topic
stringclasses 135
values | context
stringlengths 48
2.41k
| section
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
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 Against |
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 Against |
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 Against |
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 Against |
This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good | **Nationalism is no longer relevant**
Nationalism is a movement of the past, linked the evils of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The future lies in an internationalist approach that stresses our common humanity, rather than emphasising those small differences that have been used by nationalists to divide us. In particular, nationalism stands against the widespread establishment of human rights, as it places absolute national sovereignty above the individual rights of all citizens. China for example rejects interference in domestic affairs subordinating human rights to the state.[1] This makes it impossible for the international community to protect properly the human rights of those living under oppression and dictatorship. | Points Against |
This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good | **Nationalism is used as a fig leaf for bad government**
Nationalism empowers political movements that lead to excess, corruption and violence. Leadership regimes that are politically and economically corrupt, such as the National Salvation Front of Romania, Communist China, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and North Korea, exploit existing senses of nationalism to disguise the fact that they mismanage and oppress their countries. Oppression can be justified as being for the country while the country’s resources are mismanaged with justifications that the resources should only be used for natives, such policies lead to land takeovers in Zimbabwe and the subsequent collapse of the economy.[1] They use nationalism as an irrational base of support for irrational policies. The people would do more to change their regimes if their minds were not clouded by emotionally-charged feelings of nationalism. | Points Against |
This House believes that nationalism can be a force for good | **Nationalism as an ideology is oppressive towards women**
Nationalism oppresses women. Inherent in nationalism is the notion of blood descent; a nation's health and security is tied to its birth rate. This leads to pro-"natalist" policies that violate the reproductive and civil rights of women. Romania is a good example of when nationalist thinking tramples the rights of women, leading to forced birthing for most Romanians and horrifying illegal sterilisations for the minority Roma population. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Increasing voter engagement**
A major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party. | Points For |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics**
By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections. | Points For |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities**
A major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view. | Points For |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power**
Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents.[1] | Points For |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices**
Open Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration. | Points For |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Increasing voter engagement**
A major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics**
By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities**
A major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power**
Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents.[1] | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices**
Open Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate**
Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties**
Primaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is more ideological. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries are open to manipulation**
Because political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election. | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities**
Elections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests (See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club[1]). | Points Against |
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for el | **Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties**
Primary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is close (See the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008). | Points Against |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments**
It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age. | Points For |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify**
Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix. | Points For |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are**
Although in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially. In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and others already persecuted in society. | Points For |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments**
It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age. | Points Against |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify**
Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix. | Points Against |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are**
Although in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially. In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and others already persecuted in society. | Points Against |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Religious organisations remind societies and the world that there are other important things in life beyond economics and that moral and other concerns should be taken into account in public life**
In a world consumed by the belief that the only thing in life that genuinely matters is money, religious bodies serve as a welcome reminder that other activities- besides “wealth creation”- can be meaningful and valuable too. In addition to promoting morality and spirituality within society they have also, historically, been sponsors of great art and music. | Points Against |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Religious ceremonies and organisations provide solace and celebration for the great changes in life such as birth, marriage and death, there is democratic support for this around the world**
At times of great need or celebration, religious communities and organisations are often the only organisations that seem fit to the task of marking them. | Points Against |
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good | **Religious organisations are by far the largest providers of charity in the world**
Whether sending food support in famine zones, providing education, hospices or a vast range of other charitable activities, religious organisations are streets ahead. In addition they frequently are the only organisations willing to go into certain high risk areas throughout the world. | Points Against |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum**
The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum. | Points For |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws**
This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world. | Points For |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community**
Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy. | Points For |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum**
The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum. | Points Against |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws**
This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world. | Points Against |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community**
Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy. | Points Against |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty**
Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice. | Points Against |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights**
This policy damages international discourse and progress in LGBT rights. | Points Against |
This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. | **This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community**
