instruction:
Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.
question:
TV debates: why broadcasters should give Cameron the empty chair treatment. In a short time, television debates have become a vital part of our democracy . They were watched by tens of millions of people in the 2010 general election campaign , and the Scottish referendum campaign would have been poorer without the two showdowns between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling live across all media platforms . Now is not the time to retreat from the kind of broadcasting that engages so many voters and illuminates the choices they face . Naturally, I hope all the major parties take part in the 2015 election debates . That will rightly remain the aim of the broadcasters . But I believe they should be resolute in the face of a refusal by one party to take part : the empty chair, or the deserted lectern, should be an option . The BBC guidelines do not specifically cover a national leaders' debate , but the principles they set out argue not just that they can wheel out the empty chair but that they should . On general output, BBC published editorial policy is that one reluctant participant cannot stop an item : "The refusal of an individual or an organisation to make a contribution should not be allowed to act as a veto on the appearance of other contributors." That is confirmed in the various election guidelines , where over the years the ability of one awkward candidate to stop a broadcast has been removed . And the BBC and other broadcasters do use the empty chair, albeit on less high-profile occasions : if a news maker is unwilling to face the cameras , best practice is to say so and to cover the topic anyway . As far back as 1987, when I was Today's political producer, we empty-chaired Labour in a campaign debate on defence - to the fury of their leadership . But they had been given every opportunity to take part and had chosen not to , so we went ahead with the other parties and told our listeners what had happened . There is in this current row a legitimate argument about fairness and about who takes part . The arid bureaucratic view would be that this should be based on the results of the 2010 general election and therefore be a three-way debate between David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg . The rise of Ukip and the surge in multi-party politics have muddied the waters , and the broadcasters are having to be more flexible , and I think the Greens should be somewhere in the mix . However ,  I believe we can trust the BBC, ITV and Sky to come up with the right format and a proposal that offers the appropriate levels of exposure to all the parties in the UK across the whole campaign . It is for them, with the appropriate regulators, to make that judgment and not for individual politicians to seek to exclude or include their opponents . It is, in any case, inevitable that some debates of some kind will happen . The Farage v Clegg encounter just ahead of the European election campaign was an example of the asymmetry that may now happen : it was not part of a formal coverage plan , but it was compelling viewing for anyone interested in politics and millions of people tuned in . The digital debate proposed by the Guardian, Telegraph and Google is one viable alternative ; and there is nothing to stop anyone hiring a hall in Manchester and getting Miliband and Clegg to debate there . I guarantee the broadcasters would turn up , and it is significant that the opposition parties are willing to take part in debates even without the prime minister . The broadcasters may, possibly, face a legal challenge about the allocation of national airtime , but in the court of public opinion it would be a brave act to try to close down a debate in which you have been invited to take part but have chosen not to . I'm pleased to say that I don't sense the broadcasters are wavering , and they are prepared to be tough . They are right - now is the time to hold firm . At a time of lack of faith in politicians, it would be the worst option to allow game-playing to block a format that the public find valuable . Electors have a right to see their potential prime ministers live and unfiltered and at length . Those who are willing to put themselves on the line should be allowed to do so . Those who don't can watch at home and see what an empty chair looks like over 90 minutes of primetime television .
