Importance of education to national economic performance.  A nation’s most important resource is its human capital, and in the modern world it is vital to have a skilled, educated workforce in order to remain competitive. Many nations have already adopted year-round schooling. By following their example, we will be giving our young people an important advantage in the employment market and thereby improving the country’s economic prospects. [1]  [1] US National Educational Commission on Time and Learning, “Report: Prisoners of Time”, April 1994.


Year-round schooling will probably mean increased administrative costs, as well as ensuring that overheads such as catering, heating and security have to be paid year-round rather than for just part of the year, as at present. [1]  Education funding in many countries has been under pressure for many years, and most schools have explored all sorts of ways of maximising the effective use of their resources and facilities. The best solution to strains on resources is to make more money available to schools, not to stretch them ever thinner.  [1] Richmond, Emily. “Year Round School Could Face Calendar Shift”, Las Vegas Sun, 16th March 2010.


Year-round schooling does nothing to help the issue of boredom. Many “problem children” are more bored in school than outside it; others are often absent from school altogether. There is no hard evidence that social problems such as crime and drug use go up significantly during breaks in the school year.


Reducing inequality.  Evidence suggests that children from lower-income families tend to “fall behind” further during long summer vacations. These children are less likely to read books, pursue additional studies or take part in useful extracurricular activities compared to their peers from wealthier families. [1] This has a knock-on effect on their academic achievement, and once they have fallen behind it is very difficult for them to catch up. (This is the logic behind government-funded programs such as Head Start in the US or Sure Start in the UK) [2]  Year-round schooling would remove this important driver of inequality, give students a level playing field on which to learn, and help create a more meritocratic society.  [1] Johnson, Alex, “Year-round school gains ground around U.S.”, MSNBC.com, 27th October 2010.   [2] “Early Head Start Benefits Children and Families”, US Department of Health and Human Services, April 2006.


Improves student achievement.  Studies show that students in year-round schooling tend to get perform better on many assessment metrics than those who do not [1] . Schools operating a year-round calendar do not have to cram so much course content into a 9 month schedule, but can space out learning better. This allows teaching to proceed at a more logical pace, helping students learn better. Furthermore, by giving students frequent short breaks (instead of two or three long ones), pupils are refreshed and ready to learn when school resumes.  [1] Palmer, Elisabeth A. and Bemis, Amy E., “Year-Round Education”, University of Minnesota College of Education, 24th October 2000.


More efficient use of school resources and premises.  Year-round schooling often goes hand in hand with multi-tracking, where different groups of students at the same school are on different schedules. This has the advantage of allowing school rooms, facilities and other resources to be used more efficiently, thus providing a better education without putting even more strain on government budgets. [1]  [1] “Year Round Education Program Guide”, California Department of Education, 25th July 2011.


In actual fact, the evidence on year-round schooling is inconclusive, with other studies suggesting that there is no educational benefit from holding classes year-round [1] .  Indeed, you could argue that some students prefer to concentrate the bulk of their learning into a shorter time frame and leave time for a long summer break to take their minds off school for a while.  [1] Ohio State University, “ Year-round Schools Don't Boost Learning, Study Finds”. Science Daily, August 14th 2007.


It is certainly true that children from disadvantaged families do not do as well as their luckier peers, but it is not clear why changing the pattern of school attendance will change this. The overall proportion of the year spent away from school will not change, so there is no reason to believe that year-round schooling will benefit students whose homes and families do not provide a positive learning environment [1] .  [1] Newland, Christopher, “Letter to Auburn School Board”, 20th October 1998.


This argument is based on the assumption that year-round schooling delivers academic benefits to students. However, as we will see in Opposition argument 6, there is very little evidence for this. Without concrete evidence that this massive change will deliver real improvements in national educational performance, it will merely divert attention from more pressing problems in our school systems.


Again, there is nothing intrinsic to year-round schooling that makes it easier for families with several children. A single mother who struggles with young children will not be any better off having to take care of their children every six weeks instead of six months.  Year-round schooling is unlikely to be applied in exactly the same way in different schools, and different classes or groups of students may well be on different timetables – thus, parents may find themselves having to take care of children almost year-round rather than having time off, as at present.


Reduce social problems from disaffected, bored youth.  The structure of the school year is often one of the few fixed points in young people’s lives. For many children, particularly those from poorer families, long summer holidays don’t mean summer camps and foreign holidays, but day after day sitting in front of the TV or hanging around in their neighbourhood. All the evidence suggests that boredom is a major factor behind social problems like drug use, youth crime and antisocial behaviour. [1]  Year-round schooling would not get rid of problems like these, of course, but it might help to reduce the level of such behaviour by giving young people something to do.  [1] “Youths bored in school holidays”, BBC News, 11th July 2007.


Year-round learning can help reduce the burden on parents.  For many parents, particularly those with more than one child, summer vacations can be a stressful and difficult time. Without the structure provided by school attendance, children become bored easily and parents struggle to cope.  This is especially true for mothers who may be bringing up children without a father present, or those who wish to continue or resume their careers after the first few years of motherhood; trying to combine a full-time job with the rigours of motherhood is hard but trying to do so during a three month school holiday is almost impossible. Year-round schooling makes such a work-life balance easier for young parents and allows women to return to the workplace on their own terms. [1]  [1] Schulte, Brigid, “The Case For Year-Round School”, Washington Post, June 7th 2009.


Year-round schooling would necessitate a change in the way extra-curricular activities are structured, not a reduction in such hobbies. Shorter breaks of two or three weeks are more than sufficient for most extra-curricular activities and by spreading them throughout the year, instead of ring-fencing them into a couple of summer months, their beneficial impact might well be greater.  If year-round schooling reduces the necessity to send students for extra tuition, as is common in some countries, then this should be considered a positive benefit of the change, not a problem. Families whose children are being educated year-round will have less reason to spend their hard-earned money on expensive and often unnecessary private classes.