Lasting change to anti-homosexual attitudes will only happen from the ground-up. This hinders the ability of governments to engineer more accepting attitudes toward the LGBT community. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state.**
The role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ‘save souls’ brining people into its own perceived afterlife.[1] The Anglican church itself considers its mission to be “transformation - transforming individual lives, transforming communities and transforming the world.” “that calling is carried out at the national level of the Church of England in evangelism, development of parish congregations”.[2] Such a mission is inherently aimed solely at benefiting those within the church or those who can be converted not society as a whole. | Points For |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Separation would show acceptance of other religions.**
It is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions.[1] | Points For |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued.**
In the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount.[1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people. | Points For |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **International signalling.**
As a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran. | Points For |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state.**
The role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ‘save souls’ brining people into its own perceived afterlife.[1] The Anglican church itself considers its mission to be “transformation - transforming individual lives, transforming communities and transforming the world.” “that calling is carried out at the national level of the Church of England in evangelism, development of parish congregations”.[2] Such a mission is inherently aimed solely at benefiting those within the church or those who can be converted not society as a whole. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Separation would show acceptance of other religions.**
It is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions.[1] | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued.**
In the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount.[1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **International signalling.**
As a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity.**
The reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as severely damaging to British national identity. As a national church the Church of England has been at the heart of the country’s political and cultural life since the sixteenth century, religion helped make Britain the country it is today.[1] A separation would be the country turning its back on this history and its own culture. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Separation would create animosity towards immigrants and non-Christians.**
Currently, we already see problems in the UK with extremist groups blaming immigrants and non-Christian religious groups for pretty much everything from unemployment among whites to a lack of patriotism. Completely separating the church and the state could be seen as a move made due to political correctness and/or to try not to offend immigrants or those from non-Christian religious backgrounds. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Disestablishment sidelines all religious people.**
Rather than other religious groups seeing the removal of the Church of England’s involvement of the state as them all being put on a level playing field, it is more likely to be seen as a total removal of religion from the government.[1] Bishop John Pritchard of Oxford argues that Anglican Bishops can be seen as acting as community leaders for all faiths and are respected as such, as a result they often support other religion’s such as Pritchard himself arguing a mosque in Oxford should be allowed to issue the call to prayer.[2] | Points Against |
This House believes that the Church of England should be separated from the British state. | **Minimal practical effect.**
As it stands, the Church of England’s involvement in the state actually has little effect on it. Decisions are taken by the Prime Minister and his/her government rather than by religious officials and indeed the Church of England can often be a vehicle for the government’s views rather than the Church having an influence on government. As Bishop of Rochester Nazir-Ali states ‘The church is seen simply as the religious aspect of society, there to endorse any change which politicians deem fit to impose upon the public.’[1] Therefore, separating the church and the state will make little difference in terms of the way the state is actually run but may result in a reduction of the influence of the government on some of the population.[2] | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **The policy has been effective in the past**
The main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program[1]. Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP[2]. Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world. | Points For |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.**
Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1.
While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance.
1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
2 http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011]. | Points For |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.**
When society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society. | Points For |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.**
In the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves.
Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3.
School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education.
1 Family Facts, "A Closer Look at Welfare", [Accessed July 21, 2011].
2Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
3http World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. | Points For |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **The policy has been effective in the past**
The main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program[1]. Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP[2]. Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world. | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.**
Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1.
While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance.
1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
2 http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011]. | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.**
When society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society. | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.**
In the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves.
Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3.
School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education.
1 Family Facts, "A Closer Look at Welfare", [Accessed July 21, 2011].
2Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]
3http World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend.**
This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused.
1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011].
2 Feeding America (2010), "Hunger in America: Key Facts", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **Connecting welfare to failure of parents is unfair.**
This policy requires that parents be held accountable and punished for the actions of their children. It suggests that their failure in instilling good values is because they care less than middle-class, educated parents. That is a broad and stereotypical assumption. Such parents, many of whom are single mothers, find it harder to instill good values in their children because they live in corrupt environments, surrounded by negative influences[1]. They should be aided and supported, not punished for an alleged failure. Just encouraging putting children in schools does not recognize the larger problems. Some families cannot control their children, who would rather make money than go to school. And caps on the number of children these programs can apply to, as is the case in Brazil, creates problems as well for the families[2]. People are doing their best, but the environment is difficult. Providing safer and more low income housing could be a solution versus punishing people for what is sometimes out of their control.
