end of the cold war - “express our determination to seize the historic opportunities resulting from the profound changes in Europe to help build a new peaceful order in Europe, based on freedom, justice and democracy.”[1] Collective defence is as necessary as economic cooperation in creating peace, this is something that in Europe only NATO can provide. Peace is also promoted by NATO through the security cooperation that it provides; building trust between the member states. This need for trust and equality between the parts of Europe was also explicitly stated by NATO’s Secretary General when he stated “Without enlargement, we would permanently frustrate the ambitions of countries of Central and Eastern Europe for inclusion in the transatlantic security and defence community. That would perpetuate an unnatural and potentially dangerous division between a prosperous, secure and self-confident West and an insecure and uncertain East.”[2] NATO enlargement helps heal this fault line and shows the cold war in Europe is really over."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Russia is no longer a threat**\nRussia no longer presents a credible threat to Eastern Europe or the existing NATO States which NATO expansion could counterbalance. Russia can no longer offer the conventional military threat of the Cold War. The acceptance of this reality by the US is evidenced by the fact that troop numbers in Europe are much reduced from a peak of 277,000 troops and will be reduced further to 30,000 in the next few years.[1] This is the key question for a military alliance as defence is the key purpose. Expansion should therefore be decided based upon the yardstick of whether the expansion is necessary for the security of NATO members. If there is no credible threat then there is no reason to expand the alliance. At the same time while Russia is no longer a conventional military threat it still has its immense nuclear armament. This will remain a threat no matter how many of Russia’s neighbours join NATO but Russia could feel increasingly obliged to focus on its nuclear arsenal to respond to NATO expansion – something which would create a threat to western Europe."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Further expansion of NATO will antagonise Russia**\nRussia considers NATO expansion to be very antagonistic towards it. Continued NATO expansion would only serve to manufacture the expansionist demon that NATO fears. The election of the ultranationalist Duma in 1996, the choice of the hardliner Yvegeny Primakov as foreign minister, and the failure of the reformist party ‘Russia’s Choice’ under Yegor Gaidar even to clear the 5% hurdle for Duma membership was in whole or in part, due to the Russian sense of isolation from Western Europe. President Putin has also made a lot out of his opposition to NATO expansion which he has opposed since he was first elected President.[1] This sense is dramatically emboldened by such provocative actions as threatening to station NATO troops on its borders. The Russian people are unlikely to consider that the forward deployment is not directed against them, as is shown by Russia’s worries about and threats in response to National Missile Defense which is not aimed at them,[2] but instead is only designed to maintain internal stability in the neighbouring republics. By inflaming Russian nationalism, NATO expansion is obstructs democratic development for Russia and undermines the security of its neighbouring republics."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Expanding NATO will overstretch the resources of its core members**\nNATO expansion can in the long term only lead to the overstretching of the organisation and thus the undermining of stability for the entirety of Europe. The credibility of the commitment of article V of the NATO Charter in which every member pledges to come to the defence of another has already been undermined by the inclusion of small countries that would be unable to defend themselves and are practically indefensible.[1] NATO runs the grave risk of becoming so large and diverse it resembles a political organisation rather than a military alliance. The military contribution of the new members would be by definition limited. Were these republics already capable of providing sufficient security to their borders, there would be no necessity for NATO membership. At the point where the NATO commitments become more declaratory than real, the security of every State including the new members is called into question. There are already worries, particularly from the United States, that the U.S. provides a free guarantee while Europe free rides, this is even more of a problem with smaller countries who cannot defend themselves even if they did spend NATOs agreed 2% of GDP on defence.[2] Thus NATO expansion might in fact assist any State eager for its own expansionism in Eastern Europe."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would expand NATO",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The cost of expansion is prohibitive**\nThe costs of NATO expansion are prohibitive at a time when the Western European members are scaling back their defence budgets and the reducing the size of their conventional forces. The Clinton administration estimated the costs of the initial expansion to be $27 to $35 to 2010, but this is mostly the costs restructuring and of making forces interoperable rather than the costs of protecting the new members.[1]  The cost of stationing forces in Eastern Europe would be considerably higher and if NATO ever had to defend these countries the cost would be higher still. Given the fragile economies of the new republics, the existing NATO States will be obliged to absorb the expense of expansion. Even a decade after expansion the new members have mostly not succeeded in reaching the 2% of GDP the alliance targets and their combined defence budgets are only a third of Russia’s.[2] The proper question is whether the taxpayers of the US and Western European States wish to pay to protect citizens of distant republics from phantom threats."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil can mitigate ‘peak oil’**\nAccording to Shell geoscientist Marion King Hubbert, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (similar in shape to the bell-curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. The peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in 1965 but global energy demands are still rising (wikipedia, Peak Oil). This means we’ll likely hit ‘peak oil’ in the coming decades, after which global oil production will decline rapidly. The effects of this will be devastating: oil prices will rise, global transport chains will fall silent and the use of many other oil-related products, like plastics, in our everyday life will be near impossible."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil is economically viable**\nThe production costs per barrel of oil from oil sands is somewhere between $40 to $80 per barrel, and from oil shales somewhere between $50 to over $100 per barrel (World Energy Outlook 2008, 2008). The International Energy Agency expects oil prices to be around or over $100 per barrel in the coming decade (Medium Term Oil and Gas Markets 2011, 2011), rising to $120 per barrel in 2035 (World Energy Outlook 2011 Factsheet, 2011), this is exactly what should be expected with surging demand for oil while supply does not keep up. Moreover, with technology advancing, the production cost per barrel for unconventional oil is likely to decline even further as fields are developed (Can non-conventional oil fill the gap?, 2009). That means this is a sound investment decision."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil can contribute to ‘energy security’**\nCurrently, global oil supply is dominated by the OPEC-cartel, consisting of countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. In 2010, OPEC-countries held about 80% of the world’s global proven conventional oil reserves, with the bulk of this in the Middle East. This creates a dangerous dependency for all oil-importing countries. Suppose the United States or the European Union would face a serious deterioration in diplomatic relations with the Middle East, after which OPEC would decide to cut oil supplies – the consequences would be dire, as the 1973 oil crisis showed."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil can mitigate ‘peak oil’**\nAccording to Shell geoscientist Marion King Hubbert, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (similar in shape to the bell-curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. The peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in 1965 but global energy demands are still rising (wikipedia, Peak Oil). This means we’ll likely hit ‘peak oil’ in the coming decades, after which global oil production will decline rapidly. The effects of this will be devastating: oil prices will rise, global transport chains will fall silent and the use of many other oil-related products, like plastics, in our everyday life will be near impossible."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil is economically viable**\nThe production costs per barrel of oil from oil sands is somewhere between $40 to $80 per barrel, and from oil shales somewhere between $50 to over $100 per barrel (World Energy Outlook 2008, 2008). The International Energy Agency expects oil prices to be around or over $100 per barrel in the coming decade (Medium Term Oil and Gas Markets 2011, 2011), rising to $120 per barrel in 2035 (World Energy Outlook 2011 Factsheet, 2011), this is exactly what should be expected with surging demand for oil while supply does not keep up. Moreover, with technology advancing, the production cost per barrel for unconventional oil is likely to decline even further as fields are developed (Can non-conventional oil fill the gap?, 2009). That means this is a sound investment decision."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil can contribute to ‘energy security’**\nCurrently, global oil supply is dominated by the OPEC-cartel, consisting of countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. In 2010, OPEC-countries held about 80% of the world’s global proven conventional oil reserves, with the bulk of this in the Middle East. This creates a dangerous dependency for all oil-importing countries. Suppose the United States or the European Union would face a serious deterioration in diplomatic relations with the Middle East, after which OPEC would decide to cut oil supplies – the consequences would be dire, as the 1973 oil crisis showed."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil increases climate change**\nA report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) finds that exploitation of North America’s shale and tar-sand oil reserves could increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by up to 15% (Unconventional Oil, 2008). This calculation is not only based on the additional amount of carbon dioxide that using this fossil fuel will generate, but also the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the extraction of oil and the amount of so-called ‘carbon sinks’, natural resources that absorb carbon dioxide, destroyed. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian oil sands would be about 82% greater than average crude refined in the U.S. on a well-tank basis.(United States Environmental Protection Agency , 2010)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil destroys local communities**\nDeveloping unconventional oil requires large amount of land and water – land and water that people use to live off. The environmental hazards translate to severe health risks, like concerns over increased rates of cancer (Unconventional Oil, 2008). Moreover, the ‘boom town development’, where suddenly large groups of oil workers arrive in local communities, disrupts their normal patterns of living. That’s why, for example, Canada’s First Nations have resisted development of oil sands (Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation serves Shell Canada with intent to Sue over tar sands projects, 2011)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would exploit unconventional oil",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unconventional oil is hazardous for the environment**\nOil sand operations lead to deforestation, particularly when the mining is on the surface, and damage to peatland and wetlands. These landscapes are the home to (endangered) species. The production of oil sands is also water intensive, averaging three barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil. The wastewater gathers in ‘tailing ponds’, which contain high levels of napthenic acids from the bitumen, which is toxic to wildlife and aquatic life (Unconventional Oil, 2008). In the case of Canada’s Athabasca tar sands these ponds cover 130 sq km and are leaking 11 million litres of toxic water into the Athabasca river and groundwater every day.(WWF) Finally mining is also energy intensive in itself; 1,200 cubic feet (34 m3) of natural gas is required to produce one barrel of bitumen from sub surface and about 700 cubic feet (20 m3) for surface deposits. This is however a large energy gain as a barrel of oil equivalent is about 6,000 cubic feet (170 m3) of gas.(National Energy Board, 2011)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would explore the universe",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper**\nSince Sputnik was launched in 1957, the space race has given rise to an infrastructure, particularly in the United States and Russia, which can be exploited for economies of scale. The cost of developing shuttles and training astronauts is far cheaper in Cape Carnarvon where the necessary equipment and skills lie to do so. Furthermore, the International Space Station costs upwards of $100 billion, however it serves as a terminal where shuttles can thereafter be pointed to any corner of the universe1. The potential therefore is to save costs by using the existence of the ISS as a stepping stone to elsewhere. To not use fifty years of space development and technology is to render all that investment meaningless.\n1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would explore the universe",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper**\nSince Sputnik was launched in 1957, the space race has given rise to an infrastructure, particularly in the United States and Russia, which can be exploited for economies of scale. The cost of developing shuttles and training astronauts is far cheaper in Cape Carnarvon where the necessary equipment and skills lie to do so. Furthermore, the International Space Station costs upwards of $100 billion, however it serves as a terminal where shuttles can thereafter be pointed to any corner of the universe1. The potential therefore is to save costs by using the existence of the ISS as a stepping stone to elsewhere. To not use fifty years of space development and technology is to render all that investment meaningless.\n1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would explore the universe",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The 'space race' fuels nationalistic sentiment and antagonism**\nSending humans into space or to other planets so that they can erect the flag of a particular nation is a distinctly nationalistic act and one that is likely to create aggressive 'races' in the future just as it has before. China's manned program is openly intended to challenge the US dominance of space for the Communist regime's huge propaganda benefit. George W. Bush's pledge to boost spending on NASA and to restart the manned mission to Mars program was a direct response. This is damaging not only because of the potential for space race conflicts to escalate into greater international hostility, but also because of the way such races could result in the militarization of space, thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-colonial battlefield."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would explore the universe",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The cost of space exploration exceeds the positive benefits**\nNASA during the 1990s spent over a third of its budget simply keeping the ISS manned and the Space Shuttle working1; it will now spend $60 million per seat to use Russian transport to the ISS2. The vast majority of its spending on scientific research comes through ground based research, telescopes and unmanned missions. China has made no claims that there is a scientific benefit to its manned mission and nor has Russia in recent years. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. NASA made a lot of noise about growing zero-gravity protein crystals as a potential cure for cancer when it was trying to justify building the ISS but has since dropped the claims as experiments have shown the claims were overstated. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity.\n1 New York Times. (1995, March 6). Is NASA Among the Truly Needy? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times\n2 Stein, K. (2011, May 18). Critical juncture for U.S. human spaceflight. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Examiner:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would explore the universe",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Space exploration takes resources away from more worthy causes**\nHigh ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot afford; U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman stated in the wake of President Bush's 2004 proposals that money was needed 'right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our education system and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security.'1 Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves new targets. The money spent on probes to distant planets would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement.\n1 Pop, V. (2004, January 19). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Space Daily:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Life is more important than dignity**\nLife is more important than dignity, many medical treatments are unpleasant or painful but they are necessary to preserve life. Without force feeding the anorectic patient will often die. In Australia about 80 per cent of all anorexic children required hospital admission (from 101 cases), and of those, 50 per cent required tube feeding as a life-saving measure to manage starvation.[1] When a patient requires emergency treatment doctors should do what is necessary to save the patient’s life. Psychological problems can only be treated if the person is alive. Treatment for the psychological problem should be considered to go hand in hand with saving the patient’s life as in the B vs. Croydon Health Authority where force feeding was ruled to be complemented the use of other methods to treat her psychiatric problems.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Anorectic patients are not able to make the decision for themselves.**\nAnorectic patients are typically treated under mental health legislation (e.g. the UK 1983 Act). They do not make a free choice because they are not rationally able to weigh up decisions and consequences, they ‘feel’ fat when they obviously are not and are irrational as they are willing to starve themselves to the point of death when suicide is not their intent.[1] The patient is not “capable of forming unimpaired and rational judgements concerning the consequences” (British Medical Association 1992). There have been court cases that have confirmed that force feeding should be allowed when a patient is considered mentally ill. For example the case of “B vs.  Croydon Health Authority” in 1994 it was judged, that B (a borderline personality disorder patient, which involves suffering from an irresistible desire to inflict-self-harm) can be force fed, even though she did not give consent to the treatment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Force feeding can help psychologically.**\nA healthier body weight is necessary to be able to treat the patient’s psychological problems. Studies in Minnesota show that when normal volunteers were starved, they began to development anorectic patterns. They over-estimated the sizes of their own faces by approximately 50%. This shows the impact of starvation on the brain.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**In the first instance, doctors should always act to keep a patient alive**\nMedical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently requested it. The Israeli Courts ordered the force- feeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Life is more important than dignity**\nLife is more important than dignity, many medical treatments are unpleasant or painful but they are necessary to preserve life. Without force feeding the anorectic patient will often die. In Australia about 80 per cent of all anorexic children required hospital admission (from 101 cases), and of those, 50 per cent required tube feeding as a life-saving measure to manage starvation.[1] When a patient requires emergency treatment doctors should do what is necessary to save the patient’s life. Psychological problems can only be treated if the person is alive. Treatment for the psychological problem should be considered to go hand in hand with saving the patient’s life as in the B vs. Croydon Health Authority where force feeding was ruled to be complemented the use of other methods to treat her psychiatric problems.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Anorectic patients are not able to make the decision for themselves.**\nAnorectic patients are typically treated under mental health legislation (e.g. the UK 1983 Act). They do not make a free choice because they are not rationally able to weigh up decisions and consequences, they ‘feel’ fat when they obviously are not and are irrational as they are willing to starve themselves to the point of death when suicide is not their intent.[1] The patient is not “capable of forming unimpaired and rational judgements concerning the consequences” (British Medical Association 1992). There have been court cases that have confirmed that force feeding should be allowed when a patient is considered mentally ill. For example the case of “B vs.  Croydon Health Authority” in 1994 it was judged, that B (a borderline personality disorder patient, which involves suffering from an irresistible desire to inflict-self-harm) can be force fed, even though she did not give consent to the treatment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Force feeding can help psychologically.**\nA healthier body weight is necessary to be able to treat the patient’s psychological problems. Studies in Minnesota show that when normal volunteers were starved, they began to development anorectic patterns. They over-estimated the sizes of their own faces by approximately 50%. This shows the impact of starvation on the brain.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**In the first instance, doctors should always act to keep a patient alive**\nMedical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently requested it. The Israeli Courts ordered the force- feeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Compulsory treatment is not a long term solution.**\nCompulsory treatment may only be successful in the short term. In the long term it does nothing to reduce the fear of food, weight and hospital felt by the patient and is a barrier to treatment. Hospital admission often has a worse outcome for the patient; there are increased mortality rates which are then even higher for those who are admitted against their will.[1] Suicide accounts for 27% of anorexia deaths.[2] Compulsory treatment may make the patient more depressed and at greater risk from harm."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Anorexics need to be able to trust their doctors.**\nThe most successful policies are where anorectic patients feel safe and trust their doctors so are willing to go to clinics voluntarily as they feel that they are in control of the situation.[1] Conversely an anorectic patient’s fear of weight gain, especially forced weight gain in hospital is an obstacle to treatment. If an anorexia nervosa sufferer thinks that they will be force- fed they may be less likely to seek treatment or advice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Force feeding strategies may cause physical harm**\nForce-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. Indeed it according to Dr Sacker anorexia is often not even about food rather \"By stopping food from going into the body, what they really feel is they can be in control of their body.” [1] This desire is actively harmed by force feeding as a result they are even less likely to come forward voluntarily if they are faced with the possibility of force- feeding."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force feed sufferers of Anorexia Nervosa",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The focus should be on palliative care.**\nSome doctors advocate focusing on palliative care (relief of pain but not treatment of cause) due to the low full recovery rates of anorexia sufferers. Research Studies show that over 10 years only approximately 20% of patients recover. Those patients who are sufferers for more than 12 years are unlikely to ever recover."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.**\nSport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.**\nThe male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.**\nA more obvious problem with the limited coverage of women’s sport is the distinct lack of sports role models available as sources of inspiration for girls. Having sports role models is crucial for children to attain the desire and motivation to partake in sport. Boys often want to be like Lionel Messi in football, or Lebron James in basketball. Boys can access such figureheads because they are world famous. Their sporting achievements and prowess are glorified in all forms of media and people can very easily watch them play their sport live on TV. The same does not exist for girls because female athletes receive nowhere near as much media attention as their male counterparts. Girls often can’t even name any female sports stars so lack role models in sport.[1] Although it is true that children can have role models of either sex, the divide in the sports world between men’s and women’s sports means girls cannot aspire to compete alongside the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport**\nIncreased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.**\nSport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.**\nThe male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.**\nA more obvious problem with the limited coverage of women’s sport is the distinct lack of sports role models available as sources of inspiration for girls. Having sports role models is crucial for children to attain the desire and motivation to partake in sport. Boys often want to be like Lionel Messi in football, or Lebron James in basketball. Boys can access such figureheads because they are world famous. Their sporting achievements and prowess are glorified in all forms of media and people can very easily watch them play their sport live on TV. The same does not exist for girls because female athletes receive nowhere near as much media attention as their male counterparts. Girls often can’t even name any female sports stars so lack role models in sport.[1] Although it is true that children can have role models of either sex, the divide in the sports world between men’s and women’s sports means girls cannot aspire to compete alongside the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport**\nIncreased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.**\nThe role of the media is not to be a tool for the implementation of social policy. It is instead to inform the public and provide entertainment. However, it would be naïve and short-sighted to believe that the media should report and cover everything equally so as to perfectly inform the public. The nature of media coverage is such that there is a limited amount each media company can cover. There is a limit on air-time available to radio and TV stations and there is a limit to the number of pages newspapers can print. Media companies thus have to make a choice regarding what to report and to what extent. It makes sense for more coverage to be offered for stories and events that are deemed to be of greater importance by the general public (irrespective of its objective value). For example, news about local flooding in Queensland Australia may be hugely important for Australians, but considerably less so for people in Europe or the Americas. Similarly, a British victory at the World Schools Debating Championships would not be (by and large) seen as important as a British victory in the Football or Rugby World Cup. We would thus expect the media to cover each story according to its popularity. Given the considerably lower public interest in most women’s sport compared to men’s, it thus makes sense for men’s to receive more media coverage. That coverage is based on popularity rather than media bias is shown by more than two thirds of media reports not in any way enhancing stereotypes, the media are therefore not specifically discriminating against women in sport.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Women’s sports do not provide the same economic incentives for media coverage as men’s.**\nMedia coverage is dependent on one crucial factor: financial incentive. The journalism industry is hugely competitive and media companies constantly have to compete with rivals for viewers and numbers of papers and magazines sold, often just in order to survive. [1] This is important for two reasons. Firstly because more sales obviously means more revenue, and secondly because the volume of sales or viewers attracts more money from advertisers and sponsors who want to maximise the exposure of their adverts to the general public. Therefore, for media companies to prosper, they must cover subjects that are most popular and likely to receive most attention by the public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general**\nThe proposition have acknowledged that media coverage is a crucial source of revenue for sport in the form of sponsorship deals and TV rights. However, forcing media companies to provide equal coverage of men’s and women’s sport, inevitably leads to a thoroughly imperfect and inefficient market within the sports media industry. Sponsors and advertisers would not be as inclined to spend money on media coverage since they would deem that their advertising would reach fewer people and so have less of an impact. Moreover, sports newspapers and magazines are likely to suffer since the vast majority of readers are men interested in men’s sports."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children**\nState education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Improving the quality of state managed education**\nState schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Increasing parents' freedom of choice**\nDifferent parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children**\nState education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Improving the quality of state managed education**\nState schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Increasing parents' freedom of choice**\nDifferent parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme**\nEven if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice**\nUnder the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund education using a voucher scheme",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory**\nThe state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease**\nA needle exchange as mentioned in the introduction allows drug users to trade in dirty needles for new ones. This can prevent disease simply by preventing transfer of fluids from one drug user to another. As such, if one drug addict has HIV and has not yet been diagnosed it becomes less likely that he will transmit the disease to another person. Further, many drug addicts fail to even consider the possibility of infection via dirty needles, the mere presence of a needle exchange in the nearby vicinity causes drug addicts to be more aware of the dangers associated with dirty needles."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges protect the public**\nNeedle exchanges allow drug addicts a convenient and safe place to throw away used needles. This directly protects the public from stray needles that are sometimes put in rubbish bins or left lying around. Specifically this protects children who often don’t know to avoid needles but it also protects sanitation workers and other staff from being accidentally struck by a needle."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges can help social services to locate addicts who are in need of treatment**\nNeedle exchanges allow drug addicts to see formal parts of the state that they often associate with negatively as institutions that can help them. This allows them to more positively associate with other state mechanisms such as rehabilitation clinics in the future."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease**\nA needle exchange as mentioned in the introduction allows drug users to trade in dirty needles for new ones. This can prevent disease simply by preventing transfer of fluids from one drug user to another. As such, if one drug addict has HIV and has not yet been diagnosed it becomes less likely that he will transmit the disease to another person. Further, many drug addicts fail to even consider the possibility of infection via dirty needles, the mere presence of a needle exchange in the nearby vicinity causes drug addicts to be more aware of the dangers associated with dirty needles."