topic
stringclasses 135
values | context
stringlengths 48
2.41k
| section
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.**
Discrimination 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). | Points For |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **Gay people have the right to a family life.**
Getting 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. | Points For |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.**
There 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? | Points Against |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.**
Discrimination 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). | Points Against |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **Gay people have the right to a family life.**
Getting 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. | Points Against |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **Gender roles.**
Children 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. | Points Against |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **The government's interest in protecting traditional families.**
Numerous 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. | Points Against |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier**
Human 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. | Points For |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed**
Space 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. | Points For |
This House believes in manned space flight | **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**
People 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. | Points For |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity**
The 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. | Points For |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier**
Human 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed**
Space 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in manned space flight | **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**
People 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits:**
Space 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in manned space flight | **Manned space flight is a technological dead end**
Manned 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in manned space flight | **The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **A two-state solution is best for peace**
Palestinians 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish**
As 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides**
A 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **A two-state solution is best for peace**
Palestinians 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish**
As 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides**
A 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **Only a one-state solution can end the conflict**
It 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) | Points Against |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution**
A 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) | Points Against |
This House believes in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better jus | **Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all**
A 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) | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to die | **Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.**
When 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the right to die | **Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.**
We 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the right to die | **The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.**
Ultimately, 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the right to die | **Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.**
When 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to die | **Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.**
We 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to die | **The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.**
Ultimately, 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to die | **It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others.**
In 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to die | **Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.**
It 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to die | **There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.**
By 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to die | **The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.**
Even 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to reply | **It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction.**
[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. | Points For |
This House believes in the right to reply | **There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note.**
In 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the right to reply | **In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start.**
In 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. | Points For |
This House believes in the right to reply | **It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction.**
[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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to reply | **There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note.**
In 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to reply | **In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start.**
In 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to reply | **What is a fact – there are few circumstances where this would be of significance.**
The 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]. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to reply | **This undermines actual parity by creating a false sense of the right to reply.**
A 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the right to reply | **This solution – if it is one - is now out of date.**
We 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs**
Society has a moral obligation to right its wrongs and compensate those they have treated unjustly. | Points For |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination**
Affirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination. | Points For |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **Affirmative action reduces social prejudice**
Past discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted. | Points For |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs**
Society has a moral obligation to right its wrongs and compensate those they have treated unjustly. | Points Against |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination**
Affirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination. | Points Against |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **Affirmative action reduces social prejudice**
Past discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted. | Points Against |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **Meritocracy is the only fair system by which society should be ordered**
Any 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. | Points Against |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **Affirmative action creates bad workplaces for all minorities**
Affirmative action creates a negative workplaces for all minorities whose group receives affirmative action support. | Points Against |
This House believes in the use of affirmative action | **Affirmative action perpetuates prejudice**
Affirmative action causes prejudice against minorities in society. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them**
The 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] | Points For |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill**
Umpires 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. | Points For |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature**
Instant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard. This will occur in two ways. | Points For |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires**
Umpires 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. | Points For |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games**
There 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. | Points For |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them**
The 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] | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill**
Umpires 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature**
Instant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard. This will occur in two ways. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires**
Umpires 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games**
There 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Instant replay will take too long**
We 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Instant replay will take the human element out of baseball**
Baseball, 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used**
One 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Many plays don’t lend themselves to video review**
There 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball | **Instant replay might be deceptive or inconclusive**
Not 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. | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.**
Baseball 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] | Points For |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are a part of the game.**
First, 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] | Points For |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.**
Some 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. | Points For |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.**
There 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: | Points For |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.**
Baseball 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] | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are a part of the game.**
First, 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] | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.**
Some 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. | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.**
There 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: | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury.**
Ray 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. | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball.**
Baseball 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] | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions are unnecessary.**
Baseball 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. | Points Against |
This House believes major league baseball should continue to allow collisions at home plate. | **Collisions heighten antagonisms.**
When 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.**
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. | Points For |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.**
The 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. | Points For |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.**
With 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. | Points For |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.**
Economic 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. | Points For |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.**
Migrants 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] | Points For |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.**
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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.**
With 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.**
Economic 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.**
Migrants 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] | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Universal migrant “protections” are an affront to state sovereignty.**
International 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Migration policy should be crafted on a state-by-state basis, allowing countries to protect their national identities.**
Every 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.**
Because 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Protections of migrants will hurt the economies of receiving countries by overcrowding them and taking away jobs from citizens.**
Increasing 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. | Points Against |
This House believes nations of the world should increase protection of the economic and social right | **Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.**
The 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] | Points Against |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide**
Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, 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. | Points For |