Question: Does the use of Facebook enhance social abilities in teenagers?

The use of Facebook enhances social abilities in teenagers.

The use of Facebook does not enhance social abilities in teenagers.

Facebook encourages socialisation  One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems.  Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1)  Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2)  (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012   (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012

On this point, there are two levels of analysis which will demonstrate that, at the end of the day, Facebook has a detrimental effect on one’s social abilities.  First of all, of course having a lot of friends has numerous advantages and it is undoubtedly beneficial to one’s development, but being active on a social network isn’t an indispensable prerequisite for this. As an individual, you can meet, talk, connect and share feelings and emotions in real life with your friends without any problems. People nowadays are not more socially bonded than before the appearance of Facebook and other social networks, because what Facebook did was merely shifting the face-to-face socialization to an online version of it. Moreover, you don’t need the “Rock Fans” group on Facebook in order to meet new people who are also interested in rock music, as you have real rock events and concerts where you can meet with people with whom you have shared interests and thus expand your friend group.  Secondly, when using social networks as a tool to socialize, teenagers tend to rely too much on them, getting comfortable chatting behind a glass monitor, but this can mean having problems exiting this comfort-zone. This happens as you feel less exposed if you are not talking to someone in person, but when you are forced to socialize in the real world you feel uncomfortable and awkward. As a result, their ability to socialize is diminished even more.


Question: Has the UN played a pivotal role in the development and enforcement of international law and human rights?

The UN has played a pivotal role in the development and enforcement of international law and human rights.

The UN has not played a pivotal role in the development and enforcement of international law and human rights.

The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights.  When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the idea of “international law”, in so far as it had any meaning, was little more than the customary behaviour of states towards each other. Over the succeeding 60 years, the UN and its various offices and organs have taken a lead role in codifying and promoting the concept of international law and the protection of human rights. For example, the crime of genocide was first enshrined in international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [1]  [1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “What is Genocide?”.

The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model.  It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create.


Question: Is genetic modification a natural and reliable means of crop cultivation?

Genetic modification is a natural and reliable means of crop cultivation.

Genetic modification is not a natural and reliable means of crop cultivation.

Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be legal to use.  Genetic modification is entirely natural. The process of crop cultivation by selective breeding, which has been performed by farmers for thousands of years, leads to exactly the same kind of changes in DNA as modern modification techniques do. Current techniques are just faster and more selective. In fact, given two strands of DNA, created from the same original strand, one by selective breeding and one by modern modification techniques it is impossible to tell which is which. The changes caused by selective breeding have been just as radical as current modifications. Wheat, for example, was cultivated, through selective breeding, from an almost no-yield rice-type crop into the super-crop it is today. [1]  [1] Trewas A. and Leaver C., How Nature itself uses genetic modification,Published January 6 2000, Nature,  , accessed 09/05/2011

Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental difference between modification via selective breeding and genetic engineering techniques. The former occurs over thousands of years and so the genes are changed much more gradually. Genetic modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not had the time to assess the long-term consequences. [1] A recent study by the Soil Association actually proves that many of the promises companies gave were false. GM crops did not increase yield. Another example is a frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening. [2] GMOs do not reliably produce the benefits desired because we do not know the long term effects of utilizing them. Given the risks, we should seek to ban them.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] University of Alberta, Genetic Ethics Lecture, published Fall 2008,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Question: Is there a necessity to produce more high quality generic drugs for Africa?

There is a necessity to produce more high quality generic drugs for Africa.

There is no necessity to produce more high quality generic drugs for Africa.

These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune.  [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

Most vital drugs are already generic  Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent.  [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’  [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013


Question: Should court cases be televised?

Court cases should be televised.
Court cases should not be televised.

Withholding video evidence of a court trial will not stop people from automatically siding with the victim and denouncing the accused; it will just stop them from being able to see the body language and other actions which can balance out the media’s assertion that one party is definitively a ‘victim’ while the other is a ‘criminal’. These labels are already in place – televising court cases just helps us to understand the details and nuances of a case, and garner a more sophisticated view of the case in question.

Invoking public reaction can damage the lives of those concerned in the court case.  Proposition may well argue that televising court cases gains a sense of ‘sympathy’ and justice for the victims of the case. However, this is double-edged. Firstly, particularly emotive and controversial court cases concerning crimes such as sexual assault could blind the public (or ‘audience’) to any untruthfulness from the ‘victim’, by virtue of being perceived as vulnerable and wronged. Secondly, any sympathy which is gained for one person often arises out of increased hatred or outrage against another – namely the defendant. This could lead to public condemnation of an individual who is never actually convicted of a crime; they will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. One example of this is when Milly Dowler’s father was questioned in court as a suspect of his daughter’s death and his personal, pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Although he was completely innocent, the prosecution’s job was to explore any possibility of perversion or dangerous character. This is an infringement upon that individual’s rights, as being publicly portrayed as a villain could go on to affect their future private life, such as their chances of future employment or anonymity.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11


Question: Does engaging in animal research promote inhumane treatment towards animals?

Engaging in animal research promotes inhumane treatment towards animals.

Engaging in animal research does not promote inhumane treatment towards animals.

Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society  Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.

We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.


Question: Is technology effectively promoting entrepreneurialism across all sectors of African society?

Technology is effectively promoting entrepreneurialism across all sectors of African society.

Technology is not effectively promoting entrepreneurialism across all sectors of African society.

Technology is building a platform for sharing ideas.  Entrepreneurialism can be encouraged through an awareness, and sharing, of new ideas. The technological revolution has provided a platform for personal expression, delivery of up-to-date news, and the vital sharing of local ideas and thoughts. In Nigeria the Co-Creation Hub has emerged, encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit. Further, Umuntu and Mimiboards’ are connecting individual communities to the web by encouraging local content creation [1] .  Such platforms are enabling the transfer of knowledge and innovative ideas. Innovative solutions are being introduced to routine problems, such as ‘Mafuta Go’ an app to find the best price for petrol (Christine Ampaire).  [1] See further readings: Co-Creation Hub Nigeria, 2013

Such platforms are known, and accessible, by a minority within Africa - limiting who benefits from the technology available. Rising entrepreneurs across Africa typically are able to access resources required and network their ideas, whilst a majority of youths remain out of the innovation loop.  As inequality disparities continue to increase in Africa, a similar trend is identifiable to youth technology and entrepreneurialism. Entrepreneurs rising in Africa show the future of a ‘young millionaire’s club’. They hold the right connections, access to credit and electricity, and time to apply to their business model. The millionaire entrepreneurs continue to create new technologies - not vice-versa.


Question: Does a multinational trade agreement lead to lowered environmental standards?

A multinational trade agreement leads to lowered environmental standards.