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges protect the public**\nNeedle exchanges allow drug addicts a convenient and safe place to throw away used needles. This directly protects the public from stray needles that are sometimes put in rubbish bins or left lying around. Specifically this protects children who often don’t know to avoid needles but it also protects sanitation workers and other staff from being accidentally struck by a needle."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges can help social services to locate addicts who are in need of treatment**\nNeedle exchanges allow drug addicts to see formal parts of the state that they often associate with negatively as institutions that can help them. This allows them to more positively associate with other state mechanisms such as rehabilitation clinics in the future."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Creating needle exchange may normalise drug-taking behaviour**\nNeedle exchanges increase drug use. The state implicitly accepts that drug use is an acceptable practice when it aids drug users in practicing their habit. As such drug users feel less afraid of taking drugs. This can extend to first time users who might be encouraged by friends to take drugs using the morally grey area created by needle exchanges as an argument."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges will increase the incidence of drug use**\nBeyond increasing drug use through condoning the practice, needle exchanges also facilitate drug use by gathering all the drug addicts in a single area. This allows drug dealers to operate more efficiently and as such gives them more time to explore new markets for their drugs. As well as this, people are encouraged to keep on taking drugs as they feel the risk to them from doing so has been significantly decreased by the exchange. Given the lower risk, those drug users that are still somewhat rational actors will be more likely to take drugs because of the lower potential harm."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would fund needle exchanges",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Needle exchanges cause crime**\nNeedle exchanges gather a large number of drug addicts into a single area. Many drug addicts are forced into criminality because of their addiction. Given that this is true, the needle exchanges serve to concentrate a large number of potential criminals in a small area. Not only does this increase crime in the area itself significantly, what is also manages to do is cause criminals to meet other criminals who they may not have interacted with before."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Restrictions benefit the health of third parties**\nThis argument is built on the premise that a ban or higher taxation in practice will lead to less smokers, especially protecting the families of smokers and other non-smoking citizens from potential health risks and premature death."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Restrictions reach out to the general population**\nA ban or high restrictions is a good measure to diminish the effects of smoking in society, because unlike the spreading of information (which is usually done by schools / clubs), governmental restrictions or a total ban will ensure the access of measures to the whole population. Through a ban on advertisement or higher taxation those citizens not involved in active educational structures get educated about the problem."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens**\nThere is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Restrictions benefit the health of third parties**\nThis argument is built on the premise that a ban or higher taxation in practice will lead to less smokers, especially protecting the families of smokers and other non-smoking citizens from potential health risks and premature death."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Restrictions reach out to the general population**\nA ban or high restrictions is a good measure to diminish the effects of smoking in society, because unlike the spreading of information (which is usually done by schools / clubs), governmental restrictions or a total ban will ensure the access of measures to the whole population. Through a ban on advertisement or higher taxation those citizens not involved in active educational structures get educated about the problem."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens**\nThere is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Regulation harms safety and the poor population**\nCigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Democratic systems should educate on smoking rather than restrict it**\nThe principle of democracy is to let people make their decisions and to ensure, that the decisions they make are as informed as possible. Due to the maximization of an individual's happiness the government should only have the possibility to give information to their citizens and let them all decide, how they want to make use of their freedom of choice."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with**\nFreedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would further restrict smoking",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This will open up a black market**\nThe lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.**\nOffering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers[1]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.**\nInsurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.**\nDrivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.**\nOffering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers[1]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.**\nInsurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.**\nDrivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This rewards law-breaking.**\nThis policy rewards those who break the law and therefore is unjustified."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.**\nThis policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.**\nAllowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Amnesties are the only long term solution**\nAmnesty is the only way to deal with the fundamental problem behind immigration; the developed world much richer and has more jobs available than the developing world. For example the USA has a per capita GDP of $48,100[1] by comparison Mexico’s is only $15,100[2] using PPP the gap with the Central American countries to the south of Mexico is even starker with Guatemalan GDP/capita at $5,000.[3] Not surprisingly the USA far outstrips the Central American countries in the Human development index; the US is 4th, Mexico 57th and Guatemala 131st.[4] So long as there is such diversity of income and opportunity immigrants will keep coming, and this will continue no matter what the state that is receiving migrants does in an attempt to deter them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Migrants benefit the economy**\nMigrants, including illegal migrants, are necessary for the economies of rich countries. There are schemes run by these countries that allow the migration of skilled workers for jobs where there is a skills shortage in the native population, for example the United Kingdom takes in a lot of migrants to work as doctors and migrants. However these schemes fail to acknowledge that migrants are also vital for unskilled jobs which native workers are often unwilling to take; for example jobs in catering, picking crops and cleaning. Approximately 6.3 million illegal immigrants are working in the USA, and these are benefiting the economy.[1] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas says “The pace of recent U.S. economic growth would have been impossible without immigration. Since 1990, immigrants have contributed to job growth in three main ways: They fill an increasing share of jobs overall, they take jobs in labor-scarce regions, and they fill the types of jobs native workers often shun.”[2] Amnesties are necessary to ensure the economy keeps benefiting from these workers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Immigrants are needed to make up for aging populations**\nMuch of the rich world is aging, and in a few cases is close to having a declining population. As a result the size of the available workforce will decrease. For example in Germany by 2050 a third of the population will be over 60,[1] and over the next 15 years will as a result loose five million workers from the current workforce of 41 million.[2] While increasing retirement age can mean that these reductions in the size of the workforce come later to maintain the size of the workforce immigration or a rapid increase in birth rate is necessary. These countries in order to maintain the size of their economies will therefore either have to rapidly increase productivity, which itself may not be easy as they are already the most productive nations, or else allow migrants to fill the gaps in the labour force. At the same time there will be an increase in some jobs that rely on migrants such as care workers to help look after the increasing number of elderly.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Amnesties are the only long term solution**\nAmnesty is the only way to deal with the fundamental problem behind immigration; the developed world much richer and has more jobs available than the developing world. For example the USA has a per capita GDP of $48,100[1] by comparison Mexico’s is only $15,100[2] using PPP the gap with the Central American countries to the south of Mexico is even starker with Guatemalan GDP/capita at $5,000.[3] Not surprisingly the USA far outstrips the Central American countries in the Human development index; the US is 4th, Mexico 57th and Guatemala 131st.[4] So long as there is such diversity of income and opportunity immigrants will keep coming, and this will continue no matter what the state that is receiving migrants does in an attempt to deter them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Migrants benefit the economy**\nMigrants, including illegal migrants, are necessary for the economies of rich countries. There are schemes run by these countries that allow the migration of skilled workers for jobs where there is a skills shortage in the native population, for example the United Kingdom takes in a lot of migrants to work as doctors and migrants. However these schemes fail to acknowledge that migrants are also vital for unskilled jobs which native workers are often unwilling to take; for example jobs in catering, picking crops and cleaning. Approximately 6.3 million illegal immigrants are working in the USA, and these are benefiting the economy.[1] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas says “The pace of recent U.S. economic growth would have been impossible without immigration. Since 1990, immigrants have contributed to job growth in three main ways: They fill an increasing share of jobs overall, they take jobs in labor-scarce regions, and they fill the types of jobs native workers often shun.”[2] Amnesties are necessary to ensure the economy keeps benefiting from these workers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Immigrants are needed to make up for aging populations**\nMuch of the rich world is aging, and in a few cases is close to having a declining population. As a result the size of the available workforce will decrease. For example in Germany by 2050 a third of the population will be over 60,[1] and over the next 15 years will as a result loose five million workers from the current workforce of 41 million.[2] While increasing retirement age can mean that these reductions in the size of the workforce come later to maintain the size of the workforce immigration or a rapid increase in birth rate is necessary. These countries in order to maintain the size of their economies will therefore either have to rapidly increase productivity, which itself may not be easy as they are already the most productive nations, or else allow migrants to fill the gaps in the labour force. At the same time there will be an increase in some jobs that rely on migrants such as care workers to help look after the increasing number of elderly.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**An amnesty rewards law breakers**\nAn amnesty by its very definition is letting someone who has engaged in an illegal act off the hook. It is letting criminal activity pay. It is also an admission of government defeat; other options have failed and there are still lawbreakers who are not being deported as they should be so there is a need for an amnesty. These people who have entered the country illegally, and have worked illegally are then being forgiven for their having broken the law. This is not something that rich countries should be encouraging."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Amnesties are unpopular; governments need to get tougher if they want to be reelected.**\nAmnesties are unpopular, in the UK for example 65% of the population wants tougher immigration laws,[1] and so most governments are unlikely to resort to them except as a last resort. Instead of granting an amnesty governments need to get tougher on illegal immigrants in order to find, deport and deter them. This would be a much more popular policy and could be achieved using better monitoring and communications between departments.  For example in the United States the Inland Revenue Service knows where millions of illegals live and are employed as they know 600,000 people work under the Social Security number 000-00-0000, presumably many more were used different made up numbers.[2] This would therefore not only catch illegal immigrants but would help end misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers. There are also other tactics that can make illegal immigration more difficult and less likely to pay such as preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licences or, as in Tennessee, employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants can have their business licence suspended.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**An amnesty would encourage rather than reduce immigration**\nAn amnesty would simply mean more immigration resulting in new illegal immigrants. First, it would quickly become known that a country is offering an amnesty resulting in a rush to gain entry in time. An increase would continue even after the amnesty because migrants would believe that country would be more likely to grant another amnesty in the future."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Banning Playoffs Offer Greater Fairness**\nThe BCS system unfairly discriminates against 45 of the 120 teams that participate in college football. Given that some of these teams participate in non-BCS leagues they can perform incredibly well and still not get into the BCS. Further, the BCS system is flawed beyond this given that both Boise State and Utah were deemed unsuitable for the competition despite the fact that they went undefeated in the seasons before their rejection. The winner of the BCS is meant to be the best collegiate football team in the country. However, if undefeated teams are unable to compete it makes the system incredibly unfair, and reduces the legitimacy of the BCS title itself, undermining the value of the competition overall."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Playoffs Offer More Suspense**\nWithin the playoff system every game during the playoffs is a knockout. As such, every single game in the playoffs carries the potential risk of excluding the losing team from the remainder of that season’s games. This works incredibly well to build up tension, because favourites have lost to teams that were believed to be a lot worse. With history supporting this idea all players and fans are likely to feel tension during the playoff games which directly contributes to the enjoyment of a game. Further, given the prevalence of late game comebacks in American football, due the ever present threat of an interception, it means that fans are still likely to enjoy games even when their team is likely to lose going into the later quarters."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Playoffs Lead To More Exposure**\nThe issue with the BCS system, as mentioned above, is that teams selected by an often broken and biased BCS mechanism receive more money and exposure than more talented, harder working institutions, making them more likely to be selected by the same mechanism in the future. Standout teams that only perform that well for a season are able to get significantly more exposure under the proposition model."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning Playoffs Offer Greater Fairness**\nThe BCS system unfairly discriminates against 45 of the 120 teams that participate in college football. Given that some of these teams participate in non-BCS leagues they can perform incredibly well and still not get into the BCS. Further, the BCS system is flawed beyond this given that both Boise State and Utah were deemed unsuitable for the competition despite the fact that they went undefeated in the seasons before their rejection. The winner of the BCS is meant to be the best collegiate football team in the country. However, if undefeated teams are unable to compete it makes the system incredibly unfair, and reduces the legitimacy of the BCS title itself, undermining the value of the competition overall."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Playoffs Offer More Suspense**\nWithin the playoff system every game during the playoffs is a knockout. As such, every single game in the playoffs carries the potential risk of excluding the losing team from the remainder of that season’s games. This works incredibly well to build up tension, because favourites have lost to teams that were believed to be a lot worse. With history supporting this idea all players and fans are likely to feel tension during the playoff games which directly contributes to the enjoyment of a game. Further, given the prevalence of late game comebacks in American football, due the ever present threat of an interception, it means that fans are still likely to enjoy games even when their team is likely to lose going into the later quarters."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Playoffs Lead To More Exposure**\nThe issue with the BCS system, as mentioned above, is that teams selected by an often broken and biased BCS mechanism receive more money and exposure than more talented, harder working institutions, making them more likely to be selected by the same mechanism in the future. Standout teams that only perform that well for a season are able to get significantly more exposure under the proposition model."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Playoffs Would Earn Less money**\nBCS makes consistent money for the Universities and colleges that partake in the system. The issue is that, should a playoff system be implemented, it is likely that these institutions would seek to undermine it in order to simply revert back to the old system. Should they withdraw their teams, the overall skill ceiling of college football would lower significantly."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Playoffs Result in More Injuries and Hurt Academics**\nThe toll on the bodies of players in American football is much greater than that of other sports, primarily due to the high frequency of physical impacts in the sport. To be able to get through a season, players often need to play through more minor injuries and thus need fairly long rest periods between games. However, playoffs would all be run within a small window of time, meaning the accumulation of injuries would be greater and thus players would be more likely to risk much more serious injuries just to be in the championship game."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would implement playoffs in collegiate level american football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Playoffs Would Not Benefit Fans**\nCollege football fans tend to have lower budgets than those of NFL fans. Specifically because there are many more colleges and owing to the lower number of fans per game, there usually aren’t deals on travel. As such travel between grounds is expensive. Given that playoffs result in more games being played it is apparent that supporters of the various teams will incur more cost. Further, if their team loses where they might have instead won a lesser competition, the supporters will likely be less happy than they are now. As well as this, when a team does win in the playoffs, the people watching that team face a very high burst of costs should they want to continue to support that team."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states**\nAs most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations**\nThe minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns**\nImmense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states**\nAs most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations**\nThe minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns**\nImmense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**States’ rights**\nQuite apart from the politically controversial contents of the phrase, states’ rights describes a vital and highly relevant aspect of the relationship between the individual states of the Union and the central government."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level**\nThe primaries as they stand make an important statement not only about party structure, but also about national identity – a federation of states each with a full right to their time in the sun."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small**\nIowa and New Hampshire are the perfect states to kick off the primary season. It ensures that the opening focus of the campaigns is outside the usual media centers of New York, D.C. and California. This serves to remind political commentators and others that there is an entire country out there."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Anonymity software helps to guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings**\nThe past few years have been marked by an explosion of uprisings around the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Arab world generally. These uprisings have all been marked by the extensive and pervasive use of social media and social networking tools, like Twitter, BlackBerry Mobile, and other platforms. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been called the Twitter Revolution after the huge number of people using that platform to lead and chronicle the successful uprising.1 It was the sophistication of physical surveillance technology and the resourcefulness of the security forces that forced dissenters onto the internet, which quickly became, prior to the start of large scale demonstrations, the primary mode of expressing discontent with governments. But the internet is no safe haven, and technology has caught up, allowing governments to crack down on individuals who engage in dissent online. Anyone using the internet to coordinate demonstrations therefore faces the threat of being tracked and arrested as a result. This was the case in Iran after the failed Green Revolution, dissenters were rounded up and punished for challenging the government.2 Without anonymity, participants in uprisings are liable to face reprisals. Only external help from the technologically advanced West can these freedom fighters maintain their safety and still be able to fight for what they believe in."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Western states have a duty to aid those striving for the ideals they cherish**\nThe West stands as the symbol of liberal democracy to which many political dissidents aspire in emulation. It is also, as a broad group, the primary expounder, propagator, and establisher of concepts and practices pertaining to human rights, both within and without their borders. The generation and dissemination of anonymity software into countries that are in the midst of, or are moving toward, uprising and revolution is critical to allowing those endeavours to succeed. This obligation still attains even when the technology does not yet exist, in the same way that the West often feels obligated to fund research into developing vaccines and other treatments for specifically external use, thus in 2001 the United States spent $133million on AIDS research through the National institutes of Health.1 The West thus has a clear duty to make some provision for getting that software to the people that need it, because it can secure the primary platform needed to build the groundswell to fight for their basic rights by ensuring its security and reliability.2 To not act in this way serves as a tacit condolence of the status quo of misery and brutality that sparks grassroots uprisings. If the West cares about civil liberties and human rights as true values that should be spread worldwide and not just political talking points, then it must adopt this policy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Incentives are the best way to produce effective, affordable software**\nThe West has clear reasons to seek to provide the software necessary for anonymity to people involved in uprisings, and it has the means. Western countries are the most advanced technologically and have been the leaders in creating and developing the internet and thus they are best suited to producing and disseminating this technology. Firstly, as they are more advanced in software development, the products they distribute will be much more difficult for the target regimes’ to hack or subvert to their own advantage, or at least significantly more difficult to than were it produced in any other locale.1 Secondly, the efficient production of software requires special industry clusters. These exist almost exclusively in the West. Silicon Valley, for example is the high tech capital of the world, and were companies there incentivized to produce software for the participants of uprisings it would be a simple matter of efficient distribution, which these firms are best in the world at doing. The need for subsidy is also clear. People involved in uprisings tend not to have huge amounts of disposable income, so to date there has been little market for the production of these sorts of software devices. With a subsidy from Western governments the incentive is created and a top quality product that will save lives and make the uprising more likely to succeed is born."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is a means of vocalizing support for uprisings and liberty at a remove, preventing the backlash of direct intervention**\nBy enacting this subsidy, the West makes a tacit public statement in favour of those involved in uprisings without coming out and publicly taking a side. This is a shrewd position to take as it blunts many of the fall-backs opposed regimes rely upon, such as blaming Western provocateurs for instigating the uprising. Rather than making a judgment call involving force or sanction, the simple provision of anonymity means the people involved in the uprisings can do it themselves while knowing they have some protections to fall back on that the West alone could provide. This is a purely enabling policy, giving activists on the group access to the freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it happens to favour as a geopolitical ally. In essence, the policy is a public statement of support for the ideas behind uprisings absent the specific taking of sides in a particular conflict. It throws some advantages to those seeking to rise up without undermining their cause through overbearing Western intervention. And that statement is a valuable one for Western states to make, because democracies tend to be more stable, more able to grow economically and socially in the long term, and are more amenable to trade and discourse with the West. By enacting this policy the West can succeed in this geopolitical aim without making the risers seem to be Western pawns."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Anonymity software helps to guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings**\nThe past few years have been marked by an explosion of uprisings around the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Arab world generally. These uprisings have all been marked by the extensive and pervasive use of social media and social networking tools, like Twitter, BlackBerry Mobile, and other platforms. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been called the Twitter Revolution after the huge number of people using that platform to lead and chronicle the successful uprising.1 It was the sophistication of physical surveillance technology and the resourcefulness of the security forces that forced dissenters onto the internet, which quickly became, prior to the start of large scale demonstrations, the primary mode of expressing discontent with governments. But the internet is no safe haven, and technology has caught up, allowing governments to crack down on individuals who engage in dissent online. Anyone using the internet to coordinate demonstrations therefore faces the threat of being tracked and arrested as a result. This was the case in Iran after the failed Green Revolution, dissenters were rounded up and punished for challenging the government.2 Without anonymity, participants in uprisings are liable to face reprisals. Only external help from the technologically advanced West can these freedom fighters maintain their safety and still be able to fight for what they believe in."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Western states have a duty to aid those striving for the ideals they cherish**\nThe West stands as the symbol of liberal democracy to which many political dissidents aspire in emulation. It is also, as a broad group, the primary expounder, propagator, and establisher of concepts and practices pertaining to human rights, both within and without their borders. The generation and dissemination of anonymity software into countries that are in the midst of, or are moving toward, uprising and revolution is critical to allowing those endeavours to succeed. This obligation still attains even when the technology does not yet exist, in the same way that the West often feels obligated to fund research into developing vaccines and other treatments for specifically external use, thus in 2001 the United States spent $133million on AIDS research through the National institutes of Health.1 The West thus has a clear duty to make some provision for getting that software to the people that need it, because it can secure the primary platform needed to build the groundswell to fight for their basic rights by ensuring its security and reliability.2 To not act in this way serves as a tacit condolence of the status quo of misery and brutality that sparks grassroots uprisings. If the West cares about civil liberties and human rights as true values that should be spread worldwide and not just political talking points, then it must adopt this policy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Incentives are the best way to produce effective, affordable software**\nThe West has clear reasons to seek to provide the software necessary for anonymity to people involved in uprisings, and it has the means. Western countries are the most advanced technologically and have been the leaders in creating and developing the internet and thus they are best suited to producing and disseminating this technology. Firstly, as they are more advanced in software development, the products they distribute will be much more difficult for the target regimes’ to hack or subvert to their own advantage, or at least significantly more difficult to than were it produced in any other locale.1 Secondly, the efficient production of software requires special industry clusters. These exist almost exclusively in the West. Silicon Valley, for example is the high tech capital of the world, and were companies there incentivized to produce software for the participants of uprisings it would be a simple matter of efficient distribution, which these firms are best in the world at doing. The need for subsidy is also clear. People involved in uprisings tend not to have huge amounts of disposable income, so to date there has been little market for the production of these sorts of software devices. With a subsidy from Western governments the incentive is created and a top quality product that will save lives and make the uprising more likely to succeed is born."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is a means of vocalizing support for uprisings and liberty at a remove, preventing the backlash of direct intervention**\nBy enacting this subsidy, the West makes a tacit public statement in favour of those involved in uprisings without coming out and publicly taking a side. This is a shrewd position to take as it blunts many of the fall-backs opposed regimes rely upon, such as blaming Western provocateurs for instigating the uprising. Rather than making a judgment call involving force or sanction, the simple provision of anonymity means the people involved in the uprisings can do it themselves while knowing they have some protections to fall back on that the West alone could provide. This is a purely enabling policy, giving activists on the group access to the freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it happens to favour as a geopolitical ally. In essence, the policy is a public statement of support for the ideas behind uprisings absent the specific taking of sides in a particular conflict. It throws some advantages to those seeking to rise up without undermining their cause through overbearing Western intervention. And that statement is a valuable one for Western states to make, because democracies tend to be more stable, more able to grow economically and socially in the long term, and are more amenable to trade and discourse with the West. By enacting this policy the West can succeed in this geopolitical aim without making the risers seem to be Western pawns."