topic
stringclasses 135
values | context
stringlengths 48
2.41k
| section
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies**
Gender selection technology should be available, at whatever cost the market dictates, to those who can afford the process and wish to choose the sex of their children. There should be no other restrictions on the couples wishing to go through with the process, other than an assurance that the mother is physically able and willing. As it is not an essential procedure, the state should not be expected to subsidize either the process or the development of the technology. Nevertheless, the private sector should be encouraged to develop the technology and continue to provide the public with a path to maximise their own happiness. | Points For |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Parents should have freedom of choice**
People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2. | Points For |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided**
Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3. | Points For |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide**
Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status. | Points Against |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies**
Gender selection technology should be available, at whatever cost the market dictates, to those who can afford the process and wish to choose the sex of their children. There should be no other restrictions on the couples wishing to go through with the process, other than an assurance that the mother is physically able and willing. As it is not an essential procedure, the state should not be expected to subsidize either the process or the development of the technology. Nevertheless, the private sector should be encouraged to develop the technology and continue to provide the public with a path to maximise their own happiness. | Points Against |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Parents should have freedom of choice**
People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2. | Points Against |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided**
Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3. | Points Against |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes**
The treatment required for the pre-selection of gender was initially designed for the prevention of disease. Many of the patients now using the revolutionary new treatment are perfectly capable of conceiving healthy children naturally. Dr. Mark Hughes, a director the Genesis Genetics institute, says that 70% of patients wouldn't have needed IVF in the first place, meaning 'healthy, fertile couples are choosing this higher risk, expensive, sometimes painful process when they could conceive otherwise' 1. | Points Against |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **Children should not be designed to specifications**
Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. ‘It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an extension of the consumer society’ argues Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel 1. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want… | Points Against |
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children | **The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with**
Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender. | Points Against |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.**
Many states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations. | Points For |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.**
In some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes. | Points For |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.**
Modern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements. | Points For |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.**
Many modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation. | Points For |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.**
Many states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations. | Points Against |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.**
In some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes. | Points Against |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.**
Modern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements. | Points Against |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.**
Many modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation. | Points Against |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.**
Simply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1. | Points Against |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.**
Across the developed world, modern nation states are bound into a complex network of treaties and international organisations which together go a long way to guaranteeing citizens very similar rights wherever they live. These supra-national rules make it less and less important on what side of an international boundary you happen to live. What matters is not so much self-determination as whether or not an individual citizen is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the majority culture. | Points Against |
This house believes self-determination of peoples is a human right | **Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.**
If we accept self-determination as such an important principle that it trumps all others, this will encourage people to self-identify along nationalistic, racial or religious lines, at a time in human development when we are moving away from racist and nationalist ideologies. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Taken to its extremes, it encourages increased conflict, separatist terrorism. For example, the ethnic conflicts that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were fuelled by nationalist ideologies and the stressing of the differences between ethnic and religious groups that made up that country. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer**
A law degree is first and foremost a requirement of being a lawyer. Anyone with any interest in working in the legal field, serving as a judge, or even working in a number of governmental and non-profit fields will quite simply need to attend law school at some point. If you are already a recipient of such a degree, it will increase the opportunities for advancement within your chosen career. | Points For |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.**
A JD is not simply a gateway to the legal world. Lawyers work as corporate executives, run movie studios, hold political office, and teach academically. Holding the degree will increase your qualifications, and make it far easier to move up the ladder in whatever field you chose to enter even if it is not a legal one. | Points For |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.**
Law school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments. | Points For |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance**
Lawyers are often extremely high paid, and occupy a prestigious position in society. A law degree is key to entry to the top tier of society and high income earners. | Points For |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.**
Law Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates. | Points For |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer**
A law degree is first and foremost a requirement of being a lawyer. Anyone with any interest in working in the legal field, serving as a judge, or even working in a number of governmental and non-profit fields will quite simply need to attend law school at some point. If you are already a recipient of such a degree, it will increase the opportunities for advancement within your chosen career. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.**
A JD is not simply a gateway to the legal world. Lawyers work as corporate executives, run movie studios, hold political office, and teach academically. Holding the degree will increase your qualifications, and make it far easier to move up the ladder in whatever field you chose to enter even if it is not a legal one. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.**
