Question: Is the European Union effectively progressing towards a unified military framework?

The European Union is effectively progressing towards a unified military framework.

The European Union is not effectively progressing towards a unified military framework.

The EU has already been unifying on multiple fronts, this is just a step in the same direction.  The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to pool European military capacity. In addition, the EU itself has created new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has had military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the creation of a Common Security and Defense Policy with 3-4,000 troops on permanent standby in multilateral ‘battlegroups’ ready for immediate deployment(see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below)1. While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. The Union has also placed that military capacity within the broader context of a security strategy designed to promote international peace, justice and development.  1. Schnabel, Rockwell A., 'U.S. Views on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy', The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. IX. Issue2., (Winter/Spring 2003) accessed 1/8/11

The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreement. The UK and France have only been willing to cooperate bilaterally and outside the EU framework, within a set of nationally-framed security interests. Both states are also very traditional military powers. While some states pretend to support the creation of a credible EU military capacity, they are unwilling to contribute seriously to its construction and when faced with a crisis almost always turn to the United States for military solutions. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept US protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power.


Question: Will legalizing drugs result in the emergence of a black market?

Legalizing drugs will result in the emergence of a black market.

Legalizing drugs will not result in the emergence of a black market.

Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive  Low prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.

In a capitalist system reliant on supply and demand, the cost of a particular drug will always correspond to what people are willing to pay for them. So, there is no reason why a black market should spring up under a legalised system of drug sale.


Question: Should the feminist movement be more radical in its approach?

The feminist movement should be more radical in its approach.

The feminist movement should not be more radical in its approach.

The feminist movement must, above all, strive to protect the people who are oppressed by anti-women structures in society: it cannot ignore the problems women face. Social movements are there because the rights of minorities in society are being ignored: they are necessarily going against the flow of public opinion, and sometimes they need to be radical in order to uphold the rights others ignore. A big problem requires big changes.

The feminist movement cannot afford to alienate itself from society  The term ‘feminism’ is often associated with men-hating and the radical view that women are superior to men as opposed to gender equality. This happens because extreme feminists who uphold such opinions are consistently given greater media coverage by virtue of having the loudest voices and creating headlines that sell. As a result, the feminist movement is currently lacking the support it deserves and even those who take feminist positions often don’t want to call themselves feminists. (Scharff) [1]  It would be a bad move for it to further radicalise itself and attempt to ban something as present in society as pornography. It will never work, and it will merely make women and men more reluctant to espouse feminist ideologies for fear of being associated with a ‘hate group’.  [1] Scharff, Christina, “Myths of man-hating feminists make feminism unpopular”, Economic & Social Research Council, 7 March 2013,


Question: Is Heathrow's location the most advantageous for a London airport?

Heathrow's location is the most advantageous for a London airport.

Heathrow's location is not the most advantageous for a London airport.

Heathrow is in the best location for London  Flying is critical for business. Heathrow is well located for the people that will pick up the bill funding its expansion. People need to be able to get to their homes and work easily from the airport otherwise it is impractical. According to the Civil Aviation Authority 25% of business passengers start their journey within 30 minutes of Heathrow, far more than any other airport. [1] This demonstrates that the demand for Heathrow’s services from the local area is real and pronounced. Heathrow is closer to London than its rivals Gatwick and Stansted and has better transport links through the Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express. A new airport could potentially be closer, but finding space within the M25 for a large airport without attracting the same kind of opposition that expanding Heathrow has would be next to impossible  [1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012,

Location is a relatively unimportant issue when talking about ‘hubs’. In hub airports an important proportion of passengers and cargo is only passing through; it arrives to the airport by plane only to leave it again by plane without even reaching the city. As a result for these passengers the links to the city do not matter. Even for those going into London the location of the airport itself is not an issue per se, rather the length of time to get into the center of the city is. In which case wherever becomes the new hub should have new transport links built or it should be built at a location that has, or will have, good transport connections such as to the North West of London where the High Speed 2 railway will run. [1]  [1] Leftly, Mark, and Chorley, Matt, “IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow”, The Independent, 2 September 2012,


Question: Is the economic performance better under Democratic presidencies?

The economic performance is better under Democratic presidencies.

The economic performance is not better under Democratic presidencies.

Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust  During the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats [i] .  Republican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.  [i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21st, 2010 .

The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration [i] .  Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.  [i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.


Question: Will the Hyperloop indeed be a low-cost transportation system for users?

The Hyperloop will indeed be a low-cost transportation system for users.

The Hyperloop will not be a low-cost transportation system for users.

The Hyperloop will be a low cost system for the user  The Hyperloop would be the cheapest mode of intercity transport possible. “Transporting 7.4million people each way and amortizing the cost of $6 billion over 20 years gives a ticket price of $20 for a one-way trip for the passenger version of Hyperloop.” [1] There are very few additional costs. Usually the main cost for transportation beyond the infrastructure is the energy but the Hyperloop produces more energy than it uses so would make a profit here. There would be additional maintenance costs and some minor staff costs but this is unlikely to add too much to the ticket price. The Hyperloop would therefore be very price competitive compared to the $100 and up for flights.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.56

While it seems reasonable that the cost will be low it is questionable that it will be quite as low as suggested. If the cost of construction rises – as it inevitably does – then because this is the basis for the pricing calculation the prices will surely go up. Musk is also forgetting all the extra costs that would be incurred such as the cost of airline style security measures. [1]  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,


Question: Is affirmative action the appropriate remedy for the effects of past discrimination?

Affirmative action is the appropriate remedy for the effects of past discrimination.

Affirmative action is not the appropriate remedy for the effects of past discrimination.

Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination  Affirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination.  Discrimination in the past not only leaves a feeling of rejection by one’s community, but also a legacy of disadvantage and perpetual poverty. Discrimination is not only psychologically damaging, but tangibly. The denial of opportunities for education and employment in the past has left families in situations where they are stuck in a poverty trap and cannot afford to achieve the basic opportunities that others can as they are stuck in a cycle of poverty [1] .  A good example of this can be seen in the example of Brazil, where poverty is much more wide-spread in African communities who were previously used as slaves [2] .  There is no equality of opportunity in cases of past discrimination. Affirmative action helps level the playing field for selection by assisting those who are held back from a continual historical denial of opportunity and providing them the equality of opportunity everyone deserves.  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.  [2] Telles, Edward. "Discrimination and Affirmative Action in Brazil." PBS Wide Angle. N.p., 01 Jun 2009. Web. 23 Aug 2011. <  .

Affirmative action is not the best way to deal with these issues. If it is true that there are cycles of poverty caused by past discrimination, the most precise way of righting this wrong is to offer assistance to all people in poverty to get themselves out of its cyclical grasp as opposed to blanket policies based on race or gender that may or may not necessarily help those who have been adversely affected by past discrimination.


Question: Should the EU remove the current arms ban on China?

The EU should remove the current arms ban on China.

The EU should not remove the current arms ban on China.