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Justice demands that those who seek actual political redress be sorted from opportunistic marauders**\nThe technology of anonymity can have the effect of providing needed security to dissidents seeking to make their country a better place, but it is just as likely to provide cover for the violent opportunists that arise in the midst of the chaos. When the state is unable to locate the culprits, and even to sort between those who are dissidents from those who are mere criminals, everyone involved gets blamed for the worst excesses of the chaos, discrediting the people with legitimate claims. Anonymity is a dangerous tool to give anyone, but particularly so in the context of violent uprising where it can be taken up by anyone. All governments, even authoritarian ones, have a right to defend their citizens from violent criminals capitalizing on mayhem. Western governments only make the cause of justice, often a tenuous one in these countries, all the more likely to go undefended, as governments are forced to clamp down on everyone, and find excuse in the looters to discredit the entirety of uprising with the same brush of destruction. Worse still is the possibility that the technology could fall into the hands of dangerous groups such as terrorists and militants who might use the greater safety of anonymity to increase their reach and scope of violence so turning the software against its creators."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Clandestine aid to dissidents will serve to alienate and close off discourse on policy**\nReform in oppressive regimes, or ones that have less than stellar democratic and human rights records that might precipitate an uprising, is often slow in coming, and external pressures are generally looked upon with suspicion. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to good use in coaxing governments toward reform.1 Peaceful evolution toward democracy results in far less bloodshed and instability, and should thus be the priority for Western governments seeking to change the behaviour of states. Militant action invariably begets militant response. And providing a mechanism for armed and violent resistance to better evade the detection of the state could well be considered a militant action."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Aiding of the agents of chaos will allow the government to discredit the uprisings as being instigated and abetted by the West**\nThe fact that dissidents can be conflated with other rioters gives real power to the government to discredit the uprising. Firstly, they can report the rioting and looting in tandem with the uprising, as they hide behind anonymity, making it difficult to ascertain specific agents and their directives. Secondly, the regime can identify the West as the instigator of the unrest. This is what Iran’s leaders did during the Green Revolution, when it blamed the foreign tools of dissent like Twitter and other social media for aiding in the rebel protests.1 This two-pronged attack can be used to drive a wedge between the general public and the leaders and primary agents of dissent seeking to build a broad base of support, a necessary prerequisite for an uprising to succeed. While anonymity gives some ability for individual leaders to hide themselves in the crowd, they lose their moral authority and impact when they can be easily construed as cowardly Western-backed agénts provocateur."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those in",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Western businesses will be forced out of lucrative markets**\nThe Western firms being incentivized to produce and distribute this software will require at least some market penetration to be able to reach these dissidents. This means they have business interests in these countries that may well be important to their own bottom line and to jobs back home. Putting these relationships and long-standing business arrangements at risk through a risky gamble like software specifically to help rebels is foolhardy. When regimes that are the target of these efforts get wind of these efforts, they will no doubt sever ties, damaging long term business interests, which is particularly damaging considering it is in authoritarian regimes like China and Vietnam that technology companies see the greatest room for growth.1 The illusory benefits of catalysing regime change are far outweighed by the huge potential business costs. Furthermore, the ability of businesses to help effect change in these countries is hampered by this policy. It is the business interests linked directly into these economies that generate the most sharing of ideas and principles. It is through these channels that eventual reforms shall flow. It is best not to cut the tap for an all-or-nothing play."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport**\nChess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games**\nWhen the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good**\nThe sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Chess is highly popular and should be represented**\nChess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport**\nChess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games**\nWhen the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good**\nThe sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Chess is highly popular and should be represented**\nChess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Chess lacks the necessary physical activity**\nSports are about the perfection of our bodies, and therefore the competitive aspect of sport should relate directly to that perfection. In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter the first is “combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind”.13 Although we value the mental battle between athletes, we find that kind of exertion secondary, and not the core of sport which is the physical aspect. Chess consists only of the mind and to a lesser extent the will. It does not matter how well you can move the pieces from one square to the other. Therefore, chess celebrates a different aspect of the human condition than the Olympics and sports as a whole do: it cannot be an Olympic sport."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Chess cannot ensure fair play**\nEven if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports14, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself**\nOpening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.16"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce Chess at the Olympics",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics**\nIt would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The introduction of technology is inevitable**\nFootball is moving into the twenty-first century, yet the refusal to embrace GLT is completely out-dated. Nowhere in FIFA policy does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. In FIFAs disciplinary code (2009), Article 72 states that: 1) \"During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee\", and 2) \"These decisions are final\"1. The referee already \"acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen\" and can change decisions based on advice2. All referees also have an earpiece (introduced in 2006) linking the two assistant refs and the fourth official, which already demonstrates technology's successful impact in football. GLT is simply the next step."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Technology is available**\nGLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**GLT is used across a range of other sports**\nTechnology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped.\r\nFootball is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials.\n1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Technology is more reliable than human judgement**\nGoals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The introduction of technology is inevitable**\nFootball is moving into the twenty-first century, yet the refusal to embrace GLT is completely out-dated. Nowhere in FIFA policy does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. In FIFAs disciplinary code (2009), Article 72 states that: 1) \"During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee\", and 2) \"These decisions are final\"1. The referee already \"acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen\" and can change decisions based on advice2. All referees also have an earpiece (introduced in 2006) linking the two assistant refs and the fourth official, which already demonstrates technology's successful impact in football. GLT is simply the next step."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Technology is available**\nGLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**GLT is used across a range of other sports**\nTechnology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped.\r\nFootball is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials.\n1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Technology is more reliable than human judgement**\nGoals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The dynamics of football as a game are very different from other sports which currently use technology**\nIn other sports there is just one question: was the ball in or out? Was the player safe or out? In football, the issue would not be that simple. Not only would the GLT-operative have to consider whether the ball was wholly over the line or not, but they would also have to look at the build up to ensure that the goal was legitimate. Was there a foul? An offside? As in the notorious case of the 2010 World Cup Qualifier Play-off France v Ireland, was there a handball? This would not only be extremely time-consuming and thus detract from the spectacle of the game, but could also be potentially endless. In cricket or tennis this delay is more natural as matches are expected to take several hours; one of the hallmarks of football is it’s frenetic pace. Challenges could not be limited in an attempt to prevent this, because if a team were to run out and a blatant wrong decision were noticed they would be in the same position as they are now; GLT would have achieved nothing."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world**\nOnly professional clubs and national federations have the resources to install the technology in stadiums. This would further increase the gap that is emerging between local clubs and high-revenue leagues such as the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Controversy and debate are a part of the game**\nControversy will always be a part of the game; because laws must be interpreted by an individual, fouls will always be called on the basis of opinion, even if that is someone re-watching the incident on a monitor. If fans accepted mistakes as exactly that, they would cease to matter; the authority of the referee would be absolute and the game would move on without undue mention. GLT is unnecessary."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce goal line technology in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario**\nIn order for a goal to stand, the ball must completely cross the line; to have a situation where this is in doubt is very rare. Introducing GLT would be to completely change the nature of football for the least significant occurrence."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Systems for implementation**\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This will distribute wealth more evenly**\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This will enable people to better choose their jobs**\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources**\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Equality is in and of itself a good thing**\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Systems for implementation**\nThis system would be best implemented by imposing a mandatory 100% tax on all personal income over $150,000, and all bonuses over $30,000. This means that some revenue could still be raised from this if people did continue to pay large salaries and bonuses, although they are unlikely to do so. Furthermore, it would be best implemented through international cooperation, to limit the opportunity of one country to be able to offer higher salaries and poach talented individuals. Countries may agree to this as it prevents a 'race to the top' in salaries, where companies have to offer more and more money to attract the best people."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This will distribute wealth more evenly**\nAs a result of having to pay important directors and employees a lower wage, businesses will be able to produce their goods and services for a lower cost, and sell therefore sell them for a lower price. This will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth, as the poorest will become relatively richer, as prices will fall. This will also be true for small businesses, which will be able to obtain cheaper legal and financial advice and business consultancy, and are therefore more likely to succeed. Sports provide a good example of this. In major league baseball salaries for the players more than doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2002 while ticket prices rose 50%. As players wages take more than 50% of teams revenues a cap would mean a significant cut in costs that could be passed on to the consumer.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This will enable people to better choose their jobs**\nWhen wages are better standardized across professions, people are less likely to feel socially pressured into seeking out a higher paid job. As such, they are more likely to choose their job on the basis of other factors, such as how much they enjoy the job, or how ethical the working practices of a company are. This will lead to happier, and hence more productive, employees."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This will limit the control of the rich over key scarce resources**\nSome resources –most notably housing – are very important to large numbers of people, and owning them gives people a great deal of happiness. This policy will limit richer people owning several properties while others live in rented accommodation or smaller houses, as price competition for such properties will be less intense, and poorer people will be better able to compete through savings. Estimates in 2005 suggested there were 6.8million second homes in the USA1.This is a good thing, as it is likely that a person (or family) values their first property more than another person values their second property, known as the law of diminishing marginal returns. This is perhaps the best example of the ways in which inequality leads to worse outcomes for society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Equality is in and of itself a good thing**\nFirstly, it limits social tension that may arise due to public dissatisfaction with high wages; see the attacks on the famous banker Sir Fred Goodwin in the UK1. Secondly, people may feel that society recognizes them as being more equal, increasing the perceived self-worth of many, avoiding feelings of inferiority and worry about their social worth, and making them feel closer to other people. See, for example, Sweden, which has the lowest Gini Coefficient (indicating low levels of inequality) in the world, and also some of the highest levels of GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates, and low levels of crime and obesity2. Furthermore, a Forbes report suggests Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world (along with Denmark, Finland and Norway, 3 other countries with a low Gini Coefficient)3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**High salaries incentivize people to work hard**\nPeople respond to incentives, and one of the most direct incentives is a financial one. Higher salaries encourage people to deploy their labor. This benefits society by increasing tax revenues that can be spent on redistributive policies; for example, consider the much maligned investment banking profession. It is not uncommon for investment bankers to work 14 to 18 hour days, and to work at weekends; it is unlikely they would do this without the incentive of high salaries and bonuses, at least in the long run. The taxation on financial service providers (that rely on such hard work) and the workers themselves is significant; in 2010 in the UK, it was 11.2% of total tax receipts1. Furthermore, the deployment of labor may lead to more supporting workers being needed and therefore job creation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This motion will lead to people leaving the country, and will limit the intake of skilled workers**\nMany industries, especially at the highest paying end, rely on people of various nationalities. This is especially true in places seen to be financial centers of the world, such as New York, London and Tokyo – for example, 175,000 professional or managerial roles were given to immigrants in the UK in 20041. When a policy such as this is instigated, many people will leave to other countries that do not have such a limit, especially if they are initially from another country. Furthermore, it will be difficult for a country to attract talent while this policy is in effect, as the significant difficulty moving country involves, such as leaving friends and family behind, cannot be compensated for by a higher income."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs**\nSome jobs are extremely difficult or unpleasant. Consider a doctor, who trains for many years, often unpaid, in order to do their job – and the average doctor’s salary in the USA is close to the proposed cap, and surpasses it with merely 5 years experience1. Or consider a sewage worker or firefighter, whose job is one that many people would not want to do. High salaries are a good way of encouraging people to do these jobs; limiting the ability to pay high salaries will mean that some vital roles may be less appealing, and the job will not be done."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would introduce mandatory salary capping",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**High salaries incentivize people to take risks and undertake research**\nMany entrepreneurs are driven by profit. This is the reason that people take out large loans from banks, often with their home as security, and use it to set up a business; the hope of profit and a better life. Without that incentive, the risk has a far lower reward, and therefore will appear to be not worth it. Entrepreneurs not only give others jobs, but stimulate the economy with new ideas and business practices that can spill over into other areas of the economy. Even within businesses that are already established, this policy will be problematic. For example, why would researchers at a pharmaceutical company try to develop a new drug if they realize they can't financially benefit from it? GlaxoSmithKline spent over $6bn dollars on research in 2010 alone1. This policy could limit such research into the type of technology (or medicine) that advances society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is good for the development of home-grown players and therefore, the quality of domestic leagues**\nLimiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It will improve the quality of the national team**\nReducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. Current rules mean that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while, for example, English clubs with the ability and clout to sign foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. English youth are consistently overlooked for places in the best sides in favour of more talented, more experienced foreigners who offer short-term success. Limiting the number of foreigners would force clubs to give more local players a chance to develop, and subsequently improve the quality of the national side."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It will encourage fans to support their local clubs**\nA focus on domestic football and domestic footballers would encourage the public to get around their local sides. Therefore, this plan would be fruitful for club football and its relationship with the local community. Once the local team was a real source of local identity, with many home-grown players proud to wear the shirt of the club they grew up with. Now players have no local feeling and move often in search of higher wages or European experience. Loyalty is an undervalued trait in modern football. How can fans identify with a club full of overseas players who will be gone in a season or two, and who otherwise neglect to support local youth talent?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Restrictions would prevent the poaching of the best youngsters from poor nations**\nThis plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The sport’s governing body, FIFA, wishes to implement a ‘six plus five’ that would be enforced by each member association**\nThe six-plus-five rule, first tabled by FIFA in 2008, would require all side to have six home-grown players in all starting elevens. As the sport’s governing body, if the proposal was voted in by member states all state football associations would be forced to hand out penalties, whether financial or points, to teams that did not meet the criteria of the new rule. The rule purports to increase both the protection and development of local players in local environments, whilst also permitting the transfers of high-profile foreigners that have been attributed with the rise in prestige and profile of many of the European leagues and clubs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is good for the development of home-grown players and therefore, the quality of domestic leagues**\nLimiting the number of overseas players will be good for home-grown sportsmen. At present only a tiny handful of the best native players will get a chance to play for top clubs due to their profit and success motives. This means that talented young players see no reason to work hard and develop their game, because it is so unlikely they will get a chance to play at the top level. And clubs don’t have a reason to seek out local youngsters and train them, as it is easier to buy a fully trained player from abroad. Limiting the number of foreign players would create incentives for both players and clubs to make the most of their talents. As a result, domestic crowds would rise as quality would improve proportionally with the development of local talent."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It will improve the quality of the national team**\nReducing the number of foreign players would be good for the national team. Current rules mean that only a few domestic players get a chance to compete at the highest level, and the national side suffers as a result. So while, for example, English clubs with the ability and clout to sign foreign players have done very well in the Champions League recently, the English national team has performed badly. English youth are consistently overlooked for places in the best sides in favour of more talented, more experienced foreigners who offer short-term success. Limiting the number of foreigners would force clubs to give more local players a chance to develop, and subsequently improve the quality of the national side."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It will encourage fans to support their local clubs**\nA focus on domestic football and domestic footballers would encourage the public to get around their local sides. Therefore, this plan would be fruitful for club football and its relationship with the local community. Once the local team was a real source of local identity, with many home-grown players proud to wear the shirt of the club they grew up with. Now players have no local feeling and move often in search of higher wages or European experience. Loyalty is an undervalued trait in modern football. How can fans identify with a club full of overseas players who will be gone in a season or two, and who otherwise neglect to support local youth talent?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Restrictions would prevent the poaching of the best youngsters from poor nations**\nThis plan would be good for world football. At present poorer nations (e.g. in Africa or South America), or those where football isn’t as well developed (e.g. Australia, the USA), lose all their best players at an early age to the rich European leagues. This weakens their own leagues and can lead to the public losing interest in football. Poor quality games and loss of public support for domestic clubs also means little money comes into the game from ticket sales, television or sponsorship, so nothing goes into grounds, training or youth systems. It is also hard to put a good national side together when the best players hardly ever spend any time in their own country."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The sport’s governing body, FIFA, wishes to implement a ‘six plus five’ that would be enforced by each member association**\nThe six-plus-five rule, first tabled by FIFA in 2008, would require all side to have six home-grown players in all starting elevens. As the sport’s governing body, if the proposal was voted in by member states all state football associations would be forced to hand out penalties, whether financial or points, to teams that did not meet the criteria of the new rule. The rule purports to increase both the protection and development of local players in local environments, whilst also permitting the transfers of high-profile foreigners that have been attributed with the rise in prestige and profile of many of the European leagues and clubs."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is illegal under European Union law.**\nFIFA’s plan is illegal under European Union rules: ‘The implementation by FIFA of this proposal in the European Union would violate EU law. The Commission is not considering any change to allow FIFA to push forward this idea. FIFA is aware of this fact.’[1]. The rules say that you can’t discriminate against people from other EU countries on the grounds of their nationality - exactly what the six-plus-five plan would do. And the EU has agreements in place allowing people from non-EU European countries like Switzerland and Norway to work freely in EU states, plus a lot of countries in Africa and the Caribbean as well. This means most of the overseas players currently with European clubs would be able to take FIFA to court if it tried to put its plan into practice. And if six-plus-five won’t work in Europe, there is no point applying it elsewhere."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Restrictions are unnecessary**\nThis plan is unnecessary – Manchester United is one of the most successful club sides and often fields more locally-born players than its rivals. Most big clubs are working hard to build strong football academies to bring talented youngsters through. The logic is simple, home-grown youngsters can be developed much more cheaply and easily than foreigners. In any case, money will still remain vital to success – this plan would mean that the richest clubs will simply pay silly sums of money to buy up all the best local players. Therefore, competition within domestic leagues would not even up, it would simply lead to a re-shuffling of the best home-grown talent. Really the FIFA proposal is just an attack on English football clubs as they have been so successful recently. The issue wasn’t raised previously when Italian and Spanish club sides dominated European competitions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce restrictions on overseas players in football",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It doesn’t solve the problem of protecting countries outside of Europe from losing players**\nIn practice this plan will do nothing for football in countries outside Europe. Already many overseas players have dual nationality (which is especially easy to obtain for South American players wanting to play in Spain or Portugal). Other players are from countries (e.g. South Africa, Caribbean states) with labour agreements with the EU and can work freely in European countries. Both groups would be able to claim that they didn’t count as overseas players under the FIFA plan, so little would change. One danger is that many good players will completely switch nationality in order to play overseas, and so not be qualified for their original country at all in future.\r\nAnd what FIFA plans to do about the many Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers playing for English teams is very unclear. Would they be banned from playing in their own country?"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday**\nThe right to freedom of religious practice and association is acknowledged by most countries and is enshrined in Article 18 of UN Declaration of Human Rights[i]. In those countries that can, on the basis of their history be deemed to be Christian nations it makes sense to recognise this fact by acknowledging Sunday, the Sabbath which was made for all mankind,[ii] as a day free for worship or leisure as the individual sees fit."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation**\nThere is extensive evidence that reserving one day for communal recreation has benefits in areas as diverse as community cohesion and the reduction of childhood obesity. The Colombian initiative, Ciclovia, which closes some streets altogether on a Sunday has demonstrated impressive results in these areas in the thirty years it has been established.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week**\nUnions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is unlikely that all members of a family all of whom are in such employment would be likely to have leisure time to share."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday**\nThe right to freedom of religious practice and association is acknowledged by most countries and is enshrined in Article 18 of UN Declaration of Human Rights[i]. In those countries that can, on the basis of their history be deemed to be Christian nations it makes sense to recognise this fact by acknowledging Sunday, the Sabbath which was made for all mankind,[ii] as a day free for worship or leisure as the individual sees fit."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation**\nThere is extensive evidence that reserving one day for communal recreation has benefits in areas as diverse as community cohesion and the reduction of childhood obesity. The Colombian initiative, Ciclovia, which closes some streets altogether on a Sunday has demonstrated impressive results in these areas in the thirty years it has been established.[i]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week**\nUnions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is unlikely that all members of a family all of whom are in such employment would be likely to have leisure time to share."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**People should be allowed to take their leisure at their own convenience and not on the basis of religious decree**\nIt is unfair to compel people to take their leisure at a time that is not of their convenience. Workers who have to work a certain number of hours per week just to cover their costs should not be obliged to take their leisure time at a time when they cannot access services such as shops and banks."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions**\nIt is already difficult enough for members of minority religions to have time for their own religious celebrations. It seems unlikely that employers would be likely to respect the rights of other religious groups to celebrate their own days of rest if employers were already compelled to recognise Sundays as a compulsory day of rest."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House Would Keep the Sabbath as a Day of Rest.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so**\nMany people work long hours not out of greed or obsession but out of simple necessity. To deny people the right to work when they need to is unfair and, potentially, financially crippling. In an ideal world everybody would have a good work-life balance but that is not the reality faced by millions of workers, even in developed economies."