Year-round schooling doesn’t place extra burdens on students; the whole point is that it reduces the stress and strain of school life by allowing learning to take place at a gentler pace that is dictated more by the needs of students than the timetable. Holidays of two or three weeks are plenty of time to recharge the batteries for another few weeks of school. Children will be better off mentally and psychologically if year-round schooling is introduced.


Imposes extra costs on education system.  Many schools are simply not set up for year-round use. In particular, most schools are not air-conditioned and often use older, poorly-ventilated buildings and classrooms. In many parts of the world, opening schools during summer would either involve expensive retrofitting and renovation, or sweltering hot classrooms with distracted children. There would also be increased overheads and costs associated with year-round catering, security, heating and administration. [1]  [1] Richmond, Emily. “Year Round School Could Face Calendar Shift”, Las Vegas Sun, 16th March 2010.


Damaging to extra-curricular activities.  A lot of extra-curricular activities take place during summer holidays. Summer camps, trips abroad - even debating competitions. Summer holidays are a sensible time to hold such activities, partly due to the weather but also because different regions or school boards often have different vacation schedules and summer is the only time when students are all likely to have free time. Year-round schooling would reduce the opportunities for such activities.  Some families use long holidays to arrange extra tuition in certain subjects, either as remedial education or to give their children an advantage [1] . Year-round schooling would make it harder for families who wish to exercise this choice, too.  [1] “Summer School”, US Education Commission of the States, 2011.


Places unfair burden on students.  Many children don’t enjoy school. Even those who do still look forward to summer holidays as a time when they can relax and stop worrying about work for a while. And for some students, school life is difficult in other ways – social awkwardness or bullying being a common problem. Taking away summer holidays would mean that students have to work hard year-round, and short small breaks don’t offer the chance to relax as a proper summer holiday does. For those who dislike school, year-round schooling would mean year-round stress and unhappiness. [1]  [1] “Academic Performance Top Cause Of Teen Stress”, Associated Press, 23rd August 2007.


Year-round schooling will increase costs in some areas but more than offset these with efficiency savings in other areas (see argument 7, above). It makes no sense for buildings to sit idle for a third of the year.  As for the argument about air-conditioning, this is only an issue in some countries round the world; in many others it would not be an issue.


Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage:  "There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.”1  The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counter-argument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power.  Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010


Underground nuclear storage is safer than any available alternative  Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground.  The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example.  Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly.1  As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders.2  Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions.  “Fukushima is a triumph for nuclear power.” The Register. 20/02/2010   “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet.


Storing nuclear waste underground is necessary - there are no better option available  Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with.  Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation.  The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue.  As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. 1  1. “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.


Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well.  Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging.1  ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010


Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was canceled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.


The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable.1  As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being.  Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006


Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses  France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. 1 It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. 2  As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation.  Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS.   BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,


Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation  There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source.1  The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required.2  Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS,   Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,


Underground nuclear storage is excessively expensive  Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible.  Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently.  This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety.1  ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010


Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground.  This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.1  “Nuclear Waste Faces uncertain future in Europe.” The Nuclear N Former. 2/11/2010


Sexual identity is confusing in any situation. It becomes even more confusing when one is exposed to sex education and the broad spectrum of sexual preference and practice before one is emotionally equipped to understand and appreciate it. Understanding one’s sexual identity is an exploration that must be pursued at one’s own pace, not at the rate mandated from the state or school. Children mature physically and emotionally at very different rates and mandatory sex education which offers the information and the emotional guidance at the same rate to everyone is not well tailored to the different development rates. [1]  [1] Measor et al, Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000


A safe framework for understanding sexuality and sexual identity are essential to human existence  Sex and sexual identity is fundamental part of human life. Sexual desire, for both procreation and recreation, forms one of the core human drives that shapes behaviour. [1] Young people want to explore their own, and one another’s, bodies from quite an early age, long before they would be likely to settle down and get married. Sex for almost everyone in Western countries is not something exclusive to marriage, and most people have multiple sexual partners in their lifetimes. In order to face this reality, young people must be armed with the knowledge of what sexual intercourse entails and the pleasures and the risks inherent in it. [2] Sexual identity itself can be very confusing, especially for young homosexual or transgender people who may not understand their sexuality. A safe, objective environment in which the objective physical facts and the emotional aspects of sexual involvement and activity is provided is essential to facilitate young people to come to grips with sexual identity as it is essential for full development as a person.  [1] Weeks, Sexual Politics and Society, 1981. Mort, Dangerous Sexualities, 1987  [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003


Parents know their children better than anyone. They know what s/he is like, and in what environment s/he will grow up and often live. The state is not infallible and its decisions are not purely objective. When children are not adequately mature for sex education, parents must have the ability to make the decision on their behalf to withhold information that could be potentially damaging to their future development. As to homophobic or bigoted families, such views are considered to be socially acceptable insofar as people have the right to express such views. This does not, however, give parents license to abuse their children if they have alternative sexual preferences. Sex education is not necessary to ensure against abuse, that is the purview of law enforcement.


