topic
stringclasses 135
values | context
stringlengths 48
2.41k
| section
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **A Practical Solution**
There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system. | Points For |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor**
The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.) | Points For |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **Organ donors are more deserving of organs**
Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest. | Points For |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **People ought to donate their organs anyway**
Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so. | Points For |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **A Practical Solution**
There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system. | Points Against |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor**
The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.) | Points Against |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **Organ donors are more deserving of organs**
Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest. | Points Against |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **People ought to donate their organs anyway**
Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so. | Points Against |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **The right to access healthcare is absolute**
Healthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death. The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}. While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated. What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent. The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t. To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government. | Points Against |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo**
Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just. | Points Against |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.**
For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights. | Points Against |
Deny Organs to Non-Donors | **People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs**
Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body. | Points Against |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **Internet governance must be multinational**
The internet is global, things on the internet do not just affect one country, indeed they often don’t just affect a small group of countries but affect every country. This is especially true of issues of internet governance as setting the rules for the internet and the architecture has to be for the whole internet not isolated bits of it. The function that ICANN currently performs is one that should rightfully be done internationally in the interests of all the nations. This is not the case at the moment as the United States has essentially has a monopoly on internet governance. While ICANN is an independent non-profit body it is under contract from the U.S. department of Commerce and is subject to U.S. laws.[1] | Points For |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **Governments not ‘civil society’ must be in control of internet governance**
It is governments who are in charge of setting public policy within countries so it makes sense that these same governments should set public policy in the international sphere;[1] this is why international organisations have been set up and why it is governments that are represented in them. Internet governance should also be the purview of governments on account of the wide range of issues it covers. These include who gets access to the technical resources of the internet, intellectual property, participation in the online economy (which now has an immense impact on the physical economy as well - just consider how the financial markets around the world are interconnected in part as a result of the internet), freedom of expression, and security which ultimately can affect national security and the high politics if balance of power.[2] Private companies and civil society will inevitably only represent a minority of opinions within these countries and cannot be said to truly represent their country, the right place for them is in providing advice to their governments rather than through direct control such as that currently held by ICANN. | Points For |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **Simplicity**
One of the best things about the proposal to create CIRP is that it simply brings the internet into line with other areas of international communication and the global economy by bringing the internet into the United Nations system. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for example is the body that allocates radio spectrums and satellite orbits, in other words it does for telecommunications what ICANN does for the internet, and it is a United Nations agency.[1] The ITU has 193 countries as members but is also open to the private sector and academia, just as CIRP would be.[2] Having internet governance working through the United Nations would therefore mean using a tried and tested method of governance. | Points For |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **Internet governance must be multinational**
The internet is global, things on the internet do not just affect one country, indeed they often don’t just affect a small group of countries but affect every country. This is especially true of issues of internet governance as setting the rules for the internet and the architecture has to be for the whole internet not isolated bits of it. The function that ICANN currently performs is one that should rightfully be done internationally in the interests of all the nations. This is not the case at the moment as the United States has essentially has a monopoly on internet governance. While ICANN is an independent non-profit body it is under contract from the U.S. department of Commerce and is subject to U.S. laws.[1] | Points Against |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **Governments not ‘civil society’ must be in control of internet governance**
It is governments who are in charge of setting public policy within countries so it makes sense that these same governments should set public policy in the international sphere;[1] this is why international organisations have been set up and why it is governments that are represented in them. Internet governance should also be the purview of governments on account of the wide range of issues it covers. These include who gets access to the technical resources of the internet, intellectual property, participation in the online economy (which now has an immense impact on the physical economy as well - just consider how the financial markets around the world are interconnected in part as a result of the internet), freedom of expression, and security which ultimately can affect national security and the high politics if balance of power.[2] Private companies and civil society will inevitably only represent a minority of opinions within these countries and cannot be said to truly represent their country, the right place for them is in providing advice to their governments rather than through direct control such as that currently held by ICANN. | Points Against |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **Simplicity**
One of the best things about the proposal to create CIRP is that it simply brings the internet into line with other areas of international communication and the global economy by bringing the internet into the United Nations system. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for example is the body that allocates radio spectrums and satellite orbits, in other words it does for telecommunications what ICANN does for the internet, and it is a United Nations agency.[1] The ITU has 193 countries as members but is also open to the private sector and academia, just as CIRP would be.[2] Having internet governance working through the United Nations would therefore mean using a tried and tested method of governance. | Points Against |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **The internet should be governed in the interests of freedom**