A multinational trade agreement does not lead to lowered environmental standards.

FTAA is bad for the environment.  Free trade creates a "race to the bottom", whereby developing countries lower their labor and environmental standards in an effort to attract foreign investment. Developed countries, which may have higher standards, are then forced to lower them as well in order to make sure companies don’t relocate or outsource their jobs abroad [1] .  [1] Hassoun, Nicole. “Free Trade and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 31.

A multinational trade agreement could equally raise environmental standards across the region. Under the status quo, nothing stops companies from moving to countries that have low environmental standards and few regulations. But if governments agreed, the US could push for higher standards across the entire continent. That way, it would ensure its business environment remained competitive in the American region.


Question: Should organ transplants be prioritized for people who are already registered as organ donors?

Organ transplants should be prioritized for people who are already registered as organ donors.

Organ transplants should not be prioritized for people who are already registered as organ donors.

Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor  The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)

There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.


Question: Should religious symbols be seen as strictly personal expressions of faith?

Religious symbols should be seen as strictly personal expressions of faith.

Religious symbols should not be seen as strictly personal expressions of faith.

Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others.  At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011

Some argue that religious symbols, particularly those that are clearly seen, are not just for personal benefit. They affect the safety of the society around them. For example, there have been worries about how the Muslim full-veil may be used as a disguise for terrorists and how veils make it harder to ascertain someone's identity. Therefore, some symbols at least involve others, maybe even unintentionally, through the uneasiness and suspicion they cause.  1 'The Islamic Veil Across Europe', BBC News, 15th June 2010 , accessed on 25th July 2011


Question: Should skin whitening products be banned?

Skin whitening products should be banned.

kin whitening products should not be banned.

No-one is pretending that a ban on whitening products is a solution to every social ill. What is being suggested is that these products are harmful, and that the culture they create is also potentially harmful.  A race-colour-class nexus exists – that is why the proposition is concerned about the normalization of skin bleaching.

Banning these is papering over the issue  It would be all too tempting for governments to consider that a ban on these products would sort out issues of skin tone discrimination as they would be hidden away from public view.  Class and race are both divisive issues, and are often inextricably linked. Those with lighter skin will still have advantages over those with darker skin hues. The banning of whiteners will simply reduce the ability of individuals to change how others perceive them. We can all agree that there needs to be less colourism but that has to be achieved by reducing prejudices. Only broader education on the issue of skin colour discrimination can achieve such a change.


Question: Is the operations of Wikileaks and its approach to source confidentiality posing a risk to national security?

The operations of Wikileaks and its approach to source confidentiality are posing a risk to national security.

The operations of Wikileaks and its approach to source confidentiality are not posing a risk to national security.

It is a basic principle of journalism that sources should be checked and verified by another, independent, source.  British Foreign Secretary William Hague has pointed out that the actions of Wikileaks put British lives at risk. [1] Congressman Peter King described the mass leaking of documents as “Worse even than a physical attack” on America and Assange as “an enemy combatant”. [2] Vice-President Joe Biden refers to him as a “High-tech terrorist.” [3]  He has condemned governments, endangered operations and undermined diplomatic activities, all without knowing the identity or motives of his sources. For all we know the information could be quite false or released only in part by someone with an axe to grind. Those parties who are damned by the revelations are hardly in a position to say, “No that isn’t one of our cables and here’s the real one to prove it."  Furthermore, as the site itself proudly proclaims, it has no way of knowing who the source is and, therefore, no way of knowing the accuracy of the information published beyond the educated guesswork of their editorial staff [4] . Who is it making these guesses? It is impossible to say as only Assange’s name is associated with the site.  It’s an interesting exercise – how many other Editors-in-Chief could you name? How many star reporters can you name? Wikileaks must be the only media organisation – or such is its claim – where the only name that is widely known is that of the publisher.  It is a fairly basic principle of journalism that not only should more than one person know the identity of the source but that the information should be possible to ratify. To prove the confidence that journalist has in the source, they are prepared to put their name to it.  Assange cannot say whether he has confidence in the sources because he has no way of telling whether that is really a person with access to information or whether it is the agent of and unfriendly power, a disaffected employee or is simply making the whole thing up  [1] BBC News, 'Julian Assange ready to meet police says his lawyer', 7 December 2010,   [2] James, Frank, 'Wikileaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King', NPR, 29 November 2010,   [3] The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist', 20 December 2010,   [4] The Slate. “The Wikileaks Paradox: Is Radical Transparency Compatible with Total Anonymity?” Farhad Manjoo. 28 July 2010,

The source material is at least open to scrutiny, and anyone can decide if it appears to be genuine.  Equally many serious journalists take Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks team seriously enough and have no difficulty with trusting the stories put forward. If he is really a patsy of agents unknown then governments, notably the US, seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to silence him and the rest of the organisation. Presumably the banks blockading his site have reason to believe that he is a threat to their commercial interests, otherwise it would be a bit of a waste of time to give him the added credibility.  The very fact that the people he attacks take him sufficiently seriously to have taken the actions they have would seem to add a lot of weight to his argument and suggest strongly that the sources are quite genuine.  The more likely explanation is that the political classes of many nations simply do not know how to respond to this new kind of journalism which can neither be bought nor bullied and, unlike the traditional media, can be based anywhere in the world. As a result they use frightening words like “Terrorist” and “Espionage” in an attempt to discredit him.


Question: Is the development and deployment of a missile defense shield advisable for the United States?

The development and deployment of a missile defense shield is advisable for the United States.

The development and deployment of a missile defense shield is not advisable for the United States.

A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies  The missile defense shield the United States intends to build is the most effective and complete ballistic missile shield ever devised. When fully armed with a complement of anti-ballistic missiles both within the United States itself, and in allied nations in Europe, the shield will be virtually impregnable to external missile attack. This means the chance of a nuclear attack succeeding against it will be very unlikely, reducing the chance not only of a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and another nuclear power, but also against missiles fired by rogue states or terrorists, the biggest threats in terms of actual use of nuclear weapons (The Economist, 2009). Technologically speaking, anti-ballistic missile missiles have developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. The current system being put into operation by the United States is the Aegis combat system, designed for deployment on US Naval vessels. This new development has served to sidestep the problems associated with ground and space-based missile defense arrays, due to the slow response time of ground missiles, and the still unfeasible orbital deployment. The sea-based defense array, furthermore, lacks the problem of the land-based system in that it does not need to be placed in countries other than the United States in order to be effective (thus avoiding the political problems of the past). Technology and diplomacy have clearly made a national missile defense system highly desirable.