Sex education provides “Immunization” against sexually transmitted diseases and prevents unwanted pregnancy  It was said at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that the only vaccination against the virus was knowledge. Knowledge about what is out there is essential to guarding the self. There are a several of ways in which this knowledge is essential; finding out about the risks of sex is just one, having accurate information about the pleasures as well as the risks is another. [1] Knowledge also prevents misinformation.  Young people must be informed about sex, how it works and what the risks associated with it are, and how to access the risks and the pleasures. When sex is not talked about and kept behind closed doors, young people are forced often to grope around in the dark, so to speak. This can result in unwanted pregnancies, and even STDs, some of which can be permanent, a threat to fertility or even life threatening. IT leaves young people confused. [2] The state thus owes an obligation to its citizens to prepare them adequately for their interactions in society, including those of a sexual nature.  A mandatory sex education regime serves as a defence against misinformation about sex. Religious organizations, most notably in the United States, promote abstinence by lying about the effectiveness of contraception and about the transmission of STDs. [3] When such activity is not countered by a scientific explanation of sex and sexual practices a culture of ignorance develops that can have serious negative social and health effects on those who are misinformed. An example of the benefits of sex education is highlighted in the case of the United States. In primarily liberal states where sex education is mandatory, young people are statistically more likely to be sexually active. At the same time in states where sex education is banned or deliberately misleading, teen pregnancy rates are much higher. [4] Clearly the trade-off between high promiscuity rates on the one hand and much higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs on the other stands in the favour of sex education.  Young people live now in a society which is very sexualised [5] it has been described as a carnal jungle. Adults need to offer guidance about negotiating a way through the messages about sex which proliferate in the mass media and consumer culture. [6] Underlying this discussion is controversy about what sex education should be. Sex education has become a shorthand term for the broader subject of personal relationships , sexual health and education about sexuality [7] it is clear that views about what sex education should be and what it should contain has changed significantly over time. [8]  High quality sex education should not only contain factual information about the physiological issues of sexual development and reproduction. It should also offer safe spaces for young people to consider the social and emotional aspects of sexuality and the social and peer pressures that arise in youth cultures.  [1] Sex Education Forum, Teaching about contraception, 1997  [2] Trudell, Doing Sex Education, 1993  [3] Mombiot, Joy of Sex Education, 2004  [4] NPR et al, Sex Education in America, 2004  [5] Roberts, Too young to unwrap a condom, 2998  [6] Sachs et al, How adolescents see the media, 1991. Moore and Rosenthal, Sex roles, 1990. Jackson, Childhood Sexuality, 1982.  [7] Mayock et al, Relationships and Sexual Education in the Context of Social, Personal and Health Education, 2007, P.20  [8] Reiss, What are the aims of school sex education, 1990


Sex education is not necessary to protect children from disease and unwanted pregnancy. Young people can be informed of the dangers of sex without sex education. Besides, if enough people are versed extensively in sex education they should provide sufficient herd immunity that the minority who object on ethical grounds can abstain from sex education without negatively effecting the overall amount of safe sexual practices in a society.


Sex education does not benefit conservative communities as sex education is not simply a provider of information. Rather, it entails at best an acknowledgement that kids will have sex regardless of what they are told, and at worst a positive endorsement of sexual activity. It is a shameful abrogation of responsibility on the part of adults to essentially allow children to make bad decisions. Sex education encourages students to make a choice, meaning more will make the wrong one. [1] Teaching children about sex will necessarily make them more prone to experimentation, and will likely cause them to view their peers in school in a sexualized context, leading to less focus in the classroom on study, and more on sex. Conservative and religious households have every reason to fear such developments.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998


Parents cannot be guaranteed to provide a suitable amount of sex education  Parents have a great deal of responsibility in raising children, but they are unsuited to teaching about sexuality as the resulting education will not be consistent, be biased and in some cases may not be carried out at all. Parents tend to view their children as less sexualized; they want them to be innocent. Thus it is often the case that parents seek to shield their children from the realities of sex, and themselves from the young person’s developing sexuality maintaining their innocence through enforced ignorance. This tends to be particularly harmful to young women, as culturally boys are often expected to be more sexually active than girls, and such activity is usually considered appropriate for boys, while not so for girls. A double standard undoubtedly continues to exist. [1] It is in the interest of the state, however, to produce well-rounded individuals who can interact with society effectively on all levels, including the sexual level. When parents do not provide adequate sex education, it is the state that is forced to pick up the tab to pay for STD treatment and teen mothers. People dropping out of school due to pregnancy, and individuals who are unable to work due to debilitating venereal disease impose a steep cost on society. It is thus the state’s duty to provide what parents often cannot for the sake of society as a whole. [2]  Leaving sex education in the hands of parents has the further negative impact of normalizing incorrect or bigoted views regarding sexuality. Homophobic families, for example, will not be able to provide the necessary information to homosexual children, who will suffer not only from lack of education, but also from a lack of sexual self-worth. [3] Mandatory sex education can right the wrongs of such misinformation and bias.  [1] Lees, Sugar and Spice, 1993  [2] Ciardullo, Moving towards a new paradigm, 2007  [3] Galliano, Sex Education Will Help Gay Children, 2009


Even religious and conservative communities will benefit from mandatory sex education  sexual activity and lewd behavior, as religious groups fear, because everything in life is already sexualized. One need only watch a typical perfume ad on television to know that sexuality inculcates popular culture already. Sex education would not lift the scales from the eyes of children entirely; they already have some idea of what is going on. The danger is when they know something about sex, but not enough to be safe. That is why mandatory sex education is essential to people’s wellbeing.  The research evidence from across the world is clear that sex education holds back the age of first intercourse and most certainly does not foster early promiscuity. [3] The abstinence programmes that have been developed in the united states in particular have been spectacularly unsuccessful in reducing rates of sexual exploration and STD and unwanted pregnancy rates. [4] Research has made it clear which kinds of sex education are most effective. [5]  [1] Reiss and Mabud, Sex education and Religion, 1998  [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003  [3] Boethius, Swedish sex education and its results, 1984. Swedish National Board of Education, Sex Education in Swedish Schools, 1986.  [4] Oakley et al, Sexual health education interventions for young people, 1995  [5] Kirby et al, School Based Programmes to reduce sexual risk taking behaviour, 1992