The internet is used by everyone and so should be governed in such a way as reflects the desires of the users of the internet; and this is somewhere where internet users are often at odds with their governments. Where the freedom of individuals are concerned it is undoubtedly the bottom up system of ICANN which will be less restrictive than the option of top down control through an international organisation in which governments have the lion’s share of the power. While governments are meant to be protecting the interests of their people and their rights it is rare that this is actually the case. More usually it is states that are violating the rights of their citizens both online and offline as is shown by the human rights records of countries like Iran and China. On the internet government involvement equally regularly means attempts by states to create restrictions and prevent the internet from being a place where citizens have freedom of expression. This can even be the case in democracies, for example in South Korea a critic of the government who called the president names found his twitter account blocked as a result.[1] | Points Against |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **CIRP would place power in the hands of authoritarian governments**
The intention for the creation of CIRP is to give more power to governments, and particularly to authoritarian governments that wish much greater control over the internet. If CIRP is meant to enable “enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet”[1] this may result in CIRP becoming an international organisation that would impose censorship on the internet. This is practically an inevitable result as the main tool of government is regulation. In the case of the internet such regulation will mean more controls on what users can and cannot do online. | Points Against |
Should a new global body, the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies, take over inte | **The status quo has been very successful; don’t fix something that is not broken.**
The current system for control of the internet has been successful in managing phenomenal growth in the internet with very few problems. ICANN has been a success precisely because it does not focus on politics but on making the internet as efficient as possible, in contrast the telecommunications sector remained static and costly for a long time as a result of government interference.[1] Experts such as Rajnesh Singh argue ICANN’s “multi-stakeholder approach has proven to be nimble and effective in ensuring the stability, security, and availability of the global infrastructure, while still giving sovereign nations the flexibility to enact and enforce relevant Internet legislation within their borders… This model has been a key contributor to the breathtaking evolution and expansion of the Internet worldwide.”[2] It is this openness that has contributed to the internet generating 10% of GDP growth in the rich world over the last fifteen years.[3] | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.**
Migrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws. | Points For |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.**
Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy."[1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap. | Points For |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so**
Migrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group."[1] Ratifying the U.N. convention would create specific changes in many countries that would finally make migrants less vulnerable. For example, Articles 26 and 40 provide all migrant workers the right to join and form trade unions, which is banned for them in all of the Arab Gulf states.[2] Protecting the right to unionize, allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, which is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term. | Points For |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.**
The economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization. | Points For |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries.**
Migrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international problems. | Points For |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.**
Migrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.**
Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy."[1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so**
Migrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group."[1] Ratifying the U.N. convention would create specific changes in many countries that would finally make migrants less vulnerable. For example, Articles 26 and 40 provide all migrant workers the right to join and form trade unions, which is banned for them in all of the Arab Gulf states.[2] Protecting the right to unionize, allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, which is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.**
The economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries.**
Migrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international problems. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.**
Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to ratify the U.N. Convention because of the burden it would put on their health, education, and welfare systems.**
Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries. Therefore it is not practical for countries to grant them the equal access to health, education, and welfare systems, as they would have to under the U.N. Convention. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons.[1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them detracts from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high**
Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. This implies an obligation of other states to receive them, and so it would protect increased migration. Further, the right to family reunification for documented migrants, found in Article 50, would also increase migration. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **If states were to ratify the U.N. Convention, many of them would not be able to protect their national identities.**
A state-by-state approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a "Jewish state"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights. | Points Against |
That all states should immediately ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and t | **The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country.**
States have the right to deport people who entered the country illegally, and the U.N. Convention would make that more difficult. The Convention gives extensive rights even to illegal immigrants, especially in the realm of the justice system (Article 17). Indeed, migrant activists often see deportation policies as immoral. Yet, a state has every right to arrest, imprison, and deport illegal immigrants. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime (in addition to unlawful entry into the country), states are often forced to pay to keep the criminal in prison, rather than deport him. The United States loses half-a-billion dollars each year this way.[1] Ultimately it's a matter of enforcing national laws, sovereignty, and the integrity of a nation's welfare-system. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:**
Physics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding.[1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief.[2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy. | Points For |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:**
If God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled.[1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition. | Points For |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:**
Many people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason.[1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being.[2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation. | Points For |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:**
A creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible.[1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position. | Points For |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:**
God, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim.[1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt. | Points For |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:**
The reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes.[1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions.[2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods. | Points For |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:**
It seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side.[1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate. | Points For |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:**
Physics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding.[1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief.[2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:**
If God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled.[1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:**