A code of conduct is needed not a ban  The current arms ban is purely symbolic. China is already able to buy a range of military items from Europe ($555 million worth in 2003) [1] and the USA, which has a similar "ban" on weapons sales to China. This is because the EU’s current ban is not legally binding and it is up to each EU member to define and implement the embargo meaning the embargo is not effective. [2] An arms ban is therefore a blunt instrument that does not work. Instead future sales should be regulated by a tough EU code of conduct which prevents military equipment being sold to any state which might use it for external aggression or internal repression. Such a code of conduct for all arms exports has already existed since 1998. [3] Such a code of conduct will be a much better guarantee that China is not sold arms unless EU states are sure they will not be misused.  [1] Tkacik, ‘E.U. Leadership Finds Little Public Support for Lifting China Arms Ban’, 2005.   [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p5.   [3] Ibid, p21

A Ban that is not very effective is better than no ban at all. That the Chinese are so determined to get the ban lifted shows that it does make a difference and is therefore worth keeping. Either way the European Union should not give it up for nothing. Rather as the Danish lead opposition to lifting the ban argues "Any decision to lift the arms embargo must be linked to specific Chinese steps on human rights." [1]  [1] EUobserver, ‘Leaked cable shows fragility of EU arms ban on China’, 2011.


Question: Is a standing UN army necessary for effective peacekeeping operations?

A standing UN army is necessary for effective peacekeeping operations.

A standing UN army is not necessary for effective peacekeeping operations.

The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices.  1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86  2, Ibid

A UN standing army is unnecessary  A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful. In Guatemala for example, a UN peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a decades-long civil war in 1997. When there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together. In Srebrenica for example, where thousands of Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian troops, the problem was not the absence of peacekeepers on the ground, but an inadequate mandate to use force. The UN would be much better spending its efforts on setting up a proper peacekeeping department, and streamlining the UN as a whole.


Question: Should labor standards be compromised for economic development in underdeveloped countries?

Labor standards should be compromised for economic development in underdeveloped countries.

Labor standards should not be compromised for economic development in underdeveloped countries.

Universal standards of labour and business are not suited to the race for development  Developing countries are in a race to develop their economies. The prioritisation of countries that are not currently developed is different to the priorities of developed countries as a result of their circumstances and they must be allowed to temporarily push back standards of labour and business until they achieve a level playing field with the rest of the world. This is because economic development is a necessary precondition for many of the kinds of labour standards enjoyed in the west. For there to be high labour standards there clearly needs to be employment to have those standards. Undeveloped countries are reliant upon cheap, flexible, labour to work in factories to create economic growth as happened in China. In such cases the comparative advantage is through their cheap labour. If there had been high levels of government imposed labour standards and working conditions then multinational firms would never have located their factories in the country as the cost of running them would have been too high. [1] Malaysia for example has struggled to contain activity from the Malaysian Trades Union Congress to prevent their jobs moving to China [2] as the competition does not have labour standards so helping keep employment cheap. [3]  [1] Fang, Cai, and Wang, Dewen, ‘Employment growth, labour scarcity and the nature of China’s trade expansion’,  , p.145, 154  [2] Rasiah, Rajah, ‘The Competitive Impact of China on Southeast Asia’s Labor Markets’, Development Research Series, Research Center on Development and International Relations, Working Paper No.114, 2002,  P.32  [3] Bildner, Eli, ‘China’s Uneven Labor Revolution’, The Atlantic, 11 January 2013,

Achieving development at the cost of principles of development is not acceptable. The means by which you achieve development is equally important, and will remain integral in the principles and priorities of a nation once it achieves developed status. The road is as important as the destination! Building the economy on poor labour standards is building on unstable ground as those jobs will simply move as soon as costs rise in any way.


Question: Is microfinance an effective solution for enhancing Africa's agricultural system?

Microfinance is an effective solution for enhancing Africa's agricultural system.

Microfinance is not an effective solution for enhancing Africa's agricultural system.

Rebuilding agricultural systems  Africa is faced with an agrarian crisis. Microfinance is providing rural communities a chance to gain food security and reduce vulnerability to risks such as climate change, unstable demand, and political tensions. Microfinance supports small scale agriculture – which is more sustainable, effective for growth, and beneficial for communities than larger scale agriculture. In Zimbabwe, small scale farming has the capability to improve production, benefiting households, communities, and the Nation (IRIN, 2013; Morrison, 2012).  Kiva, a microfinance NGO, is providing affordable capital to remote communities. Loans have been provided to small-scale farmers and a rental system has been set-up enabling farmers to borrow tools and resources needed.

There is a need to reinvigorate Africa’s agricultural system; however, the ability for microfinance to do this is debatable. The distribution of loans is not necessarily adequate or responsive to the need. The loans provided need to be able to provide security and protection in the face of environmental crisis. There are some things microfinance can’t solve; more variable rains and desertification for example. Loans can only be provided if the risks are known and the risks are getting higher so too will be the costs of loans.  Additionally, multiple factors are responsible for Africa’s agrarian crisis. The lack of an agriculture marketing board for farmers to control price, insufficient infrastructure, and the legacies of structural adjustment, all act to constrain the agricultural system.


Question: Is it morally acceptable to conduct experiments on animals if they are treated well and their suffering is minimized?

It is morally acceptable to conduct experiments on animals if they are treated well and their suffering is minimized.

It is not morally acceptable to conduct experiments on animals even if they are treated well and their suffering is minimized.

Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated.  The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban.  [1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.

This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.


Question: Is the recruitment of child soldiers always a coercive act of violence?

The recruitment of child soldiers is always a coercive act of violence.

The recruitment of child soldiers is not always a coercive act of violence.

Punishing objectively harmful conduct  Of the tens of thousands of children exposed to armed conflict throughout the world, most are recruited into armed political groups. Quite contrary to the image of child soldiers constructed by the proposition, these youngsters are not de-facto adults, nor are they seeking to defend communities who will be in some way grateful for their contributions and sacrifices. Child soldiers join groups with defined political and military objectives.  Children may volunteer for military units after encountering propaganda. Many children join up to escape social disintegration within their communities. Several female child soldiers have revealed that they joined because to escape domestic violence or forced marriage. Many children who do not volunteer can be forcibly abducted by military organisations. One former child soldier from Congo reported that “they gave me a uniform and told me that now I was in the army. They said that they would come back and kill my parents if I didn’t do as they said.” [i]  Once inducted into the army, children are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. They are usually viewed as expendable, employed as minesweepers or spies. The inexperience and gullibility of children is used to convince them that they are immune to bullets, or will be financially rewarded for committing atrocities. Many children are controlled through the use of drugs, to which they inevitably become addicted [ii] .  For every account the proposition can provide of a child who took up arms to defend his family, there are many more children who were coerced or threatened into becoming soldiers. Whatever standard of relativist morality side proposition may choose to employ, actions and abuses of the type described above are object4ively harmful to children.  Moreover, the process of turning a child into a soldier is irreversible and often more brutal and dehumanising than combat itself. Proposition concedes that child soldiers will be in need of care and treatment after demobilising, but they underestimate the difficulty of healing damage this horrific.  The use of child soldiers is an unpardonable crime, which creates suffering of a type universally understood to be unnecessary and destructive. It should not be diluted or justified by relativist arguments.  It would undermine the ICC’s role in promoting universal values if officers and politicians complicit in the abuses described above were allowed to publicly argue cultural relativism as their defence. Moreover, it would give an unacceptable air of legitimacy to warlords and brigands seeking to operate under the pretence of leading legitimate resistance movements  [i] Child Soldiers International,   [ii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p299,