Law school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance**
Lawyers are often extremely high paid, and occupy a prestigious position in society. A law degree is key to entry to the top tier of society and high income earners. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.**
Law Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **A stint at law school is of little value to those who are not pursuing a legal degree, but nonetheless many applicants treat it as a second shot at an Undergraduate degree.**
Individuals increasingly treat Law School as a second shot at their Undergraduate degree. Applicants who failed to get into Russell group or Ivy League institutions the first time around compete obsessively to achieve their dreams on “second chance” while many other applicants are suckered into the image of rich, successful, attractive lawyers presented by the media. Many universities in England, including Oxford, have begun to offer accelerated undergraduate law degrees, which are highly appealing to those seeking to improve on grades received in science or humanities oriented degrees. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **The debt incurred in the pursuit of a law degree limits options both within the legal industry, and outside of it, by compelling recipients to seek out the highest paying jobs.**
Legal Work is a dog-eats dog world. Law students are forced into a competition with each other for valuable internships, and then in turn face a brutal competition for summer associate positions. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **The actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.**
Because of the supply and demand problems, the actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited. | Points Against |
This House believes that a legal qualification is worth the cost | **Failing a law degree can be extremely costly.**
Law School as a choice has to be weighed against its opportunity cost: what else could someone do with three years and $120,000? How might the long term benefits of this activity weigh up against the consequent benefits of time spent at law school? | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **There are too many advertisements in everyday life.**
The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement. | Points For |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.**
Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all. | Points For |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.**
People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. | Points For |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product**
Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1. | Points For |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.**
Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole. | Points For |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **There are too many advertisements in everyday life.**
The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.**
Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.**
People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product**
Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.**
Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known.**
If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertising helps us choose between different goods.**
Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.**
Advertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 20071. Furthermore, adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control. | Points Against |
This House believes that advertising is harmful | **Advertising is only as annoying as you want it to be.**
No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. Manchester United's shirt sponsorship deal with Aon is worth £80 million. For the small annoyance of having to have a logo on the shirt, the football club can afford to buy new players and hopefully win more games. And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient**
Sentience is the property of being conscious. Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals. | Points For |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Speciesism is wrong**
Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger. | Points For |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Animals are equal to human beings.**
It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights. | Points For |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights.**
We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. | Points For |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights**
Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being. | Points For |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Animals are intrinsically worthy of rights because they are sentient**
Sentience is the property of being conscious. Sentience brings with it the ability to experience. There is a massive difference in the way that we treat sentient and non-sentient beings instinctively. We see nothing wrong with forming relationships with one’s pets but we tend to deem people with emotional relationships to objects mentally ill. Here we are talking about something more than sentimentality but rather the kind of relationship in which one is concerned with the other party’s emotional wellbeing. We even feel concerned about the wellbeing of sentient beings which whom we do not have a personal connection. For example we may feel upset when we see a dog run over on the road. This would be a very difficult reaction to how we might feel if we see an object crushed by a car. We feel moral outrage at the clubbing of seals. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Speciesism is wrong**
Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Animals are equal to human beings.**
It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Even if it matters whether or not humans and animals are similar, humans and animals are in fact similar enough that both should be granted rights.**
We have already noted that beings do not need to be similar in order to be equally morally considerable. Assuming but not conceding that this is false, we will prove that animals are in fact incredibly similar to human beings, so much so that we should grant them rights. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Even if we did think that animals were less intelligent than humans beings they should be protected by rights**
Babies and individuals with learning disabilities may lack intelligence, a sense of justice and the ability to conceive of their future. We ensure that babies and the learning disabled are protected by rights and therefore these factors cannot be criteria by which to exclude a being from the rights system. Therefore, even if animals are not as advanced as human beings they should be protected by rights. An inability to know what's going on might make being experimented on etc even more frightening and damaging for an animal that it may be for a human being. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **We are at the top of the animal hierarchy and should treat other animals accordingly in order to further our own species.**
We have always been superior to animals. Just as a lion can kill antelope and a frog can kill insects, so too human beings have struggled their way to the top of the food chain. Why then can we not exercise the power we have earned? Animals exercise their power and we should do the same. It is our natural obligation to do so. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Animals are not moral agents**
It makes no sense to give animals rights because they cannot makes decisions about what is right and wrong and will not try to treat us in an ethical manner in return. Why make them a moral agent by giving them rights? | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **We only have indirect duties to animals**
Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant argue that we only have indirect duties towards animals. This means that we may not treat animals in such a manner that our actions are in conflict with our duties towards human beings. A human has no duty towards a dog not to kick it but a human has a duty towards the dog's owner not to damage his property. Pigs and cows are not loved by any human being so we cause no harm when we kill and eat them. Though the farmer may have owned the cow before, the beef becomes our possession when we purchase it. Wild animals are not owned by any human being so we may do to them what we wish. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Animals have no interests or rationality**
Some philosophers argue that only beings that are able to make rational choices can have moral rights because the function of rights is to protect choice. Animals are not able to make rational choices because they can only follow instinct, they cannot follow logic. | Points Against |
This house believes that animals have rights. | **Most rights have no bearing for animals**
The right to dignity would mean nothing to an animal. Animals are incapable of being humiliated and are not harmed by being reduced to human servitude. A dog is not ashamed of its nudity or having to eat out of a bowl and wear a leash. Animals happily copulate and defecate in front of humans and other animals. What exactly an undignified action might be for an animal it is difficult to say. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **Religious belief is completely irrational**
There is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t. | Points For |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The problem of suffering**
The world is full of suffering and pain among innocent people. If God is good and all-powerful then why is this the case? Either God does not exist or he is not worth believing in since he does not care about human suffering. | Points For |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The God hypothesis is unnecessary**
Science provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in[1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief. | Points For |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge**
Religions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force. Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong. | Points For |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The Null Hypothesis**
With regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption. | Points For |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **Religious belief is completely irrational**
There is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The problem of suffering**
The world is full of suffering and pain among innocent people. If God is good and all-powerful then why is this the case? Either God does not exist or he is not worth believing in since he does not care about human suffering. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The God hypothesis is unnecessary**
Science provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in[1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge**
Religions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force. Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The Null Hypothesis**
With regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **Revealed wisdom**
Godly wisdom is not the same as human wisdom and cannot be subject to the same criticism. The nature of humanity means that our ability to understand God’s wisdom is fundamentally limited; and thus arguments based on morality or science are irrelevant – what matters is that God has revealed Himself. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The Prime Mover**
The universe follows rules of causality – cause precedes effect. But it cannot be the case that cause and effect regress infinitely into the past – there must be a ‘prime cause’. There is an identifiable point for this – the Universe was formed about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang, before which we cannot detect any chain of causality. What was the prime mover? It had by definition to be a being existing outside of our conception of reality – the natural answer being ‘God’. | Points Against |
This House Believes That belief in God is irrational | **The rareness of Life**
Life requires an extremely fine set of conditions in order to exist. The right distance from the Sun, a magnetic field to deflect solar radiation, the right atmospheric composition and conditions etc. These conditions are extremely rare; indeed only on Earth have we observed that they are just right for life to have evolved.[1] This is so unlikely that it leads to the conclusion that God must have intervened. | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies**
It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.) | Points For |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.**
Although cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202. | Points For |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated**
Many of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so. | Points For |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner**
Cannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1.
1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post: | Points For |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies**
It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.) | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.**
Although cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202. | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated**
Many of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so. | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner**
Cannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1.
1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post: | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **Cannabis is a gateway drug**
People who use cannabis will be more likely to move on to harder drugs. While the bad effects of cannabis may be disputed, the harmful effects of hard drugs cannot – they seriously damage people’s health. A major study in 2011 found that ‘smoking cannabis daily sets users up for a lifetime of multiple drug use’ 1. Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction. Their habit often harms their relationships with friends, colleagues and family. State money then has to be spent on benefits, on policing, and on rehabilitation programs. | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **Uncertainty over the effects of cannabis means it is best to be prudent**
The debate over the effects of cannabis is based largely upon conflicting evidence. For example, some argue it can cause psychosis while others argue it only has positive effects on the mind. The effect of any illegal drug is a very difficult area to study 1. Most drug users use more than one drug and researchers are often limited to studying those who admit themselves into clinics with a crisis – something of a skewed sample. | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **More people will use cannabis if legalized**
If cannabis is legalized, it will become socially acceptable and more people will smoke it. It will also become more readily available. In the Netherlands, cannabis usage went up after it was legalized1. With more people smoking, more people will experience the adverse physical and mental health effects - more people will be harmed. Furthermore, as Dr. David Murray has noted, 'marijuana use is the leading cause of treatment need for those abusing or dependent on illegal drugs'2; therefore not only will more people use cannabis, more of them will be addicted. | Points Against |
This House believes that cannabis should be legalised | **Cannabis is harmful**
Studies have shown that cannabis may cause a number of physical and mental problems. It can cause respiratory problems, increase one's heart rate and lower one's sperm count. Cannabis use is also associated with causing or worsening some forms of psychosis. It has also been found to increase tiredness, depression and paranoia, impair short-term memory and hormone production and cause general cognitive decline1. As for cannabis' medicinal qualities, safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, cannabis' primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol.