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Female role models are needed urgently to raise aspirations among young women and change parliamentary practices**\nAt present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for politics because it is viewed as a male-dominated institution. Positive discrimination is the only way to encourage women to stand. Only if one generation is pushed towards politics can there be role models for potential future women MPs to follow; for that reason it need not be a permanent measure, just one that gets the ball rolling1. It has been proven by a study at the University of Toronto, Canada, that women need inspirational female role models more than men; they need it to be demonstrated that it is possible to overcome barrier2 . Positive discrimination would provide this evidence and support. This measure would simply allow women to overcome the institutional sexism in the selection committees of the established political parties, which has for so long prevented a representative number of women from becoming candidates, and would encourage other women to try and emulate that. It's about changing stereotypes and perception (particularly of the concept 'leadership', which we automatically think of as a male trait1). This will help achieve true progress in the future."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Women must gain positions in Parliament quickly as they would raise awareness about 'less important' issues such as family and employment rights**\nWhilst is it possible for men to speak on women's issues, some topics of debate (e.g. on family issues or equality in the workplace) are still seen as less important than economics or foreign policy. Creating more female MPs would encourage more debates about social policy, and so do more to produce constructive legislation of relevance to real people's lives. For example, Harriet Harman is the first MP to seriously confront the gaps in the treatment of women and other minorities in the workplace1. This was previously seen as a 'soft' issue unworthy of parliamentary attention; she was more in touch with women's (and, of course, many men's) priorities and acted upon them. If we want our political system to be in touch with the priorities of everyone, we must to act to increase women's representation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve**\nIn a 'representative' democracy it is vital that every part of the population be accurately and proportionately represented. The present lack of female voices in parliaments across the world symbolises the continuing patriarchal societal bias. Women are over half of the population, yet less than 20% of the House of Commons is made up of women. As of 2011, there are only 72 women (constituting 16.6% of all Representatives) serving in the House of Representatives in the US. In order to truly have a representative government, numbers must be increased to fairly mirror numbers in society. All women shortlists and other artificial means are a quick and effective way of doing this. Even David Cameron, a traditional opponent to positive discrimination for women, when asked whether a meritocracy was more desirable, said \"It doesn't work\"; \"we tried that for years and the rate of change was too slow. If you just open the door and say 'you're welcome, come in,' and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it's not very welcoming\"1.Indeed, a recent report by the Hansard Society2 said that the numbers of women in UK Parliament could fall unless positive action is taken3. Sarah Childs, launching the report, said that \"unless all parties use equality guarantees, such as all-women shortlists, it is most unlikely that they will select women in vacant seats\" 3. Compulsion is necessary to begin to achieve parity of representation4. The Labour party used all-women shortlists in the 1990's and many well-known female MPs were elected this way. Positive action is vital for reasons of justice and fairness."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Female role models are needed urgently to raise aspirations among young women and change parliamentary practices**\nAt present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for politics because it is viewed as a male-dominated institution. Positive discrimination is the only way to encourage women to stand. Only if one generation is pushed towards politics can there be role models for potential future women MPs to follow; for that reason it need not be a permanent measure, just one that gets the ball rolling1. It has been proven by a study at the University of Toronto, Canada, that women need inspirational female role models more than men; they need it to be demonstrated that it is possible to overcome barrier2 . Positive discrimination would provide this evidence and support. This measure would simply allow women to overcome the institutional sexism in the selection committees of the established political parties, which has for so long prevented a representative number of women from becoming candidates, and would encourage other women to try and emulate that. It's about changing stereotypes and perception (particularly of the concept 'leadership', which we automatically think of as a male trait1). This will help achieve true progress in the future."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Women must gain positions in Parliament quickly as they would raise awareness about 'less important' issues such as family and employment rights**\nWhilst is it possible for men to speak on women's issues, some topics of debate (e.g. on family issues or equality in the workplace) are still seen as less important than economics or foreign policy. Creating more female MPs would encourage more debates about social policy, and so do more to produce constructive legislation of relevance to real people's lives. For example, Harriet Harman is the first MP to seriously confront the gaps in the treatment of women and other minorities in the workplace1. This was previously seen as a 'soft' issue unworthy of parliamentary attention; she was more in touch with women's (and, of course, many men's) priorities and acted upon them. If we want our political system to be in touch with the priorities of everyone, we must to act to increase women's representation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve**\nIn a 'representative' democracy it is vital that every part of the population be accurately and proportionately represented. The present lack of female voices in parliaments across the world symbolises the continuing patriarchal societal bias. Women are over half of the population, yet less than 20% of the House of Commons is made up of women. As of 2011, there are only 72 women (constituting 16.6% of all Representatives) serving in the House of Representatives in the US. In order to truly have a representative government, numbers must be increased to fairly mirror numbers in society. All women shortlists and other artificial means are a quick and effective way of doing this. Even David Cameron, a traditional opponent to positive discrimination for women, when asked whether a meritocracy was more desirable, said \"It doesn't work\"; \"we tried that for years and the rate of change was too slow. If you just open the door and say 'you're welcome, come in,' and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it's not very welcoming\"1.Indeed, a recent report by the Hansard Society2 said that the numbers of women in UK Parliament could fall unless positive action is taken3. Sarah Childs, launching the report, said that \"unless all parties use equality guarantees, such as all-women shortlists, it is most unlikely that they will select women in vacant seats\" 3. Compulsion is necessary to begin to achieve parity of representation4. The Labour party used all-women shortlists in the 1990's and many well-known female MPs were elected this way. Positive action is vital for reasons of justice and fairness."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice**\nArticle 21 of the Human Rights Act, clauses 1 and 3, state that \"everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedure\". Candidates on all-women shortlists would not be freely chosen by constituents but imposed upon them. Some constituencies would have all-women shortlists, and some wouldn't, and this would be completely arbitrary; people's choice of candidate would vary immensely according to where they live, and this is undemocratic. By allocating a specific number of seats to women in parliament parties would be infringing this universal law which will impact upon the fundamental human rights of the voters."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Artificial increases in numbers of women are not necessary, as there are other, less intrusive, alternatives to increase visibility of women in politics**\nPositive discrimination is an extremely heavy-handed way of increasing the numbers of women in parliament. Women should of course have the same opportunities for participation in politics (and other male-dominated institutions should as business) as men; but they should not have more; Ann Widdecombe has argued that female campaigners, such as the Suffragettes, \"wanted equal opportunities not special privileges\"1. Many believe that other empowerment programs, such as education, would be much more effective for creating equal opportunities and create less controversy which could end up being counter-productive for the cause. Statistically, 1 billion people in the world are illiterate; two thirds of them are women2. Education is the most crucial tool to give women the same opportunities of men, particularly in developing countries. That will insure that women too are participating in the governance of their countries."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Positive discrimination for women is discrimination**\nMerely glossing 'positive' discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The Labour Party's policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as it disadvantages potential male candidates1. The law may have been changed, but the principle of the objection remains and all-women shortlists are only legal until 20152which demonstrates a level of uncertainty and reservation about its true legality.\r\nEquality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. MPs should be the best on offer, and the one chosen freely by constituents, otherwise this is not democracy. All-Women shortlists seem to, in some ways, detract from the purpose of having elections if candidate lists are restricted."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would introduce positive discrimination to put more women in parliament",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**THIS HOUSE WOULD INTRODUCE POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION TO PUT MORE WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT Women are vastly underrepresented in democratic legislatures across the world. Until 20 years ago women had never been more than 5% of MPs in UK Parliament1. Even today wom**\nHow is this different to being elected because of the particular party you represent? Certainly Margaret Thatcher was not helped as a woman, but she was elected to represent Finchley, in Middlesex, which is a traditionally Conservative constituency; it was inevitable that she would be elected because she stood in a Tory 'safe seat'. Thatcher was thus elected not through her own individual merit or competence, but rather because she represented the party who always won there. It must also be noted that quotas and all-women shortlists do not necessarily mean that the best person is unavailable. Jacqui Smith, the first female Home Secretary, was elected on an all-women shortlist1. She would not have been appointed to the Labour government's cabinet if she had not been an outstanding politician; the all-woman shortlist not only did not prevent constituents from being represented by a capable MP, but in fact gave her a higher chance of being elected, which was to the benefit of all of us."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Coca chewing is not equivalent to the consumption of hard drugs. It is no more harmful than drinking coffee.**\nThe coca leaf, in its natural state, is not even a narcotic, even though the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs considers the natural leaf to be so. However it only truly becomes a narcotic when the paste or the concentrate is extracted from the leaf to form cocaine.[1] The simple coca leaf, by contrast, only has very mild effects when chewed and is different from cocaine. In 1995 the World Health Organisation found that the “use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.”[2] It may even be useful in combating obesity, and there is no evidence that coca use is addictive. At worst, it is comparable to caffeine in terms of its effect on its consumer.[3] Therefore there are no significant health reasons behind this ban on the cultivation of coca leaves for their chewed consumption in its traditional form."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds**\nCoca chewing is hugely prevalent amongst the peoples of the Andes, and their social relationship with it is akin to that of ours with coffee in Western nations. This is why so many nations in this region cannot and simply will not ever conform to any international ban that calls for phasing it out. The custom of chewing coca leaves may date back as far as 3000 BC in the region, and so hugely pre-dates cocaine consumption, and thus shouldn't be bundled with it or banned on the grounds that cocaine is banned.[1] Coca has also been a vital part of the religious traditions of the Andean peoples from the pre-Inca period through to the present, being used 'to communicate with the supernatural world and obtain its protection, especially with offerings to the Pachamama, the personification and spiritual form of the earth.'[2] All South American countries have signed several declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) that acknowledged that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural expression that should be respected by the international community.[3] The international discouragement of the practice of chewing coca leaves and the prohibition on its use by Andeans when they travel or reside abroad can thus be seen as a violation of their indigenous religious and traditional rights, and therefore is not acceptable on a moral level."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states**\nMillions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away.[1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.”[2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest.[3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining.[4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic.[5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding  its illegal use in cocaine."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Coca chewing is not equivalent to the consumption of hard drugs. It is no more harmful than drinking coffee.**\nThe coca leaf, in its natural state, is not even a narcotic, even though the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs considers the natural leaf to be so. However it only truly becomes a narcotic when the paste or the concentrate is extracted from the leaf to form cocaine.[1] The simple coca leaf, by contrast, only has very mild effects when chewed and is different from cocaine. In 1995 the World Health Organisation found that the “use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.”[2] It may even be useful in combating obesity, and there is no evidence that coca use is addictive. At worst, it is comparable to caffeine in terms of its effect on its consumer.[3] Therefore there are no significant health reasons behind this ban on the cultivation of coca leaves for their chewed consumption in its traditional form."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds**\nCoca chewing is hugely prevalent amongst the peoples of the Andes, and their social relationship with it is akin to that of ours with coffee in Western nations. This is why so many nations in this region cannot and simply will not ever conform to any international ban that calls for phasing it out. The custom of chewing coca leaves may date back as far as 3000 BC in the region, and so hugely pre-dates cocaine consumption, and thus shouldn't be bundled with it or banned on the grounds that cocaine is banned.[1] Coca has also been a vital part of the religious traditions of the Andean peoples from the pre-Inca period through to the present, being used 'to communicate with the supernatural world and obtain its protection, especially with offerings to the Pachamama, the personification and spiritual form of the earth.'[2] All South American countries have signed several declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) that acknowledged that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural expression that should be respected by the international community.[3] The international discouragement of the practice of chewing coca leaves and the prohibition on its use by Andeans when they travel or reside abroad can thus be seen as a violation of their indigenous religious and traditional rights, and therefore is not acceptable on a moral level."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states**\nMillions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away.[1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.”[2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest.[3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining.[4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic.[5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding  its illegal use in cocaine."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Unrestricted Coca production would increase the availability of cocaine**\nCocaine can be readily extracted from the coca leaf. In 1992 the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘prereview’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca leaf is appropriately scheduled [as a narcotic] under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, since cocaine is readily extractable from the leaf.”[1] The active ingredient in coca leaf is the same as in cocaine, just more concentrated. Because the raw material of coca and its more potent relative cocaine are so closely aligned, it is impossible to disassociate the two, and so any attempt to consider cocaine a narcotic and stop its spread must also forbid coca. Globally, cocaine is also most produced where coca is legal, and this is a clear correlation. In Bolivia, coca eradication efforts in the 1980s and 90s helped reduce cocaine production. However, as Evo Morales took power and legalized coca production and consumption, cocaine production has shot up, despite his efforts to fight cocaine production.[2] Thus legalizing coca makes it easier for cocaine producers to operate. Legalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf would therefore simply make cocaine more readily available, thus increasing all the harms that come with widespread cocaine use in society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Legalising coca production would undemine the wider war on the drugs economy**\nThe UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said in 2011 that exceptions for Bolivia would undermine international narcotics control efforts: “[Allowing coca] would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system, undoing the good work of governments over many years.”[1] A US official said in January of 2011: “there is evidence to suggest that a substantial percentage” of the increased coca production in Bolivia over the past several years, registered in U.N. surveys, “has indeed gone into the network and the marketplace for cocaine.”[2] These examples thus show that legalizing coca cultivation would undermine the wider war on drugs, because it shifts the policy away from one of eradicating crops which could be turned into narcotics and instead turns towards making them acceptable on the global market. It encourages countries to take eradication efforts less seriously, and seemingly undermines the commitment of the international community to the war on drugs, once it gives in on this narcotic. This will make not just cocaine but many other drugs more widely available, leading to even more ruined lives through drug abuse."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would legalise the growing of coca leaf",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Coca chewing is harmful and should be proscribed**\nThe original decision to ban coca chewing was based on evidence that this was indeed harmful to human health. A 1950 report elaborated by the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Coca Leaf with a mandate from ECOSOC states that: \"We believe that the daily, inveterate use of coca leaves by chewing ... is thoroughly noxious and therefore detrimental.\"[1] Therefore the risk of health harms should not be dismissed or undermined. Coca is also different to caffeine and other similar products in in its capacity to be diverted to highly potent, dangerous, and damaging use in cocaine. Therefore it has unique health considerations which make its prohibition acceptable."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population**\nThe EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423[1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU**\nRomania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism**\nTurkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. \"Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join**\nTurkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union.[1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population**\nThe EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423[1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU**\nRomania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism**\nTurkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. \"Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join**\nTurkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union.[1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The geographical definition of Europe must be limited and does not include Turkey**\nThere is no obvious and widely accepted geographical definition of a frontier to Europe. Is Russia a European country? Are Georgia and Armenia? Are Cyprus and Malta? The fact that the Mediterranean country Italy became a member of a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was certainly not determined by geography, but was an act of political imagination. Today the location of a Mediterranean state in the North Atlantic is no longer considered as something \"odd\".  Another example of changing perceptions of a region is the change from regarding the border of Europe as falling between East and West Germany; Europe broadened to include all the former Eastern European countries as potential members of the EU."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world**\nTurkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey has a poor human rights record**\nTurkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. \"Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts.\"[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union**\nTurkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would let Turkey join the European Union",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Turkey would have the largest population of all member states and would therefore hold a disproportionate amount of voting power**\nTurkey is a large country in European terms, but even if its population would make it the largest single EU member by 2020, this would still only give it some 15% of the total in an enlarged EU of 25 countries or more. This is a much smaller proportion than Germany represented in the EU of 15 before the 2004 enlargement (21.9%)[1], so it is ridiculous to argue that Turkey would dominate EU decision-making. It would not gain full status for many years anyway; an inauguration period, in which it had semi-membership status, would introduce it slowly to the process. Turkey would not be able to change EU policy to suit itself as soon as it arrives."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Museums preserve and display our heritage and therefore should be accessible to all of the public free of charge**\nMuseums preserve and display our artistic, social, scientific and political heritage. Everyone should have access to such important cultural resources as part of active citizenship, and because of the educational opportunities they offer to people of every age. Glenn Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art, claims ‘it’s almost a moral duty that museums should be free’ (Smith, 2006). If museums are not funded sufficiently by the government, they will be forced to charge for entry, and this will inevitably deter many potential visitors, especially the poor and those whose educational and cultural opportunities have already been limited. Visitors to the Victoria and Albert Museum in London declined by 13% after it started charging for admission. Free access is essential to provide freedom of cultural and educational opportunity (Garrett, 2001)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education**\nMuseums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries (e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture). As the Secretary of the National Union of Teachers described, ‘free access means that every child can benefit from the treasure chest…regardless of the depth of the parental pocket’ (Russell & Taylor, 2007). Free access is an investment in the future of both the education and creative sectors of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, tourism is a £115bn industry,(BBC News, 2010) so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Free museums encourage attendance**\nIn the UK, Labour government policy resulted in some of the leading national museums ending admissions charges. Their policy was in response to evidence from the 1980s that suggested museums that started charging visitors ‘saw their numbers plummet on average by a third – and never fully recover’ (Barrie, 2001). Labour’s policy shift had the effect of increasing visitor numbers greatly, proving that free entry is beneficial in increasing public exposure to culture. This can be shown by the UK having the highest number of visitors to art museums of any country based upon The Art Newspaper’s figures for top 100 visited galleries in 2010.(The Art Newspaper, 2011) Other countries should follow this example in order to draw more people into their own national museums."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Museum charges can be offset by government funding**\nThe contributions of government funding have been shown to be capable of sustaining the costs of a museum, preventing those costs being passed on to the public in the form of admissions charges. The examples of the British Labour government funding national museums has been noted above. The National Museum of the American Indian in Washington was set up partially with government funding and partially with private funds, ensuring it has remained free since its opening in 2004 (Democracy Now, 2004). In 2011, China also announced that from 2012 all of its national museums would become publicly-funded and cease charging admissions fees (Zhu & Guo, 2011"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Museums preserve and display our heritage and therefore should be accessible to all of the public free of charge**\nMuseums preserve and display our artistic, social, scientific and political heritage. Everyone should have access to such important cultural resources as part of active citizenship, and because of the educational opportunities they offer to people of every age. Glenn Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art, claims ‘it’s almost a moral duty that museums should be free’ (Smith, 2006). If museums are not funded sufficiently by the government, they will be forced to charge for entry, and this will inevitably deter many potential visitors, especially the poor and those whose educational and cultural opportunities have already been limited. Visitors to the Victoria and Albert Museum in London declined by 13% after it started charging for admission. Free access is essential to provide freedom of cultural and educational opportunity (Garrett, 2001)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education**\nMuseums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries (e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture). As the Secretary of the National Union of Teachers described, ‘free access means that every child can benefit from the treasure chest…regardless of the depth of the parental pocket’ (Russell & Taylor, 2007). Free access is an investment in the future of both the education and creative sectors of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, tourism is a £115bn industry,(BBC News, 2010) so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Free museums encourage attendance**\nIn the UK, Labour government policy resulted in some of the leading national museums ending admissions charges. Their policy was in response to evidence from the 1980s that suggested museums that started charging visitors ‘saw their numbers plummet on average by a third – and never fully recover’ (Barrie, 2001). Labour’s policy shift had the effect of increasing visitor numbers greatly, proving that free entry is beneficial in increasing public exposure to culture. This can be shown by the UK having the highest number of visitors to art museums of any country based upon The Art Newspaper’s figures for top 100 visited galleries in 2010.(The Art Newspaper, 2011) Other countries should follow this example in order to draw more people into their own national museums."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Museum charges can be offset by government funding**\nThe contributions of government funding have been shown to be capable of sustaining the costs of a museum, preventing those costs being passed on to the public in the form of admissions charges. The examples of the British Labour government funding national museums has been noted above. The National Museum of the American Indian in Washington was set up partially with government funding and partially with private funds, ensuring it has remained free since its opening in 2004 (Democracy Now, 2004). In 2011, China also announced that from 2012 all of its national museums would become publicly-funded and cease charging admissions fees (Zhu & Guo, 2011"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If state-funded, there is little incentive to increase numbers of visitors**\nIf museums are entirely funded by the state, they will have little incentive to increase visitor numbers and to make their collections exciting and accessible for all. The need to attract paying customers concentrates the minds of museum and gallery directors upon the needs of the public and produces imaginative and popular exhibitions, as well as adding value through guided tours, lectures and tie-ins with television programmes. All of this ensures that more people, not less visit museums. In addition, if museums were made entirely reliant upon public funding, it is likely that money would be channeled to those institutions the government felt were most important, forcing smaller, local or more specialist museums to close. While it is an extreme example totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany point to the dangers of allowing politicians control over interpretations of national identity and presentations of other cultures. Even a much more liberal government is likely to want the arts that it funds to represent it in a good light."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Television is an adequate substitute for museum trips**\nToday television plays a much greater role in transmitting our cultural heritage and a sense of national identity. Usually free to the viewer, it reaches into almost every home, both rich and poor. Most countries recognise television’s power by giving broadcasters a duty to include cultural and educational programming. It is a far more effective way of reaching a mass public than expensively subsidising every museum on the off-chance that people will enthusiastically flock to them. Often, inspirational television programmes will increase the popularity of relevant museum exhibits – for example, Britain’s historical and geological museums saw greatly increased attendances after the BBC’s Walking with Dinosaurs series (Wealden News, 2007, p.7)."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make all museums free of charge",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**State funding should be used elsewhere**\nClearly this is a question of balance, as the government cannot afford to fund every activity of possible value, especially given the social and economic costs of increased taxation. It is reasonable for governments to focus their attention upon schools and higher education in an attempt to provide more equality of opportunity. A MORI poll in 2002 found that though visitor numbers to museums had increased, the profile of a typical museum was still the same; the same people were simply going more often  (Martin, 2003, p.4). Funding the middle-class’ museum habit is not a worthwhile taxpayer cause. In any case, there are alternatives to state funding in the private sector – today many companies or private patrons sponsor museum exhibitions, acquisitions and new building work. This philanthropy is linked to a desire to make a difference, so it is unlikely to be strong when the government is seen as the source of all funding – it is most advanced in the USA for example, where government funding is very limited compared to other developed countries."