topic
stringclasses 135
values | context
stringlengths 48
2.41k
| section
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This House would return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin | **In many cases, returning an artefact may prove to be unreasonably expensive**
Even with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its original location would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism. Moreover, the infrastructure of developing countries is probably not sufficient to cope with that volume. Greece may have spent $200m developing a new museum but relatively it is one of the more wealthy countries of origin for artefacts in the British Museum; places such as Nigeria are unlikely to put such emphasis on cultural investment. | Points Against |
This House would store nuclear waste underground | **Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary**
Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. | Points For |
This House would store nuclear waste underground | **Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe**
Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1] | Points For |
This House would store nuclear waste underground | **Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary**
Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. | Points Against |
This House would store nuclear waste underground | **Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe**
Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1] | Points Against |
This House would store nuclear waste underground | **Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive.**
Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible. | Points Against |
This House would store nuclear waste underground | **There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage**
France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power.[1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary.[2] | Points Against |
This House would store nuclear waste underground | **Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity.**
There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.[1] | Points Against |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial**
All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge's duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. Mark Weston, for example, was convicted at a re-trial after specks of the victim's blood were found on Weston's shoes, justifying the re-opening of the case1. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing on solving similar cold cases will be expended and there will be very few retrials.
1 Bate, S. (2010, December 13). 'Loner' convicted of murder in double jeopardy re-trial. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Guardian: | Points For |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment**
The problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. In 2009, a footballer in London confessed to murdering his ex-girlfriend at a re-trial after fresh evidence was found to overturn the original verdict1; under previous double jeopardy laws in Britain, the murderer would have remained free. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before.
1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News: | Points For |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Double jeopardy could be abolished by state legislatures for all serious crimes whereby fresh, compelling evidence emerges**
The scrapping of the double jeopardy would be practicable if it was permitted for serious crimes, like murder and rape, and only when fresh, compelling evidence of guilt emerges that calls into question the original acquittal. Such restrictions on any scrapping of the rule would not tie up courts in re-trials, for they could only be called for certain crimes in certain, restricted conditions. The British Law Commission in a 2011 review concluded that whilst the ancient rule of double jeopardy is of 'fundamental importance', it should be possible to "quash acquittals in murder trials where there is 'reliable and compelling new evidence of guilt'". In practise, this would preserve the traditional advantages of the law, whilst ensuring that those who are guilty, and can be proved so, do not remain free. | Points For |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system**
When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. When Jennifer McDermott witnessed her daughter's murderer get convicted at a re-trial, she described it as a 'victory for everyone who feels let down by the justice system.'1 Victims deserve such justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free. As a Home Office spokesman stated when England overturned the double jeopardy ban, 'it is important the public should have full confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver justice.'1 Justice is only applicable when the perpetrators remain within the arm of the law; double jeopardy prevents this. | Points For |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial**
All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge's duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. Mark Weston, for example, was convicted at a re-trial after specks of the victim's blood were found on Weston's shoes, justifying the re-opening of the case1. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing on solving similar cold cases will be expended and there will be very few retrials.
1 Bate, S. (2010, December 13). 'Loner' convicted of murder in double jeopardy re-trial. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Guardian: | Points Against |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment**
The problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crime, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that. In 2009, a footballer in London confessed to murdering his ex-girlfriend at a re-trial after fresh evidence was found to overturn the original verdict1; under previous double jeopardy laws in Britain, the murderer would have remained free. We have as great a duty to ensure miscarriages of justice are not perpetrated on victims as on accused. An offence committed ten years ago does not cease to be an offence because time has passed, or because the perpetrator has managed to evade justice in the past. The criteria by which the decision to charge an individual is taken ought to be likelihood of guilt, not whether or not they have had a trial before.