It is not sufficient to observe that there exist groups that use brutality to recruit and control child soldiers. As accounts of conflicts in South Sudan and Myanmar show, politically motivated recruitment of children is less common than children volunteering through necessity.  Side opposition should not overlook the fact that there are few constructive alternatives available to children in such situations. Educational institutions are often the first forms of state support to be withdrawn when war breaks out. Many children are orphaned as a result of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Taking flight as a refugee may postpone a child’s exposure to conflict, but is rarely useful in escaping it.  Proposition have already established that child soldiers do not originate exclusively within state-based bodies or organised opposition groups seeking control of a state. They are just as likely to be the products of necessity or non-western conceptions of adulthood. The status quo is blind to this distinction, failing to recognise that military involvement is entirely consistent with other norms of adulthood in certain non-western cultures. Further, taking up arms as part of an organised, coherent force is often preferable to remaining a vulnerable, untrained civilian.  Finally, it should be noted that very few opposition-side speakers are likely to argue that individuals, including children, do not have a right to defend themselves against aggression. However, a right to self-defence can be rendered meaningless if weak individuals are not permitted to combine their strength and resources to defend themselves. For ICC prosecutors this would likely be seen as the first step to forming a militia. For a physically weak fourteen year old, it is simply a survival strategy.


Question: Do needle exchange programs effectively reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV?

Needle exchange programs effectively reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV.

Needle exchange programs do not effectively reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV.

Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease  A needle exchange as mentioned in the introduction allows drug users to trade in dirty needles for new ones. This can prevent disease simply by preventing transfer of fluids from one drug user to another. As such, if one drug addict has HIV and has not yet been diagnosed it becomes less likely that he will transmit the disease to another person. Further, many drug addicts fail to even consider the possibility of infection via dirty needles, the mere presence of a needle exchange in the nearby vicinity causes drug addicts to be more aware of the dangers associated with dirty needles.  Further, the liberalising effect that needle exchanges have on public opinion can often cause societal change that allows needles to be bought over the counter. This is especially good in targeting drug users who do not wish to reveal that they have an addiction and allows them use of clean needles.  To back this up it has been found by some researchers that, there has been a one-third reduction in HIV prevalence in New Haven, Connecticut, after its NEP had been in operation for only 4 months. Researchers found an 18.6% average annual decrease in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had introduced an NEP, compared to an 8.1% annual increase in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had never introduced NEPs. HIV prevalence among NEP attenders in a Canadian city was low, even though high-risk behaviors were common. Injecting drug users in Seattle who had formerly attended an NEP were found to be more likely than non-exchangers to reduce the frequency of injection, to stop injecting altogether, and to remain in drug treatment, while new users of the NEP were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than never-exchangers."1  1. Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004 www.mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/Needle%20Exchange.pdf

Some studies have found that needle exchanges are not related to decreases in HIV transmission. It is theorised that the overall increase in drug use that needle exchanges cause, which is described in the first point of the opposition case, offsets the benefits the exchanges provide in terms of disease prevention.  Further, in providing needle exchanges to prevent disease, it is possible that states and people think the problems of drug use are solved and fail to do any more to prevent the problem, which explains the continued deaths of drug addicts due to causes other than infection due to dirty needles.1  1. Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be Publically Funded?” Close to Home Online,


Question: Is the implementation of capital punishment justified in Africa?

The implementation of capital punishment is justified in Africa.

The implementation of capital punishment is not justified in Africa.

“Benefits” of capital punishment apply universally  The same arguments about capital punishment apply in Africa - deterrence value, potential cost savings, and principles of justice. [1] This could be more acute, with growing issues of international crime, such as drugs, growing in Africa [2] .  Africa has had many issues of conflict and crimes against humanity – these are the kind of crimes that many who are less enthusiastic about capital punishment would still support it for.  [1] See “This House Supports the Death Penalty” -   [2] See Cockayne, James, “Africa and the War on Drugs: the West African cocaine trade is not just business as usual”, African Arguments, 2012,

Those well trodden arguments lead to an anti death penalty position, not a pro death penalty one. Deterrence cannot be measured, mistakes are made too often and issues of punishment (if punishment, rather than rehabilitation or incapacitation is a legitimate goal of a justice system, which it is not) are different between cultures. Evidence on cost shows it is more expensive than prison in the Global North.  With regards to crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court - the world’s leading authority on international criminal law - does not use capital punishment. Neither did the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.


Question: Should we restrict art to avoid causing social disgust?

We should restrict art to avoid causing social disgust.

We should not restrict art to avoid causing social disgust.

We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art  Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual.  An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily.  For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects.

Whilst it is the case in individual instances that, if one piece of art is censored, another on a different topic may be produced, when looked at in a wider context this is not the case. If we restrict artists in all cases where someone is disgusted, an enormous quantity of subjects will be off limits. This will have, not only a negative impact on that artist, but a deleterious effect on whole branches of art.  Further, restricting any art that could cause social disgust is an unreasonable restriction to place upon society (or gallery curators, or grant allocation committees). It is difficult to know at what point a piece will cross the line from simply ‘provocative’ to ‘disgusting’. Consequently, people will be forced to err on the side of caution, leading to an excessive caution and restriction: overcensorship.  When weighed against these harms, it is far from clear that individual disgust can be elevated to this extent!


Question: Would leaving the EU grant the UK complete sovereignty in foreign policy?

Leaving the EU would grant the UK complete sovereignty in foreign policy.

Leaving the EU would not grant the UK complete sovereignty in foreign policy.

The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy  Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office. [1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers.  [1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission,

It is a misconception that any nation has complete sovereignty in the realm of international affairs, the restraints and restrictions as a result of being in or out are simply different. Every foreign policy has to operate within the context of the international system, and the capabilities with which the state has. Leaving the EU will give back certain areas with which the UK can negotiate but at the same time will ensure the UK is a lone voice rather than part of a combined negotiating position. The common foreign policy is just that; 28 countries making the same point, much more difficult for even the biggest nations to ignore. The decision making is done by all the heads of state/government so cannot be said to represent a loss of sovereignty. [1]  [1] ‘Foreign & security policy at EU level’, EUR-lex, updated 8 December 2015,


Question: Is the use of Private Military Companies (PMCs) detrimental to traditional military operations?

The use of Private Military Companies (PMCs) is detrimental to traditional military operations.

The use of Private Military Companies (PMCs) is not detrimental to traditional military operations.