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Rich and poor now face equality of impact of punishment**\nThe purpose of a fine is to ensure that the offender faces the consequences of their actions. The extent to which a financial penalty feels like a negative consequence is relative to the amount of income someone has, not to the simple amount that the fine is. That is, if someone earning £200 per week is fined £100, that will feel more severe than a £100 fine would feel to someone earning £2000 per week."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The rich are now also deterred**\nAnother purpose of fines is to provide a deterrent. If fines are applied at one rate regardless of income, they must be low enough not to be un-payable for those who do not earn much money. Consequently, they are set so low that they fail to have a deterrent effect on the richest in society, who are easily able to afford to break the law."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions**\nFines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Rich and poor now face equality of impact of punishment**\nThe purpose of a fine is to ensure that the offender faces the consequences of their actions. The extent to which a financial penalty feels like a negative consequence is relative to the amount of income someone has, not to the simple amount that the fine is. That is, if someone earning £200 per week is fined £100, that will feel more severe than a £100 fine would feel to someone earning £2000 per week."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The rich are now also deterred**\nAnother purpose of fines is to provide a deterrent. If fines are applied at one rate regardless of income, they must be low enough not to be un-payable for those who do not earn much money. Consequently, they are set so low that they fail to have a deterrent effect on the richest in society, who are easily able to afford to break the law."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions**\nFines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A flat rate is more just**\nA fine ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, not the income of the offender. It is fundamental that the justice system should treat all offenders equally; if two people commit the same crime in the same circumstances but one is richer than the other then they have caused the same amount of harm so should pay the same price for that harm.  Having a richer person pay more implies that crimes by the rich are necessarily more harmful to society regardless of what the crime actually is."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The rich will resent this**\nThe rich will feel like they are receiving an unfair, ‘greater’ punishment. This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich just as is the case with progressive taxation which is often attacked as an assault on ‘wealth creation’.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would make fines relative to income",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Creates the perception that fines are like taxes, rather than a punishment**\nIf we detach fines from the crimes committed, people are more likely to see fines as unrelated to justice. Rather, they will see fines as another mechanism by which the government makes money, this will be especially the case if as in New Zealand the money goes into government coffers without being hypothecated.1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Voting is a civic duty**\nOther civic duties also exist “which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more cohesive, stable society” 1 like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups**\nVoter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute for Public Policy Research highlight, “the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote”. Since they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs,  which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation 1. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies will be rewarded in the form of vote.  Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society are proportionally considered in governmental policy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It will cause more people to become interested in politics**\nCompulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain.  This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.**\nAustralia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924 1. Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a ‘valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’ which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is sufficient 2. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court 3. There is little reason to believe that this would be more difficult to implement in any other country.\n1 Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January 2006), (accessed 4/8/11)\n2 Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11)\n3 Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901, Australian Electoral Commission, 2010"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It will reduce the power of special interest groups**\nA benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Voting is a civic duty**\nOther civic duties also exist “which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more cohesive, stable society” 1 like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups**\nVoter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute for Public Policy Research highlight, “the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote”. Since they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs,  which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation 1. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies will be rewarded in the form of vote.  Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society are proportionally considered in governmental policy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It will cause more people to become interested in politics**\nCompulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain.  This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.**\nAustralia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924 1. Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a ‘valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’ which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is sufficient 2. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court 3. There is little reason to believe that this would be more difficult to implement in any other country.\n1 Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January 2006), (accessed 4/8/11)\n2 Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11)\n3 Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901, Australian Electoral Commission, 2010"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It will reduce the power of special interest groups**\nA benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Persuasion is more effective than coercion**\nForcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Policing and financing the system is unmanageable**\nIf a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would be impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. For example, if just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about £4 million in fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would make voting compulsory",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement**\nCompulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Heat will damage player's health**\nIn order to fully understand the implications of this motion, one must see what participating in the FIFA World Cup means to a football player."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A sporting event in the heat of a desert summer will not be a pleasant experience for the fans**\nOne of the most important parts of the game is the fans. They are the ones who watch the sport, they are the ones to which football owes its popularity. Not only are they the ones who pay for the sport they are also a vital part of any competition. Without the choreographies made by the supporters and the impressive cheering, football becomes nothing more than a silent, mediocre sport. As a result, we must take into consideration how well these hundreds of thousands of supporters from all over the world who will come to Qatar feel during the World Cup."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Moving to the winter would benefit Qatar**\nThere a lot of advantages for you as a country if you are selected to organize a World Cup, a European Cup or any kind of major sport event. They range from fame and international recognition to money and influence in the administrative bodies. Therefore, it is in Qatar’s interest that this event goes as smoothly as possible in order to prove its organizing capabilities and thus allowing them to increase its chance for hosting any kind of future sporting event.  By hosting the event in summer, Qatar is exposing itself a lot of unnecessary risk – and probable bad publicity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Heat will damage player's health**\nIn order to fully understand the implications of this motion, one must see what participating in the FIFA World Cup means to a football player."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A sporting event in the heat of a desert summer will not be a pleasant experience for the fans**\nOne of the most important parts of the game is the fans. They are the ones who watch the sport, they are the ones to which football owes its popularity. Not only are they the ones who pay for the sport they are also a vital part of any competition. Without the choreographies made by the supporters and the impressive cheering, football becomes nothing more than a silent, mediocre sport. As a result, we must take into consideration how well these hundreds of thousands of supporters from all over the world who will come to Qatar feel during the World Cup."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Moving to the winter would benefit Qatar**\nThere a lot of advantages for you as a country if you are selected to organize a World Cup, a European Cup or any kind of major sport event. They range from fame and international recognition to money and influence in the administrative bodies. Therefore, it is in Qatar’s interest that this event goes as smoothly as possible in order to prove its organizing capabilities and thus allowing them to increase its chance for hosting any kind of future sporting event.  By hosting the event in summer, Qatar is exposing itself a lot of unnecessary risk – and probable bad publicity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Moving now would be unfair to the other bidders**\nQatar beat bids from Australia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan to win the right to stage the 2022 World Cup. Moving it to another date other than the one they all had to include in their bidding offers would be unfair towards the losers of that bidding process."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A winter cup would harm media revenue**\nAt the beginning of each year, every media company, especially the big ones, try and make a plan to see which of the sporting events, they should cover in order to maximize their ratings. As the broadcasting rights of these types of events cost hundreds of millions of dollars, this is a very sensitive issue."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would move the 2022 Football World Cup to the winter",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It would Interfere with other competitions**\nOne of the biggest downsides that this shift of dates would have is the creation of a clash if schedules all around the sports world, fuelling tensions and controversies. No matter in which month the Cup would be played, purposeless conflicts would emerge from this."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Abstinence-only education teaches young people that they do not need to have sex to fit in.**\nAbstinence programs teach teenagers how to have meaningful, age-appropriate relationships, and help young people fight the pressure of having sex before they are ready."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**It is irresponsible to teach anything but abstinence to children too young for sex.**\nSex carries with it a multitude of risks and responsibilities. All sex – even protected – has the possibility of leading to STIs or pregnancy, both of which have huge psychological, emotional, and physical impacts. Furthermore, sex can create emotional bonds between individuals which are overwhelming and intense. Young people are simply not emotionally or physically mature enough to take such risks, or accept such responsibilities, and so it is irresponsible to teach anything butabstinence."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Abstinence-only education deters people from having sex at a young age.**\nAlthough most previous evidence supporting abstinence-only education failed to meet high scientific standards, a recent study has presented what the Washington Post calls “the first clear evidence” that abstinence-only education really can work. The federally funded study found that only about a third of 6th and 7th graders receiving abstinence-only education had sex over the following two years, whereas nearly half of 6th and 7thgraders attending other classes became sexually active.[1] And, abstinence-only education did not affect condom usage[2] )(confirming what the Mathematica Policy Research study cited by the Opposition also found![3]). This suggests that good abstinence-only programs (this one, for example, did not condemn condoms) implemented at a young age, do have real effects on young people’s sexual activity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Parents, not schools, should teach their children about sex.**\nGiven that cultural and social attitudes towards sex are so variable, it should be up to the family to decide how to broach this sensitive topic. Schools are supposed to give students the skills and knowledge they need for employment and/or higher education: sex education is a separate, much more personal, issue. Telling students to abstain ensures that no one is taught anything more than their parents want, and leaves room for parents to give a more extensive education if they so desire. This is especially true since most parents support abstinence education anyway: A Zogby International poll of U.S. parents found that 78% of parents think sex education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence than on condom and other contraceptive use.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Abstinence-only education rightly teaches saving sex for marriage (or at least a long term, exclusive relationship).**\nMonogamous sex is much safer than polygamous sex, as it reduces the chance of obtaining and spreading STIs. Furthermore, sex outside of marriage makes it more difficult to develop intimate and trusting relationships. Random sexual partners who are unsure of each other’s fidelity cannot develop the same type of unique and personal relationship that a committed couple can. Numerous studies have shown that this is the case; having more partners increases the STD risk.[1] And, sex before marriage goes against cultural and religious principles.  Abstinence education rightly teaches teenagers that saving sex for marriage is the best way to be healthful and happy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Abstinence-only education teaches young people that they do not need to have sex to fit in.**\nAbstinence programs teach teenagers how to have meaningful, age-appropriate relationships, and help young people fight the pressure of having sex before they are ready."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is irresponsible to teach anything but abstinence to children too young for sex.**\nSex carries with it a multitude of risks and responsibilities. All sex – even protected – has the possibility of leading to STIs or pregnancy, both of which have huge psychological, emotional, and physical impacts. Furthermore, sex can create emotional bonds between individuals which are overwhelming and intense. Young people are simply not emotionally or physically mature enough to take such risks, or accept such responsibilities, and so it is irresponsible to teach anything butabstinence."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Abstinence-only education deters people from having sex at a young age.**\nAlthough most previous evidence supporting abstinence-only education failed to meet high scientific standards, a recent study has presented what the Washington Post calls “the first clear evidence” that abstinence-only education really can work. The federally funded study found that only about a third of 6th and 7th graders receiving abstinence-only education had sex over the following two years, whereas nearly half of 6th and 7thgraders attending other classes became sexually active.[1] And, abstinence-only education did not affect condom usage[2] )(confirming what the Mathematica Policy Research study cited by the Opposition also found![3]). This suggests that good abstinence-only programs (this one, for example, did not condemn condoms) implemented at a young age, do have real effects on young people’s sexual activity."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Parents, not schools, should teach their children about sex.**\nGiven that cultural and social attitudes towards sex are so variable, it should be up to the family to decide how to broach this sensitive topic. Schools are supposed to give students the skills and knowledge they need for employment and/or higher education: sex education is a separate, much more personal, issue. Telling students to abstain ensures that no one is taught anything more than their parents want, and leaves room for parents to give a more extensive education if they so desire. This is especially true since most parents support abstinence education anyway: A Zogby International poll of U.S. parents found that 78% of parents think sex education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence than on condom and other contraceptive use.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Abstinence-only education rightly teaches saving sex for marriage (or at least a long term, exclusive relationship).**\nMonogamous sex is much safer than polygamous sex, as it reduces the chance of obtaining and spreading STIs. Furthermore, sex outside of marriage makes it more difficult to develop intimate and trusting relationships. Random sexual partners who are unsure of each other’s fidelity cannot develop the same type of unique and personal relationship that a committed couple can. Numerous studies have shown that this is the case; having more partners increases the STD risk.[1] And, sex before marriage goes against cultural and religious principles.  Abstinence education rightly teaches teenagers that saving sex for marriage is the best way to be healthful and happy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sex positive sex education is more likely to reduce irresponsible sexual behaviour than abstinence programs.**\nTeaching teens that sex is wrong forces them to believe that their natural sexual impulses are wrong- causing great confusion and self-doubt- and causing the needless and frustrating suppression of sexual impulses. Instead, teens should be taught that these impulses are natural and beautiful, and should be helped in the process of understanding and channelling them. This will help teens live a more fulfilling life, as opposed to a life of self-denial."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sex-ed does a better job of ensuring that students have safe sex.**\nTeenage pregnancy rates have declined in recent years, and supporters of an abstinence-only approach sometimes use this trend to defend their programs. However, according to a paper in The American Journal of Public Health, 86 percent of the decline in teenage pregnancy can be attributed to more widespread-- and more effective-- contraceptive use, and only 14 percent to teenagers’ choosing to stay abstinent longer.[1]) This is not simply about using condoms: it is about using condoms properly. Incorrect use of condoms can make them extremely ineffective at preventing STDs and pregnancy.[2] The implication is that even if young people in abstinence-programs still report using condoms, they are probably less likely to use them correctly since they are not taught how. Alternately, sex-ed programs teach students how to use them properly, giving them the tools they need to stay safe. For more detail on the inefficacy of abstinence-only programs, see response to Prop Argument 3."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Schools are obliged to teach kids about sexuality.**\nThere is a growing movement, in the United States and elsewhere, which asserts. That young people have the right to comprehensive sexuality education. “Comprehensive”, in this sense, does mean sex education that extends to condom use. It means an approach to sex education that covers scientific, ethical, medical, emotional, and religious issues."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would only teach abstinence for sex education in schools",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Sex-ed creates informed decisions about risks of sex.**\nGiving young people a clear message about behaviour is one of the important characteristics of comprehensive sex education programs. Usually, the core of this message will be that refraining from sex is the safest choice to make, but that protective measures should always be used when sexual activity does take place. What side proposition may describe as a “liberal” abstinence approach is effectively a comprehensive approach."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The flag of the United States is its primary symbol of nationhood, with a unique importance in the eyes of most Americans, and thus should be protected**\nWhen destroying the flag of the United States it is the values of the United States that are under attack. Since the birth of the nation the flag of the United States, the eponymous \"Star-Spangled Banner\", has been flown proudly in all parts of the country. It has become an endemic fixture in American culture and has come to be seen by people all over the United States, and the world, as a representation of the spirit and identity of nation. It appears on every seal of public office, is flown outside every public building and a flag-shaped pin is worn upon the breast of virtually every public figure. The flag has been imbued with a special significance by the citizens of the United States, and is viewed almost universally with extensive reverence1. It has come to be seen as emblematic of all the values and virtues of American society. In a way it is the physical sublimation of those values; at least that is how it is often treated. For this reason, to destroy the flag is to destroy the values they represent, and thus the flag must be protected in order to protect the values of the nation the flag represents."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, does not extend to particularly inflammatory types of speech and expression, which includes flag burning**\nFreedom of speech and expression is an important right, which is why it is listed first in the Bill of Rights; it is central to a fair and free democracy. However, it has limits. Some forms of speech are contrary to the values of democracy, namely when they infringe upon or violate the ability of others to enact their own rights and freedoms. This is why such things as incitement to hatred, other violence-promoting speech, as well as defamation and perjury are legislated against; they are expressions that infringe the rights of others, by causing fear and increasing risk of harm in case of hate speech, and by harming reputations and the effective administration of justice in terms of defamation and perjury respectively. Rights stop where harm to others begins. In the case of flag burning, as the dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist on the issue says, the act is an extremely visceral one, and is often perceived as a direct attack on the core values of America itself, which many consider to be representative of those values, leading to feelings of anger and violation1. It is an infringement of these offended people's rights when flags are allowed to be burned."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Flag burning does not serve as an effective method of conveying a message, since it is always met only with outrage and sometimes even violent public unrest**\nIt is highly questionable whether burning a flag can be considered a speech or expressive act at all. It seems to offer up no new concepts or true opinions to the \"marketplace of ideas\". Nothing is genuinely expressed by the act that could not be done through words or other, less fiery means. The act of flag burning does nothing to help the advancement or elucidation of truth, which is why people have the right to freedom of expression in the first place. Rather, it clouds the issue supposedly being furthered by the act. It welcomes the rhetoric of \"un-Americanism\", whereby critics and commentators question the protestors' general patriotism, not the validity of their underlying cause, which can eventually lead to the same criticism of their cause itself. Anger clouds the discussion, with people viewing the cause in terms of unpatriotic people supporting the cause, and thus calling for patriots to oppose it. Examples of this problem can be seen clearly in the various protests during the Vietnam War in which misguided protestors burned flags to show their opposition to the war and killing of innocents. The response to these protests, however, were accusations of lack of patriotism on the parts of those involved and gave a powerful rhetorical tool to the political groups still supporting the fight1. Furthermore, when anger and rhetoric cloud all discussion of an issue, it can lead to unmeasured, even violent responses from authorities and concerned citizens. Flag burning is thus counterproductive as a tool of protest, since it stops the message being propagated and pollutes the forums of discourse from being able to search for answers reasonably."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The popular will calls for a prohibition of flag burning**\nAll national polls conducted in the United States have shown a majority popular support for banning flag burning1. State and federal laws, passed by democratically elected representatives, have for decades passed popularly supported laws aimed at protecting the flag from desecration. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down these laws as being contrary to the rights to free speech, by a narrow 5-4 vote2. Yet popular support for such laws has not diminished. This has led to attempts to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution, which would then necessarily have to be accepted by the Court. In 2006, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment by the requisite supermajority, and it died in the Senate by only a single vote3. Clearly, the vast majority of citizens and legislators actively support legislation to protect the flag. Law should reflect the will of the people and prevent the desecration of the nation's most sacred symbol. Failing to do so gives precedence to the rights of a small minority to perform an act that does not hold any major sway over their lives over the democratic rights of the democratic public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The flag of the United States is its primary symbol of nationhood, with a unique importance in the eyes of most Americans, and thus should be protected**\nWhen destroying the flag of the United States it is the values of the United States that are under attack. Since the birth of the nation the flag of the United States, the eponymous \"Star-Spangled Banner\", has been flown proudly in all parts of the country. It has become an endemic fixture in American culture and has come to be seen by people all over the United States, and the world, as a representation of the spirit and identity of nation. It appears on every seal of public office, is flown outside every public building and a flag-shaped pin is worn upon the breast of virtually every public figure. The flag has been imbued with a special significance by the citizens of the United States, and is viewed almost universally with extensive reverence1. It has come to be seen as emblematic of all the values and virtues of American society. In a way it is the physical sublimation of those values; at least that is how it is often treated. For this reason, to destroy the flag is to destroy the values they represent, and thus the flag must be protected in order to protect the values of the nation the flag represents."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, does not extend to particularly inflammatory types of speech and expression, which includes flag burning**\nFreedom of speech and expression is an important right, which is why it is listed first in the Bill of Rights; it is central to a fair and free democracy. However, it has limits. Some forms of speech are contrary to the values of democracy, namely when they infringe upon or violate the ability of others to enact their own rights and freedoms. This is why such things as incitement to hatred, other violence-promoting speech, as well as defamation and perjury are legislated against; they are expressions that infringe the rights of others, by causing fear and increasing risk of harm in case of hate speech, and by harming reputations and the effective administration of justice in terms of defamation and perjury respectively. Rights stop where harm to others begins. In the case of flag burning, as the dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist on the issue says, the act is an extremely visceral one, and is often perceived as a direct attack on the core values of America itself, which many consider to be representative of those values, leading to feelings of anger and violation1. It is an infringement of these offended people's rights when flags are allowed to be burned."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Flag burning does not serve as an effective method of conveying a message, since it is always met only with outrage and sometimes even violent public unrest**\nIt is highly questionable whether burning a flag can be considered a speech or expressive act at all. It seems to offer up no new concepts or true opinions to the \"marketplace of ideas\". Nothing is genuinely expressed by the act that could not be done through words or other, less fiery means. The act of flag burning does nothing to help the advancement or elucidation of truth, which is why people have the right to freedom of expression in the first place. Rather, it clouds the issue supposedly being furthered by the act. It welcomes the rhetoric of \"un-Americanism\", whereby critics and commentators question the protestors' general patriotism, not the validity of their underlying cause, which can eventually lead to the same criticism of their cause itself. Anger clouds the discussion, with people viewing the cause in terms of unpatriotic people supporting the cause, and thus calling for patriots to oppose it. Examples of this problem can be seen clearly in the various protests during the Vietnam War in which misguided protestors burned flags to show their opposition to the war and killing of innocents. The response to these protests, however, were accusations of lack of patriotism on the parts of those involved and gave a powerful rhetorical tool to the political groups still supporting the fight1. Furthermore, when anger and rhetoric cloud all discussion of an issue, it can lead to unmeasured, even violent responses from authorities and concerned citizens. Flag burning is thus counterproductive as a tool of protest, since it stops the message being propagated and pollutes the forums of discourse from being able to search for answers reasonably."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The popular will calls for a prohibition of flag burning**\nAll national polls conducted in the United States have shown a majority popular support for banning flag burning1. State and federal laws, passed by democratically elected representatives, have for decades passed popularly supported laws aimed at protecting the flag from desecration. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down these laws as being contrary to the rights to free speech, by a narrow 5-4 vote2. Yet popular support for such laws has not diminished. This has led to attempts to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution, which would then necessarily have to be accepted by the Court. In 2006, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment by the requisite supermajority, and it died in the Senate by only a single vote3. Clearly, the vast majority of citizens and legislators actively support legislation to protect the flag. Law should reflect the will of the people and prevent the desecration of the nation's most sacred symbol. Failing to do so gives precedence to the rights of a small minority to perform an act that does not hold any major sway over their lives over the democratic rights of the democratic public."