1 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank: | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Gender equality**
Men and women deserve to enjoy equal rights. In China and India women do not enjoy equal rights. By encouraging couples to produce girls we contribute to the resolution of two problems. Female children are likely to be treated poorly in comparison their brothers. They may be given smaller quantities of food, less education etc. It is not only the physical differences in the upbringing of boys and girls that are noteworthy but also the emotional. Particularly in families without sons, daughters are led to experience guilt and a sense of inferiority because their parents are disappointed in their gender. These girls will grow up in a home without gender equality and therefore will come to accept a smaller share of family wealth as an adult and be unfit psychologically to denounce male dominance. The girls are likely to later perpetuate gender inequality amongst their own children.[1] By making it beneficial for parents to have female children, we make parents less likely to make their daughters feel guilty and inferior for their gender. Furthermore, educational grants will allow girls access to education – which is both intrinsically valuable and valuable in that it will allow the possible financial independence and the confidence to denounce male domination. Similarly, men will receive a message that it is more praiseworthy to produce a son. In essence, allowing selective abortions to take place without taking action against this practise is allowing gender inequality to stagnate in the popular wisdom. It is important to take a stance especially in a country like China where government ideology heavily effects the people. | Points For |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **The policy will help alleviate the social problems arising from the imbalance**
A balanced gender ratio allows that every man has a woman to marry – theoretically of course as not every individual wants to marry and not every individual is heterosexual. The majority of men and women do want to get married. In China, men face such competition to find a wife that they spend several years living in horrific conditions in order to save up enough money to have a property with which to present a prospective wife. Without a property these men will never find a wife. These men clearly have a desperate desire to find a woman.[1] There are 3 problems with this situation. 1) The dissatisfaction men experience when they strongly desire to marry but cannot is an unhappy thing and surely lowers their quality of life. By 2020 there will be 24 million Chinese men of marrying age with no wives. It has even been suggested that this dissatisfaction is contributing to a rising crime rate in China. [2] 2) Because men are so desperate they will take any woman they can get. The dating agency industry has grown massively in China and parents even gather in town squares to advertise their daughters, rejecting or accepting candidates based only on whether or not they have a property and a good job. This means couples are less likely to be compatible and, though divorce is not as popular in China as in the west, couples are more likely to be unhappily married. Divorce has increased a huge amount as the gender imbalance has increased. [3] 3) Those men who do not find wives often look to prostitution or possibly women trafficked into the country for companionship and sex. 42 000 women were rescued from kidnappers in China between 2001 and 2003. There are clear harms to the women involved in such activities and to women’s rights as a whole when this occurs. There are harms to society as a whole when this occurs in the name of HIV and other STDs.[4] 4) The prevalence of prostitution and trafficking as well as the focus on male wealth when it comes to dating and marriage placed women in a position where they are seen only as a financial asset or commodity to be sold, bought or traded. Placing women in this position will have psychological harms such as lowered self-esteem and more tangible harms when society treats them with less respect and women’s rights cease to develop in a positive direction. | Points For |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Ineffectiveness of alternatives**
One possible alternative to our possibly is to better police prenatal sex determination. This is highly unfeasible. In 1982 the Chinese government distributed masses of small, light ultrasound devices to ensure that women who’d already had one child were either sterilized or continuing to wear their intrauterine device. Women started using these devices for prenatal sex determination and therefore “more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.” In China prenatal sex determination is illegal and, though ultrasounds are allowed in certain cases for medical reasons so long as they are on security camera, doctors who reveal the gender of the child can no longer work as doctors. The masses of distributed ultrasound devices, however, are the basis for a large and successful black market. | Points For |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Abortion**
It is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India.[1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions. | Points For |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Gender equality**