The role of PMCs has had a negative effect on traditional militaries and their operations.  Soldiers trained at high expense by the state may leave for the greater income of private employment, reducing the power of the state’s military and bolstering the attraction of PMCs. PMCs also have a much more relaxed, business-like attitude to conflict. Being unregulated gives them a freedom to work outside of the law to an extent, using illicit practices such as torture and bribery which goes unnoticed. However, these practices strengthen the morale and line the purses of “the enemy”, such as warlords or the Taliban in Afghanistan, putting the militaries they are fighting alongside in danger.

This does not necessarily mean that there is anything inherently wrong with using PMCs. While it might be true that the United States has sometimes misjudged which private forces to hire, this does not mean that we cannot use PMCs altogether. In fact, there can be solutions to ensure the quality of PMCs, such as legal regulation. The risk of inadvertently funding the enemy temporarily is perhaps worth taking, considering the alternative may be to have them constantly preventing anything being done to help. Short-term compromise could be the best option to long-term victory.


Question: Should 'The Spear' artwork be removed due to its potential to cause offense?

'The Spear' artwork should be removed due to its potential to cause offense.

'The Spear' artwork should not be removed despite its potential to cause offense.

Infantilisation and Prejudice  Those who dismiss the reaction to ‘The Spear’ forget the historical context which may trigger the sorts of responses seen to the artwork. [1]  South Africa’s past problems can be seen to derive from the gross caricaturing of Black people and Black Men in particular as lascivious, overtly sexual and threatening, playing into a narrative of Blacks as ‘inferior beings’ justifying inhumane treatment over a number of centuries.  Portraying the President with his genitals exposed could also be seen to pass negative comment upon his polygamy, which is permitted in his Zulu culture. Such comment upon something which can determine social standing can also be viewed as offensive by many, triggering such reactions. [2]  With this in mind then the right action for both The Goodman Gallery and City Press to take would be to remove such offensive art to avoid any hurt caused and to quell the protest which were borne out of genuine offence, not political grandstanding as opposition seem to imply.  [1] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The Spear: Millions of people were insulted’, Daily Maverick, 28 May 2012,   [2] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012,

To attach historical abuses to the symbolism of ‘The Spear’ is outlandish, irresponsible and fully indicates the way in which the ANC and its supporters use the past to excuse its poor record in government. ‘The Spear’ followed a theme criticising Zuma and his actions as a public figure. Criticism of the piece is welcome as part of debate based on facts, not emotion like what was seen during the controversy. Maintaining ‘The Spear’s display is part of this, triggering a debate over ANC policies in the here and now, as opposed to referring to past injustices. Removing ‘The Spear’ prevents that rational debate and instead sends a message that merely shouting down opponents is a suitable solution to an argument, harming South African political discourse in the long term.


Question: Is the restriction of wearing religious symbols in public justified?

The restriction of wearing religious symbols in public is justified.

The restriction of wearing religious symbols in public is not justified.

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

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


Question: Will lifting the arms ban strengthen China militarily?

There is no reason to strengthen China militarily  Lifting the arms ban will strengthen China militarily. The US fears less the Chinese purchase of EU weaponry and armour, than that the regime will get hold of advanced communications and control systems, as well as high-technology guidance systems, night-vision equipment, etc. [1] - all of which would make its existing military far more effective. Even if the EU is reluctant to sell such material to China, the possibility will give the Chinese leverage in negotiations with existing suppliers like Israel and Russia, who will feel under more pressure to sell China their most modern technology. In time, China's ability to "reverse engineer" high-technology equipment will also boost their own military research and development programmes. [2]  [1] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p16.   [2] Page, Jeremy, ‘China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets’, 2010.

Lifting the arms ban will not strengthen China militarily. Not only would sales be restricted by the new code of conduct, but China’s Ambassador to the European Union has also clearly reiterated "We have stated several times that we do not intend to buy European military equipment" as "We cannot afford to buy such expensive weapons". [1] Even if China was sold high-tech European equipment, this could even be beneficial for the EU as it would make China dependent on the EU for such items and make it less likely to pursue its own research and development programmes.  [1] Rufino, Filipe and Vucheva, Elitsa, ‘EU Arms Embargo is ‘political discrimination, says Chinese Ambassador’, 2005.


Question: Should labor standards be linked to international aid?

Labor standards should be linked to international aid.

Labor standards should not be linked to international aid.

Labour standards are necessary to protect basic human rights  Labour and business standards are a cornerstone of agreement on universal human rights between various international actors and so it is right that they should be linked to aid. In 1998 the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work were adopted and are considered binding on all members regardless of whether they have ratified the conventions. [1] The business and labour regulations protect the basic worker rights and improve job security through demanding the elimination of discrimination and empower workers through the recognition of “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining” [2] like in those in developed western countries. This then provides a minimum standard and aid should only be given to those that ensure those minimum standards they have signed up. It would also help compliance to prioritise those who go further in their protections of labour when it comes to receiving aid. It should be remembered that there has been general acceptance of international labour standards not just for human rights reasons but also because having minimum standards is beneficial economically – for example a 40 hour working week is more productive per hour than a 60 hour week. [3]  [1] the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ‘About the Declaration’, International Labour Organisation,   [2] ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, Adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Eighty-sixth Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998 (Annex revised 15 June 2010),   [3] Robinson, Sara, ‘Bring back the 40-hour work week’, Salon, 14 March 2012,

Not all standards benefit human rights and some could even undermine individual’s most basic human rights such as that to sustenance and shelter. Standards combating child labour, for example, could be misguided. In many developing countries, child labour is an important source of income for children’s food and education.  Holding to the ILO’s convention on child labour would therefore affect families’ and children’s income and development opportunities. Since child labour is dependent on level of economic development, developing countries should work on combating poverty before reducing child labour. India implemented most international standards, including the convention for child labour. However, research has found that children working full time have better chances of making it to adulthood than those who work less, because they’re better fed [1] . Children’s physical wellbeing will often therefore benefit from being allowed to work.  Rather than imposing labour standards the way to end such practices is to provide incentives that pay for parents to send their children to school as with the Bolsa Familia in Brazil. [2]  [1] Cigno, Alessandro, and Rosati, Furio C., ‘Why do Indian Children Work, and is it Bad for Them?’, IZA Discussion paper series, No.115, 2000,  , p.21  [2] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘Brazil’s cash transfer scheme is improving the lives of the poorest’, Poverty Matters Blog guardian.co.uk, 19 November 2010,


Question: Is Kenyatta's leadership beneficial for the governance of Kenya?

Kenyatta's leadership is beneficial for the governance of Kenya.

Kenyatta's leadership is not beneficial for the governance of Kenya.

Kenya would be better off without them  Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.  In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.  [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013,   [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013,


Question: Would the establishment of a United Nations standing army effectively counter American military hegemony?

The establishment of a United Nations standing army would effectively counter American military hegemony.

The establishment of a United Nations standing army would not effectively counter American military hegemony.