1 Cawthorne, Alexandra (2008), "The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty", Center for American Progress, [Accessed July 21, 2011].
2 | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **School does not an education make**
School attendance is not a positive outcome in and of itself. It should be encouraged only if it is conducive to learning and acquiring the meaningful education needed to break out of the poverty trap. Blaming the poverty cycle on kids failing to attend school ignores the fact that schools are failing children. Public schools are often overcrowded, with poor facilities and lacking the resources necessary to teach children with challenging backgrounds. In 2011, 80% of America's schools could be considered failing according to Arne Duncan who is the secretary of education1. Schools in developing countries often lack qualified teachers, and can suffer from very high staff absenteeism rates2.
A more effective school system would result in fewer kids dropping out, not the other way around. Additionally, involved parents are integral to effective education3. Simply blackmailing them with money to do the right thing will not work. In fact, you might actually experience backlash from parents and kids, who'll see school as a burdensome requirement that is met just so you can keep the electricity on. Throwing kids into school where they do not have confidence, support, and the necessary facilities is not productive.
1Dillon, Sam (2011), "Most Public Schools May Miss Targets, Education Secretary Says", New York Times, [Accessed July 21, 2011].
2 World Bank, "Facts about Primary Education",[Accessed July 21, 2011].
3Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), "Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. | Points Against |
This house believes that the payment of welfare benefits to parents should be tied to their children | **It is unjust to make welfare conditional**
Welfare should not be used as a tool of social engineering. These are people who cannot provide even basic necessities for their families. Asking them to take on obligations by threatening to take away their food is not requiring them to be responsible, it's extortion. It is not treating them as stakeholders and equal partners in a discussion about benefits and responsibilities, but trying to condition them into doing what the rest of society thinks is good for them and their families. There is a difference between an incentive and coercion. An incentive functions on the premise that the person targeted is able to refuse it. These people have no meaningful choice between 'the incentive' or going hungry. This policy does not respect people's basic dignity. There is no condition attached to healthcare and Medicaid that says people have to eat healthily or stop smoking, so why should welfare be conditional? Allowing them and their children to go without food if they refuse is callous. Making welfare conditional is taking advantage of people's situation and telling them what they need to do to be considered valuable to society; it is inherently wrong. It impedes on people's rights to free choice and demeans them as worthless. | Points Against |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **The one child policy skews gender demographics**
Many Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s. | Points For |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite**
The one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout the one child policy. This has shown itself in the form of many wealthy Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and celebrities who have been caught ignoring the one child policy. For example between 2000 and 2005 1968 government officials in Hunan violated the one child policy.1 | Points For |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations**
The One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the precautions that parents may take. Whether as a result of defective medication, irresponsible behaviour, or simple bad luck, sufficiently frequent sexual activity will always lead to pregnancy. | Points For |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **The one child policy skews gender demographics**
Many Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s. | Points Against |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite**
The one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout the one child policy. This has shown itself in the form of many wealthy Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and celebrities who have been caught ignoring the one child policy. For example between 2000 and 2005 1968 government officials in Hunan violated the one child policy.1 | Points Against |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations**
The One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the precautions that parents may take. Whether as a result of defective medication, irresponsible behaviour, or simple bad luck, sufficiently frequent sexual activity will always lead to pregnancy. | Points Against |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **The one child policy is needed for population control**
The One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1 | Points Against |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **One child benefits women**
It is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health services for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pregnant women to closely monitor their health. In various places in China, the government rolled out a ‘Care for Girls’ programme, which aims at eliminating cultural discrimination against girls in rural and underdeveloped areas through subsidies and education. | Points Against |
This House believes that the people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy. | **Single child families are economically efficient**
The one child policy is economically beneficial because it allows China to push its population growth rate well below its growth rate in GDP. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex**
The population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children. | Points For |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare**
This has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.”[i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns. | Points For |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect**
Perhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family.[i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity.[ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal. | Points For |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex**
The population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare**
This has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.”[i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect**
Perhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family.[i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity.[ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **This is a victory for democracy – a precious Filipino value - clear majorities in both houses and in the wider public support it**
Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support[i]. It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result[ii]. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **There are clear and proven benefits to the health of the Filipino families, especially women**