While certainly there should always be room for self-exploration in sexuality, a set mandatory curriculum is essential to understanding the basics of sex and offering opportunity to consider the emotional and social aspects of it in the cultures of young people. [1] It is unfortunate that some students may feel unprepared to undergo sex education, but the value of the information outweighs any potential discomfort. Certainly there is nothing so scarring about the nature of sex that someone who is a bit immature cannot handle with some effort. We need also to have some confidence in the abilities and sensitivities of our teaching professionals to be able to respond with effective sensitivity to the different needs of their students in the classroom situation. This means that we need properly trained teachers to be delivering sex education and teachers themselves have asked for this to be the case.  The research evidence does make it clear that young people are at varying stages of maturity when they are at the same chronological age. Young men may lag behind young women and act with considerable immaturity in sex education lessons. [2] The effective answer to this may be to offer single sex lessons in sex education rather than removing the opportunity for sex education from all young people.  [1] Thomson, Unholy Alliances, 1993  [2] Measor et al. Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000


Parents do not always know best, particularly when it comes to sex education. Parents cannot be trusted to instruct children effectively in sex education because they themselves are often uneducated in the matter and have personal biases regarding the subject. [1] Often they will not understand the finer points of contraception and STDs, things that have each changed substantially in the past few decades, with things like the morning after pill becoming readily available in many countries, and diseases like Chlamydia much more prevalent in populations than they were in past generations. [2] Parents’ ignorance may thus misinform children to their detriment. The parent may not understand their child best preventing their children from ever developing a meaningful understanding of their sexuality. Such is the problem for gay children raised in homes that say being gay is sinful and unnatural. [3] With the only authority figure on the subject he knows telling him he is defective, a gay child is left to suffer and wallow in self-loathing.  [1] Farrell, My mother said…, 1978. Frankham, Not under my roof, 1992. Measor et al, Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000.  [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003  [3] Galliano, Sex Education Will Help Gay Children, 2009


Sex education damages the education system  Sex education damages the education system by confusing the children and by alienating some parents. When children receive mixed signals from home and at school they can suffer real confusion. When parents tell their children that the teacher is wrong about sex, it causes the student to raise his mental defences toward the school thereafter and become less engaged in the process of education. [1] Children will be told by their parents, and will thus come to believe, that the school is promoting a liberal view that is fundamentally contrary to their own. For example, a Muslim girl will find schooling a horrific and alienating experience if she is forced to attend a sex education class that conflicts with her faith as this will be clashing with what she has been taught at home. This will alienate the parents of these children who hold the view that discussion of sex in such a framework is morally repugnant.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998


The state has had no historical role in sex education to no ill effect, so should it develop one now.  Sexuality should not be within the purview of the state. The state maintains order and security and provides essential services. Sex education does not fall within its responsibility. Sexuality is for many people deeply personal and should be respected as such; young people should be allowed to explore their sexuality independently and with the guidance of family, not under the watching eye of the state. [1] Sex education programs reduce sexuality to biology and fail to adequately address the emotional elements of sexuality in a way that is not seen as a joke by often-immature students. Inevitably teachers’ personal opinions on sexuality will bleed into their teaching, as will that of the state officials that set the teaching standards for the subject. In this way there is always a normative judgment in sex education that will be seen as the state mandating certain sexual behaviour and practice. This fundamentally attacks the rights of individuals to develop their mode of sexual expression independent of the nanny state’s instruction and can irrevocably harm peoples’ sexual identity.  [1] Lord, Condom Nation, 2009


Sexual development is a process of gradual discovery and cannot be effectively taught in a classroom  Having a one size fits all sex education system cannot effectively deal differences within classes. Sexual experience is a gradual process and cannot be meaningfully taught in the structured environment of the classroom. People must discover much about their own sexuality, through experimentation and self-exploration. By trying to impose a strict curriculum that explains sexual processes and practices along set guidelines, much of the opportunity for self-discovery is lost. Furthermore, when people are forced to conform to the set sex education program, they cannot move at their own pace. This is particularly harmful to people who are physically or emotionally less mature than their fellow students and who would be better served if they were allowed to pursue sexual knowledge at their own pace. When other students are involved in the classroom, there is necessarily a degree of peer pressure, which places a further strain on the later bloomers of the class to conform and experiment sexually before they are ready. [1] Another example is the case of gay and gender dimorphic students who will be left isolated within the class, even singled out as different, in a way that may not be conducive toward the promotion of understanding and acceptance. Teachers cannot cater their lessons to every single student, and thus students with less conventional sexual preferences and identities are left without meaningful engagement in the classroom.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998


Parents should have the final choice in sex education for their children  Parents are the ones who are responsible for their children and they know what is best for their own. Parents are the people who best know their children; they live with them, feed them, understand them, and know how and when is best to broach the topic of sex with their children. Parents are in a very real way the shapers of children’s psyche and development, so their input on a central moral and physical issue such as this must be respected. It is a myth that somehow parents lacks the capacity to deal with an issue like sex. Rather, they are the best suited to it. The fact is that children generally listen to their parents, or at least consider seriously what they are told by them. Furthermore, parents are more capable than teachers, in light of their intimate relationship with their children, to discuss the emotional aspects of sex and relationships, topics that would become jokes in the classroom and the subject of ribald humour. [1] It is better to leave sex education in the hands of parents who can apply the delicate touch.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998. Measor et al. Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000. Woodcock et al., All these contraceptives, videos and that…, 1992. Kehily and Nayak, Lads and Laughter, 1997.