A UN Standing Army would solve the problem of American military hegemony.  A strong, effective and impartial United Nations standing army would deny powerful military states the right to bully and blackmail rivals into submission with the threat of military force. A UN army would be able to balance that threat with their own willingness to come to the aid of states under military duress. The United States, unwilling to risk a protracted conflict against a respected, well-trained multi-national force would have to fall back. To use an example, American military intervention in Vietnam, against the wishes of the majority of the population, could have been prevented had a U.N. standing army existed to respond to the wishes of the Vietnamese people and stand against the United States’ intervention. The existence of such a military rival would therefore force the United States to increase its investment in its State Department and diplomatic solutions to political crises. Ultimately, peace would be more effectively maintained.

A UN standing army would not solve 'the problem of American military hegemony', even if there is such a problem. It is perhaps unlikely that the US would fund such an army. Nor would other major military spenders like the United Kingdom be likely to since they already send troops to NATO, possibly in the near future to an EU army, and having its own army it would be significantly overstretched. This United Nations could not raise sufficient funds to create such a force. To establish military parity with the US would require a large nuclear arsenal and an enormous military infrastructure. States will not ever finance such a force at the expense of building up their own forces. The army would have to be willing to be pitched against the interests of the US or other permanent members of the Security Council, yet any U.N. standing army would require the blessing of that Security Council, where those members have a veto. Therefore making this not possible, as only the UNSC can be responsible for security. American military hegemony will not be challenged by a force that is under its own direction.


Question: Should teachers supervise students' social media interactions?

Teachers should supervise students' social media interactions.

Teachers should not supervise students' social media interactions.

Teachers can be essential in supervising cyberspace.  Social media has become the primary way in which children interact with their peers. These interactions are largely unsupervised by any adult, and yet they have a fundamental impact on the development of the children involved. Adolescents use social networking websites to gage peer opinion about themselves which may subsequently influence identity formation [1] . With so much cyber bullying happening on such websites, and postings of inappropriate behaviour that may later surface to affect a student’s chances of getting into college or getting a job, it would be useful to have a teacher supervise these interactions to make sure no harm comes to the children involved.  [1] Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert. ”College students social networking experiences on facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Pshychology. Vol. 30. 2009.

This shift in the role of the teacher from educator to supervisor may actually negatively affect teachers. What if a teacher sees her students post pictures of themselves in inappropriate circumstances, drinking or smoking or scantily clad? What if she discovers cyber bullying? Does she have an obligation to intervene or contact the parents of the children involved? Might that do more harm than good? What if the teacher fails to act and a child gets hurt? Should the teacher be held professionally or legally responsible for that failure? Until clear guidelines are established on what exactly the responsibility of teachers would be in such a situation, the supervision of social media use by children should probably be left to parents rather than educators.


Question: Is the EU's consultation-based approach effective in creating a united front for foreign and security policies?

The EU's consultation-based approach is effective in creating a united front for foreign and security policies.

The EU's consultation-based approach is not effective in creating a united front for foreign and security policies.

The fact that it is a Representative highlights the fact that the EU is based on consultation and consensus, and that is a positive thing.  While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step towards a more unified voice for the EU, the decisions are indeed still based on a state by state consultation mechanism – hence the name representative. This should however not to be downplayed as a less significant change in how the EU approaches its foreign policy. The consultation aspect is in fact essential to reaching agreement and the importance of not only presenting a united front to the rest of the world (the EU is exemplary in trade policy and environmental policy, but less important when it comes to presenting a united voice in foreign policy as Belgian Foreign minister Mark Eyskens put it in 1991 “Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm” 1, but also creating a united front through collaboration and debate. One should thus see this not only as a means to an end, but rather as an important mechanism in itself, whereby new identities are slowly created along with a deeper sense of commitment to a common set of values.  1. Craig R Whitney, ‘WAR IN THE GULF: EUROPE; Gulf Fighting Shatters Europeans’ Fragile Unity’,

Consultation, collaboration and the attempted creation of a common set of values has not worked and is not likely to work. This language is not much different from what we have heard with every attempt the EU has made to push for further political integration. The role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as agreed upon back in 1993 during the Maastricht Treaty, was in fact presented very much along similar lines. Fifteen years later however, that united front has not been created. If anything, the EU’s political union, and certain any attempts towards a common foreign policy, have completely disintegrated when faced with the War in Iraq and the larger war on terror and more recently the Euro debt crisis on another front.


Question: Can acts of terrorism ever be justified?

Acts of terrorism can ever be justified.

Acts of terrorism can never be justified.

Terrorism is relative  The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars - all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.  A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas - what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn't it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don't civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state?  There will always be grey areas that might be justified, under the broader definition most armed forces in history could be accused of terrorism particularly acts such as the bombing of cities during World War II. While under the narrower definition the various resisitance groups during the same war would count. Perhaps at a half way house would be independence movements including the American Revolution.

States who ignore the Geneva Conventions, for example by mistreating prisoners or deliberately attacking civilian targets, are guilty of terrorism and this cannot be justified. Nor are the Conventions only applicable to warfare between sovereign states - their principles can be clearly applied in other kinds of conflict and used to distinguish between legitimate military struggle and indefensible terrorism.  Nor is it reasonable to argue that there are grey areas, and that civilians are sometimes legitimate targets - once such a claim has been made anything can eventually be "justified" in the name of some cause. All too often the political leaderships of protest movements have decided that limited "physical force" is necessary to advance their cause, only to find the violence spiralling out of control. The "hard men" who are prepared to use force end up in control of the movement, which increasingly attracts criminals and others who love violence for its own sake. The original base of support for the movement in the wider population and internationally is alienated. The authorities against whom the movement is struggling also respond by using increasingly repressive measures of their own, generating a spiral of violence and cruelty.


Question: Is the use of mercenaries beneficial for the security of unstable states?

The use of mercenaries is beneficial for the security of unstable states.

The use of mercenaries is not beneficial for the security of unstable states.

PMCs provide a service that may be otherwise unavailable.  Many nation states have achieved sufficient unity to rely on their own armies but for those which cant, mercenary forces provide an invaluable and possibly only mode of protection and security. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw believes that in an era of “small wars and weak states” mercenaries have a “legitimate role” (The Economist, 2002). Mercenaries may be the only way of providing short term security guarantees to allow a government to establish itself without relying on warlords or one side of an ethnic conflict. This could be the only way out of a pattern of coup and counter-coup. Recruiting local mercenaries also has the benefits of reducing transportation costs, instant readiness as well as any knowledge of the local politics, geography and customs which may be highly valuable to a security force. These local recruits may be less inclined to share this information with a government force.

The use of mercenaries is counterproductive for unstable states. By relying on hired mercenaries weak states encourage private competition rather than reinforcing their own nascent armies. The emergence of powerful local, as well as international, mercenary organisations frustrates the ultimate goal of securing a state monopoly over the use of force. There are many cases where mercenaries have remained in a region long after their official contract ended in an attempt to exploit regional instability in order to further a particular ideological cause or reap financial reward. Colonel Bob Denard fought vaguely “against Communism” in Africa and attempted to overthrow the government of the Comoros Islands off Madagascar on four separate occasions. Similarly, Colonel “Mad” Mike Hoare tried to topple the government of the Seychelles in 1981, arriving with 43 mercenaries disguised as rugby playing members of a beer-tasting club named The Ancient Order of Froth Blowers. Furthermore, PMCs may be helpful in resolving conflicts in the short-term, they are not viable solutions because they do nothing to actually solve the problem in the long-term.