answer:
In a short time, television debates have become a vital part of our democracy


question:
When should voluntary euthanasia not be an option? This week a court in Belgium announced that the convicted rapist and murderer Frank Van Den Bleeken would be put to death by a lethal injection, in spite of the fact that the death penalty is banned across Europe . Van Den Bleeken's case was unusual : having previously been declared insane and not criminally responsible, he had himself asked to be euthanised on the grounds that he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in jail . Today the Belgian justice minister announced that Van Den Bleeken would not be euthanised after all, amid reports that the prisoner had changed his mind . Nonetheless ,  the case provides a fascinating twist to the old debate about euthanasia . Should Van Den Bleeken have been allowed to die? The moral defence of voluntary euthanasia is usually applied to people suffering from a terminal illness . But Van Den Bleeken isn't terminally ill and isn't in physical pain . Another traditional requirement is that the wish to die should be voluntary and competent . But how can the choices of someone who has been declared insane be regarded as voluntary and competent? The concern is that granting his request would make it a case of involuntary euthanasia , and that is usually seen as morally unacceptable . If there is an issue about Van Bleeken's sanity that is because of his alleged inability to control his sexual impulses . But it could be argued that this doesn't affect the validity of his request to be euthanised . The implication is that while some of his decisions might be involuntary or incompetent, this doesn't apply to his choice of death over a lifetime behind bars . Even so , should his request have been granted, given that he isn't terminally ill? One argument for allowing voluntary euthanasia where terminal illness isn't an issue turns on the idea of wellbeing : people should be allowed to choose death where they would literally be better off dead or where their life literally isn't worth living . Another argument turns on human autonomy : we should respect a person's free choices as long as they don't harm anyone else . Someone who is not terminally ill could still satisfy these requirements . Had Van Den Bleeken been allowed to die, critics may say it would have risked opening the floodgates for other similar cases . Belgium has seen a dramatic rise in euthanasia since the practice was legalised in 2002 and permitted in cases of pain and psychological distress, as well as terminal illness . Some are opposed to voluntary euthanasia as a matter of principle . The philosopher David Velleman argues that there isn't a fundamental right to choose between life and death, and that a person's rights don't expand when they become terminally ill or psychologically distressed . He is heavily influenced by 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant . According to Kant, morality requires that we respect the dignity of persons, and the dignity of persons makes them intrinsically valuable . For Kant, a person's dignity can't be traded against their wellbeing or happiness , and the fact that a person believes that their life isn't worth living doesn't make it acceptable for them to be euthanised . The Van Den Bleeken case puts pressure on these standard arguments for and against voluntary euthanasia . Suppose that, contrary to Kant's view, voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible as long as the person asking to be euthanised would be genuinely better off dead . Relatives of Van Den Bleeken's victim may well argue that the fact(if it is a fact) that he would be better off dead is precisely a reason for not allowing him to be put to death . From this perspective, euthanasia looks like a way for him to circumvent his sentence . Van Den Bleeken's victim was Christiane Remacle, a 19-year-old he raped and strangled in 1989 . Her sisters are reported to have said that Van Den Bleeken should be forced to languish in jail , and their reaction brings out an ambivalence in how we think about the death penalty for murder . Relatives of murder victims often demand the death penalty as the ultimate punishment , but the Van Den Bleeken case suggests that, at least from the standpoint of the perpetrator, the ultimate sanction may be life behind bars . But the intrinsic value argument against voluntary euthanasia can also be hard to swallow, in this case . Christiane Remacle's sisters might balk at the idea that a murderer's life is intrinsically valuable . It's hard not to sympathise , and there remain strong reasons for not allowing Van Den Bleeken to be euthanised regardless of whether his life is intrinsically valuable . As long as euthanasia is seen as a way for him to circumvent his sentence, respect for his victim and her family demands that he isn't given the option .