Anti-ballistic missile systems are a largely unproven technology, and still have many problems that do not make them a viable option for strategic defense, at least not at present. Furthermore, there is the excessively high cost of designing and building such a system, which has been in development for 25 years. It has cost billions of dollars over the decades, including $53 billion between 2004 and 2009, the largest single line on the Pentagon’s budget for those years. For all this, only an unproven system of questionable efficacy has been produced. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad trying to develop a technology that may never be useful. Also, even if the technology were made effective, the same technology could be used as a countermeasure by enemy countries against the interception of their missiles, making the system even less effective, if not useless (Sessler, et al., 2000). Furthermore, the system does not protect the vital interests of the United States because it angers countries like Russia, which has actually begun increasing its conventional force distributions on its Western border with the rest of Europe, and to threaten to deploy short-range nuclear missiles on its border. The political destabilization caused by the missile defense program is not worth its ephemeral benefits.


Question: Is progressive taxation a fair approach to financial burdens?

Progressive taxation is a fair approach to financial burdens.

Progressive taxation is not a fair approach to financial burdens.

Those able to pay more should pay more into the tax system  The wealthy have more disposable income and are more financially secure than are the poor and economically tenuous. For this reason, a progressive system of taxation puts the tax burden more heavily on the wealthy which has the wherewithal to pay. Progressive taxes make everyone sacrifice equally, since true equality of taxation means equality of sacrifice. [1] It is ludicrous to expect the poor and less well-off to pay the same proportional amount in taxes as the wealthy since they have to spend most of their income on essential goods like food and shelter; it is unjust to gain all state revenues from regressive taxes like VAT, since the wealthy have excess resources they can do without while not overly influencing their standard of living. [2] Progressive taxation serves to help the poor and worst off while not leaving the wealthier worse off, since they still have more money. Clearly, progressive taxation is just in terms of burdens on individual taxpayers.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Shapiro, Robert. “Flat Wrong: New Tax Schemes Can’t Top Old Progressive Wrongs”. Washington Post. 1996. Available:

Simply because someone can feasibly pay more does not mean he should be obligated to do so. Everyone’s property rights should be considered equal; the property rights of the wealthy should not be trodden upon by the state while leaving that of the less well-off alone. Fundamentally, any amount of appropriation of what belongs to an individual for the benefit of others is a kind of theft, and if the state is going to tax people, morally it can only do so if it treats everyone equally, which progressive taxation certainly does not do.


Question: Is Facebook beneficial for facilitating protests and promoting democracy?

Facebook is beneficial for facilitating protests and promoting democracy.

Facebook is not beneficial for facilitating protests and promoting democracy.

Facebook is good for democracy  Social networks aid our society on multiple levels, one of them being the democratic process. This happens both in autocracies, where the democratic process is basically nonexistent and in western liberal democracies where Facebook acts as a megaphone for the will of the population.  Firstly, when talking about oppressive regimes, Facebook allows the population to organize themselves in massive protests which can, in time, overthrow the government. This is of particular importance as the population cannot organize protests "offline" in the real world, because government forces would quickly find them and stop the protests before they even started. These people need a safe house, where government intervention is minimized, so that they can spread the news and organize the protests. The online environment is the best options. We have seen this happening in the Arab Spring(1), Brazil (2), Turkey(3) as well as for protests in democracies as in Wisconsin(4)  For western liberal democracies too Facebook plays a very important role in aiding the democratic process. Even in a democracy the government often engages in unpopular policies. Unfortunately, as we are talking about countries with tens of millions of people, citizens often feel they can’t make a difference. Luckily, here's where Facebook comes in. It connects all the people who share the same disapproval of government actions, removing the feeling that you can do nothing as there is no one backing you. Millions can come together to voice their opinions. Therefore there is more likely to be dissent. Moreover, the internet allowed individuals to start massive campaigns of online petition gathering, which they will later use as an irrefutable argument to the government showing the desire for change. There are a lot of sites, one of the biggest being Avaaz.org which facilitates this process, which use Facebook as a medium through which the petition is shared and so grows.  (1) Sonya Angelica Diehn “Social media use evolving in Egypt”, DW , 04.07.2013   (2) Caroline Stauffer “Social media spreads and splinters Brazil protests”, Reuters ,June 22, 2013   (3) “Activists in Turkey use social media to organize, evade crackdown As protests continue across Turkey against the government”   (4)Wikipedia

There are immense problems with using Facebook to facilitate protests in oppressive regimes. Firstly, due to the anonymity of users, it would be extremely easy for government forces to disguise themselves as being protesters and find out future protest locations, thus allowing them to be one step ahead every time to crush the protest before it starts. Second of all, if all of these fail, the government could always shut down ISPs (Internet Service Providers), exactly in the way the Egyptian forces did. Their mistake was that they didn’t shut them down soon enough, but it won’t be repeated by future oppressive governments as they have the Arab Spring’s example.(1) [1]  Surely, it is of great importance that people express their opinions through any means possible, even through mass protest. For this reason, over time western societies were shaped to encourage any discontented individual to express his or her view. We allowed the media to be free, it being the so called “fourth estate” due to its ability to pinpoint and underline any problem regarding government policies or actions. There is no need for Facebook or Twitter or any kind of social network to reveal any discontent in the population as we already have the media who is doing this. All the news agencies and TV stations are always looking for the sensational, looking for places where the government has failed in order to attract audience. One of the best ways of doing this is by polling and trying to reveal any group of individuals who were either discriminated or hurt by the government. As a result, if there are the necessary reasons for people to start protesting, we shouldn’t worry about people not finding out that other individuals share their views as we have the media, one of the most influential elements of the society who is actively trying to do that.  (1) Marko Papic and Sean Noonan “Social Media as a Tool for Protest” ,Stratfor, February 3, 2011   [1] For more on this see ‘ This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non-democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities ’ and ‘ This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those involved in uprisings ’


Question: Does the abolition of capital punishment lead to an improved culture of human rights and rule of law?

The abolition of capital punishment leads to an improved culture of human rights and rule of law.

The abolition of capital punishment does not lead to an improved culture of human rights and rule of law.

Encourages a culture of respect for human rights  Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society.  Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten [1] .  [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013,

If anything, abolition could be a seen as a distraction of progress. Even in retentionist criminal justice systems, only a small number of those who go through the criminal justice system are sentenced to death or executed. Behind the smokescreen of reform, things can be hidden. While Russia abolished capital punishment shortly after the end of the Soviet Union, politically motivated prosecutions continue, such as those of the members of Pussy Riot.  As for the rankings, correlation is not causation.


Question: Is labor participation sufficient for women to acquire equal rights?

Labor participation is sufficient for women to acquire equal rights.

Labor participation is not sufficient for women to acquire equal rights.