Question: Is control over natural resources the main cause of conflict in Africa?

Control over natural resources is the main cause of conflict in Africa.

Control over natural resources is not the main cause of conflict in Africa.

Resources are a source of conflict  There is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.  [1] Pandergast, 2008,   [2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014

Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.  [1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010


Question: Should nations prioritize their own economic development over international labor standards?

Nations should prioritize their own economic development over international labor standards.

Nations should not prioritize their own economic development over international labor standards.

Development has many facets of which pure economic growth is a priority, especially in the context of a developing nation  It is a nation’s own sovereign decision to decide its own standards and pace itself. It is a sovereign right of self-determination of a nation to freely comply or refuse to comply with international standards. It is unfair to back a developing nation up against a wall and force them to ratify higher standards in return for aid.  It is notable that the countries that have developed fastest have often been those that have ignored the whims of the aid donors. The Asian tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, later followed by South East Asia and China) did not receive aid, but preserved authority over their developmental policies. Their success story does not involve the international labour standards and goes against many of the policy prescriptions, such as free trade, of international institutions, such as the World Bank and the ILO [1] . This shows that nations that follow their national interest rather than bending to the whims of donors are the ones that ultimately do best economically. These states only implement labour standards when they become beneficial; when it is necessary to build and maintain an educated labour force.  [1] Chang, Ha-Joon, “Infant Industry Promotion in Historical Perspective – A Rope to Hang Oneself or a Ladder to Climb With?”, a paper for the conference “Development Theory at the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century”, 2001,

The concept of a nation’s sovereignty is losing weight against the rights of a global citizen. Citizens everywhere in the world should be able to enjoy equal standards of employment and not suffer at the hands of a nation’s neglect. The rights of a nebulous entity such as the state should not be equated with the much more vital rights of individual workers to humane standards of treatment and good working conditions.


Question: Should the right to bear arms be restricted in certain areas like Washington DC?

The right to bear arms should be restricted in certain areas like Washington DC.

The right to bear arms should not be restricted in certain areas like Washington DC.

Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC  Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has.  It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state.  In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked.  Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.2

The issue with Washington DC and certain states in the U.S. is that the police and the state are unable to protect people. The opposition believes that people who visit violence upon one another should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, within certain areas of DC, the state consistently fails to protect its citizens and enforce its monopoly of violence in a just and effective fashion.  In doing so the state is failing to uphold its part of its agreement with its citizens. Further, if police in these areas are corrupt in any way, then the state is actively visiting harm upon its citizens.  If the state is failing to maintain its monopoly on violence then the citizens of that area have to take over in order to provide for their own security. The citizens of DC have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves.  The failure is thus on the part of the state for deaths in DC. Citizens within the state should not have their rights curtailed for what is essentially a failing of the state.3


Question: Are racial quotas in Rugby Union likely to lead to sanctions by the International Rugby Board?

Racial quotas in Rugby Union are likely to lead to sanctions by the International Rugby Board.

Racial quotas in Rugby Union are not likely to lead to sanctions by the International Rugby Board.

IRB rules  Racial quotas are a breach of the views of the world governing body of Rugby Union, the International Rugby Board [1] . If this were found to be the case then it would have a large negative impact on South African rugby.  An IRB intervention would lead to at least interference by the governing body, which would be highly embarrassing for the SARU (as well as difficult for a sport which has had major political rows before), or even worse, some form of sanction or expulsion – things that could lead to long term instability in the sport, which should be avoided.  [1] SARugbymag.co.za, ‘Saru quotas ‘breach IRP rules’’, 3 December 2013,

The IRB did not take action against the previous system of quotas: why would they be likely to take action against a new system?  Also, there is a clear difference between the sort of racial discrimination that occurred in the sport during the apartheid era, and affirmative action policies. Positive discrimination does not prevent anyone from having a chance at playing; it simply gives those who are less fortunate a leg up.


Question: Is there a genuine controversy within the scientific community regarding the validity of the theory of evolution?

There is a genuine controversy within the scientific community regarding the validity of the theory of evolution.

There is no genuine controversy within the scientific community regarding the validity of the theory of evolution.

There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.  Many scientists do not accept the conclusions of the evolutionists. People like Dr. Michael Behe have dedicated themselves to exposing the flaws in evolution and showing that there is very real disagreement within the scientific community. This controversy is highlighted in the many court cases, books, and televised debates occurring in countries all over the world [1] . Children deserve to hear about the controversy, and not to simply be fed one story set for them by the prevailing majority in the scientific community, even if that community cannot claim anything near consensus. Until consensus is reached and indisputable proof of one theory or the other given, both sides should be taught in schools.  [1] Linder, Doug, 2011. “The Evolution Controversy”. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all. [1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm.  [1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Question: Is terrorism ever justifiable to achieve desired outcomes?

Terrorism is justifiable to achieve desired outcomes.

Terrorism is not justifiable to achieve desired outcomes.

Consequentialism  Actions can only be justified by their outcomes, and if the outcome of an act of terror is an overall increase of justice, freedom and welfare, this action is therefore legitimate. Many people around the world suffer on a daily basis from poverty, injustices and violence. Generally, these people did not choose to suffer, nor was it a result of their actions; therefore it can be seen as a logical conclusion that it is a good thing that this suffering is diminished. However, authorities might not always agree to redistribution or an acknowledgement of rights, and more drastic measures are needed to obtain the goal. If, in this case, the use of acts of terror is needed to obtain greater goods such as justice and equality, and this would mean that on balance, more people would gain more utility, the action would be justified. In this way, terrorism can be seen as an effective weapon in a revolutionary struggle that results in progression. A very current example are the terrorist attacks in several Middle Eastern countries that have led to the Arab spring, such as the attack on the Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh. [1]  [1] Sinjab, L. (2011, June 3). Yemen: President Saleh injured in attack on palace. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News:

The end does not justify the means. Even in cases of oppression, it is better to persecute your interest through non-violent and legal means. There may be cases where only an act of terror will lead to a direct improvement of overall utility, but these cases are very rare. Often terrorist attacks are performed by extremist groups who have views that differ from the majority of the community they claim to represent. Most people prefer non-violent means, and the repercussions of violent terrorist acts, such as the invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban, will largely worsen the position of the marginalized in society.


Question: Is transparency about a leader's health detrimental to diplomatic negotiations?

Transparency about a leader's health is detrimental to diplomatic negotiations.

Transparency about a leader's health is not detrimental to diplomatic negotiations.

Damages diplomacy to be too open  Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal.  1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76

If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy.


Question: Is the graduated response a fair way to enforce copyright legislation?

The graduated response is a fair way to enforce copyright legislation.

The graduated response is not a fair way to enforce copyright legislation.