This argument is based on a particular view of the state and its role in society.it is a view of the state which is particularly innocent of and which fails to acknowledge the range of cultural messages relating to society and sexuality [1] which are broadcast hegemonically although not entirely openly by the state. [2] The state does have a role in sex education. It has taken an ever more holistic view of young citizens, and this is reflected in schools whose remit stretches not just to the academic education of students, but to the preparation of young people for the full spectrum of activities and responsibilities they will face in adult life. Sexual interaction is a fundamental part of that life. Schools have evolved far beyond the provision of skill in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and this should be reflected in such programs as sex education. The state does not in mandating sex education make any normative judgment regarding sexual practices, but rather provides the necessary information and the space to consider the emotional and social issues involved to make informed choices about sex.  [1] Plummer, Sexual Cultures, Communities, Values and Intimacy, 1996  [2] Foucault, Studies in governmentality, 1979. Throughgood, Sex Education as Social Control, 1992


A disagreement over sex education will not alienate someone, whether child or parent, from the entire education system. Students can differentiate between contentious aspects of education like sex education and the general education over which parents, teachers, and state do not disagree. Both parents and teachers will be able to explain the reasons for the difference in teaching in cases where the student is taught different things at home and in school. Saying that just because one issue is contentious all of education is ruined is merely alarmist.


States should not be overly concerned with size as a measure of strength since this is merely increasing the area that needs defending. Instead they should be concerned with having common sense of identity that encourages cooperation. Russia, Nigeria and India are examples of large federated states which suffer from internal insurgencies caused by political grievances.1 The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an excellent example of a large federated state which has proven incapable of defending its borders.2 It may be the case a common identity is better formed in independent nation states. Smaller states like Monaco and Singapore continue to exist with relative security in contrast. 1 AlertNet, 2011, 'Bin Laden death weakens Russia insurgency- official,' The Washington Post, 2006, 'Grievances Fuel Insurgency, Says Nigeria Media 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand state', BBC News  2 BBC , 2010, 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand State


Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.  Federal states allow local decision making to suit local needs due to their tiered decision making structures. This ensures that citizens are able to determine how they should live their lives without infringing upon the rights of citizens in other federal units who may have different opinions. However on security matters which affect the entire federal state, citizens are better protected because the federal units are stronger together than apart. A federal state also creates a common sense of purpose than can dissuade conflict between the federal units. A good historical example of this behaviour was the agreement of the Swiss Cantons to come together to collectively protect and enrich themselves from outside threats in 1848.1 1 History of Switzerland, 'Switzerland's History,'


It is true that there are few states which include homogenous national groups. However, there are some (Iceland and Japan for example) but there are many states which are predominantly a single "nation." And given that proposition has accepted that nations are constructed, it is possible for people to opt-into nationhood. Thus autonomous nation states can exist where groups of people agree to live with common cultural and political values. Therefore, it is not futile to attempt to accommodate a common set of political values within a state. Indeed, it is necessary to have some kind of common history, culture, practices or ethnicity often to bind groups together.1 1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'


Federal states are economically stronger  Federal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.1 Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.2Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.3 1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,' Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,' 2 BBC , 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute 3 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism


Free trade areas are able to operate quite successfully even if they lack an overarching authority and full integration of currencies, such as NAFTA.1 Economic homogenisation is not necessarily a good thing. Common currencies are best deployed in Optimal Currency Area, which are areas with sufficiently similar economies that a common currency can successfully function. Problems exist where there is a lack of political capital between nations in a federation or when there are logistical barriers (such as the different languages within the EU or the differing strength of public finances).2 There is no reason why federal states are required for comparative advantage to exist, though economies of scale could be less. 1 Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2004, 'NAFTA: A Decade of Success,' . 2 Wikipedia , 2011, 'Optimal Currency Are


In most cases parts of federated states remain in similar economic positions relative to other sections. California and Texas are regularly the most economically successful US states. Rather than receive economic benefit, they have federal taxes transferred to the weakest performing states in the Union. A similar argument is apparent with the German bailouts in the 2010-11 Eurozone financial crisis.1 1 The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' The Economist, 2011, 'German business and politics: Goodbye to Berlin,'


Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences  It is not clear what the logical end point for splitting countries over political differences would be. Since each individual has a unique set of preferences, or at least there are large numbers of groups of people with different preferences, the state must aggregate preferences at some point. It makes more sense for the state to aggregate preferences in such a way that creates effective states that can meet their (aggregate) goals rather than attempting to find "pure" nation states. Furthermore, nations are often scattered in areas which do not provide a clear location for a state. An example of this is Eastern Europe or Africa where ethnic groups and tribes regularly cross state boundaries and exist as unconnected pockets.1 It would be impossible to create states to cater to these groups. 1 Guardian, 2007, 'Biafran Lessons,'


Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance  Federal states tend to be larger and have different economic cycles. This allows the overall state to cope with different economic cycles by using fiscal transfers (tax) between wealthier states and poorer states to fund government programmes.1 So for example if Mississippi and New Mexico were paying for all their services themselves from their own taxes they would have debts of over 500% of GDP,2however at the beginning of the Republic it was the Southern States who were the richest due to their cotton wealth. 1 Euro Economics, 'Example: Fiscal Transfer 2 The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,'


Often decisions are forced on states by powerful neighbours. Examples include the South African policy of dumping crops in neighbouring states, Russia's brief war with Georgia and the United States' treatment of Latin America.1 Under the proposition they at least have the ability to influence and challenge decisions that are being made.2 There are also the comparative benefits of being within the federal state, detailed in the Proposition section. 1 'A Good neighbour? South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets and policy makersACB Briefing Paper p. 14 'The Russia-Georgia war, three years onThe Economist 'Bullying Latin AmericaQuarterly Americas 2 'FederalismSection 3.1, Stanford


The comparative situation is that of a resource rich region being surrounded by aggressive neighbours which desire its resources. Weak states are usually incapable of defending their borders and thus fall victim to invasion and occupation (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo).1 Long term control by a federal state is preferable to repeated violence and conflict as outside forces move in and out of the region. Moreover, being part of a federal state ensures that there is only one party attempting to control the region rather than multiple competing governments which are likely to bring long term violence. Finally, there is the other side to the opposition's case. By being part of a federal state, there is international pressure for members of that resource rich federal unit to have something in return and for their state to adequately look after them. 1 Consultancy Africa Intelligence, 2010, 'Security Situation in the DRC: A case of a weak state leaning on the UN,'