Many people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason.[1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being.[2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:**
A creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible.[1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:**
God, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim.[1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:**
The reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes.[1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions.[2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:**
It seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side.[1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism:**
In a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other.[1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:**
Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power.[1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed.[2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense. | Points Against |
This House believes atheism is the only way | **Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist it must be caused:**
Every human, every being, every object in the Universe is a finite and contingent being. These all have causes, yet a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Humans are born, stars form from gases, even the Universe had a beginning 4.3 billion years ago. Nothing in the Universe causes itself. In order to escape the logical impossibility of the infinite causality loop it is necessary to posit the existence of an uncaused cause. This cause exists outside of the Universe, as it is cause of the Universe.[1] Without a creator, the Universe is a logical absurdity. Atheism cannot provide an alternative explanation to a creator, and thus fails quite literally from the beginning. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients**
If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished. | Points For |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It blocks a significant amount of evidence**
A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result. | Points For |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It places excessive moral burden on solicitors**
With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone. | Points For |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance**
One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent[1]. In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated. | Points For |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations**
Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death. | Points For |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients**
If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It blocks a significant amount of evidence**
A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It places excessive moral burden on solicitors**
With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance**
One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent[1]. In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations**
Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It supports the principle that everyone is entitled to a defence**
In criminal, civil or commercial matters, it is important that everyone has equal access to the law. This ensures a fair and just system. In order to facilitate this principle, even those in the wrong need to know that what they say to their legal representative will not be used against them at a later date. It is this principle that provides equality in the court room and therefore the principle of client attorney privilege needs to be maintained. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case**
An attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”.[1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice. | Points Against |
This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished | **Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately**
In exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications.[1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007[2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of**
Terrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1]. In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then. | Points For |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.**
Negative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’.[1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights[2]. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them. | Points For |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.**
The USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state.[1] | Points For |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.**
Let us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties[1]. It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security[2]. For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended.[3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves. | Points For |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.**
It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen. | Points For |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of**
Terrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1]. In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.**
Negative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’.[1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights[2]. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.**
The USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state.[1] | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.**
Let us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties[1]. It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security[2]. For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended.[3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.**
It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.**
The threat of terrorism is greatly over exaggerated. Western governments all over the world are effectively selling the threat of terrorism to their citizens in order to increase their powers of control. The threat, however, has to be exaggerated in order for the electorate to believe that the security measures are needed. The motives of governments doing this vary; some just want the new security measures to make their jobs easier; others however, see it as an opportunity to increase state control and power over the average citizen. There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since than it had been for several decades. For example there was the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 killing 270 people or the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut which killed 63.[1] While the scale is smaller than the 9/11 attacks they are just as terrible and were met with a much more measured response that did not involve infringing civil liberties. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.**
The proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans and many other groups were persecuted in World War II,[1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **It would be letting the terrorists win**
It is the aim of all terrorists to influence by violent means government policy. If we changed how our country was run we would be letting the terrorists win – they would be getting what they wanted. If we changed the way we lived[1], greater security measures or something else, we would be shaping our society to the tune of the terrorist. So more security measures at airports limit the freedom to travel, turning the country into a surveillance society makes everyone nervous; ultimately the country is no longer the same as it was having lost the freedoms which are the best way to combat terrorism. This is something perversely wrong. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **It impedes economic progress.**
Extra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade[1], make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers.[2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth. | Points Against |
This House Believes civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good | **In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone.**
Although the anti-terrorist measures are supposed to be trying to catch certain people, it is the whole of the public who have to suffer on a daily basis: an abundance of security cameras, security checks, and anti-privacy measures continually invade innocent people’s lives and yet it is supposed to be the terrorists who are being punished. The issue of justice, and whether it is actually being done, has to be fully looked at properly. These measures are not solving the problem of terrorism as it does not address the core grievances. Instead other ways such as negotiation to address grievances is necessary, as happened in Northern Ireland[1]. | Points Against |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.**
Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor[i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage[iii]. Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public. | Points For |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **Those unable to respond will be worst hit**
Smaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice. | Points For |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **This creates a dangerous precedent**
The idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example. | Points For |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.**
Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor[i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage[iii]. Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public. | Points Against |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **Those unable to respond will be worst hit**
Smaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice. | Points Against |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **This creates a dangerous precedent**
The idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example. | Points Against |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **Sponsors pay for the privilege**
Sponsors pay an enormous amount of money to support events such as the Olympics, it is only fair that they can protect themselves against ‘ambush advertising’ by competitors. This is an issue of simple financial reality. Although there have been some unpleasant – and probably unwise – accounts of smaller traders getting caught up in the crossfire, and opposition concedes that should be rectified in future events – the purpose of this kind of legislation and the regulations it spawns is to prevent direct competitors of sponsors finding ways to ambush the event[i]. | Points Against |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’.**
It would be both illegal and impractical for a sponsor to ‘buy’ the word “London”. The rules make it clear that they are not attempting to infringe on, for example, the right of journalists to report the Games nor on people to discuss them. A simple Google search will bring up thousands of articles – like this one – using the Olympic rings, the phrase “London 2012” and many of the others words and phrases that concern Proposition. At no point have the news organisations concerned been asked to pay. There is clearly a world of difference between an existing magazine running a feature about the event – indeed several features – and the creation of a one-off special publication stuffed full of advertising for a direct competitor of the event. | Points Against |
This House believes Corporations’ Use of IP Laws in Relation to Event Sponsorship Poses a Threat to | **Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events**
It is in the interests of communities and countries to attract sponsorship for events on this scale, as with other areas, such as transport, that requires a little sacrifice. Hosting major events, inevitably, requires some degree of inconvenience for those living in the area trying to go about their daily lives. These inconveniences are tolerated because there are wider benefits. In the instance of the Olympics, a core part of the initial bid was the assumption that hosting them would produce long term benefits for the city in the form of tourism[i] and regeneration.[ii] Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen although, given the number of historic venues used for events[iii], it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that it may be likely. | Points Against |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying Aim for Punishment**
Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Desert (retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself, in other words, punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no place in any enlightened society. | Points For |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender**
Rehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons.[1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole. | Points For |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying Aim for Punishment**
Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Desert (retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself, in other words, punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no place in any enlightened society. | Points Against |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender**
Rehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons.[1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole. | Points Against |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **Rehabilitation Does Not Serve The Needs of Society**
The primary goal of our criminal justice system is to remove offenders from general society and protect law abiding citizens. Many criminals are repeat offenders and rehabilitation can be a long and expensive process. In Jamaica, police claim repeat offenders are responsible for over 80% of local crime despite rehabilitation programmes in prisons.[1] Ideally therefore, retribution and rehabilitation should work hand in hand to protect citizens in the short and long term. There are some successful examples of this happening, where prisons encourage inmates to take part in group activities such as football. Some prisons have started cooking programmes where inmates learn to cook in a professional environment and leave with a qualification. However the first priority is the removal of the convicted criminal from society in order to protect the innocent. Rehabilitation should be a secondary concern. The primary concern of the criminal justice system should be the protection of the non-guilty parties. The needs of society are therefore met by the immediate removal of the offender. | Points Against |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **Rehabilitation Doesn’t Actually Work**
While some rehabilitative programmes work with some offenders (those who would probably change by themselves anyway), most do not. Many programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminal behaviour. In Britain, where rehabilitation has long been purported to stop re-offending, 58 per cent of those over-21 find themselves in trouble with the law within two years of release.[1] The rehabilitation programs simply do not work. ‘Rehabilitation’ is therefore a false promise – and the danger with such an illusory and impossible goal is that it is used as a front to justify keeping offenders locked up for longer than they deserve and sometimes even indefinitely (‘if we keep him here longer maybe he might change’). We cannot justify passing any heavier or more onerous a sentence on a person in the name of “rehabilitation” if “rehabilitation” does not work. | Points Against |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **How Would One Know a System of Rehabilitation Is Really Working**
The question “does it work” must be joined by the second question: “even if it does work, how can you tell, with each individual offender, when it has worked?” How would we check if this system is really working? Tagging prisoners? Free counselling for the prisoner for the rest of their life? These measures would require huge administration costs and then the question follows would it even be feasible to enforce such a system? | Points Against |
This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation. | **Rehabilitation Constitutes an Unjustifiable Further Expense**
The evidence from all over the world suggests that recidivism rates are difficult to reduce and that some offenders just can’t be rehabilitated. It therefore makes economic sense to cut all rehabilitation programs and concentrate on ensuring that prisoners serve the time they deserve for their crimes and are kept off the streets where they are bound to re-offend. As it can be seen that some deserving of a longer sentence only receive short sentences due to lack of time and space and some who have committed shorter sentences are given long sentences aimed at making a point or sending a message. | Points Against |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.**
There are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such? | Points For |
This House believes homosexuals should be able to adopt. | **There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.**
The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society. | Points For |