Men and women deserve to enjoy equal rights. In China and India women do not enjoy equal rights. By encouraging couples to produce girls we contribute to the resolution of two problems. Female children are likely to be treated poorly in comparison their brothers. They may be given smaller quantities of food, less education etc. It is not only the physical differences in the upbringing of boys and girls that are noteworthy but also the emotional. Particularly in families without sons, daughters are led to experience guilt and a sense of inferiority because their parents are disappointed in their gender. These girls will grow up in a home without gender equality and therefore will come to accept a smaller share of family wealth as an adult and be unfit psychologically to denounce male dominance. The girls are likely to later perpetuate gender inequality amongst their own children.[1] By making it beneficial for parents to have female children, we make parents less likely to make their daughters feel guilty and inferior for their gender. Furthermore, educational grants will allow girls access to education – which is both intrinsically valuable and valuable in that it will allow the possible financial independence and the confidence to denounce male domination. Similarly, men will receive a message that it is more praiseworthy to produce a son. In essence, allowing selective abortions to take place without taking action against this practise is allowing gender inequality to stagnate in the popular wisdom. It is important to take a stance especially in a country like China where government ideology heavily effects the people. | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **The policy will help alleviate the social problems arising from the imbalance**
A balanced gender ratio allows that every man has a woman to marry – theoretically of course as not every individual wants to marry and not every individual is heterosexual. The majority of men and women do want to get married. In China, men face such competition to find a wife that they spend several years living in horrific conditions in order to save up enough money to have a property with which to present a prospective wife. Without a property these men will never find a wife. These men clearly have a desperate desire to find a woman.[1] There are 3 problems with this situation. 1) The dissatisfaction men experience when they strongly desire to marry but cannot is an unhappy thing and surely lowers their quality of life. By 2020 there will be 24 million Chinese men of marrying age with no wives. It has even been suggested that this dissatisfaction is contributing to a rising crime rate in China. [2] 2) Because men are so desperate they will take any woman they can get. The dating agency industry has grown massively in China and parents even gather in town squares to advertise their daughters, rejecting or accepting candidates based only on whether or not they have a property and a good job. This means couples are less likely to be compatible and, though divorce is not as popular in China as in the west, couples are more likely to be unhappily married. Divorce has increased a huge amount as the gender imbalance has increased. [3] 3) Those men who do not find wives often look to prostitution or possibly women trafficked into the country for companionship and sex. 42 000 women were rescued from kidnappers in China between 2001 and 2003. There are clear harms to the women involved in such activities and to women’s rights as a whole when this occurs. There are harms to society as a whole when this occurs in the name of HIV and other STDs.[4] 4) The prevalence of prostitution and trafficking as well as the focus on male wealth when it comes to dating and marriage placed women in a position where they are seen only as a financial asset or commodity to be sold, bought or traded. Placing women in this position will have psychological harms such as lowered self-esteem and more tangible harms when society treats them with less respect and women’s rights cease to develop in a positive direction. | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Ineffectiveness of alternatives**
One possible alternative to our possibly is to better police prenatal sex determination. This is highly unfeasible. In 1982 the Chinese government distributed masses of small, light ultrasound devices to ensure that women who’d already had one child were either sterilized or continuing to wear their intrauterine device. Women started using these devices for prenatal sex determination and therefore “more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.” In China prenatal sex determination is illegal and, though ultrasounds are allowed in certain cases for medical reasons so long as they are on security camera, doctors who reveal the gender of the child can no longer work as doctors. The masses of distributed ultrasound devices, however, are the basis for a large and successful black market. | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Abortion**
It is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India.[1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions. | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Ineffectiveness**
The policy will be ineffective in two ways. Firstly it will not even achieve the goal of a balanced gender ratio but secondly, even if it did, it will not reduce the divide between men and women and make women a more valued part of society. | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **Commodifying women.**
Surely providing a financial incentive for families to produce women causes women to be likened to a product that needs to be manufactured. Families will continue to have a social stigma against female children and they will be viewed simply as a financial asset. This is not only bad for women in general in the country but for babies that are only alive because they provide income. These children are unlikely to be loved and cared for as a male child might be and it is cruel to encourage them to be brought into the world to live life in such a condition. | Points Against |
This House believes that countries with an imbalanced male/female ratio skewed towards males should | **The proposition policy will interfere with current government policies**
Prop's plan is not only redundant with some current government programs but is also wasteful of worthwhile government funds. For example, the plan pays for the education of young girls up through the high school level. This is targeting a problem that has been addressed with significant success. Currently, the rates for primary school enrolment among young girls and young boys are 94% and 97% respectively in 2007. This is a drastic change from the year 2000 when it was 77% and 94%, a 17% disparity.[1] Additional policies in the same area are inefficient and the additional bureaucracy risks disrupting this positive trend. | Points Against |