Independent States can suit their populations.  Firstly, Federal states involve compromise between different parties in order to reach proposals which can be acceptable to all members of the federation. This often means that states are forced to compromise on important issues. An example of this is Abortion in the USA.1 Often, in order to protect minorities, voting is skewed towards smaller federal units (for example the US Senate with two Senators per state, regardless of population). This does not fulfil the principles of equal democratic representation. Such an issue exists to far less a degree in independent states, which can be more homogenous in preferences and more reflective of local needs.2 Moreover, given that it is unlikely that any state has chosen the appropriate position of compromise, all federal units will end up with a policy which is sub-optimal for them. Secondly, Federal arrangements tend to be complex, inhibiting transparency as vested interests at different levels of government defend their spheres.2 1 USA Today, 2010, 'Abortion deal helps ensure enough votes for health care,' 2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'


Federal States often have persistent losers.  Within federal states, some federal units are often persistently weaker within the state that others and thus have to repeatedly accommodate (this links to the argument above).1 In countries such as Nigeria, resource rich parts of the country are consistently used by the rest of the country as a source of wealth with insufficient investment in return.2 1 Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, 'Poor States, Rich Federal Government- Winners and Losers of the Emissions Trading Scheme,' Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,' 2 Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007.


Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.  The proposition arguments repeatedly rely on the federal state being limited in strength enough to allow local differences and choices. However, historically, federal states have moved to extend their control from the centre often with the justification of necessity. Both the USA and Russia are examples of this trend.1 In the USA, debates about overstretch of federal control are numerous and time consuming. This argument is especially likely if one or a group of federal units are significantly stronger than the other unit, for example the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1871 German Union. In this case, Prussia was able to use its financial strength and size to eventually dominate the Union and control the other federal units.2 1 Garratt , Thomas and Rhine, Russell. 'On the Size and Growth of Government.' Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 88 (1). 2006. World Savvy, 2008, 'Centralization of Power in Modern Russia,' 2 Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,'


It is harder to deal with internal repression than the invasion of another sovereign state.  Federal states offer convenient guises for the exploitation of resource rich areas or areas of strategic importance. The Niger Delta is used by the Nigerian government to provide oil wealth that is insufficiently invested in the Delta leading to insurgencies1. The Nigerian government is able to remove international pressure to reform by allying itself with UN principles of non-intervention in sovereign states which is only rarely overridden in cases of serious, systemic and widespread human rights abuses when 'all peaceful means have failed'.2 In reality, this gives government's considerable leeway to commit abuses within their own territory. If the Niger Delta were a separate country, there would be much more political capital to ensure it was appropriately treated and a stronger legal basis to hold Nigeria to account. 1 Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007. 2 United Nations, 'An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-making,'


This point ignores the fact that weak federal units would make weak states unable to protect their interests anyway. Mississippi would have very little global influence if it were not in the USA. Within the USA it gains the benefit of collective bargaining. Weaker federal units together are more powerful than apart and have the protection of more powerful units in global diplomacy.


Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; it prevents federal units from selecting extreme policies which could harm minority groups.1Moreover, the devolved power structure of federal states means that the decisions which have to be collective are normally in areas of collective interest, for example defence, where there is a "whole" which should have preference over individual federal units. Whilst different levels of federal arrangements will have different interests, this reflects their different functions and prevents any one function from being overridden completely. Finally, this argument ignores the comparative which includes the benefits of federation to the constituent units 1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'


People are not stupid. They will not vote for someone who is using the powers of the executive to enrich himself. Rather, leaders will only be able to stay in power so long as they do what the people want. If leaders are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on the leader, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states, in such cases as with Chavez the executive will have enough power simply to override the imposed term limits. [1]  [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available:


The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.  Power has a strong tendency to corrupt; it is highly intoxicating. For this reason, it should not be left in the hands of one person for too long. When a leader is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits the executive runs the risk of becoming a personal fief, rather than the office of first servant of the people, as it should be. This is seen particularly in parts of the developing world where leaders use state funds to generate electoral support from key groups and to maintain the loyalty of essential supporters. A current example of this is in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has been able to monopolize power to the point where it is unclear who his successor would be should he die suddenly. [1] Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to enact self-aggrandizing policies and to retain power indefinitely. [2] Instead, by maintaining term limits, leaders have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.  [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available:   [2] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available:


Voters will choose the leader they think will do the best job, if this is the incumbent then that is democracy. Election machines and lobby groups may be able to help an incumbent somewhat, but at the end of the day the leader must be able to convince the people that he has done a good job and is still suitable to lead. As to the issue of countries like Zimbabwe, if the people want to keep electing a revolutionary hero, that is their choice. The overruling of election results, as occurred in the most recent Zimbabwean election, however, is not democratic and thus unacceptable for a mature state. Mugabe’s ability to flaunt the will of the people was not due to a lack of term limits, however, but on an inadequate separation of powers inherent in the system. [1] Adding term limits to that system, and indeed any system, will do little to redress imbalances between branches of government. The case of Vladimir Putin is similarly instructive, despite stepping down after his second term, he thereafter took the office of Prime Minister and maintained effective power. Term limits are no barrier to those determined and popular enough to hang on to power.  [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.