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The power of the act of flag burning generates considerable attention making it a very effective tool of expression and protest**\nFlag burning is such a powerful and useful method of protest for the very reason that it is a visceral expression to which many people will respond. Jarring statements grab attention, and force discourse on the issue1. A conventional protest can be overlooked, but images of a flag being burned immediately drags in media attention and starts a commentary. While some commentary does center on the issue of flag burning itself, it also necessarily brings it to the cause as well. When protesters are called to explain themselves, they get a chance to explain their views and promote their cause to a much wider audience than they might well not have been able to reach otherwise. Thus flag burning can be very valuable for gaining attention, and if done thoughtfully, to generate support."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The act of flag burning can be done for patriotic reasons, when an individual considers the government to be doing something unworthy of the national ideals represented by the national flag**\nBurning a flag may not be an act of \"un-Americanism\", in the sense of opposing widely held principles considered emblematic of the United States, at all in many cases. Often the flag can be burned as an act of patriotism. When individuals feel the state is doing something contrary to the ideals of the nation, and thus those that the flag represent, burning of a flag can be symbolic of the state's non-adherence to the values it is meant to defend1. The act of burning thus serves to connect the cause of the protestor to the very ideals of the nation, and shows that it is central to the discourse of what the nation's values are and how they should be maintained, rather than simply being the ancillary opinions of a few people that can simply be discarded."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning flag burning effectively bans questioning of what it represents, and thus bans questioning of the widely held values of the United States**\nWhen an individual's views are particularly opposed and contrary to those the national flag is customarily considered to embody, there can be no more valuable way of showing opposition. Should views be judged outdated or in error, people must have a way of showing it in a visceral way that will gain attention and spark discourse. Conventional patriotic views deserve to be challenged, if only to be reaffirmed by the public in the ensuing debate. The problem with prohibiting the act of flag burning is that it necessarily sends the message of banning discourse on the subject of what the flag represents1. It makes those values inviolable, but a free society should be able to question and change its values. Banning flag burning thus essentially bans dissent from the prevailing view. Yet banning something on the basis of majority opinion and their easily offended sensibilities is little more than a heckler's charter. If views are banned simply because the majority disagrees with them, it is little more than the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and thus clearly unjust2. The very reason there are checks and balances in the United States government is to prevent such tyranny. This is exactly why the Supreme Court has stood against the laws passed by the federal and state legislatures banning desecration of the flag; they protect the rights of citizens with a minority opinion from the majority seeking them away3. Flag burning is a form of free speech that helps people question what the United States should be. Banning it only serves to corrupt society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would prohibit burning the stars and stripes",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The right to free speech and expression must include the expression of ideas through means not shared by the majority, including flag burning**\nFor society to be free and democratic it must have provision for the expression of views contrary to the mainstream, and even directly oppositional to it. This must furthermore extend to the means by which to convey such messages. Public disgust is certainly not justification enough to deny the right to expression. The exercise of a right can only be denied to someone when there is a direct harm to others by exercising that right. In terms of free speech, the words or expressions used by someone must result in actual harms to others, harms that outweigh the inherent harms of denying someone their rights, which is itself a kind of violation. No such harm exists in the case of flag burning1. Some people have an irrational attachment to the symbolic significance of the flag, but it should not be expected by law that everyone share that view. The flag, like all symbols of beliefs and groups, is not inviolable, nor is anyone's piece of mind or health so attached to its wellbeing that the desecration or defacing of it could cause any true harm. Furthermore, the patriotism of individuals watching a flag burning is not affected by it. This view is upheld, for example, by Supreme Court opinion in Texas v. Johnson, when the opinion argued that there could be no better response to a flag burning by someone opposed to such an action than waving their own flag or saluting and paying respect to the burning flag2. People can thus show their opposition peacefully without infringing the right of a protestor to burn a flag. Banning flag desecration on account of a sense of moral disgust, or of the threat to public order caused by angry counter-protestors, is the prohibition of an otherwise lawful act for the reason that others will commit crimes in response. Clearly, these are not justification for banning flag burning."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Voters have a right to know the background of their would-be representatives, including financial background**\nIn any society, no matter how liberal, rights of every kind have limitations. Rights are general statements of principles that are then caveated and curtailed to fit the public interest across a range of circumstances. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role they are applying for requires extra transparency. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead, including by example. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. This political power will often involve power over the public purse so it is essential for the public to know if the candidate is financially honest and not going to use his election for corrupt purposes.[1] Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is done generally through political campaigns that focus on candidates’ character and life story. But often candidates prove reticent to share some details, particularly financial details. But if citizens are to make a good decision about what sort of person they wish to lead them, they require information about the financial background of their representatives, to see that they comport themselves in business in a way that is fitting to the character of a leader."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules**\nA lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer.[1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**This information offers valuable texture to the financial proposals candidates offer as potential policy**\nWhen candidates make proposals for public spending they often seek to use their own financial stories as evidence of their credibility. Without public knowledge of their actual financial record, besides what can be gleaned from secondary sources and their words, these claims cannot be evaluated fully by the voting public. Publishing their financial records allows the citizens to get a genuine grasp of their –would-be representatives abilities. More importantly, the proposals of candidates can be scrutinized in relation to how the candidate, and those of the same financial stratum as the candidate, would benefit from them. When Mitt Romney proposed new tax and spending reforms in the last US presidential election, it was clear that his policies inordinately favored the rich and increased the tax burden of the middle class.[1] Understanding Romney’s personal position of great wealth served confirm to the public their suspicions that his policies were designed to favor the financial elite of which he was a part. It is in the public’s interest to elect representatives who serve their interests, not those of moneyed elites."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Voters have a right to know the background of their would-be representatives, including financial background**\nIn any society, no matter how liberal, rights of every kind have limitations. Rights are general statements of principles that are then caveated and curtailed to fit the public interest across a range of circumstances. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role they are applying for requires extra transparency. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead, including by example. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. This political power will often involve power over the public purse so it is essential for the public to know if the candidate is financially honest and not going to use his election for corrupt purposes.[1] Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is done generally through political campaigns that focus on candidates’ character and life story. But often candidates prove reticent to share some details, particularly financial details. But if citizens are to make a good decision about what sort of person they wish to lead them, they require information about the financial background of their representatives, to see that they comport themselves in business in a way that is fitting to the character of a leader."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules**\nA lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer.[1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This information offers valuable texture to the financial proposals candidates offer as potential policy**\nWhen candidates make proposals for public spending they often seek to use their own financial stories as evidence of their credibility. Without public knowledge of their actual financial record, besides what can be gleaned from secondary sources and their words, these claims cannot be evaluated fully by the voting public. Publishing their financial records allows the citizens to get a genuine grasp of their –would-be representatives abilities. More importantly, the proposals of candidates can be scrutinized in relation to how the candidate, and those of the same financial stratum as the candidate, would benefit from them. When Mitt Romney proposed new tax and spending reforms in the last US presidential election, it was clear that his policies inordinately favored the rich and increased the tax burden of the middle class.[1] Understanding Romney’s personal position of great wealth served confirm to the public their suspicions that his policies were designed to favor the financial elite of which he was a part. It is in the public’s interest to elect representatives who serve their interests, not those of moneyed elites."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records**\nPrivacy is a fundamental human right, one that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us.[1] What people do with their own finances is their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. Politicians don’t owe the electorate any special privileges like their financial history. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. His or her duty is not so special as to demand the handing over of all information on one of the most critical aspects of their private life. Financial affairs like income and taxes are a private matter, and should be treated as such by voters and governments. This is even more the case when it comes to financial history, much of which may have happened long before the individual decided to become a politician. Making politicians’ financial affairs fair game for reporters and others who would exploit the information only serves to undermine the rights that all citizens rightly enjoy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Fixating on candidates’ financial records fuels the fire of class war**\nMore and more the financial dealings of candidates are used against them in politics. In past decades, politicians in many countries were proud to run on the basis of their successes in the private sector. Today, however, that success has often become a liability. One only need look at the paradigmatic example of this occurrence, Mitt Romney. When running for governor in Massachusetts, his strong record in business was touted as a quality favoring him. Yet in the presidential election, Romney’s wealth was touted as an example of capitalist excess, of often ill-gotten gains.[1] The change in rhetoric has indicated marked shift in politics in a number of countries, most visibly the United States, but also places like France, where the development of wealth and success are deemed to be the marks of greed and unfairness. These trends would only be compounded with the release of candidates’ financial records. People with records of wealth and financial ability will be further demonized as being anti-poor. These sorts of political tactics obscure from the realities of politics and seeks to separate people along class, rather than political ideological, lines. Such divisions are exceptionally dangerous to the functioning of a democratic society, which demands buy-in and willing participation from all classes and groups in order to function."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The focus of elections should be on policy, not personal issues like financial records**\nDiscussion of candidates’ personal finances serves only to obscure the real issues facing society. When the focus becomes on how much tax Candidate X paid and what loopholes he or she exploited, the media tends to latch onto it. It sells more newspapers and gets more hits online to make a salacious story about the financial “misdeeds” of a candidate than to actually discuss what he or she stands for. It fuels the growing tendency of the media to attach itself to petty commentary rather than real investigation and analysis. Ultimately, an examination of the personal finances of a candidate tells voters little about what he or she stands for on the issue of state finances. Throughout history, personal financial success has been shown to not necessarily correlate with political acumen. For example, William Pitt became the young, and one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, yet he was in extreme debt when he died.[1] Narrow attention paid to personal finances takes up people’s limited time available to consume useful information to direct their voting, and the news media have limited air time to discuss issues. It is best that both use their time to maximum effect, and not be sidetracked by distractions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Athletes should decide for themselves.**\nIn sports it is crucial that the best person wins no matter of his or her sex.  We should let the women decide if they are prepared enough to participate in men’s events, and not take that decision for them by forcing them into set leagues. American skier Lindsey Vonn has won the women's World Cup four times. In November 2012, she asked to be allowed to compete in the men's event. The request was denied(1). If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete in a certain discipline, she should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male athlete. The examples of Danica Patrick, a “NASCAR driver who won the 2008 Indy Japan 300 and finished 3rd in the 2009 Indy 500” and Seena Hogan who holds multiple records in ultra cycling, which haven’t been beaten by any man or women to this day(2), show us how women can improve a competition in a significant way. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who wins, the very purpose of sports forces us to let them take the decision, as we cannot accurately suppose that women are worse than men at every single competition of every single sporting event as shown by the stated examples."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Preventing discrimination in sport**\nAssuming we would have two equally muscular and equally fast male and female athletes, the current system clearly discriminates the female athlete by not allowing her to compete in the male league. It is against the very nature of sports to treat differently two athletes who have the same strength, speed, agility, dexterity, mental focus, determination, ambition based purely on their type of chromosomes."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Encouraging future female athletes**\nOne of the best ways to have a healthy life, avoid obesity and learn crucial values like respect, teamwork and fair play is by practicing a sport. In order to incentivize women from around the world to get involved you need to give them role models; women who receive a lot of media coverage to whom they can look up to. Unfortunately, women’s sports don’t receive as much media coverage as men’s sports because they are considered to be less spectacular and thrilling. By allowing certain women, who have the necessary skills to compete against men to get this coverage you will give young girls the necessary motivation to start practicing sports, thus bringing a massive social benefit to the society.  This happens already to successful women who are lucky enough to compete with men, as shown by Danica Patrick, so why should we stop here?(1)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Athletes should decide for themselves.**\nIn sports it is crucial that the best person wins no matter of his or her sex.  We should let the women decide if they are prepared enough to participate in men’s events, and not take that decision for them by forcing them into set leagues. American skier Lindsey Vonn has won the women's World Cup four times. In November 2012, she asked to be allowed to compete in the men's event. The request was denied(1). If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete in a certain discipline, she should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male athlete. The examples of Danica Patrick, a “NASCAR driver who won the 2008 Indy Japan 300 and finished 3rd in the 2009 Indy 500” and Seena Hogan who holds multiple records in ultra cycling, which haven’t been beaten by any man or women to this day(2), show us how women can improve a competition in a significant way. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who wins, the very purpose of sports forces us to let them take the decision, as we cannot accurately suppose that women are worse than men at every single competition of every single sporting event as shown by the stated examples."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Preventing discrimination in sport**\nAssuming we would have two equally muscular and equally fast male and female athletes, the current system clearly discriminates the female athlete by not allowing her to compete in the male league. It is against the very nature of sports to treat differently two athletes who have the same strength, speed, agility, dexterity, mental focus, determination, ambition based purely on their type of chromosomes."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Encouraging future female athletes**\nOne of the best ways to have a healthy life, avoid obesity and learn crucial values like respect, teamwork and fair play is by practicing a sport. In order to incentivize women from around the world to get involved you need to give them role models; women who receive a lot of media coverage to whom they can look up to. Unfortunately, women’s sports don’t receive as much media coverage as men’s sports because they are considered to be less spectacular and thrilling. By allowing certain women, who have the necessary skills to compete against men to get this coverage you will give young girls the necessary motivation to start practicing sports, thus bringing a massive social benefit to the society.  This happens already to successful women who are lucky enough to compete with men, as shown by Danica Patrick, so why should we stop here?(1)"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Crimination would increase**\nFrom the very beginning, it is important to understand that many sports are based on the physical attributes of the individuals. Whoever has the biggest muscles, whoever is fastest, whoever lifts a bigger weight, he is the one who will be declared champion. When we look at the statistics, they reveal the massive gap between the athletic capacities of the two sexes for example “The women's speed world records are all about 90 percent of the men's speed world records, in both short, middle and long distances.”(1). This only means, that although some women will win some sporting events, the vast majority of competition will still be won by men. As a result, more than ever, a message of female inferiority will be transmitted because in a direct competition between the sexes males will constantly win an element which was lacking in the past."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There will be a negative effect on women’s leagues**\nUnfortunately, in the Status Quo there are a lot of women sporting leagues which are completely overshadowed by men’s, such as cycling, basketball or soccer. What is needed in order for them to grow is a lot of talented, gifted women athletes which will create the “thrill” needed to attract media coverage, which in turn attract sponsors. In time, as more and more young female athletes are drawn into these sports, slowly but surely they will grow and narrow the financial and coverage gap between them and men’s leagues. But if women are allowed to compete in men’s leagues the very best females in that sport, who are the bedrock for future development, will likely quit the women’s leagues for the men’s. Women already seem inclined to do this, American skier Lindsey Vonn has won the women's World Cup four times asked to be allowed to compete in the men's event.(1) As a result, the women’s leagues will be stripped of their best competitors. Left on its own the level of competition will rise and will surely catch up with the men’s leagues as far as money and media coverage is concerned. This is being proven by tennis, handball and athletics where there is as much money and fame for the female winners as there is for the male ones."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Destroying the pleasure of watching certain sports**\nIn today’s society, we have reached a point where a significant majority of the population is extremely sensitive towards domestic violence of any form, but particularly coming from a man directed towards a woman. Unfortunately, a wide variety of extremely popular sports are to a certain degree very violent such as: boxing, kickboxing, rugby, MMA or American football. Certain matches between a male and a female, no matter the winner will, cause a huge amount of visual discontent among viewers as no one wants to see a man knocking unconscious a woman with an uppercut. This would send a terrible message about violence against women and would be extremely unpopular and subject to large numbers of complaints. Subjecting women to such violence in these sports, even if the women in question puts up a good fight, will as a result of the sensitivity of many towards this kind of violence decrease the popularity and thrill of these otherwise extremely exciting sports."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would allow women to compete in the same leagues as men",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This could simply swap inequalities around**\nDespite the fact that gender equality in sports often comes as an argument for applying this motion, it is rather the other way round. If indeed it is so important to let women compete in men’s leagues, on what ground do we ban men from competing in women’s leagues? If we look at it from the point of equality, it would be only normal that if women are equal to men, men are equal to women, and if females can move from one league to another, so should males. Either option we choose, there are negative consequences that follow."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture**\nAcross the United States, Australia, and Canada, native customs are often tied closely to the land. For example, while descendants of the Sioux Indians of the American Midwest may no longer hunt buffalo, learning about traditional means of hunting, animal use, rituals involving the surrounding wildlife, means of ensuring a sustainable food supply, and other cultural norms related to the land gives people a greater appreciation for the land they now inhabit. Exposure to traditions that have been practiced in one's land for thousands of years helps us to appreciate the legacy we have inherited. This does not just benefit the direct descendants of those practicing these traditions but the whole of society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions**\nThe Indian Removal Act of 18301, the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, and the 1887 General Allotment Act are just a few examples of legislation used to destroy Native American communities in the US2. Settlers in Australia are similarly responsible for a multitude of massacres3, as well as several decades of forced separation of aboriginal children from their parents in an effort to \"Christianize\" them4. While the current citizens of Canada, the US, and Australia are not guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, they nevertheless reap the benefits of those atrocities while today's indigenous populations still suffer from the lasting impact of oppression. When chemical companies make huge profits at the expense of damaging the surrounding community's environment, those companies are expected to pay reparations. A government that destroys an indigenous culture must similarly work to reverse their destruction."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression.**\nNotions of cultural superiority virtually always influence displacement and abuse of indigenous cultures. For example, when the government of Botswana expelled the Kalahari Bushmen from their land in 2002, President Mogai defended his actions by describing the bushmen as \"stone age creatures.\"1 This cultural insensitivity, in addition to the incentive of material gains, led the Botswani government to violate the tribe's rights. By preserving indigenous culture, governments recognize the value of these groups and prevent future hostility."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Governments protect culture every day**\nGovernments already protect culture so it is not a big step to apply the same protections to aboriginal culture as well. In school, students learn about traditional art and their national history. For example, the state of California compiles reading lists that largely include Shakespeare, Virgil, and John Steinback, though also including ethnic authors like Maya Angelou1. Governments recognize days like Christmas and New Years and fund programs that promote the arts. States recognize marriage and structure divorce and custody laws based on cultural norms of gender roles and family responsibility. If a government can protect the norms on one culture in society, there is no reason that the government should not also protect the culture of those who first inhabited the land. This current protection makes it easy to build on, to make highlight more aboriginal culture, recognize their festivals etc."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture**\nAcross the United States, Australia, and Canada, native customs are often tied closely to the land. For example, while descendants of the Sioux Indians of the American Midwest may no longer hunt buffalo, learning about traditional means of hunting, animal use, rituals involving the surrounding wildlife, means of ensuring a sustainable food supply, and other cultural norms related to the land gives people a greater appreciation for the land they now inhabit. Exposure to traditions that have been practiced in one's land for thousands of years helps us to appreciate the legacy we have inherited. This does not just benefit the direct descendants of those practicing these traditions but the whole of society."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions**\nThe Indian Removal Act of 18301, the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, and the 1887 General Allotment Act are just a few examples of legislation used to destroy Native American communities in the US2. Settlers in Australia are similarly responsible for a multitude of massacres3, as well as several decades of forced separation of aboriginal children from their parents in an effort to \"Christianize\" them4. While the current citizens of Canada, the US, and Australia are not guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, they nevertheless reap the benefits of those atrocities while today's indigenous populations still suffer from the lasting impact of oppression. When chemical companies make huge profits at the expense of damaging the surrounding community's environment, those companies are expected to pay reparations. A government that destroys an indigenous culture must similarly work to reverse their destruction."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression.**\nNotions of cultural superiority virtually always influence displacement and abuse of indigenous cultures. For example, when the government of Botswana expelled the Kalahari Bushmen from their land in 2002, President Mogai defended his actions by describing the bushmen as \"stone age creatures.\"1 This cultural insensitivity, in addition to the incentive of material gains, led the Botswani government to violate the tribe's rights. By preserving indigenous culture, governments recognize the value of these groups and prevent future hostility."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Governments protect culture every day**\nGovernments already protect culture so it is not a big step to apply the same protections to aboriginal culture as well. In school, students learn about traditional art and their national history. For example, the state of California compiles reading lists that largely include Shakespeare, Virgil, and John Steinback, though also including ethnic authors like Maya Angelou1. Governments recognize days like Christmas and New Years and fund programs that promote the arts. States recognize marriage and structure divorce and custody laws based on cultural norms of gender roles and family responsibility. If a government can protect the norms on one culture in society, there is no reason that the government should not also protect the culture of those who first inhabited the land. This current protection makes it easy to build on, to make highlight more aboriginal culture, recognize their festivals etc."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Culture provides no tangible benefit that justifies the use of government funds to preserve it.**\nIf indigenous populations feel strongly that their unique culture is worth preserving, they may direct their attention and funds towards this endeavor. However, a government's first priority must be services that improve the standard of living for its citizens. Society, including indigenous people, would be better served if tax dollars were spent on services like healthcare and law enforcement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Government interference is not necessary to preserve culture**\nPlenty of ethnic groups immigrate to countries like Canada and the US and preserve their culture without government aid. They do so through religious education for children, speaking their native language at home, schools at the weekends that teach their culture and communication and cooperation within the ethnic community. This cultural preservation demonstrates that government assistance is unnecessary and thereby a form of excessive government involvement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Culture evolves over time and is largely impacted by improved standards of living and exposure to other cultures**\nVirtually all cultures around the world have changed radically over the past two hundred years; if a government takes action towards \"preserving\" an indigenous culture, it is interfering with the group's ability to mold their identity to fit the modern world on their own terms. For example, the Australian and American governments have tried to appease native groups by offering land for reserves where they may lead a traditional lifestyle. Native individuals, however, often do not want to live in isolation, and would rather adapt their culture to an urban environment where they can have a higher standard of living."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect aboriginal culture",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Culture is an incredibly complex concept**\nCulture contains many elements; it is the food one eats, the clothing one wears, the holidays one celebrates, and the names of the spirits one worships. However, it is much more than that; culture dictates parent-child relationships, courting customs, family size, gender roles, healthcare, education, and every law, regulation, and standard a society holds. Governments rarely give blanket approval to an indigenous customs; children are often compelled to attend school and receive vaccines, substances used in religious rituals may be banned, and customs that infringe on the rights of group members are not permitted. These restrictions may be reasonable, however, they create a false sense of cultural preservation. Rather than ostensibly protect aboriginal culture, governments should leave it alone."