Labour participation and rights  Labour participation enables an awareness, and acquirement, of equal gender rights. Firstly, labour participation is challenging cultural ideologies and norms of which see the woman’s responsibility as limited to the reproductive sphere. Entering the productive sphere brings women equal work rights and the right to enter public space. By such a change gender norms of the male breadwinner are challenged. Secondly, labour force participation by women has resulted in the emergence of community lawyers and organisations to represent them. The Declaration of the African Regional Domestic Workers Network is a case in point. [1] With the rising number of female domestic workers, the network is working to change conditions - upholding Conferences, sharing information, and taking action.  [1] See

For rights to be granted women need to be able to have a position within trade unions, and policy change is required.  A recent study shows fewer women than men are found in trade unions across eight African countries looked at in a study(Daily Guide, 2011). The greatest degree of women’s involvement was from teacher and nurses unions, however, there remains a lack of representation at leadership levels. The lack of a united, or recognised, women’s voice in trade unions undermines aims for gender equality and mainstreaming for those women who are working.  Additionally, at a larger scale, policy change is required. Empowerment cannot occur where unequal structures remain - therefore the system needs to be changed. Governments need to engender social policy and support women - providing protection, maternity cover, pension schemes, and security, which discriminate against women and informal workers.


Question: Do needle exchanges contribute to a long-term decrease in crime?

Needle exchanges contribute to a long-term decrease in crime.

Needle exchanges do not contribute to a long-term decrease in crime.

It is possible that needle exchanges increase crime in areas. However, needle exchanges serve to allow for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. Whilst there might be greater crime owing to needle exchanges in the short term, in the long term they serve to treat one of the biggest causes of crime in a community.

Needle exchanges cause crime  Needle exchanges gather a large number of drug addicts into a single area. Many drug addicts are forced into criminality because of their addiction. Given that this is true, the needle exchanges serve to concentrate a large number of potential criminals in a small area. Not only does this increase crime in the area itself significantly, what is also manages to do is cause criminals to meet other criminals who they may not have interacted with before.  This can either lead to the aforementioned criminals working together and causing more problems, or it can lead to violence between rival criminals and their gangs.  Further, the simple gathering of criminals in a single area can also serve to attract other criminals to the same area to possibly reap benefits. This often comes in the form of prostitution, which thrives in areas of high crime and weaker police presence.1  1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.


Question: Will transitioning to online courses substantially decrease administrative costs at universities?

Transitioning to online courses will substantially decrease administrative costs at universities.

Transitioning to online courses will not substantially decrease administrative costs at universities.

Online courses would allow universities to use more resources on teaching and research  Traditional Universities are forced to spend a lot on administration and facilities, such as renting and maintaining buildings and parking lots, providing student support for accommodation, renting student halls, subsiding transports costs and meals, supervising university areas and so on. Across 72 US public universities the average administrative cost was about 8% of spending with the highest, at the University of Connecticut at 17% [15]. All these costs can be cut or abandoned all together if universities move to online teaching. There would be no need for lecture halls and student accommodation as students would just work from home, and even professors could mostly work from home. Even if some of administrative costs remain, that would still substantially increase the amount of resources to be spent entirely on teaching and research. This allows universities to improve their academic credentials and their academic output, which benefits the students and the society.

It is questionable whether universities would be able to substantially cut administrative costs and facilities. They will have to spend substantially more on IT support for running courses, as well as adapting courses for the online format. Then it is likely that universities would have to spend substantially more on hiring teaching and research assistants to manage increased numbers of students enrolled. While student accommodation support is going away, the normal academic student support for questions about studies is not, and its workloads actually increase due to higher student numbers. At the end of the day, administrative expenses just have to be spent on different administrative tasks.


Question: Is it morally acceptable for an individual to make decisions concerning their life without considering its impact on others?

It is morally acceptable for an individual to make decisions concerning their life without considering its impact on others.

It is not morally acceptable for an individual to make decisions concerning their life without considering its impact on others.

The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself  It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.

Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.


Question: Is it necessary for Israel to keep territories beyond its pre-1967 borders for purposes of national security?

It is necessary for Israel to keep territories beyond its pre-1967 borders for purposes of national security.

It is not necessary for Israel to keep territories beyond its pre-1967 borders for purposes of national security.

Israel has the right to claim minimal territory to ensure security  Israel has been the victim of multiple major illegal wars of aggression on the part of the Arab world, most notably in 1948 and 1967. These wars invalidate any special claim made by Arabs and Palestinians to pre-1967 territory, and justify Israel in keeping as much territory as is necessary to secure itself against these hostile states. Israel could have gone much further and taken more territory than it did in 1967 (as it was easily winning the war), but instead it restricted itself to only taking the territory that was necessary for it to create security buffer. [1] When peace deals have allowed Israel to improve its security through giving up land historically, it has done so, for example when it returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in 1982 in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt, or when Israel returned the small swath of Jordanian territory it held when King Hussain of Jordan wanted to make peace. To date, Israel has withdrawn from approximately 93 percent of the territories it captured. In return for peace with Syria and an end to Palestinian terror, it is prepared to withdraw from most of the remaining 7% in dispute, although not all. Israel remains committed to trading land for peace, and never annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip because it expected to return part of these territories in negotiations. When the Palestinians finally declared that they would recognize Israel and renounce terrorism, Israel agreed to begin to withdraw. Since 1993, Israel has turned over approximately 80% of the Gaza Strip and more than 40% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, Israel's objection is not so much against returning any of the land captured in 1967, but against returning absolutely all of it and going back completely to the 1967 borders, as this would mean giving up territories vital for Israel's security. The minimal slivers of territory that Israel it seeks to maintain through a peace settlement (after returning 90% of the pre-1967 territory), is very important to its national security as it offers a buffer against future Arab wars of aggression. This why Ehud Olmert stressed that only most of the occupied territory could be returned. He still argued that some had to be kept for security reasons: “We can never totally return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, ... We simply cannot afford to make Israel [9 miles] wide again at its center. We can't allow the Palestinians to be a couple [miles] from [Tel Aviv's] Ben Gurion Airport in the age of shoulder-fire missiles with the capacity to shoot down jumbo jets.” [2] Moreover, Israel is in an anomalous situation: It is an embattled democracy that historically has had to defend itself repeatedly against the armies of neighbouring Arab states whose declared goal was nothing less than Israel's eradication. The Israel Defense Forces could not afford to miscalculate. While other nations, like France or Kuwait, have been overrun, occupied, and nonetheless have survived to reconstitute themselves, Israel, in contrast, cannot depend on obtaining a second chance. Miscalculation on its part could have had devastating consequences and, thus, its situation is unique. [3] For this critical purpose of national survival, therefore, the annexed land serves a legally legitimate purpose, especially considering that the Arab wars of aggression were what caused the annexation of the land in the first place. In such circumstances, a nation that won a defensive war has a right to set terms to ensure against future wars of aggression.  [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.  [2] Thinkexist.com. “Ehud Olmert Quotes”. Thinkexist.com   [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005.