Both sides of this debate have spoken about the need to respect the rights and lives of women. It is, however, difficult to see how exactly opponents of the legislation reconcile this with their actions. Decades’ worth of research demonstrates that educational, health and nutritional levels all fall once a family outgrows its means. In the slums of Manila that research is unnecessary as it is all too apparent at a glance. However the research is there[i] to provide grisly commentary to the narrative folding out on the streets. | Points Against |
This House believes that the Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values | **Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose**
Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier. | Points Against |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender**
From late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender. | Points For |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack**
The US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island.[1] | Points For |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised**
There was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them”[1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis. | Points For |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender**
From late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender. | Points Against |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack**
The US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island.[1] | Points Against |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised**
There was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them”[1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis. | Points Against |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **It was not necessary to use atomic weapons on a population centre**
The first bomb, on Hiroshima was sufficient to achieve the objective of surrender without the use of the second bomb after only a very short period of time. There was only three days between the two bombings, an unpardonably short period. Communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo had unsurprisingly been severed, so the full effect had yet to sink in on some policy makers by the time ‘Fat Man’ was dropped. It had however already convinced Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and crucially the Emperor himself. He said upon hearing the news of Hiroshima: “Now that things have come to this impasse, we must bow to the inevitable. ... We should lose no time in ending the war so as not to have another tragedy like this.”[1] The rest of the cabinet was as yet unmoved, but even if they had been it is unlikely they would have been able to actually surrender before the second bomb was dropped. | Points Against |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **A negotiated peace would have been preferable to the dropping of the atomic bombs**
It is conventional to argue that Japan was defeated already and so the bombings were unnecessary as Sadao Asada points out this confuses defeat with surrender. However such a position seems equally to confuse surrender with peace. That there had to be an unconditional surrender seems almost unquestioned. Most wars do not end in an unconditional surrender of one side or the other, Japanese defeat was plain so a negotiated peace would normally have been set in motion when the US saw the terrible casualties it might be forced to take in its push for total victory. The Americans learnt of Japanese willingness to negotiate in July, on the 13th Secretary of the Navy Forrestal wrote in his diary “The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today... Togo said further that the unconditional surrender term of the Allies was about the only thing in the way of termination of the war”[1] Stimson, Grew and Forrestal aimed at persuading president Truman to offer the Japanese promise of the preservation of the monarchy as an alternative to unconditional surrender.[2] Ultimately the Potsdam declaration set the unconditional surrender policy in stone.[3] Offering such a condition would certainly have strengthened the peace party within the Japanese cabinet and allowed them to present further resistance by the generals and admirals as endangering the monarchy.[4] However, on its own this would probably not have lead to peace, the cabinet would still have been split 3-3 with the Army and Navy ministers both opposed and with vetoes on policy. Even the most belligerent of the Japanese Cabinet, Army Minister Anami’s conditions were preservation of the Imperial institution, no military occupation of the home islands, Japanese forces were to demobilize and disarm themselves and war criminals were to be prosecuted by the Japanese themselves.[5] While these conditions are obviously ripe for exploitation, would they really disarm and try war criminals? they are not unreasonable. Just because there was no hope that the US would accept these conditions, they fly in the face of the Potsdam Declaration from which the allies would not deviate, does not mean that another alternative to unconditional surrender should not be considered as an alternative to the dropping of the Nuclear bombs. | Points Against |
This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified | **The bombing was immoral and illegal**
The use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use. | Points Against |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.**
Human beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. "While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false"1 | Points For |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.**
According to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce. | Points For |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.**
One of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus. | Points For |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **A maximum working week provides protection for workers.**
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2 | Points For |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.**
Human beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. "While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false"1 | Points Against |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.**
According to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce. | Points Against |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.**
One of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus. | Points Against |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **A maximum working week provides protection for workers.**
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2 | Points Against |
This House believes that there should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours. | **Policing such a policy creates its own set of problems for the society and costs for the economy**
Complying with any regulation has a cost attached, and so does policing that regulation in order to make it effective. How would anyone know who was working where and for how long without either a very accepting populace or a very draconian state? | Points Against |