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Free speech is as much about being able to receive the ideas of others as it is about expressing one’s own.**\nWe know from the work of educational psychologists that different people acquire knowledge in different ways. For example, some sighted language learners learn more effectively visually, other aurally. The evidence mentioned in the introduction suggests that this is no less true for blind students with those without access to Braille scoring less well in exams than those with it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Braille should be offered the same protection as minority languages.**\nThe issue of the protection of minority languages is a difficult one for most governments as it is usually argued that most speakers of such languages also make use of the dominant language and, where they don’t, they should learn for their own good. For example French speakers in Canada must also learn English.[i] However, there are senses and experiences that are uniquely held within a community and expressed within those languages. In many ways Braille functions in similar ways, a shared experience between those who read it, a bond between users and, for the most part, denied to outsiders. By its nature, it is tactile and speaks in a way that is not true of audiobooks prepared for a wider market. In purely practical terms there is relatively little difference between reading speeds in Braille and listening to audiobooks (about 130 against 150 wpm).[ii] Learning Braille also has immense practical benefits, not least of which is being employable, 90% of those who are braille literate are employed compared to 33% of blind people who are braille illiterate.[iii]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The attacks on Braille are part of a wider move against the physical book.**\nThe death of the book has been predicted with virtually every technological innovation and yet, it remains one of the most widespread and recognised means of communication in the world, with physical book sales representing about 80% of total book sales[i]. There are many reasons for this, its communicability, its physicality, it history and associations. Whatever the reasons for its enduring success, it remains one of the great design achievements of humanity as a species, comfortably alongside the wheel, the screw and cash."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Free speech is as much about being able to receive the ideas of others as it is about expressing one’s own.**\nWe know from the work of educational psychologists that different people acquire knowledge in different ways. For example, some sighted language learners learn more effectively visually, other aurally. The evidence mentioned in the introduction suggests that this is no less true for blind students with those without access to Braille scoring less well in exams than those with it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Braille should be offered the same protection as minority languages.**\nThe issue of the protection of minority languages is a difficult one for most governments as it is usually argued that most speakers of such languages also make use of the dominant language and, where they don’t, they should learn for their own good. For example French speakers in Canada must also learn English.[i] However, there are senses and experiences that are uniquely held within a community and expressed within those languages. In many ways Braille functions in similar ways, a shared experience between those who read it, a bond between users and, for the most part, denied to outsiders. By its nature, it is tactile and speaks in a way that is not true of audiobooks prepared for a wider market. In purely practical terms there is relatively little difference between reading speeds in Braille and listening to audiobooks (about 130 against 150 wpm).[ii] Learning Braille also has immense practical benefits, not least of which is being employable, 90% of those who are braille literate are employed compared to 33% of blind people who are braille illiterate.[iii]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The attacks on Braille are part of a wider move against the physical book.**\nThe death of the book has been predicted with virtually every technological innovation and yet, it remains one of the most widespread and recognised means of communication in the world, with physical book sales representing about 80% of total book sales[i]. There are many reasons for this, its communicability, its physicality, it history and associations. Whatever the reasons for its enduring success, it remains one of the great design achievements of humanity as a species, comfortably alongside the wheel, the screw and cash."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing**\nThe introduction makes reference to the seventy-two volume ‘pocket’ dictionary. It’s an excellent example.[i] With printed text, many previously cumbersome physical books – the Complete OED, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others – are now only available in digital format.[ii]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech.**\nTo argue that this is a matter of the infringement of the right to free speech is not only wrong but offensive to those who have had that right genuinely curtailed. A stifling of free speech is about cutting off people’s access to ideas, denying them the right to take those ideas and present them to others. The slow, natural death of Braille does not do that. Fewer than one in ten blind children now learn Braille[i]. Those who wish to continue to use Braille can do so just as those who prefer to write a letter rather than send an email can do so. Both groups however, accept that it is likely to become more expensive and exclude them from the rest of society as others adapt and new technologies become the norm."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would protect braille out of respect for free speech",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Readers of all kinds are adapting to books being produced in new formats, publishers need to respond to this decline.**\nThe current shift in publishing is unlike any other that has gone before, e-books are not like the TV, the Record player or the radio as all of these could only reproduce books in heavily edited form. The change is shown by ebook sales having outperformed printed book sales on amazon in the UK for the first time.[i] Against braille it is audio formats that are the biggest threat, the tape machine, the Walkman, the CD, Mp3, Mp4 and so on. All of these can reproduce books, unedited, in a format that allows the listener to proceed at their own pace, jump back and forwards and so on – just as a book does."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**There needs to be a deterrent against those thinking of visiting extremist websites**\nNational security concerns around terrorism mean that it is necessary to have a deterrent that will help prevent the recruitment of terrorists. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats to western countries today and this is potentially an effective way of dealing with it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped**\nThe internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own views are correct and so get more extreme rather than challenging them. Eli Pariser author of a book called The Filter Bubble argues that the internet forces us to consume a very narrow range of views as search engines have been personalised with the intention of letting users find what they like so two people searching for the same thing on google can get very different results, for example when googling ‘BP’ during the oil spill one person might be directed to information about the spill and its environmental consequences while another might get just investment information.[1] When this kind of filtering is added to people constantly interacting with extremists and on websites praise and incite terrorism it is clear that users of these sites will get caught in a confirmation bias and conformation bias tends to lead to people becoming more polarised.[2] It is therefore the right policy to punish users of extremist websites before they become too radicalised as it is only a very short step from believing an attack is praiseworthy to carrying out similar attacks."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Link between visiting extremist websites and being radicalised**\nRegardless of whether as Sarkozy claims Mohammed Merah would himself have been stopped earlier had this law been in place at the time this law will catch some terrorists in the future and stop them before they can do large amounts of harm. Punishing users of extremist websites will mean that the government can stop those who are on a path to radicalisation through their access to the internet and as a result this will help neutralise a key tool used by extremists to radicalise others."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There needs to be a deterrent against those thinking of visiting extremist websites**\nNational security concerns around terrorism mean that it is necessary to have a deterrent that will help prevent the recruitment of terrorists. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats to western countries today and this is potentially an effective way of dealing with it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped**\nThe internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own views are correct and so get more extreme rather than challenging them. Eli Pariser author of a book called The Filter Bubble argues that the internet forces us to consume a very narrow range of views as search engines have been personalised with the intention of letting users find what they like so two people searching for the same thing on google can get very different results, for example when googling ‘BP’ during the oil spill one person might be directed to information about the spill and its environmental consequences while another might get just investment information.[1] When this kind of filtering is added to people constantly interacting with extremists and on websites praise and incite terrorism it is clear that users of these sites will get caught in a confirmation bias and conformation bias tends to lead to people becoming more polarised.[2] It is therefore the right policy to punish users of extremist websites before they become too radicalised as it is only a very short step from believing an attack is praiseworthy to carrying out similar attacks."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Link between visiting extremist websites and being radicalised**\nRegardless of whether as Sarkozy claims Mohammed Merah would himself have been stopped earlier had this law been in place at the time this law will catch some terrorists in the future and stop them before they can do large amounts of harm. Punishing users of extremist websites will mean that the government can stop those who are on a path to radicalisation through their access to the internet and as a result this will help neutralise a key tool used by extremists to radicalise others."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Criminalisation will not stop radicalisation**\nHow will criminalising visiting extremist websites prevent radicalisation? Those who know about the law will simply look for the same material that they used to find on extremist websites elsewhere on the internet either through social networks such as Facebook and twitter, where for example Muhammad al-Arefe a Saudi cleric who has issued a fatwa endorsing violence against non-Muslims has over a million followers,[1] or other immense sites such as youtube. Radicalisation over the internet will therefore not be stopped by punishing users of certain websites."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Criminalisation creates more problems than it solves**\nA law that punishes users of extremist websites would create a whole host of practical problems. Most obviously how are the authorities to monitor who are visiting extremist websites without a large expansion of a surveillance society that already exists?[1] There would need to be large scale monitoring of what websites everyone visits or at least the ability for governments to get records from internet service providers, potentially a grave breach of individual’s right to privacy."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There is a lack of proportionality in punishing users of extremist websites**\nIt is a basic principle of fairness that punishment should fit the crime.[1] In this case the crime is visiting a website, something that in itself may cause no harm at all so why should there be punishment? At best such a law would be punishing on the basis of future harm the accused would otherwise cause if not punished while at worst it would be an arbitrary punishment for people who would never have committed any harm at all."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would punish users of extremist websites",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.**\nFreedom of expression is a fundamental human right that is recognised universally as is shown by its inclusion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1] This however should not just be taken as the freedom to have an opinion but also as the freedom to “seek and receive… information and ideas through any media”, being cut off from information that a person is seeking is as much an infringement of human rights as preventing them from voicing their opinion.[2] People are denied their voice as much by not having access to information as by not being allowed to speak because access to information is fundamental in the process of being able to form those opinions. Learning and opinion forming cannot exist within a vacuum access to information that enables this. This freedom includes the freedom to access extremist websites as often as you wish without being punished for this action, we cannot prejudge what opinion will be formed from access to this information let alone what actions may result from that opinion."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Banning loss leaders would help suppliers**\nThe practice of loss leaders is bad for suppliers. Farmers and manufacturers are often forced by the dominant retail giants to participate in discount schemes, sharing the losses at the dictate of the retailer. If they refuse they will be dropped by the retailer and cut off from the marketplace. The American Antitrust Institute has concluded that these \"Resale price maintenance (RPM)\" agreements—which are agreed upon because retailers have all of the leverage—are usually illegal.1 Prohibiting loss leaders will prevent this abuse of market dominance by the big retail companies and ensure a fair deal for our farmers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects.**\nTypically it is less healthy products that are heavily discounted, such as alcohol and fatty, sugary and salty processed food. Heavily processed food should cost more than fresh food, but supermarkets don't use fresh fruit or vegetables as loss leaders. The practice tends to distort the shopping behaviour of many of the poorest in society, pushing them into poor diets that lead to obesity, bad dental health and poor nutrition. Banning the practice would make it easier to encourage healthier diets and lifestyles. Selling alcohol below cost price leads to large social harms caused by alcoholism and binge-drinking. The use of alcohol as a loss leader has already been identified as a problem in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—the two companies that own all of the major supermarket chains in the country—agreed not to use alcohol as a loss leader.1 Of course companies in most countries would not agree to such a promise without being prohibited by law, and even New Zealand should go a step further by prohibiting all loss leaders, as alcohol is not the only good that can cause social harm when it is artificially inexpensive."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics.**\nLoss leader strategies exploit consumers by providing partial, misleading information. Giant retailers are not charities; they do not offer heavily discounted goods in order to help the poor. Instead they have calculated that they can attract price-conscious shoppers in with headline deals on a few loss-leading basics, and then persuade them to pay over the odds on a wider range of goods with big profit margins. In this way, loss leaders are a con trick on consumers who are bewildered by deliberately confusing marketing–an onslaught of advertising and ever-changing promotions to the point that they are unable to compare the prices of rival firms and make a rational choice about where to shop. In their paper, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey show how retailers use loss leaders to trick consumers by giving them incomplete information.1 And in the long term, by driving out smaller retailers and reducing competition in the retail sector, the practice can drive up the overall cost of essentials for everyone."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning loss leaders would help suppliers**\nThe practice of loss leaders is bad for suppliers. Farmers and manufacturers are often forced by the dominant retail giants to participate in discount schemes, sharing the losses at the dictate of the retailer. If they refuse they will be dropped by the retailer and cut off from the marketplace. The American Antitrust Institute has concluded that these \"Resale price maintenance (RPM)\" agreements—which are agreed upon because retailers have all of the leverage—are usually illegal.1 Prohibiting loss leaders will prevent this abuse of market dominance by the big retail companies and ensure a fair deal for our farmers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects.**\nTypically it is less healthy products that are heavily discounted, such as alcohol and fatty, sugary and salty processed food. Heavily processed food should cost more than fresh food, but supermarkets don't use fresh fruit or vegetables as loss leaders. The practice tends to distort the shopping behaviour of many of the poorest in society, pushing them into poor diets that lead to obesity, bad dental health and poor nutrition. Banning the practice would make it easier to encourage healthier diets and lifestyles. Selling alcohol below cost price leads to large social harms caused by alcoholism and binge-drinking. The use of alcohol as a loss leader has already been identified as a problem in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—the two companies that own all of the major supermarket chains in the country—agreed not to use alcohol as a loss leader.1 Of course companies in most countries would not agree to such a promise without being prohibited by law, and even New Zealand should go a step further by prohibiting all loss leaders, as alcohol is not the only good that can cause social harm when it is artificially inexpensive."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics.**\nLoss leader strategies exploit consumers by providing partial, misleading information. Giant retailers are not charities; they do not offer heavily discounted goods in order to help the poor. Instead they have calculated that they can attract price-conscious shoppers in with headline deals on a few loss-leading basics, and then persuade them to pay over the odds on a wider range of goods with big profit margins. In this way, loss leaders are a con trick on consumers who are bewildered by deliberately confusing marketing–an onslaught of advertising and ever-changing promotions to the point that they are unable to compare the prices of rival firms and make a rational choice about where to shop. In their paper, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey show how retailers use loss leaders to trick consumers by giving them incomplete information.1 And in the long term, by driving out smaller retailers and reducing competition in the retail sector, the practice can drive up the overall cost of essentials for everyone."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The government has no right to tell business what it should charge for its goods.**\nIt should be up to business what it charges for its goods; if it decides to charge less than the cost price, it must have a market-based reason to do so, and it is not the place of government to intervene. It is well-known that consumers focus on the prices of a few staple goods, such as bread, milk, baked beans, etc. So it is rational for retailers with high fixed costs (in wages, rents, power etc.) to set the prices for these key products very low, and even make a loss on selling them, because it will entice more shoppers into their stores. These consumers will also buy other products on which the store does make a profit, and overall sales volumes and profits will rise."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Loss leaders are an inexpensive option available to less well-off customers.**\nThe use of heavily discounted loss-leaders is good for shoppers, especially low-income consumers, who are most appreciative of a bargain that will help them stretch their limited budget. Customers are not stupid but instead canny consumers who are well able to see through the marketing ploys of the big retailers. Often price-conscious shoppers will stock up on the most heavily discounted items, but then go elsewhere for the rest of their shop. On the other hand, attempts in countries like France to regulate retailers have just resulted in protection for the existing firms that dominate the marketplace, and in a lack of competition, which drives up the cost of the weekly groceries for everyone. The same items can cost 30% more in France, where loss leading is banned, than in Germany where it is not and discount stores flourish1. Prohibiting this strategy will hurt consumers.\n1: Economist, \"Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition,\" May 15, 2008."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Banning loss leaders will interfere in the market, causing a net economic loss for society.**\nBy requiring retailers to sell items at least at cost level, the government is creating an artificial price floor, which will cause prices to rise and create a net loss for society. Basic economics explains that artificial price floors upset the free market, costing a net economic loss for society, which will eventually be paid by all sectors involved."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would prohibit retailers from selling certain items at a loss as a marketing device.",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Selling at a loss is a practical way of shifting products that have failed to sell.**\nRetailers find themselves all the time with stock that they need to unload, that nobody is buying. This is especially a concern with items that have a sell-by date after which they may not be sold and so become worthless. In such a situation, selling below cost price is economically rational, as it means that the retailer realises some money on their stock rather than none at all. Visit any open-air market at 3.00 p.m. and you will see traders slashing the prices of unsold perishable goods for just this reason. If a retailer is going to sell an item below price level, it might as well use that item as a marketing device. Can you imagine the same market trader slashing his prices, but not shouting them to passersby? Sometimes retailers need to sell items below the price level, and they should be allowed to market them cleverly in order to make up for some of the loss in revenue."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Priest have not always been celibate**\nWhile celibacy had been encouraged since the beginning of the church, until the beginning of the twelfth century, when it was banned by the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139, Priests in the Western church were permitted to marry.[1] The Bible does not mandate celibacy and, in fact, St Peter, the first pope, was married. Even today within the Catholic Church celibacy is not universal as Eastern Rite Catholics can marry and it is the norm that they do,[2] and there are some Lutheran and Episcopalian ministers who have converted to Catholicism.[3] The true history and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church include the option for priests to marry or at least for married men to become priests."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Celibacy reduces the pool of people wanting to become priests**\nThe number of priests in developed countries is on the decline. In Ireland in 2007 160 priests died but only nine were ordained to replace them. It is expected that the number of priests in Ireland will fall from 4758 in 2008 to 1500 by 2028.[1] As a result almost 50,000 parishes worldwide are without a priest despite the number of parishes not having risen with the increase in numbers of Catholics.[2]  The prohibition on marriage pushes some men away from the priesthood. The requirement of celibacy drastically reduces the pool from which the church can select priests and means that the church is not always getting the “best and the brightest”. As a result even many within the church believe the demand for celibacy should be ended.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Celibacy is outdated**\nPriestly celibacy is out-dated. It sets the priest apart from the modern world and the experiences of his parishioners. Originally, around 1100 the Gregorian Reform movement in the church was keen to enforce celibacy for fear that too many married priests would leave church property and benefices to their children, or create local priestly dynasties.[1] At the time these fears were reasonable and necessary to maintain the property and discipline of the church, but today they are utterly unnecessary."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men into the priesthood**\nThe prospect of celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men to the priesthood. They hope that by totally denying their sexuality, they will not engage in deviant acts, but unfortunately they often cannot overcome their deviant desires. Permitting priests to marry would bring men with healthy sexual desires to the priesthood."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Priest have not always been celibate**\nWhile celibacy had been encouraged since the beginning of the church, until the beginning of the twelfth century, when it was banned by the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139, Priests in the Western church were permitted to marry.[1] The Bible does not mandate celibacy and, in fact, St Peter, the first pope, was married. Even today within the Catholic Church celibacy is not universal as Eastern Rite Catholics can marry and it is the norm that they do,[2] and there are some Lutheran and Episcopalian ministers who have converted to Catholicism.[3] The true history and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church include the option for priests to marry or at least for married men to become priests."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Celibacy reduces the pool of people wanting to become priests**\nThe number of priests in developed countries is on the decline. In Ireland in 2007 160 priests died but only nine were ordained to replace them. It is expected that the number of priests in Ireland will fall from 4758 in 2008 to 1500 by 2028.[1] As a result almost 50,000 parishes worldwide are without a priest despite the number of parishes not having risen with the increase in numbers of Catholics.[2]  The prohibition on marriage pushes some men away from the priesthood. The requirement of celibacy drastically reduces the pool from which the church can select priests and means that the church is not always getting the “best and the brightest”. As a result even many within the church believe the demand for celibacy should be ended.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Celibacy is outdated**\nPriestly celibacy is out-dated. It sets the priest apart from the modern world and the experiences of his parishioners. Originally, around 1100 the Gregorian Reform movement in the church was keen to enforce celibacy for fear that too many married priests would leave church property and benefices to their children, or create local priestly dynasties.[1] At the time these fears were reasonable and necessary to maintain the property and discipline of the church, but today they are utterly unnecessary."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men into the priesthood**\nThe prospect of celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men to the priesthood. They hope that by totally denying their sexuality, they will not engage in deviant acts, but unfortunately they often cannot overcome their deviant desires. Permitting priests to marry would bring men with healthy sexual desires to the priesthood."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Celibacy grants an understanding of self-control**\nThe celibate priest has a unique understanding of the power of self-control and the giving of self, which are key ideas in marriage. The celibate priest is in a very good position to counsel people on how to keep the marital vows such as fidelity as they have experience of keeping the much stricter vow of celibacy.[1] The priest is married to the church and can counsel couples and families using that knowledge."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Principles should be maintained even when it is convenient to change them**\nThe Catholic church should not bend its principles for the sake of expediency. Many more issues divide Roman Catholicism from other churches (e.g. the authority of the Pope, the nature of the sacrament, even the wording of the creed). If the church accepted this change for the sake of convenience, where would it stop? Should women also be allowed to become priests? What about practising homosexuals? More likely such a compromise would see a further split in the church, as those who upheld traditional Catholic teaching rejected the change."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would remove the requirement for Catholic Priests to take a vow of celibacy",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Celibacy allows a priest to devote himself entirely to his vocation**\nA celibate priest can devote all his time to his parishioners. A married priest must spend time with his family. Protestant clergy have balanced their work for the church with their family responsibilities only with difficulty. Many wives and families of Protestant clergy report feeling second to the congregation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Cultural artefacts are enriched when displayed in the context from which they originated**\nCultural treasures should be displayed in the context in which they originated; only then can they be truly valued and understood. In the case of the Parthenon marbles this is an architectural context which only proximity to the Parthenon itself can provide. In the British Museum they appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of any emotional meaning. It may also be useful for academics to have a cultural property in its original context in order to be able to understand it, for example a carved door may be a beautiful artefact but it cannot be truly understood unless we know what the door was used for, where it leads too something for which it is necessary to see the context."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures**\nDisplay of cultural treasures in Western museums may be seen as a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true cultural successors to Ancient Greece and Rome, and that the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt; it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return 700 of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government[1]. The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a way of retaining cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded. Returning them would be a gesture of goodwill and cooperation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Many artefacts resting in western museums were acquired illegally. Western states have a duty to retain them.**\nArtefacts were often acquired illegally. Elgin, for instance, appropriated the Parthenon Marbles from the Ottoman authorities who had invaded Greece and were arguably not the rightful owners of the site; he took advantage of political turmoil to pillage these ancient statues. Doubt has even been cast on the legality of the 1801 document which purportedly gave Elgin permission to remove the marbles[1]. The Axum obelisk was seized from Ethiopia by Mussolini as a trophy of war; fortunately the injustice of this action has since been recognised and the obelisk was restored to its rightful place in 2005[2]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures**\nIt may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. Since 197"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Cultural artefacts are enriched when displayed in the context from which they originated**\nCultural treasures should be displayed in the context in which they originated; only then can they be truly valued and understood. In the case of the Parthenon marbles this is an architectural context which only proximity to the Parthenon itself can provide. In the British Museum they appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of any emotional meaning. It may also be useful for academics to have a cultural property in its original context in order to be able to understand it, for example a carved door may be a beautiful artefact but it cannot be truly understood unless we know what the door was used for, where it leads too something for which it is necessary to see the context."