Israel won the 1967 war, demonstrating that despite a major coordinated Arab attack on Israel, it could defend its pre-1967 borders adequately. [1] This puts the lie to the central argument that the pre-1967 borders are indefensible. They defended them before under extremely hostile conditions; they can defend them again now under less conventionally threatening conditions, with a greater conventional military capacity to wage a defence, and with the unwavering support of the United States.  [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.


Question: Is it morally justified to prioritize the saving of multiple lives over a single one, based on the potential for greater 'good'?

It is morally justified to prioritize the saving of multiple lives over a single one, based on the potential for greater 'good'.

It is not morally justified to prioritize the saving of multiple lives over a single one, based on the potential for greater 'good'.

More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one  When any life is removed so too is the future good that life may produce; all of the good that person would have experienced as well as all of the good they could have brought to other people’s lives will no longer occur. It is difficult to say precisely how much good a person may bring. However, it is fair to assume that saving five people brings with it a greater chance of higher levels of ‘good’. Considering the fact that one does not know anything about the people on the tracks one must assume that there will be five times more ‘good’ produced by saving their lives than if the one person is saved.

To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.


Question: Does increasing anti-terrorist legislation and policing powers inevitably lead to a loss of liberty and injustice?

Increasing anti-terrorist legislation and policing powers inevitably lead to a loss of liberty and injustice.

Increasing anti-terrorist legislation and policing powers does not inevitably lead to a loss of liberty and injustice.

The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.  The proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans and many other groups were persecuted in World War II, [1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed.  [1] Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers, ‘Not Just Japanese Americans: The Untold Story of U.S. Repression During 'The Good War'’, The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1987 (Vol. 7, No. 3),  , accessed 9 September 2011

If the opposition is citing examples from history then there are just as many examples, if not more, of western governments resisting the corrupting effects of increased power and turning not from good into evil intentions. The fact of the matter is that most of today’s western nations have a relatively good track record. It seems the opposition is once again forgetting the real enemy – the terrorists. In most Western countries we have a fully independent and liberal judiciary, vigorously and vigilantly watching for human rights abuses and protecting civil liberties. For nearly all Western countries, a slippery slope simply does not exist.


Question: Should nuclear weapons be completely eliminated?

Nuclear weapons should be completely eliminated.

Nuclear weapons should not be completely eliminated.

The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law.  There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a necessary defence during that great ideological struggle, and at worst the scourge that would end all life on Earth. Nuclear war has never taken place, though it very nearly has on several occasions, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And in 1983 a NATO war game, the Able Archer exercise simulating the full release of NATO nuclear forces, was interpreted by the Soviet Union as a prelude to a massive nuclear first-strike. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB colonel who defected to the West, has stated that during Able Archer, without realising it, the world came ‘frighteningly close’ to the edge of the nuclear abyss, ‘certainly closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962’. [1] Soviet forces were put on immediate alert and an escalation was only avoided when NATO staff realised what was happening and scaled down the exercise. [2] Cooler heads might not prevail in future conflicts between nuclear powers; when there are more nuclear-armed states, the risk of someone doing something foolish increases. After all, it would take only one such incident to result in the loss of millions of lives. [3] Furthermore, in recent years positive steps have finally begun between the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia, in the strategic reduction of nuclear stockpiles. These countries, until recently the greatest perpetrators of nuclear proliferation, have now made commitments toward gradual reduction of weapon numbers until a tiny fraction of the warheads currently active will be usable. [4] All countries, both with and without nuclear weapons, should adopt this lesson. They should contribute toward non-proliferation, thus making the world safer from the threat of nuclear conflict and destruction. Clearly, the focus should be on the reduction of nuclear weapons, not their increase.  [1] Andrew, Christopher and Gordievsky, Oleg. 1991. “KGB: The Inside story of its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev”. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.  [2] Rogers, Paul. 2007. “From Evil Empire to Axis of Evil”. Oxford Research Group.  [3] Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.  [4] Baker, Peter. 2010. “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia”. The New York Times.

All parties recognize the risk of their total destruction as a result of starting a nuclear conflict. This is exactly why no full scale war has broken out between nuclear powers. Supposing that states will be unable to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons does not change the fact that many states have them, and also that many other states are incapable of defending themselves from aggressive neighbours without a nuclear deterrent.


Question: Is enforcing a universal language in African nations beneficial for education systems?

Enforcing a universal language in African nations is beneficial for education systems.

Enforcing a universal language in African nations is not beneficial for education systems.

Colonial legacies: the issue of language  A fundamental restriction to achieving universal education in several African countries is not teachers, as a resource, but rather the lack of a national language. Colonialism enforced national boundaries, of which remain mismatched to ethnicity and language. African nations remain some of the most diverse in the world. With the exception of Tanzania, whereby Julius Nyerere used policy to create a sense of national unity and language, many African nations placed minimal focus on nationalisation. Around 46 languages are spoken in Zambia.  Such language diversities make universal education difficult. Therefore, presidents such as Paul Kagame, have the right approach of enforcing a national language.

Proposals for basing education, and teaching, on a universal language raise criticism. Will students be able to ask for assistance at home and amongst their community if the language taught is not understood? Does enforcing a national language return to unequal relations of power - overriding the history and ethnic diversity of said nation? Shouldn’t national governments be more sensitive to local communities and group identities? Finally, what language will be chosen, and how will the decision be made? The implementation of a national language introduces a risk of conflict in unstable countries.  It also needs to be remembered that a national language has to be taught; something which requires investment in teachers.


Question: Does microfinance lead to negative long-term impacts on the society?

Microfinance leads to negative long-term impacts on the society.

Microfinance does not lead to negative long-term impacts on the society.

Deeper issues unresolved  Microfinance provides a quick-fix solution for the poor. The individual, or community, is provided with a loan to invest in their future. However, although access to capital is a key concern for enabling entrepreneurialism it is not the silver bullet. Microfinance schemes will fail without providing a stable political and economic environment that makes a good climate to invest in.  Microfinance is essentially short-termist. It encourages investment but only in things that will bring a quick return. With interest rates as high as 30% the person taking the loan needs to pay it back as quickly as possible. This can sometimes be against an individual’s long term interests, for example access to microfinance often reduces primary school attendance as this is a long term investment that will not pay back the loan money (IOE, 2011).

Microfinance does not have to be short term financing. Because it is a community based loan that is based on trust if those wanting the loan can explain why they want a loan over the longer term then it is possible to get longer loans. Moreover long term investment should not be something those who are struggling day to day have to think about; such investments as education should be made by the government not relying on individuals to realise their long term interests. No one would argue that microfinance is the solution to a poor education system.