A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation  First, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine.  Secondly, the consumer has ample time to change his or her behaviour: a consumer can insist on infringing copyright at least two times before the sanction takes place. The consumer can easily avoid being cut off (even temporarily), meaning the punishment likely doesn’t even have to take place. [1]  [1] Barry Sookman, ‘Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times’, January 10th, 2010. URL:

Graduated response is a draconian punishment  Citizens these days rely on their internet connection for their everyday lives: banking transactions, filing tax forms, and other forms of essential communication are all done online. Cutting access to these basic services is a draconian punishment: it basically amounts to making daily life a whole lot harder. Even if essential services were to remain accessible to the offender they could lose access to things somehow considered less vital such as their online social life. The punishment in no way is proportionate to the ‘crime’ of downloading a song that would have cost 99 cents on iTunes.


Question: Is internet access considered a human right?

Internet access is considered a human right.

Internet access is not considered a human right.

Being a human right does not prevent commoditization going alongside this. Everyone has a right to own property, as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, but it is accepted that property is also valuable in a commercial sense. Or more generally everyone has a right to shelter and this means that governments provide council housing and shelters for the homeless at the same time as houses often having very high prices. The human right is for a very basic level while those who wish can pay for more.

Internet access is a commodity not a human right.  If a human right is inherent and inalienable then if something is to be a human right it has to be freely available for all rather than being much more available to those who are rich. The internet however is a commodity. We are charged for access to it and can be cut off for not paying our bills. We are charged more to be able to download more, in effect to have greater access to this human right. There has never been any suggestion that the equally great media advances of TV and telephones are technologies worthy of being considered a human right. As with the internet these increased the ability to express opinions to a wide audience, they helped democratise news and making it much more international. They meant that human rights violations could be much more easily told to the world in much the same way the internet does.


Question: Is terrorism ever a justified response to oppression and injustice?

Terrorism can be a justified response to oppression and injustice.

Terrorism cannot be a justified response to oppression and injustice.

Legitimacy  In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause.  Every individual or (minority) group has the right to express its discontent. The state, being a representation of the people, should facilitate this possibility. Even more, the state should support the rights of minorities, in order to prevent the will of the majority suppressing the rights of people with other interests. If this does not happen, the state has failed to serve its purpose and loses its legitimacy. This, in combination with the growing inequalities and injustices amongst certain groups, justifies committing acts of terror in order to defend these rights, that were denied in the first place.  For instance, Umkhonto we Sizwe, a liberation organisation associated with the African National Congress in South Africa and led by Nelson Mandela, decided in 1961 to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation and the abolishment of Apartheid. The reason they gave was:  “The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. (...) Refusal to resort to force has been interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the people without any fear of reprisals. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.” [1]  [1] African National Congress. (1961, December 16). Manifesto. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from African National Congress:

Terrorism is never justified. Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. If this cannot happen inside the state, there are international courts such as the International Criminal Court in the The Hague, which handle cases such as war crimes and oppression. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent protest is the only moral action. And in the most extreme cases, in which subject populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals from the attacked state, it is especially important for groups not to resort to terror. Terrorism merely exacerbates a situation, and creates a cycle of violence and suffering.


Question: Would joining the Euro reduce the overall cost of travel for British citizens?

Joining the Euro would reduce the overall cost of travel for British citizens.

Joining the Euro would not reduce the overall cost of travel for British citizens.

Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe.  Before the arrival of the single currency, holiday makers would spend much money on preparing for the trip, before they had even bought a single souvenir or postcard; “travellers touring this fragmented continent could spend large amounts of their money simply changing it from one currency to another.”1 The loss incurred by currency conversion would be eliminated and accommodation abroad will also be cheaper and easier to book; “Joining the Euro will also make it cheaper to send money around Europe. Sending money to book a holiday cottage in another country with another currency can cost £40. Within Euroland, it would cost less than one Euro - much less than one pound.”2  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 102  2Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 103

This theory does not transfer to practice successfully. Questions of lifestyle (such as holidays) under the Euro cannot be treated in isolation. Converting to the Euro will have a series of knock –on effects which are all interconnected, affecting and effected by one another. One of these is the inevitability of higher inflation. With increased inflation, there will be increased unemployment; There will be even more British jobless who cannot afford to go on holiday. Moreover, as explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “These savings are a mere fraction of the total cost of going on holiday.”1  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 103


Question: Is restricting freedom of speech and press necessary for Rwanda's economic development?

Restricting freedom of speech and press is necessary for Rwanda's economic development.

Restricting freedom of speech and press is not necessary for Rwanda's economic development.

Setting Rwanda's priorities  Rwanda is an emerging democracy healing from the wounds of the horrific past. To achieve the set vision, there should be a priority which in this case is economic development[1].  A large number of Rwandans believe that the government should focus on transforming the nation economically although it may mean restricting free speech, which has prompted a huge participation in government development programs like Ubudehe[2]. Freedom of speech and press needs to be restricted if the government wants to engage in unlimited development; there is no time to engage in long debates over whether a particular project is being implemented the correct way. Having freedom of speech and press would hinder the government’s ability to manage the resources of the state and to encourage investors who don’t want to have protests to their building factories, or have labour complaining about not being paid enough.  Whether a country puts rights or the economy first is up to the individual country, Rwanda has chosen.  [1] Horand, Knaup, ‘Kagame's Priorities for Rwanda: First Prosperity, then Freedom of Expression’, Spiegel.de, 12 August 2010  [2] NS world, ‘Rwanda Engages Citizens in Community-Level development’, nsworld.org

While the government of Rwanda has chosen the economy this does not mean the people agree – simply that the government controls the narrative so giving the impression, or persuading them that they agree.  Restricting free speech and press has increased critics from the Rwandan diaspora evidence that inside the country, citizens have no way of putting forward their say[1]. Economic growth is not the only kind of progress. In order to drive forward the economy Rwanda is stunting the progress of individual rights.  [1] Keung, Nicholas, ‘Paul Kagame: Rwanda’s saviour or strongman?’, thestar.com, 26 September 2013


Question: Have past reparations been successful in satisfying the recipient countries?

Past reparations have been successful in satisfying the recipient countries.

Past reparations have not been successful in satisfying the recipient countries.

There is already a precedent for paying reparations to such states.  In the past, dominating global powers have paid reparations and compensation for historical wrongs. For example, Germany pays an annual amount of money to Israel to recognise wrongs committed against Jews during the Holocaust, and to recognise the theft of Jewish property at this time [1] . These reparations have helped Israeli infrastructure enormously, providing ‘railways and telephones, dock installations and irrigation plants, whole areas of industry and agriculture’ [2] and contributing to Israeli economic security. Japan also paid reparations to Korea after World War II as the Koreans were ‘deprived of their nation and their identity’ [4] . Britain has paid compensation to the New Zealand Maoris for the damage done during colonial times and the seizure of their land [5] , and Iraq pays compensation to Kuwait for damage done during the invasion and occupation of 1990-91 [6] . There is little reason why other nations should not be paid for the grievances caused to them by domination countries. There is support for the notion that colonial powers should pay for free universal education in Africa [7] ; this would be an entirely appropriate and desirable measure.  [1] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014,   [2] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014,   [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [6] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [7] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

These reparations have done little to satisfy the recipient countries. For example, Israel asked Germany to improve the reparations agreement [1] , which resulted in Germany withdrawing reparations entirely [2] and only served to increase tensions between the two nations. Furthermore, Israel has become reliant on German reparation money [3] , suggesting that reparations do not in fact allow the recipient country to develop their whole national identity without ties to former dominating countries. Moreover, despite the payment of reparations from Italy to Libya, Libya still believes that it was ‘insufficient compensation for colonial damages’ [4] . Just because reparations have been made in the past does not, by any means, show that they were successful or indeed that they are the best option available in the present day.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11


Question: Does implementing an English-only policy stigmatize non-English speakers?