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures**\nDisplay of cultural treasures in Western museums may be seen as a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true cultural successors to Ancient Greece and Rome, and that the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt; it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return 700 of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government[1]. The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a way of retaining cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded. Returning them would be a gesture of goodwill and cooperation."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Many artefacts resting in western museums were acquired illegally. Western states have a duty to retain them.**\nArtefacts were often acquired illegally. Elgin, for instance, appropriated the Parthenon Marbles from the Ottoman authorities who had invaded Greece and were arguably not the rightful owners of the site; he took advantage of political turmoil to pillage these ancient statues. Doubt has even been cast on the legality of the 1801 document which purportedly gave Elgin permission to remove the marbles[1]. The Axum obelisk was seized from Ethiopia by Mussolini as a trophy of war; fortunately the injustice of this action has since been recognised and the obelisk was restored to its rightful place in 2005[2]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures**\nIt may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. Since 197"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Scholars will have better access to artefacts, and more opportunities for study and collaboration, if they are stored in the west**\nIf the Rosetta Stone had not been taken by the British in 1801, the deciphering of the ancient hieroglyphic language of the ancient Egyptian civilizations would have been near impossible. The British Museum is within just hours, and in some cases minutes, of such world-renowned institutions as Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, and Edinburgh. The scientific research that occurs in stable developed countries and scientifically excelling countries is of the highest degree, and parallels to this high level of study are simply non-existent in many underdeveloped countries."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The historical significance of artefacts extends beyond their culture of origin**\nArtefacts have a historical and symbolic meaning that transcends their origins; over the years they acquire a connection with the place that they are housed. For example, the Egyptian obelisk that stands in the Piazza di San Pietro in Rome was brought to Italy in the reign of Caligula.[1] It is no longer merely an ‘Egyptian’ artefact - it has become a symbol of Roman dominance in the ancient world and the European Christian culture that succeeded it. During the Middle Ages it was believed that the ashes of Julius Caesar were contained in the gilt ball at the top[2]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Artefacts should be made accessible to the largest possible number of visitors**\nArt treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars, because only then can the educational potential of these artefacts be realised. In response to a question about whether museums have any social responsibility, Richard Armstrong, director at the Guggenheim, said “Absolutely, it began with the French Revolution. It is the more than a 200-year-old quest to have the most powerful cultural artefacts available to the greatest number of people. One could say it is the project of democratizing beauty”[1]. In practice this means retaining them in the great museums of the world. Further some of the world great museums, such as those in Britain and the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. are free of charge."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**In many cases, returning an artefact may prove to be unreasonably expensive**\nEven with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its original location would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism. Moreover, the infrastructure of developing countries is probably not sufficient to cope with that volume. Greece may have spent $200m developing a new museum but relatively it is one of the more wealthy countries of origin for artefacts in the British Museum; places such as Nigeria are unlikely to put such emphasis on cultural investment."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would store nuclear waste underground",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary**\nEven states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would store nuclear waste underground",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe**\nUnderground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would store nuclear waste underground",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary**\nEven states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would store nuclear waste underground",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe**\nUnderground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would store nuclear waste underground",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive.**\nUnderground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would store nuclear waste underground",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage**\nFrance is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power.[1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary.[2]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would store nuclear waste underground",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity.**\nThere are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial**\nAll the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge's duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. Mark Weston, for example, was convicted at a re-trial after specks of the victim's blood were found on Weston's shoes, justifying the re-opening of the case1. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing on solving similar cold cases will be expended and there will be very few retrials.\n1 Bate, S. (2010, December 13). 'Loner' convicted of murder in double jeopardy re-trial. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Guardian:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment**\nThe problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. In 2009, a footballer in London confessed to murdering his ex-girlfriend at a re-trial after fresh evidence was found to overturn the original verdict1; under previous double jeopardy laws in Britain, the murderer would have remained free. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before.\n1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Double jeopardy could be abolished by state legislatures for all serious crimes whereby fresh, compelling evidence emerges**\nThe scrapping of the double jeopardy would be practicable if it was permitted for serious crimes, like murder and rape, and only when fresh, compelling evidence of guilt emerges that calls into question the original acquittal. Such restrictions on any scrapping of the rule would not tie up courts in re-trials, for they could only be called for certain crimes in certain, restricted conditions. The British Law Commission in a 2011 review concluded that whilst the ancient rule of double jeopardy is of 'fundamental importance', it should be possible to \"quash acquittals in murder trials where there is 'reliable and compelling new evidence of guilt'\". In practise, this would preserve the traditional advantages of the law, whilst ensuring that those who are guilty, and can be proved so, do not remain free."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system**\nWhen we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. When Jennifer McDermott witnessed her daughter's murderer get convicted at a re-trial, she described it as a 'victory for everyone who feels let down by the justice system.'1 Victims deserve such justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free. As a Home Office spokesman stated when England overturned the double jeopardy ban, 'it is important the public should have full confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver justice.'1 Justice is only applicable when the perpetrators remain within the arm of the law; double jeopardy prevents this."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial**\nAll the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge's duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. Mark Weston, for example, was convicted at a re-trial after specks of the victim's blood were found on Weston's shoes, justifying the re-opening of the case1. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing on solving similar cold cases will be expended and there will be very few retrials.\n1 Bate, S. (2010, December 13). 'Loner' convicted of murder in double jeopardy re-trial. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Guardian:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment**\nThe problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. In 2009, a footballer in London confessed to murdering his ex-girlfriend at a re-trial after fresh evidence was found to overturn the original verdict1; under previous double jeopardy laws in Britain, the murderer would have remained free. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before.\n1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News:"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Double jeopardy could be abolished by state legislatures for all serious crimes whereby fresh, compelling evidence emerges**\nThe scrapping of the double jeopardy would be practicable if it was permitted for serious crimes, like murder and rape, and only when fresh, compelling evidence of guilt emerges that calls into question the original acquittal. Such restrictions on any scrapping of the rule would not tie up courts in re-trials, for they could only be called for certain crimes in certain, restricted conditions. The British Law Commission in a 2011 review concluded that whilst the ancient rule of double jeopardy is of 'fundamental importance', it should be possible to \"quash acquittals in murder trials where there is 'reliable and compelling new evidence of guilt'\". In practise, this would preserve the traditional advantages of the law, whilst ensuring that those who are guilty, and can be proved so, do not remain free."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system**\nWhen we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. When Jennifer McDermott witnessed her daughter's murderer get convicted at a re-trial, she described it as a 'victory for everyone who feels let down by the justice system.'1 Victims deserve such justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free. As a Home Office spokesman stated when England overturned the double jeopardy ban, 'it is important the public should have full confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver justice.'1 Justice is only applicable when the perpetrators remain within the arm of the law; double jeopardy prevents this."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The rule of law means less if it is being constantly overturned**\nRespect for the law will diminish if criminal verdicts exist in a perpetual state of uncertainty. We need to be protected from the state in other ways, too - from the vindictive or obsessed policeman that will pursue a case because he 'knows' the accused, properly acquitted in a court of law, to be guilty nevertheless. The nature of our police force means that these instances are inevitable as it imparts a strong cognitive bias onto our policemen to look for guilt - so unless we mandate a rule determining when a line of investigation has to end, police will continue to focus on their chosen 'perpetrator' until they get the result that they have decided is correct. As Matthew Kelly QC notes, removing double jeopardy restrictions could 'lead to prosecutions routinely seeking a second bite of the cherry, if a case flopped first time for good reason.'1"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Double jeopardy protects the acquitted from the threat of constant harassment by the state**\nWe’re not just protecting ‘evil people’. The double jeopardy rule protects everyone from the danger of constant harassment from the state. The opposition would rather see a guilty man occasionally go free than see the resources of the state trained on individuals again and again and again, ‘until the state secured (the) popular result’ 1. The double jeopardy rule provides closure for both defendants and the prosecution; if the prosecution regret their case in the future, the fault lies not with the double jeopardy rule itself, but their decision to go to trial based on insufficient evidence. Citizens should not be forced to go through the stress of multiple trials due to the incompetence of the state. ‘If a person accused of a serious crime is acquitted, they are entitled to have some certainty in their future’2. That certainty can only be guaranteed if the prosecution is granted one attempt at a conviction, and one only."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Double jeopardy ensures defendants are not brought to trial on weak grounds**\nThe implications of this should be looked at carefully. This would grant police and the prosecution the right to prosecute an individual if the evidence against them can be ‘reanalysed.’ Surely almost all cases could see such ‘improvement in investigatory techniques,’ allowing the state to pursue individuals at will. Presumably this ‘generation’ of techniques isn’t the last; why won’t the same logic hold in asking for a third trial? A fourth? A fifth?…Subsequently, if the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is scrapped, police work will be sloppier, because police detectives will know that the insurance of a second trial exists. The ‘one-shot’ rule forces investigations and prosecutions to be of as high a quality as possible. The abolishment of double jeopardy would be ‘merely a shortcut to prosecutors seeking unlimited re-trials until they get the verdict they want’ 1. Courts cannot be permitted to be tied up in such cases, nor can prosecutors be allowed to destroy the lives of defendants by enforcing such constant emotional turmoil."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material should be addressed and prevented by the state**\nCopyrighted material is intellectual property: someone worked hard for it to produce it. Downloading this content without paying the proper rights holder for it amounts to theft."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A graduated response will be an effective deterrent**\nResearch has shown that consumers are likely to stop downloading from unauthorized sources when warned by their ISP. For example: Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP, and 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation**\nFirst, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material should be addressed and prevented by the state**\nCopyrighted material is intellectual property: someone worked hard for it to produce it. Downloading this content without paying the proper rights holder for it amounts to theft."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A graduated response will be an effective deterrent**\nResearch has shown that consumers are likely to stop downloading from unauthorized sources when warned by their ISP. For example: Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP, and 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation**\nFirst, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The graduate response policy constitutes an invasion of privacy by the state**\nGraduated response would require huge amounts of monitoring and logging of all internet traffic using technical systems called ‘deep packet inspection’ (DPI) equipment. This means that a computer program will look in close detail at all of the information someone sends over the internet in order to check whether it violates some protocol, for example a ‘fingerprint’ of copyrighted data that the content creator put in."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**ISP will not cooperate with a graduated response policy**\nThe graduated response model requires cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. If just one ISP refuses, users will flock towards that ISP to be able to keep on downloading. Therefore there will always be an incentive to be the ISP that refuses so as to gain custom from others who have agreed to cooperate. ISPs will also have an incentive to not cooperate because the cost of monitoring and identifying is large, and significantly more so for smaller ISPs: initial estimates of the cost of graduated response for ISPs were around 500 million pounds over a period of ten years.[1]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**The graduated response is a violation of the basic right to due process**\nDetection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would use force to protect human rights abroad",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Interventions can be small and successful.**\nIt is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq.[1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would use force to protect human rights abroad",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.**\nStates violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would use force to protect human rights abroad",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Interventions can be small and successful.**\nIt is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq.[1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would use force to protect human rights abroad",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.**\nStates violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would use force to protect human rights abroad",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Foreign intervention fragments the conflict.**\nThe use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war.\r\nThe countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as \"imperialists\" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as \"neo-colonialism\" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would use force to protect human rights abroad",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Force does more harm than good.**\nThe use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This house would use force to protect human rights abroad",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty.**\nHuman rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state[1]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Combating corruption**\nChanging the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. Centralised government structures control aid distribution in many recipient countries. As a consequence, embezzlement by government officials has become more frequent and easier to conceal. Linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the recipient nation. The need to monitor which individuals and institutions receive donated funds, and to confirm that funds have been applied according to agreed plans and schedules still presents a difficult and intractable auditing problem."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Preventing dependence**\nDirect aid creates dependence and a dangerous client culture among recipient states. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on the basis of need, but according to the political and policy objectives of donor states. The USA can muster the political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a year[i], but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (payment of fresh funds to recipients, as opposed to funds acquired by rescheduling existing aid obligations) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large proportionately."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Supporting domestic development and domestic markets**\nDirect aid undermines local markets within developing states. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at a local or micro level, with private industry spurring growth and providing employment opportunities[i] that act to elevate consumer demand. Chile is often given as an example of a country which has grown in this way."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Combating corruption**\nChanging the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. Centralised government structures control aid distribution in many recipient countries. As a consequence, embezzlement by government officials has become more frequent and easier to conceal. Linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the recipient nation. The need to monitor which individuals and institutions receive donated funds, and to confirm that funds have been applied according to agreed plans and schedules still presents a difficult and intractable auditing problem."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Preventing dependence**\nDirect aid creates dependence and a dangerous client culture among recipient states. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on the basis of need, but according to the political and policy objectives of donor states. The USA can muster the political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a year[i], but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (payment of fresh funds to recipients, as opposed to funds acquired by rescheduling existing aid obligations) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large proportionately."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Supporting domestic development and domestic markets**\nDirect aid undermines local markets within developing states. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at a local or micro level, with private industry spurring growth and providing employment opportunities[i] that act to elevate consumer demand. Chile is often given as an example of a country which has grown in this way."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Protecting sovereignty**\nThe international community should respect the sovereignty of developing nations. Side proposition has attempted to mischaracterise states in receipt of aid as undemocratic, authoritarian, kleptocratic or Hobbesian wastelands. Side proposition has done precious little to acknowledge that many states that are reliant on ODA are functioning or emerging democracies. Kenya, despite its growing wealth and increasing trade with Asian states still makes extensive use of aid donations. In 2012 Kenya will hold elections for seats in its national legislature – its first since a presidential election degenerated into political violence in 2007. However, even this extended period of civil disorder was brought to an end when the main contenders in the presidential ballot agreed a power sharing deal – a peaceful compromise that has now been maintained for almost five years[i]."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**NGOs do not deliver aid effectively**\nThe idea that NGO’s are better able to deliver development aid has become received wisdom – accepted uncritically, repeated unthinkingly. Because charities do not have the political staying power of governments, nor a government’s ability to mobilise force or request assistance from intergovernmental bodies (such as the UN), they are often the first to withdraw when dormant war zones turn ‘hot’. Inevitably, and understandably, NGOs will always prioritise the lives of their staff and volunteers."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.**\nArticle 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Providing secure channels is the easiest way to help dissidents and democracy activists**\nIf democracies are to provide money to help dissidents then this option of funding research into and distributing software to defeat censors is the easiest way in which to help these dissidents. Those who are trying to exercise their freedom of speech do not want help in the form of military intervention or diplomatic representations rather they want to have the space and capacity to exercise those freedoms. The internet means that for the first time it is possible for external actors to provide that platform for freedom of speech without having to take those who wish to exercise these freedoms outside of the country that is violating those freedoms."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost**\nMost government aid budgets are small and have numerous other important calls on their resources such as development aid. Between 2008 and 2011 the United States Congress funded the effort against internet censorship with $76 million.[1] While this may sound like a lot compared to the $168 million of aid to Liberia and $152 million to UNICEF in 2011 it is not a large commitment.[2] Yet due to the nature of the internet small investments can have immense benefits. Money spent on food aid will buy enough food to feed a limited amount of people yet if a technology is developed that allows internet users to get around censors and not be tracked then hundreds of millions would benefit. It would at the same time have the incalculable benefit of making it more difficult for authorities to track and crack down on those who are breaking the authorities’ censorship."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.**\nArticle 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Providing secure channels is the easiest way to help dissidents and democracy activists**\nIf democracies are to provide money to help dissidents then this option of funding research into and distributing software to defeat censors is the easiest way in which to help these dissidents. Those who are trying to exercise their freedom of speech do not want help in the form of military intervention or diplomatic representations rather they want to have the space and capacity to exercise those freedoms. The internet means that for the first time it is possible for external actors to provide that platform for freedom of speech without having to take those who wish to exercise these freedoms outside of the country that is violating those freedoms."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost**\nMost government aid budgets are small and have numerous other important calls on their resources such as development aid. Between 2008 and 2011 the United States Congress funded the effort against internet censorship with $76 million.[1] While this may sound like a lot compared to the $168 million of aid to Liberia and $152 million to UNICEF in 2011 it is not a large commitment.[2] Yet due to the nature of the internet small investments can have immense benefits. Money spent on food aid will buy enough food to feed a limited amount of people yet if a technology is developed that allows internet users to get around censors and not be tracked then hundreds of millions would benefit. It would at the same time have the incalculable benefit of making it more difficult for authorities to track and crack down on those who are breaking the authorities’ censorship."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Violation of Sovereignty**\nSovereignty is the exercise of the fullest possible rights over a piece of territory; the state is ‘supreme authority within a territory’.[1] The sovereignty of nations has been recognised by all nations in article 2 of the UN charter.[2] Funding attempts by citizens of a nation to avoid its own government’s censorship efforts is clearly infringing upon matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states and is as such a violation of sovereignty. It is also clear that when it comes to enforcement of human rights there is a general rule should be followed that states should have the chance to solve their own internal problems domestically before there is international interference.[3]"
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Funds could be better spent on helping development**\nAccess to the internet is not the most pressing concern that foreign aid should be used to solve. Instead aid should help the 1.4billion who live on less than a dollar a day,[1] the 216 million people infected with malaria every year,[2] or the 42 million people who have been uprooted by conflict and natural disaster.[3] Internet access while it has expanded immensely is still something that only the relatively rich have access to, not the kind of people that aid money should be spent on."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Evading censorship is already possible and censorship does not prevent the use of the internet.**\nProposition itself concedes that authoritarian states in the vast majority of cases are unlikely to cut off access to the internet for their population entirely. For many people the internet is not about free speech but about economic benefits. Most don’t want to protest but rather carry on inane social discussions, play computer games and listen to music. Things that even authoritarian governments are happy to occur. This money is therefore not aimed at addressing the concerns of the vast majority of netizens."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**This will needlessly antagonise non-democratic countries**\nThe relationships which democratic countries have with non-democratic countries are much too important to jeopradise with such interference. Democracies and non-democracies need to be able to live peacefully with each other and engage in economic contact. Having democracies supporting segments in a non-democracy’s population that is seen to be undermining the state not only sours relations but provides a direct point of contention that could potentially lead to conflict."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Equality of opportunity**\nAffirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated.[1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities.[2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones.[3][4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Overcomes prejudice**\nAffirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1][2]  Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Changes negative perceptions of university life**\nAffirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist.[1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points For",
    "context": "**Increase the number of Minorities**\nCollege admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities.[1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Equality of opportunity**\nAffirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated.[1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities.[2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones.[3][4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Overcomes prejudice**\nAffirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1][2]  Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Changes negative perceptions of university life**\nAffirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist.[1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Increase the number of Minorities**\nCollege admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities.[1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Achievements should be earned not given**\nThere is a great possibility that beneficiaries of positive discrimination may not be regarded as good role models as their achievements may be viewed as unearned.[1] A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Affirmative action can create social tensions**\nUnder the policy of affirmative action, there is a real danger that social tensions become inflamed. This is because in the process of benefiting minority groups it helps to disenfranchise the majority. For example in the 2001 riots in Oldham and other cities of Northern England one of the main complaints from poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding.[1] There was a possibility that the more privileged from minority groups such as upper-class blacks will be favoured at the expense of the marginalised within majority groups such as lower-class whites. Therefore, rather correct racial bias, affirmative action may inevitably deepen it."
  },
  {
    "topic": "This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university",
    "section": "Points Against",
    "context": "**Affirmative action will not work**\nThe underlying issue which affirmative action tries to gloss over is the embedded social problems which put the poor and ethnic monitories in continual disadvantages generation after generation. This policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools, real parental choice in education, and accountability through the publication of comparable examination data would all drive up standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their potential.[1][2]"
  }
]