answer:
One argument for allowing voluntary euthanasia where terminal illness isn't an issue turns on the idea of wellbeing Some are opposed to voluntary euthanasia as a matter of principle


question:
A Russian bank and French nationalism. You have to be made of wood not to laugh at this : a private Russian bank has given a loan to France's National Front . This political party, drawn to victory by Marine Le Pen, won the recent French elections by almost three times the number of votes than President Francois Hollande . Although this is news , this wasn't the biggest media reaction of the day . Ever since the news came out that the National Front's campaign budget was allegedly funded by the First Czech-Russian Bank, accusations that "the Kremlin is funding the far-right" and "supporting anti-EU parties" have been making the rounds . This bank has been in operation since 1996 , which by Russian terms, makes it "ancient" as capitalism didn't really kick in until the mid-1990s in Russia . Through this, the sole owner of the bank, Roman Popov, was immediately seen as the "oligarch who is close to the Kremlin" . The funding, which initially started at a sum of $11m, quickly increased to $49m , purely because that is the amount of money the National Front said it needed in order to pay for its campaign leading up to the presidential elections in 2017 . With all the media hype, it seems as though people haven't picked up on the irony . When former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was running for president in 2005, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi also gave him a sum of money for his campaign . But that is not the irony ; the amount of money he gave was $49m . This doesn't appear to have crossed the minds of western hacks just yet . That is because they have their own steadfast views and refuse to deviate from them . In order to find out more, I turned to my Moscow sources for help . But first, I got in touch with the First Czech-Russian Bank . I wanted to find out what they thought about the whole fuss that has erupted around their institution . Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the staff at the bank was reluctant to comment on the loan to the National Front, citing client confidentiality . They did, however, provide me with a direct email address to get in touch with one of the deputy chairmen , who never did respond to my request for comment . Then again , if you should try to find out something somewhat unconventional from any of the private banks in the West , you'd also be met with silence or at best, claims of data protection . My sources in Moscow did a bit of their own research and told me that the First Czech-Russian Bank was actually launched on the initiative of the Czech government . At some point later on, one of the shareholders was the Russian construction company Stroitransgaz ; translated into English , the name means"Gas Pipeline Construction" . The current owner of the bank, Roman Popov, used to work there . While Popov was head of the Finance Department (1992-2002) , Stroitransgaz was a subcontractor for Gazprom, the giant state-owned gas and oil corporation in Russia . It was probably because of that, that western hacks came to the conclusion that Popov is"directly linked to the Kremlin" . The journalists' suspicions are further fuelled by the fact that Popov generally keeps a low profile and does not boast about his football club in England or his basketball team in the US or his real-estate profile , which is worth millions in Western Europe . The bank also has two representative offices; one in Prague and one in Bratislava , which would be logical if the name of your bank included the word "Czech" . My sources in Moscow informed me that the First Czech-Russian bank is quite a good bank and has a very decent track record , which is no mean feat for a financial institution that dates back to 1996 . It has had no substantial bail outs from the Central Bank and survived the banking crash of 2007 with flying colours . As for the owner, the best I could find out is that he has a degree in financial management and has been of late developing business beyond corporate entities and individual customers in Russia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia . No word on why he gave the go-ahead to give the loan to the National Front , but even if he did, why not? If the interest is good and the chances of getting it back are high as well , it sounds like a fair deal . Not to mention that it's a perfectly legitimate political party , which enjoys greater support than the ruling party at present . The most recent opinion poll has shown that Le Pen would win the first round of the presidential elections if they were held tomorrow . The question is, of course, did Popov bargain on all the publicity that his bank would be getting once word gets out that he has been funding an anti-EU and anti-immigration political part in France? Well, it might be that he thought that some publicity for his bank might actually attract more clients and raise his bank's profile . Let's face it , if a party gets 25 percent in the national vote , like the National Front did in the European elections this year , it means that a lot of people see it as a better bet than the other parties , which in turn means that the potential client base is substantial . In Russia itself, the National Front is not seen as"racist" or "fascist", as some sections of the French media portray it . In doing so, they seem to forget that by labelling this party as racists and fascists, they also label 25 percent of the French electorate as racists and fascists . In Russia, the National Front is considered a right-wing political party that has some sensible policies on the EU, on immigration and supports the idea of a strong French identity and closer ties with Russia . The opposition UMP - led once again by Sarkozy - incidentally, shares some of the National Front's views on immigration and the EU . Leading Russian political expert Andrey Fursov says that "to call the National Front [headed by Marine Le Pen] a far-right or fascist party is an exaggeration and a mistake" . "It's a right-wing party, yes," he says . "In our modern times, it's the left- wing socialists who can actually be called fascists." In his opinion, those who are called right-wing these days are "realists" who don't want Europe to be enslaved by the US and the "Euro-bureaucracy" . It remains to be seen whether the First Czech-Russian Bank made the right commercial move . From the point of view of PR, that is .
answer:

a private Russian bank has given a loan to France's National Front