Question: Should the government intervene in schools to deal with childhood obesity?

The government should intervene in schools to deal with childhood obesity.

The government should not intervene in schools to deal with childhood obesity.

Schools need to practice what they preach  Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias. [1]  Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago [2] . School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home [3] .  While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up [4] , revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher. [5]  With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic [6] , especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class.  [1] Stolberg, S. G., 'Michelle Obama Leads Campaign Against Obesity', New York Times, 9 February 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] University of Michigan, 'U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics', 17 November 2004,  , accessed 09/08/2011  [3] Kent County Council, Nutritional Standards, published September 2007  , accessed 09/08/2011  [4] Veggiecation, 'The Veggiecation Program Announced as First Educational Partner of New York Coalition for Healthy School Food',18 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [5] ScienceDaily, 'Eliminating Junk Foods at Schools May Help Prevent Childhood Obesity', 7 March 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [6] Kushner, R. F., et al., 'SOLUTIONS: Eradicating America’s obesity epidemic', Washington Times, 16 August 2009,  , accessed 9/11/2011

Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem.  These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families.  Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] .  Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies.  [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch',  , accessed 09/10/2011


Question: Is jury nullification beneficial for the justice system?

Jury nullification is beneficial for the justice system.

Jury nullification is not beneficial for the justice system.

Through jury nullification, juries make the law more accountable to the people.  Although juries are not technically supposed to nullify the law, or choose to acquit even if the evidence suggests that the defendant is guilty, they sometimes do. This usually happens when the jury believes the law is unjust: for example when the punishment is disproportionate to the crime1 (for example some activists encourage juries to nullify in cases of non-violent drug crimes). We believe this is good because it allows the public to check the government in a way for which rare elections and complex legislative processes do not allow. Only consider how many 'democratic' countries have upheld policies of segregation or discrimination, and it becomes clear that 'free and fair' elections can lead to outcomes that are anything but. Thus jury nullification can a) protect individuals from blatantly unjust laws, and b) provide impetus to actual legislative change. For example, some scholars believe that it was in part the frequent acquittal by juries of defendants who were probably guilty, but who would have received the death penalty if found to be so, that led to the US Supreme Court declaring mandatory capital punishment schemes unconstitutional.2 This community input is valuable in all circumstances, and there is no reason why it should be limited to certain cases.  1Doug Linder, "What Is Jury Nullification?  2Andrew Leipold, "Rethinking Jury Nullification

Jury nullification is a bad thing, and just another reason why trial by jury is not always the best way to deliver justice. When juries nullify, they bypass the electoral process, invalidating laws that society has already approved by democratic elections. This is unjust, because it means that a small, random group of individuals can ignore laws which have been approved by the majority of society. Even if a juror believes a law to be unjust, it is integral that he enforce that law, because that law represents the will of a constitutionally checked majority, as well as trained and educated legislators. If a law is truly unjust, there are better avenues to change it: voting in new legislators, legally protesting, appealing the law in court etc. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that jury nullification will be used to protect rights; indeed racist juries frequently acquitted KKK members in the 1950s and 60s.1 The fact that there is no way to prevent jury nullification without forcing juries to justify their decisions (which would violate the principle that juries must be allowed to deliberate secretly) is just another reason why juries may not be the best way to deliver justice. 1Hiroshi Fukurai and Richard Krooth, "Race in the Jury Box"


Question: Should the illness of a political leader be disclosed to the public?

The illness of a political leader should be disclosed to the public.

The illness of a political leader should not be disclosed to the public.

Markets like stability  Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment.  Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”. 1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change.  1 Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005,

Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed as everything will carry on as before. If the leader dies then it is best nothing is known until his successor is announced so reducing the period of uncertainty.


Question: Is the construction of Israeli settlements beneficial for the Palestinian economy?

The construction of Israeli settlements is beneficial for the Palestinian economy.

The construction of Israeli settlements is not beneficial for the Palestinian economy.

Settlements provide economic investment in the Occupied Territories  The fundamental fact is that the West Bank, whatever its status, is not an economically viable entity on its own. It produces few goods, while Gaza produces next to none, and independence without a major influx of capital will not change this situation.  The best source for a supply of capitol in the region lies in Israel, which has an enormous demand for a low-wage work-force. Millions of Palestinians worked in Israel until after 2000, and with travel into Israel proper restricted, settlement construction and cultivation provide economic development opportunities for the region and create jobs for Palestinians. [1] This is an important prospect when the unemployment figures for the Palestinians are at nearly 30%. [2]  Furthermore the very need for such labor is likely to further incentivise Israel to loosen restrictions on Palestinian workers in the West Bank and Gaza.  [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007,   [2] ‘Palestinian unemployment shows gradual decline’, Jmcc, 21 February 2010,

It is ironic that when the agricultural basis of the Palestinian economy is being strangled by settlement construction and the seizure of groves involved, that Palestinians should be grateful for the job opportunities provided in low-wage service positions in the Israeli settlements. [1]  Furthermore, even if one accepts the economic premises of the government’s argument, one is left with the fact that Israel’s policies are creating a climate of economic dependence that will ensure that any future Palestinian entity is economically and therefore politically dependent on Israel.  The Palestinian movement is as much a resistance against colonial exploitation as it is a revolt against a legal denial of independence, and it is unlikely their grievances will be settled when similar arrangements have left Israeli Arabs more alienated from the Jewish state than ever before. [2]  [1] Alwazir, Atyaf, ‘Uprooting Olive Trees in Palestine’, American.edu, November 2002,   [2] Telhami, Shibley, ‘The 2011 Public Opinion Poll of Jewish and Arab Citizens of Israel’, Brookings, 1 December 2011,


Question: Is the attorney-client privilege an unjust burden on solicitors?

The attorney-client privilege is an unjust burden on solicitors.

The attorney-client privilege is not an unjust burden on solicitors.

It places excessive moral burden on solicitors  With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone.

The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.


Question: Should the concept of attorney-client privilege be abolished?

The concept of attorney-client privilege should be abolished.

The concept of attorney-client privilege should not be abolished.

It blocks a significant amount of evidence  A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result.

If it were the case that legal advice were not privileged people would not tell their attorneys the full truth and therefore such evidence would not exist anyway. The removal of Attorney-Client Privilege would only remove such evidence from the forum. This would lead to a further distorted system whereby Attorneys are arguing upon the false representations made to them by their clients. This provides even less evidence of truth than a system which includes Attorney-Client Privilege.


Question: Does complexity in the universe necessitate the existence of a deity?

Complexity in the universe necessitates the existence of a deity.