1 BBC News a. (2009, May 21). Cleared man admits killing woman. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from BBC News: | Points Against |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Double jeopardy could be abolished by state legislatures for all serious crimes whereby fresh, compelling evidence emerges**
The scrapping of the double jeopardy would be practicable if it was permitted for serious crimes, like murder and rape, and only when fresh, compelling evidence of guilt emerges that calls into question the original acquittal. Such restrictions on any scrapping of the rule would not tie up courts in re-trials, for they could only be called for certain crimes in certain, restricted conditions. The British Law Commission in a 2011 review concluded that whilst the ancient rule of double jeopardy is of 'fundamental importance', it should be possible to "quash acquittals in murder trials where there is 'reliable and compelling new evidence of guilt'". In practise, this would preserve the traditional advantages of the law, whilst ensuring that those who are guilty, and can be proved so, do not remain free. | Points Against |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system**
When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if our attackers roam the streets because an arbitrary legal rule exempts them from prosecution despite clear guilt, then that system has broken down. When Jennifer McDermott witnessed her daughter's murderer get convicted at a re-trial, she described it as a 'victory for everyone who feels let down by the justice system.'1 Victims deserve such justice and it is an insult to them, and all of us, to see their persecutors go free. As a Home Office spokesman stated when England overturned the double jeopardy ban, 'it is important the public should have full confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to deliver justice.'1 Justice is only applicable when the perpetrators remain within the arm of the law; double jeopardy prevents this. | Points Against |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **The rule of law means less if it is being constantly overturned**
Respect for the law will diminish if criminal verdicts exist in a perpetual state of uncertainty. We need to be protected from the state in other ways, too - from the vindictive or obsessed policeman that will pursue a case because he 'knows' the accused, properly acquitted in a court of law, to be guilty nevertheless. The nature of our police force means that these instances are inevitable as it imparts a strong cognitive bias onto our policemen to look for guilt - so unless we mandate a rule determining when a line of investigation has to end, police will continue to focus on their chosen 'perpetrator' until they get the result that they have decided is correct. As Matthew Kelly QC notes, removing double jeopardy restrictions could 'lead to prosecutions routinely seeking a second bite of the cherry, if a case flopped first time for good reason.'1 | Points Against |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Double jeopardy protects the acquitted from the threat of constant harassment by the state**
We’re not just protecting ‘evil people’. The double jeopardy rule protects everyone from the danger of constant harassment from the state. The opposition would rather see a guilty man occasionally go free than see the resources of the state trained on individuals again and again and again, ‘until the state secured (the) popular result’ 1. The double jeopardy rule provides closure for both defendants and the prosecution; if the prosecution regret their case in the future, the fault lies not with the double jeopardy rule itself, but their decision to go to trial based on insufficient evidence. Citizens should not be forced to go through the stress of multiple trials due to the incompetence of the state. ‘If a person accused of a serious crime is acquitted, they are entitled to have some certainty in their future’2. That certainty can only be guaranteed if the prosecution is granted one attempt at a conviction, and one only. | Points Against |
This House would scrap the double jeopardy rule | **Double jeopardy ensures defendants are not brought to trial on weak grounds**
The implications of this should be looked at carefully. This would grant police and the prosecution the right to prosecute an individual if the evidence against them can be ‘reanalysed.’ Surely almost all cases could see such ‘improvement in investigatory techniques,’ allowing the state to pursue individuals at will. Presumably this ‘generation’ of techniques isn’t the last; why won’t the same logic hold in asking for a third trial? A fourth? A fifth?…Subsequently, if the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is scrapped, police work will be sloppier, because police detectives will know that the insurance of a second trial exists. The ‘one-shot’ rule forces investigations and prosecutions to be of as high a quality as possible. The abolishment of double jeopardy would be ‘merely a shortcut to prosecutors seeking unlimited re-trials until they get the verdict they want’ 1. Courts cannot be permitted to be tied up in such cases, nor can prosecutors be allowed to destroy the lives of defendants by enforcing such constant emotional turmoil. | Points Against |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material should be addressed and prevented by the state**
Copyrighted material is intellectual property: someone worked hard for it to produce it. Downloading this content without paying the proper rights holder for it amounts to theft. | Points For |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **A graduated response will be an effective deterrent**
Research has shown that consumers are likely to stop downloading from unauthorized sources when warned by their ISP. For example: Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP, and 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP.[1] | Points For |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation**
First, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine. | Points For |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material should be addressed and prevented by the state**
Copyrighted material is intellectual property: someone worked hard for it to produce it. Downloading this content without paying the proper rights holder for it amounts to theft. | Points Against |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **A graduated response will be an effective deterrent**
Research has shown that consumers are likely to stop downloading from unauthorized sources when warned by their ISP. For example: Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP, and 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP.[1] | Points Against |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation**
First, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine. | Points Against |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **The graduate response policy constitutes an invasion of privacy by the state**
Graduated response would require huge amounts of monitoring and logging of all internet traffic using technical systems called ‘deep packet inspection’ (DPI) equipment. This means that a computer program will look in close detail at all of the information someone sends over the internet in order to check whether it violates some protocol, for example a ‘fingerprint’ of copyrighted data that the content creator put in. | Points Against |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **ISP will not cooperate with a graduated response policy**
The graduated response model requires cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. If just one ISP refuses, users will flock towards that ISP to be able to keep on downloading. Therefore there will always be an incentive to be the ISP that refuses so as to gain custom from others who have agreed to cooperate. ISPs will also have an incentive to not cooperate because the cost of monitoring and identifying is large, and significantly more so for smaller ISPs: initial estimates of the cost of graduated response for ISPs were around 500 million pounds over a period of ten years.[1] | Points Against |
This House would use a graduated response to combat unauthorised file-sharing of copyrighted materia | **The graduated response is a violation of the basic right to due process**
Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement. | Points Against |
This house would use force to protect human rights abroad | **Interventions can be small and successful.**
It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq.[1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions. | Points For |
This house would use force to protect human rights abroad | **National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.**
States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state. | Points For |
This house would use force to protect human rights abroad | **Interventions can be small and successful.**
It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq.[1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions. | Points Against |
This house would use force to protect human rights abroad | **National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.**
States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state. | Points Against |
This house would use force to protect human rights abroad | **Foreign intervention fragments the conflict.**
The use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war.
The countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as "imperialists" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as "neo-colonialism" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country. | Points Against |
This house would use force to protect human rights abroad | **Force does more harm than good.**
The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect. | Points Against |
This house would use force to protect human rights abroad | **This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty.**
Human rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state[1]. | Points Against |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **Combating corruption**
Changing the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. Centralised government structures control aid distribution in many recipient countries. As a consequence, embezzlement by government officials has become more frequent and easier to conceal. Linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the recipient nation. The need to monitor which individuals and institutions receive donated funds, and to confirm that funds have been applied according to agreed plans and schedules still presents a difficult and intractable auditing problem. | Points For |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **Preventing dependence**
Direct aid creates dependence and a dangerous client culture among recipient states. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on the basis of need, but according to the political and policy objectives of donor states. The USA can muster the political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a year[i], but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (payment of fresh funds to recipients, as opposed to funds acquired by rescheduling existing aid obligations) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large proportionately. | Points For |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **Supporting domestic development and domestic markets**
Direct aid undermines local markets within developing states. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at a local or micro level, with private industry spurring growth and providing employment opportunities[i] that act to elevate consumer demand. Chile is often given as an example of a country which has grown in this way. | Points For |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **Combating corruption**
Changing the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. Centralised government structures control aid distribution in many recipient countries. As a consequence, embezzlement by government officials has become more frequent and easier to conceal. Linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the recipient nation. The need to monitor which individuals and institutions receive donated funds, and to confirm that funds have been applied according to agreed plans and schedules still presents a difficult and intractable auditing problem. | Points Against |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **Preventing dependence**
Direct aid creates dependence and a dangerous client culture among recipient states. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on the basis of need, but according to the political and policy objectives of donor states. The USA can muster the political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a year[i], but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (payment of fresh funds to recipients, as opposed to funds acquired by rescheduling existing aid obligations) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large proportionately. | Points Against |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **Supporting domestic development and domestic markets**
Direct aid undermines local markets within developing states. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at a local or micro level, with private industry spurring growth and providing employment opportunities[i] that act to elevate consumer demand. Chile is often given as an example of a country which has grown in this way. | Points Against |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **Protecting sovereignty**
The international community should respect the sovereignty of developing nations. Side proposition has attempted to mischaracterise states in receipt of aid as undemocratic, authoritarian, kleptocratic or Hobbesian wastelands. Side proposition has done precious little to acknowledge that many states that are reliant on ODA are functioning or emerging democracies. Kenya, despite its growing wealth and increasing trade with Asian states still makes extensive use of aid donations. In 2012 Kenya will hold elections for seats in its national legislature – its first since a presidential election degenerated into political violence in 2007. However, even this extended period of civil disorder was brought to an end when the main contenders in the presidential ballot agreed a power sharing deal – a peaceful compromise that has now been maintained for almost five years[i]. | Points Against |
This House would suspend directly delivered foreign development aid | **NGOs do not deliver aid effectively**
The idea that NGO’s are better able to deliver development aid has become received wisdom – accepted uncritically, repeated unthinkingly. Because charities do not have the political staying power of governments, nor a government’s ability to mobilise force or request assistance from intergovernmental bodies (such as the UN), they are often the first to withdraw when dormant war zones turn ‘hot’. Inevitably, and understandably, NGOs will always prioritise the lives of their staff and volunteers. | Points Against |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.**
Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside. | Points For |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **Providing secure channels is the easiest way to help dissidents and democracy activists**
If democracies are to provide money to help dissidents then this option of funding research into and distributing software to defeat censors is the easiest way in which to help these dissidents. Those who are trying to exercise their freedom of speech do not want help in the form of military intervention or diplomatic representations rather they want to have the space and capacity to exercise those freedoms. The internet means that for the first time it is possible for external actors to provide that platform for freedom of speech without having to take those who wish to exercise these freedoms outside of the country that is violating those freedoms. | Points For |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost**
Most government aid budgets are small and have numerous other important calls on their resources such as development aid. Between 2008 and 2011 the United States Congress funded the effort against internet censorship with $76 million.[1] While this may sound like a lot compared to the $168 million of aid to Liberia and $152 million to UNICEF in 2011 it is not a large commitment.[2] Yet due to the nature of the internet small investments can have immense benefits. Money spent on food aid will buy enough food to feed a limited amount of people yet if a technology is developed that allows internet users to get around censors and not be tracked then hundreds of millions would benefit. It would at the same time have the incalculable benefit of making it more difficult for authorities to track and crack down on those who are breaking the authorities’ censorship. | Points For |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.**
Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside. | Points Against |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **Providing secure channels is the easiest way to help dissidents and democracy activists**