Implementing an English-only policy stigmatizes non-English speakers.

Implementing an English-only policy does not stigmatize non-English speakers.

It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language  Almost no one in the United States knows English, but then chooses not to use it to make some sort of political statement. The language is far too omnipresent in the economy, culture, and everyday life to make such a choice attractive or even sane.  Nor do people generally choose not to learn English. The advantages and opportunities it opens up, and the stigmas and discrimination facing non-English speakers mean that learning English is one of the first things any immigrant is going to try and do.  In reality therefore we are going to be talking about people who can’t speak English, either because they have not learned it yet, or because they can’t learn it. Perhaps they don’t have the time between working two jobs, or perhaps they find it difficult.  In any case, if this policy is simply symbolic it will stigmatize these people. If it goes further, it will actively make their lives worse, and perhaps make it even harder for them to learn English.

This policy does not stigmatize people who cannot speak English. It rather affirms the hard work of those who have. There are numerous stories of how proud immigrants have been to take their citizenship test, and by strengthening the idea of identity it makes it more meaningful.  Secondly, if money is redirected from bilingual education to providing individual tutoring, it may well help individuals who have trouble learning English in a class environment. It has never been suggested that the government has no role to play in helping people learn English.


Question: Is harming others justified in acts of rebellion against a government or authorities?

Harming others is justified in acts of rebellion against a government or authorities.

Harming others is not justified in acts of rebellion against a government or authorities.

In extreme cases, it is justified to harm others. It can be argued that the population of a nation is complicit in the crimes that their government commits, because they support the regime by paying tax. Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to America' justifies attacking civilians by stating that they are a complicit part in the American military actions abroad because they have chosen their government democratically, and pay taxes to fund their actions. [1]  Secondly, attacks on authorities can get rid of dictators or repressive regimes. Thirdly, commodities such as infrastructure can be used by the government for the promotion of certain groups and to marginalize others. During South African Apartheid, townships were created where black people were forced to live, and which had very little amenities, while the areas where white people lived had much better provisions. [2]  [1] Laden, O. B. (2002, November 24). Letter to America. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Observer:   [2] SouthAfrica.info. (n.d.). Tackling Apartheid. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from SouthAfrica.info:

Harm to others is never legitimate  Even in cases of suppression and deprivation of human rights, it is not justified to harm others outside the law. Considering acts of terror, there are three possible targets: civilians, political, military or other powerful authorities and their representatives, and structures such as (government) buildings, cars etc. without any causalities. In the case of the first, it is illegitimate to kill innocent civilians because not only have these people not contributed to the terrorists' marginalization, which means that hurting them will not undo the cause of harm, but this also perpetuates the harm that was the cause for violence in the first place. In the case of the second target, the attack on authorities responsible for the marginalization might be removed in some cases (if there is one), but it more often results in backlash where supporters of the authorities act against the insurgents, resulting in more harm. This happened with the Kurdish revolt against the Turkish authorities, which led to a guerilla war with over 30.000 causalities. [1] Thirdly, attacking the infrastructure of a country means disabling the population for accessing their basic capacities such as accessing healthcare by destroying roads or hospitals. Regarding the fact that the population is innocent in the crimes of the government, this is unnecessary and harmful for the whole population.  [1] Washington Post. (1999). Who Are the Kurds? Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Washington Post:


Question: Does banning religious symbols, such as the Hijab, promote unity in society?

Banning religious symbols, such as the Hijab, promotes unity in society.

Banning religious symbols, such as the Hijab, does not promote unity in society.

Religious symbols cause division within Western society.  Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations.  1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011

Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations.  1 'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011


Question: Would the creation of an ICC enforcement arm lead to a higher rate of arrest for indicted individuals?

The creation of an ICC enforcement arm would lead to a higher rate of arrest for indicted individuals.

The creation of an ICC enforcement arm would not lead to a higher rate of arrest for indicted individuals.

An ICC Enforcement arm would bring in a higher proportion of defendants in to trial  Eight out of the thirty people indicted by the ICC (four in the Darfur situation, including Omar al-Bashir, three Lord’s Resistance Army leaders in Uganda and one in the DR Congo investigation) are still alive and avoiding justice. An in-house enforcement arm would be more effective at capturing indictees than many of the forces of the state parties, as it is likely to be more competent than many of the under-resourced or under-trained national forces. An in house force would be solely focused on capturing the wanted war criminals so would both be focusing resources and much less likely to be sidetracked by other priorities (many of which may be influenced by politics) than national forces. One of the suggested solutions to the failure to capture Joseph Kony and leaders of the LRA is to have greater involvement of peacekeepers; an ICC force would provide the same kind of help. [1]  [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012,

An enforcement arm would still have finite resources. There is no guarantee that an ICC in-house enforcement system would arrest more suspects than the existing system of state bilateral co-operation. This is particularly the case in relation to the most thorny problems the ICC faces – how to catch those who have the backing of their state. An independent force would not enable the ICC to snatch Omar al-Bashir out of Sudan unless the proposal was to create a special forces style force and any such action would have large diplomatic repercussions.


Question: Should handguns be banned in cities?

Handguns should not be banned in cities.

Handguns are uniquely dangerous when compared with other weapons  Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them.  Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients.  As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.4

Opposition agrees that handguns have unique advantages over other weapons; however, banning handguns in this area would lead to worse problems which are mentioned here as well as in the first point of opposition.  The biggest issue with banning handguns, especially in a city, is that handguns will still be available to criminal classes willing to simply import the weapons from elsewhere. Due to their concealable nature it is very easy for them to smuggle handguns into an area where a handgun ban has been imposed. This is problematic because law abiding citizens in this area will now not have guns to defend themselves with. As such an asymmetry of power has been created where the people who bear guns, mainly criminals have weapons which give them significantly more power than the citizens in that area.  Under the status quo, the legality of handguns means that although they are more dangerous than other weapons, their availability works in citizens’ favour. This is because the asymmetry of power mentioned above is then weighted in the other direction. If a large proportion of the population have handguns for self-defence then there will be a greater chance that criminals attempting to commit violent acts will encounter individuals carrying weapons, resulting in an equality of power between both attacking and defending parties. The asymmetry is then pushed towards the defensive parties because presumably there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. As such those who wish to use guns for defensive purposes outnumber those who want to use guns for criminal purposes, weighting power in favour of those defending themselves. This is verified by the incredibly common use of handguns in self-defence; roughly 80% of self-defence actions involve handguns.4