topic
stringclasses 135
values | context
stringlengths 48
2.41k
| section
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Financial incentives do not break down cultural bias**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)**
42% 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **The fossil evidence**
Fossils 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] | Points For |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **The Age of the Earth**
Evidence 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. | Points For |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **Falsifiability**
Evolutionary 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] | Points For |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **The fossil evidence**
Fossils 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] | Points Against |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **The Age of the Earth**
Evidence 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **Falsifiability**
Evolutionary 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] | Points Against |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **The Bible says God created the world**
The 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] | Points Against |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **Naturalistic assumptions**
Evolutionary 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **Chance cannot produce complexity**
Evolution 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] | Points Against |
This House Believes that Evolution has Disproved Creationism | **Evolution undermines meaning and morality**
Evolution 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. | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Federal states are economically stronger**
Federal 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
1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,'
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,'
2BBC, 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute
3Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism | Points For |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.**
Federal 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
1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,' | Points For |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences**
It 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.
1 Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,' | Points For |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance**
Federal 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.
1Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer
2The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' | Points For |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Federal states are economically stronger**
Federal 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
1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,'
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,'
2BBC, 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute
3Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.**
Federal 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
1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,' | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences**
It 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.
1 Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,' | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance**
Federal 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.
1Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer
2The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **It is harder to deal with internal repression than the invasion of another sovereign state.**
Federal 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.
1Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007.
2 United Nations, 'An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-making,' | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Independent States can suit their populations.**
Firstly, 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
Often, 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
Moreover, 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.
Secondly, Federal arrangements tend to be complex, inhibiting transparency as vested interests at different levels of government defend their spheres.2
1 USA Today, 2010, 'Abortion deal helps ensure enough votes for health care,'
2Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,' | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.**
The 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
1Garratt, Thomas and Rhine, Russell. 'On the Size and Growth of Government.' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 88 (1). 2006.
World Savvy, 2008, 'Centralization of Power in Modern Russia,'
2 Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,' | Points Against |
This house believes that Federal States are better than unitary nations | **Federal States often have persistent losers.**
Within 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
1Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, 'Poor States, Rich Federal Government- Winners and Losers of the Emissions Trading Scheme,'
Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'
2Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007. | Points Against |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve**
Feminism 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. | Points For |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Males Still Dominate the Top Positions**
Out 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. | Points For |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal**
Employers 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. | Points For |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve**
Feminism 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Males Still Dominate the Top Positions**
Out 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal**
Employers 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Men Have Big Problems Too**
By 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **The Feminist Cause No Longer Appeals to Women**
Many 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. | Points Against |
This House Believes That Feminism Is Still Needed | **Now Damaging Gender Roles?**
There 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently**
Hate 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. | Points For |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech**
Hate 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. | Points For |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions**
By 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. | Points For |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently**
Hate 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech**
Hate 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions**
By 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crimes uniquely harm through terror**
Hate 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements help prevent hate crimes**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that hate crime 'enhancements' are unjust | **Hate crime enhancements can help emphasize tolerance and inter-community relations**
Hate 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school**
Even 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.
1 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). | Points For |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum**
History 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.
1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011). | Points For |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past**
History 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.
1 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). | Points For |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school**
Even 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.
1 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). | Points Against |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum**
History 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.
1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011). | Points Against |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past**
History 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.
1 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). | Points Against |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **Teaching history ensures that events of the past are not forgotten, and lessons are learned**
"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. | Points Against |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren**
For 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.
1 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). | Points Against |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History should be taught to school-children, they form an integral part of understanding oneself and one's nation**
Historical 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that history has no place in the classroom | **History teaches useful skills applicable in other areas of education and life**
History 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. | Points Against |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Internet access as a new human right.**
Access 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] | Points For |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.**
In 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. | Points For |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.**
Freedom 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. | Points For |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Internet access as a new human right.**
Access 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] | Points Against |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.**
In 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. | Points Against |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.**
Freedom 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. | Points Against |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Human rights are dependent upon the state**
There 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. | Points Against |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Internet access is a commodity not a human right.**
If 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. | Points Against |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Internet access is an enabler of rights not a right in itself.**
The 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. | Points Against |
This house believes that internet access is a human right | **Internet access cannot be a human right when it is not available to all.**
If 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done**
"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. | Points For |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **Protection of Minors**
We 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. | Points For |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **It may be necessary in the interests of national security**
The 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] | Points For |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **Holocaust Denial**
Speech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection. | Points For |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done**
"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. | Points Against |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **Protection of Minors**
We 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **It may be necessary in the interests of national security**
The 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] | Points Against |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **Holocaust Denial**
Speech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection. | Points Against |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **Free speech allows challenges to orthodox beliefs**
Free 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech | **Individual Liberty outweighs any potential harms**
Whatever 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong**
If 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. | Points For |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible**
A 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. | Points For |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied**
Any 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. | Points For |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong**
If 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible**
A 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied**
Any 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise**
Circumcision 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now**
Where 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that male infant circumcision is tantamount to child abuse | **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**
There 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]. | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship**
The 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. | Points For |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Unreasonable commitment to expect of people**
The 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) | Points For |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage**
With 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) | Points For |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion**
The 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. | Points For |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children**
As 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. | Points For |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Unreasonable commitment to expect of people**
The 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) | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage**
With 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) | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion**
The 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children**
As 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Removes the transient and casual aspects of a monogamous relationship, thus giving a child a far more stable environment.**
Marriage 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) | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage**
50% 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship**
Marriage 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Marriage is an important institution to religious people**
Nearly 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that marriage is an outdated institution | **Marriage promotes a better way to raise children**
Marriage 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. | Points Against |
This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good | **Nationalism promotes cooperation and social cohesion**
Nationalism 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. | Points For |
This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good | **National identity was necessary for independence**
Nationalism 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] | Points For |
This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good | **Not all nationalism is exclusive**
Nationalism 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. | Points For |
This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good | **Nationalism creates diversity**
According 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. | Points For |