If democracies are to provide money to help dissidents then this option of funding research into and distributing software to defeat censors is the easiest way in which to help these dissidents. Those who are trying to exercise their freedom of speech do not want help in the form of military intervention or diplomatic representations rather they want to have the space and capacity to exercise those freedoms. The internet means that for the first time it is possible for external actors to provide that platform for freedom of speech without having to take those who wish to exercise these freedoms outside of the country that is violating those freedoms. | Points Against |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost**
Most government aid budgets are small and have numerous other important calls on their resources such as development aid. Between 2008 and 2011 the United States Congress funded the effort against internet censorship with $76 million.[1] While this may sound like a lot compared to the $168 million of aid to Liberia and $152 million to UNICEF in 2011 it is not a large commitment.[2] Yet due to the nature of the internet small investments can have immense benefits. Money spent on food aid will buy enough food to feed a limited amount of people yet if a technology is developed that allows internet users to get around censors and not be tracked then hundreds of millions would benefit. It would at the same time have the incalculable benefit of making it more difficult for authorities to track and crack down on those who are breaking the authorities’ censorship. | Points Against |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **Violation of Sovereignty**
Sovereignty is the exercise of the fullest possible rights over a piece of territory; the state is ‘supreme authority within a territory’.[1] The sovereignty of nations has been recognised by all nations in article 2 of the UN charter.[2] Funding attempts by citizens of a nation to avoid its own government’s censorship efforts is clearly infringing upon matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states and is as such a violation of sovereignty. It is also clear that when it comes to enforcement of human rights there is a general rule should be followed that states should have the chance to solve their own internal problems domestically before there is international interference.[3] | Points Against |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **Funds could be better spent on helping development**
Access to the internet is not the most pressing concern that foreign aid should be used to solve. Instead aid should help the 1.4billion who live on less than a dollar a day,[1] the 216 million people infected with malaria every year,[2] or the 42 million people who have been uprooted by conflict and natural disaster.[3] Internet access while it has expanded immensely is still something that only the relatively rich have access to, not the kind of people that aid money should be spent on. | Points Against |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **Evading censorship is already possible and censorship does not prevent the use of the internet.**
Proposition itself concedes that authoritarian states in the vast majority of cases are unlikely to cut off access to the internet for their population entirely. For many people the internet is not about free speech but about economic benefits. Most don’t want to protest but rather carry on inane social discussions, play computer games and listen to music. Things that even authoritarian governments are happy to occur. This money is therefore not aimed at addressing the concerns of the vast majority of netizens. | Points Against |
This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and | **This will needlessly antagonise non-democratic countries**
The relationships which democratic countries have with non-democratic countries are much too important to jeopradise with such interference. Democracies and non-democracies need to be able to live peacefully with each other and engage in economic contact. Having democracies supporting segments in a non-democracy’s population that is seen to be undermining the state not only sours relations but provides a direct point of contention that could potentially lead to conflict. | Points Against |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Equality of opportunity**
Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated.[1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities.[2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones.[3][4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded. | Points For |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Overcomes prejudice**
Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1][2] Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist. | Points For |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Changes negative perceptions of university life**
Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist.[1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term. | Points For |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Increase the number of Minorities**
College admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities.[1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses. | Points For |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Equality of opportunity**
Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated.[1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities.[2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones.[3][4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded. | Points Against |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Overcomes prejudice**
Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1][2] Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist. | Points Against |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Changes negative perceptions of university life**
Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist.[1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term. | Points Against |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Increase the number of Minorities**
College admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities.[1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses. | Points Against |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Achievements should be earned not given**
There is a great possibility that beneficiaries of positive discrimination may not be regarded as good role models as their achievements may be viewed as unearned.[1] A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model. | Points Against |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Affirmative action can create social tensions**
Under the policy of affirmative action, there is a real danger that social tensions become inflamed. This is because in the process of benefiting minority groups it helps to disenfranchise the majority. For example in the 2001 riots in Oldham and other cities of Northern England one of the main complaints from poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding.[1] There was a possibility that the more privileged from minority groups such as upper-class blacks will be favoured at the expense of the marginalised within majority groups such as lower-class whites. Therefore, rather correct racial bias, affirmative action may inevitably deepen it. | Points Against |
This House would use positive discrimination to increase diversity in university | **Affirmative action will not work**
The underlying issue which affirmative action tries to gloss over is the embedded social problems which put the poor and ethnic monitories in continual disadvantages generation after generation. This policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools, real parental choice in education, and accountability through the publication of comparable examination data would all drive up standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their potential.[1][2] | Points Against |