Complexity in the universe does not necessitate the existence of a deity.

The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:  Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense.  [1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.   [2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

Atheism does not seek to explain the origin of the Universe, life, etc.; that is what science is for. Atheism is about the existence of God. The atheist position is supported, however, by the fact that there is no evident design in the Universe. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity in the Universe can be attributed to natural processes; the Universe, stars, and life are all the product of physical and chemical interactions. There is no mystery in the basic process. Complexity can be shown to arise from less complex conditions without aid of intelligent agency. Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. The complexity of the Universe does nothing to support claims for the existence of a deity, but rather showcases the wondrousness of the natural world.


Question: Should a leader's health condition be disclosed to the public during elections?

A leader's health condition should be disclosed to the public during elections.

A leader's health condition should not be disclosed to the public during elections.

Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning  The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information.

Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1  1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum,


Question: Would the creation of an additional runway at Heathrow increase noise pollution significantly?

The creation of an additional runway at Heathrow would increase noise pollution significantly.

The creation of an additional runway at Heathrow would not increase noise pollution significantly.

The third run-way would cause noise and pollution problems  The high population density of the area around Heathrow means it is not an ideal location for a bigger airport. It makes sense to increase capacity in an area with lower population density instead of trying to do so within a location that is constrained by adjacent urbanized areas. Expanding Heathrow airport would mean increasing the problem of noise for the about 700,000 people living under the flight path. According to the HACAN report the Department for Transport only accepts that noise is a problem if a community is subjected to over 57 decibels of noise over the course of a year according to a 1985 Government study. In which case only the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow would be affected. However this does not tie in with Londoner’s experiences. BAA says that 258,000 people are currently affected by high noise levels but the local community believes the real number is more like 1 million people affected. [1] Any argument that states that noise levels will not increase is flawed at best and outright fraudulent at worst, clearly a large expansion in the number of flights will increase the amount of noise and possibly the numbers affected.  [1] Johnson, Tim, ‘Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem’, HACAN, March 2010,  p.12

An additional run-way would not necessarily result in a large increase in noise pollution as this would depend on where the runways are located. If the runway was established to the West of its current location incoming planes would cross over areas not occupied by as planes would fly over the M25, the Poyle industrial estate, the Wraysbury reservoir and part of Stanwell Moor. On the other hand all the runways could be moved to the other side of the M25 and closely spaced potentially reducing the noise level over what it is at the moment even with three or four runways. [1] Therefore the noise complaints argument is overstated. No airport will ever be silent but with proposals to increase the number of airbus A380s, which are half as noisy as the 747 when taking off and only produce a quarter of the noise when landing, the noise argument really does lose a lot of credit. [2] We should also remember that a third runway will ease capacity problems so potentially allowing the first and last flights to be at more sociable hours than is currently the case.  [1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012,   [2] Heathrow Media Centre, ‘Heathrow set to more than triple its A380 fleet by 2020’, 25 October 2012,


Question: Is capital punishment a viable solution for controlling dangerous offenders in African nations with low quality prison systems?

Capital punishment is a viable solution for controlling dangerous offenders in African nations with low quality prison systems.

Capital punishment is not a viable solution for controlling dangerous offenders in African nations with low quality prison systems.

Particular need in Africa  Capital punishment for particularly dangerous offenders is a practical solution for African nations with low quality prison systems, which, through either deliberate policy or basic underfunding, can have poor conditions, or poor security. In 2013, over a thousand prisoners escaped from a prison near Benghazi in Libya [1] . A similar escape with particularly dangerous offenders would be dangerous - a corpse can’t escape.  [1] Zway, Suliman Ali, “Amid protests, Inmates escape from Libyan prison”, New York Times, 27 July 2013,

Practicality is not an excuse - capital punishment is still a human rights violation, whatever the circumstances.  The Libya prison escape, of course, was an unusual case - it was during a civil war.


Question: Are reparations an effective way to compensate oppressed communities?

Reparations are an effective way to compensate oppressed communities.

Reparations are not an effective way to compensate oppressed communities.

Compensation is important to give the communities credit they deserve.  Compensation can be used to level out the playing field of inequality to those who have been oppressed. They help to give communities the recognition they deserve and help to reverse intuitionally reinforced negative stereotypes. The reparations can be used to benefit the community; for example, within the community and externally in order to educate people appropriately about the struggles of a repressed community. It would help fund efforts based on the model of the US Governments of Education and State Boards of Education to develop a 'robust curriculum' involving greater accuracy in black history as well as the involvement of African American figures in history on local, national and global scales [1].  This inequality is why the reform has to be state led; it is up to the state to protect minorities. Professor Matthew Rimmer from the Queensland University of Technology believes that ''At an international level, more should be done to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in respect of Indigenous intellectual property''. This was said after Chanel made a A$2,000 boomerang [2] which would seem to be in opposition to the declaration which Australia has endorsed.  [1] Humphries, Arielle, and Stahly-Butts, Marbre, ‘A Vision for Black Lives’, Centre for Popular Democracy, July 2016,   [2] ‘Chanel’s $2,000 boomerang sparks complaints and confusion from Indigenous Australians’, ABC News, 17th May 2017,

Firstly, communities can be given credit for designs and things of other cultural significance without the use of reparations which are arbitrary and pointless.  Secondly, reparations are also ineffective, it throws a one-off lump sum to the formerly oppressed. They do not benefit the most deprived in society (economically). They are not effective in combatting racism.


Question: Would a federal Europe effectively regulate multinational corporations?

A federal Europe would effectively regulate multinational corporations.

A federal Europe would not effectively regulate multinational corporations.

A federal Europe will ensure that large, multinational businesses remain accountable for their actions  In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised.

The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today.  The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter.


Question: Should the production and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be completely banned?

The production and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be completely banned.

The production and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should not be completely banned.

GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies  The legislative framework and historical behavior governing and guiding the operation of big business is geared towards maximizing shareholder returns. This propensity has been demonstrated time and again and might suggest that the GM companies are not modifying the food in the interests of better health, but of better profit. This is reinforced by the nature of many of the GM modifications, including terminator seeds (infertile seed requiring a re-purchase of seed stock each season), various forms of pest and herbicide resistance potentially leading to pests (and weeds) resistant to the current crop of chemical defenses. One of the more disturbing manifestations of this is the licensing of genes that are naturally occurring and suing those who dare to grow them, even if they are there because of cross contamination by wind-blown seeds or some other mechanism. [1] One has only to look at the history of corporations under North American and similar corporations’ law to see the effect of this pressure to perform on behalf of the shareholder. The pollution of water supplies, the continued sale of tobacco, dioxins, asbestos, and the list goes on. Most of those anti-social examples are done with the full knowledge of the corporation involved. [2]  The example of potato farmers in the US illustrates big company dependence: "By ''opening and using this product,'' it is stated, that farmers only have the license to grow these potatoes for a single generation. The problem is that the genes remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents (Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), under these patents, people are not allowed to save even crop for next year, because with this they would break Federal law of intellectual property. [3]  [1] Barlett D., Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear, published May 2008,  , accessed 08/27/2011  [2] Hurt H., The Toxic Ten, published 02/19/2008,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [3] Pollan M., Playing God in the Garden, published 10/25/1998,  , accessed 09/02/2011

The immoral behavior of some people towards this technology is not a reason to ban it unless it can be shown that more harm than good is caused. This research is important to deal with global climate change which is reducing the landmass of the earth that can grow food, whilst the global population is rising.  Regulation may be better than outright banning, as we do with many aspects of business. For example gene patenting and the discovery of new genes is an area very similar to genetically modified foods. In the US gene patenting is allowed and when the company Myriad Genetics found the gene BRCA1 and BRCA2 (connected with breast cancer) and made too many restrictions on the use of it (so it hurt people in general), the court stepped in and allowed others to use it, gave them more rights over the “patented product”. [1] With this we see, that there can always be regulation of products if a company attempts to profit out of the misery of others. The same can be done with GMOs. If the company is demanding too high prices, preventing farmers from doing their work, the courts and legal system can always step in. Just because one company acts unethically, this does not mean that all must. There is a market for ethical consumerism, so the actions of a few corporations are not a reason to ban GMOs entirely.  [1] Nature.com, Testing time for gene patents, published 04/15/2010,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Question: Is life in rural areas of developing countries inevitably worse than in urban areas?

Life in rural areas of developing countries is inevitably worse than in urban areas.

Life in rural areas of developing countries is not inevitably worse than in urban areas.

Rural life is miserable and has higher mortality rates than cities  This planet does not find worse living standards anywhere than in the rural areas of developing countries. These are the areas where famine, child mortality and diseases (such as AIDS) plague the people. [1] China’s Hukou system has condemned millions of people to premature death by locking them in areas that never will develop. [2] While the cities enjoy the benefits of 12% growth, the villages are as poor and deprived as ever. [3] It is a poorly concealed policy aimed at maintaining a gaping social cleavage and allowing the rich to remain rich.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.  [2] Dikötter, Frank. Mao's Great Famine. London : Walker & Company, 2010. 0802777686.  [3] Wang, Fei-Ling. “Organising through Division and Exclusion: China's Hukou System". 2005.

This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones.


Question: Should jury trials be eliminated in cases of societal bias?

Jury trials should be eliminated in cases of societal bias.

Jury trials should not be eliminated in cases of societal bias.

It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where it is impossible to recruit an impartial jury.  Especially in cases of nationalist conflict or terrorist attacks, it may be extremely difficult to have a non-biased jury. In Northern Island, for example, jurors may sympathize with violent offenders and acquit them despite a preponderance of evidence. Similarly, it can be a struggle to appoint non-biased juries for terrorism trials post 9/11. In 2003, the "Lackwana Six" were accused of aiding a foreign terrorist organization. The magistrate noted that "Understandably, the infamous, dastardly and tragic deeds and events of September 11, 2001 have caused a maelstrom of human emotions to ... create a human reservoir of strong emotional feelings such as fear, anxiety and hatred as well as a feeling of paranoia... These are strong emotions of a negative nature which, if not appropriately checked, cause the ability of one to properly reason to ... be blinded." Questions about jury impartiality have been raised in multiple similar cases, even leading some defendants to claim that they pled guilty out of resignation that the jury would inevitably be biased and refuse to acquit.1 The implication is that in some trials, juries may be unable to make impartial decisions, thus making the trial unfair. The only way for justice to be done, in such cases, is to allow a judge to decide the verdict.  1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

First, there are checks in place to help prevent biased decisions and second, the less objective nature of juries is not necessarily bad. First, in most jury systems, a judge can overturn a guilty verdict if s/he believes that the jury made a faulty decision1. Judges can also order retrials in cases of guilty verdicts, if they believe there were procedural errors. Furthermore, in most countries there is a phase of the jury selection process in which both the prosecution and defence can object to a juror; in many countries each side gets a specific number of these unconditional 'peremptory challenges.' That allows blatantly biased jurors to be excluded. Perhaps most importantly, at least with juries there are multiple people making the decision, as opposed to a sole judge: there is no reason to assume that a lone judge will be less biased, just because of his 'professional training.' But second, having a subjective body making the decision is not necessarily bad. We obviously don't want people to be swayed by unchecked prejudices, but one of the points of having a jury is that it allows all parts of the community to participate in the judicial process and provide input that disconnected and often homogenous government officials cannot. For example, the Diplock courts established in 1970s Northern Ireland eliminated juries, and along with them, jury bias. This resulted in higher conviction rates for violent offenders, but also had the negative effect of excluding the Catholic minority from the administration of justice (and judge bias remained, as evidence by the failure of the courts to eliminate the gap between Catholic and Protestant conviction rates).2  1Andrew D. Stine, P.A. "Can a Judge Overturn a Jury Vedict?"  2Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"


Question: Is euthanasia harmful to those involved beyond the person choosing to die?

Euthanasia is harmful to those involved beyond the person choosing to die.

Euthanasia is not harmful to those involved beyond the person choosing to die.

The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.  Even setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation [i] , there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well.  It further gives protection to doctors and others who would be involved in the procedure. Campaigners are keen to stress that doctors should be involved in the process whilst ignoring that, pretty much whenever they’re asked doctors say they have no desire to have any part of it [ii] . Indeed it would be against the Hippocratic oath which while it is no longer always taken still sums up the duties of a doctor which includes doing no harm and includes "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel." So ruling out euthanasia. [iii] Presumably, the very case that is so keen on the voluntary principle would also observe this compelling rejection by a group critical to the plan.  [i] Joint letter to the Telegraph. The terminally ill need care and protection – not help in committing suicide. The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi.  [ii] Ella Pickover. Doctors Reject Assisted Suicide. The Independent. 28 June 2012 .  [iii] Sokol, Dr Daniel, ‘A guide to the Hippocratic Oath’, BBC News, 26 October 2008 ,

Obviously nobody is going to compel doctors or others in the medical profession to undertake a procedure of which they do not approve. Indeed doctors are routinely required to give independent advice - so that a patient is aware of the available options - without being required to perform a procedure themselves. The same is true with relatives or friends. There are many issues in life, where we may disagree with someone’s decision but we respect their right to make that decision just as they respect ours to check that they have considered all the implications. In the case of the doctors this is simple professionalism, in the case of loved ones, respect.