The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office.  Term limits are a necessary check on executive power to prevent an over mighty executive. Whereas the legislature and judiciary are composed of many competing views, with members of various parties and outlooks represented, the executive of a country speaks with a single voice. In legislatures, party leaders are not the sole sources of power, with factions and alternative nexuses of influence forming throughout that branch of government. [1] Executive power, on the other hand, rests solely in the hands of the leader, usually a president. The leader has full power over the policies of the executive branch of government. Cabinets, which form part of the executive in practice, are usually directly answerable to the leader, and ministers can be dismissed if they are uncooperative or dispute the leader’s policies. Even in parliamentary systems, leaders with a majority and a strong party whip can command the same powers as a strong president, if not more. It is thus necessary to have a check on the highly individual power that is the executive. Term limits are the best such check. Term limits allow leaders to enact their policies over a set time period and then usher them out of office. [2] This is essential, because too much power in the hands of a single individual for too long can upset the balance of power in a country and shift power in favour of the executive, thus damaging the protections to society that checks provide. This is exactly what happened in the United Kingdom under Tony Blair where from the start cabinet government virtually disappeared Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said “In the eight months I was cabinet secretary when Tony Blair was prime minister, the only decision the cabinet took was about the Millennium Dome,” [3] and power continued to be ever more centralized in response to terrorism.  [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.  [2] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available:   [3] Press Association. 2007. “Blair cabinet ‘took one decision in eight months’”, guardian.co.uk, 29th May 2007, Available:


Leaders may have a single view and be the sole centre of power in the executive branch, but that does not mean the leader’s remaining in office will somehow shift power away from the other branches. The separation of powers is constitutionally protected in most countries, and leaders’ powers will be circumscribed by these whether term-limited or not. In the example of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while Blair was centralizing power in Number 10 Brown at the Treasury always had an independent voice and enough power to prevent the prime minister getting his way on domestic policy.


A leader who is term-limited suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term leader will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Furthermore, as to lobby-group support, a leader on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favour groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for leaders, paid for often at the expense of the public.


Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish.  Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Leaders and politicians generally, almost always win re-election. Such has been the case in the United States, for example, where presidents are almost always re-elected for a second term. Leaders are re-elected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for those who they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. This problem has become particularly serious in developing world in which revolutionary leaders from the original independence movements are still politically active. These leaders often command huge followings and mass loyalty, which they use to maintain power in spite of poor decisions and corruption in many cases. Such has been the case in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe winning presidential elections in spite of mass corruption and mismanagement. [1] Only recently have the people finally voted against him, but it was too late, as his power had become too entrenched to unseat him. The uphill battle that will always exist to unseat incumbents makes term limits necessary. Countries need new ideas and new leaders to enact them. Old leaders using election machines to retain power do their country a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.  [1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest  A focus of a leader who is looking toward the next election is on getting votes. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by leaders, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are concerned with being re-elected. A leader has an incentive to put tough decisions off if he can retain power by doing so. When constrained by term limits, leaders must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform. [1] Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places leaders in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behaviour, it is curtailed by term limits, as leaders in their final term will not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again.  Furthermore, leaders who develop strong party structures can influence the choice of their successor, ensuring that they have a legacy. In this way term limits encourage the development of party-based systems, rather than personality based systems of government.  [1] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available:


While some continuity is desirable in leadership, it is not worth the costs of allowing a single individual to retain so much power for so long. If there are crises to face or long-term legislative agendas to push forward, the leader may still offer insight and support out of office and may back a candidate to succeed him who will continue his policies. The boons of continuity can thus be maintained without the risks of despotism and corruption that too long held office encourages.


Term limits protect democracy. While people may not be able to vote for a leader again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party’s candidate. Limiting individual leaders to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system of checks and balances.


Term limits on leaders unbalances power in favour of non-limited legislators and the judiciary.  When one branch is in constant flux and another retains the ability to maintain a degree of continuity, the power balance is naturally unequal. An executive who can continuously seek re-election is better equalized with the other branches. Fear that a leader somehow will be able to override the checks instituted by the constitution and laws of a state are entirely unfounded. A third-term president in the United States, for example, is no more innately powerful than a second-term one. [1] He can no more change the constitution, or take power from the other branches of government than he could previously. In cases where leaders have wrested power from the other branches and become dictators, as in Zimbabwe, the cause of the problem is not a lack of term limits, but rather a lack of adequate separation of powers in government. Term limits do not stop tyranny, as a would-be dictator can easily enough remove term limits by fiat. The solution to dictatorship is the establishment of robust democratic institutions and a genuine separation of powers. Furthermore, a strong leader may be necessary to counter the potential tyranny of a dominant legislature as much as the reverse. Removing term limits ensures balance among the power centres of government.  [1] Koenig, Robert. 1995. The Chief Executive. Florence: Wadsworth Publishing.


The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits.  With term limits, a leader will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of leaders in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. Furthermore, lame duck leaders can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former heads of state and government find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement. [1] Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behaviour, as leaders look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people.  [1] Wynne, Michael. 2004. “Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy”. University of Wolongong. Available:


A strong, consistent executive may be desirable in many cases.  Continuity and experience in leadership has real value. Experienced hands can be best for navigating the often-treacherous waters of politics, and such experience is especially necessary in the executive. Furthermore, the prospect of future tenure gives incumbent leaders the leverage to get things done. When there are no term limits, lame duck leaders are generally eliminated. The status quo undermines the ability of last-term leaders to act effectively, since members of the other branches of government, and the public, know they are on the way out and thus lack the same ability to enact policy. [1] Eliminating term limits allows leaders to make the most of every term they serve to enact policy. It also allows leaders to focus on long-term projects that might take more than the time allotted to them by their term limits. When considering the ascension of new leaders, it is necessary to consider that they will always take some time acclimating themselves to their new office, time that is thus not put to efficient use in governing. Constant changing of leadership brought about by term limits serves only to exacerbate this problem. In other words, leadership is like anything else—one gets better with experience. Additionally, lobbyists and powerful legislators will more easily exploit amateurish newcomers to leadership. Naiveté on the part of new leaders who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Continuity in leadership is especially important in times of crisis. For example, the United States needed the continuity and strength of Franklin Roosevelt during Great Depression, and later during World War II. Americans were willing to break with the tradition of presidents serving only two terms of office for the sake of that leadership. [2] Clearly, it is better to have a tried and tested leader in times of struggle than a potentially disastrous, untested newcomer.  [1] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available:   [2] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.


Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their leaders on their own.  Term limits are grossly undemocratic. If a leader is popular and desired by the people to continue to lead them, then it should be their choice to re-elect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is an insult to the intelligence of voters. The electorate will see whether a leader is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for re-election simply removes the right to make important political decisions from the electorate. The reason some countries have overpowered presidents and executives is not due to a lack of term limits, but because of a system designed to suppress opposition. Term limits are not a concern when considering why countries have corrupt and authoritarian leaders. [1] In such countries or where the leader is very popular the leader will be able to overturn the term limits anyway rendering them redundant. This occurred in Venezuela in 2009 when Chavez the Venezuelan President won a referendum to end term limits. [2] The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should lead them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands.  [1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  [2] Voice of America, 2009. “Chavez Celebrates End to Venezuela Term Limits”, 16th February, 2009, Available:


A leader who has to constantly concern himself with re-election is likely to be far more beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited. While a term-limited leader may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to the ability to do what is right for the nation. Leaders who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a leader who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision.  Furthermore, reducing the incentive to pander to self-interest groups in one’s final term can be achieved through offering good retirement benefits to ex-leaders, including international jobs. [1]  [1] Ginsburg, Tom, James Melton and Zachary Elkins. 2011. “On the Evasion of Executive Term Limits.” William and Mary Law Review. Available:


The executive, at least in Presidential and Parliamentary systems of government, already has the extra power of being an individual wielding the entire power of the branch of government. There are always competing power groups within legislatures, so it can never run the risk of becoming tyrannical in the same way the executive can. Term limits are an essential check on the huge individual power that the executive bestows on leaders.


Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.


Women must gain positions in Parliament quickly as they would raise awareness about 'less important' issues such as family and employment rights  Whilst is it possible for men to speak on women's issues, some topics of debate (e.g. on family issues or equality in the workplace) are still seen as less important than economics or foreign policy. Creating more female MPs would encourage more debates about social policy, and so do more to produce constructive legislation of relevance to real people's lives. For example, Harriet Harman is the first MP to seriously confront the gaps in the treatment of women and other minorities in the workplace1. This was previously seen as a 'soft' issue unworthy of parliamentary attention; she was more in touch with women's (and, of course, many men's) priorities and acted upon them. If we want our political system to be in touch with the priorities of everyone, we must to act to increase women's representation.  1 'Harman pushes discrimination plan', BBC, 26th June 2008


Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.  1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011


Female role models are needed urgently to raise aspirations among young women and change parliamentary practices  At present there is a vicious circle whereby women see no point in standing for politics because it is viewed as a male-dominated institution. Positive discrimination is the only way to encourage women to stand. Only if one generation is pushed towards politics can there be role models for potential future women MPs to follow; for that reason it need not be a permanent measure, just one that gets the ball rolling1. It has been proven by a study at the University of Toronto, Canada, that women need inspirational female role models more than men; they need it to be demonstrated that it is possible to overcome barrier2 . Positive discrimination would provide this evidence and support. This measure would simply allow women to overcome the institutional sexism in the selection committees of the established political parties, which has for so long prevented a representative number of women from becoming candidates, and would encourage other women to try and emulate that. It's about changing stereotypes and perception (particularly of the concept 'leadership', which we automatically think of as a male trait1). This will help achieve true progress in the future.  1 'Increasing the numbers of female MPs', Thinking and Doing, 14th May 2010  2 'Women need female role models', Research Digest, 16th March 2006


A true role model has to be admired. Encouraging more women to stand for election should not be about 'making up numbers': women are extremely capable of becoming elected without help from male party leaders. Shirley Chisholm, in a famous speech on gender equality to Congress in Washington, U.S., on 21st May 1969, aired a similar sentiment: "women need no protection that men do not need. What we need are laws to protect working people, to guarantee them fair pay, safe working conditions, protection against sickness and layoffs and provision for dignified, comfortable retirement. Men and women need these things equally. That one sex need protection more than the other is a male supremacist myth as ridiculous and unworthy of respect as the white supremacist myth that society is trying to cure itself of at this time"1. Apportioning a quota of seats for women or all-women shortlists will be a patronising implication that women cannot succeed off the back of their own merits, and that men are innately superior. This does not create inspirational role models.  1 Full transcript of speech, 'Equal Rights for Women' by Shirley Chisholm:


Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve  In a 'representative' democracy it is vital that every part of the population be accurately and proportionately represented. The present lack of female voices in parliaments across the world symbolises the continuing patriarchal societal bias. Women are over half of the population, yet less than 20% of the House of Commons is made up of women. As of 2011, there are only 72 women (constituting 16.6% of all Representatives) serving in the House of Representatives in the US. In order to truly have a representative government, numbers must be increased to fairly mirror numbers in society. All women shortlists and other artificial means are a quick and effective way of doing this. Even David Cameron, a traditional opponent to positive discrimination for women, when asked whether a meritocracy was more desirable, said "It doesn't work"; "we tried that for years and the rate of change was too slow. If you just open the door and say 'you're welcome, come in,' and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it's not very welcoming"1.Indeed, a recent report by the Hansard Society2 said that the numbers of women in UK Parliament could fall unless positive action is taken3. Sarah Childs, launching the report, said that "unless all parties use equality guarantees, such as all-women shortlists, it is most unlikely that they will select women in vacant seats" 3. Compulsion is necessary to begin to achieve parity of representation4. The Labour party used all-women shortlists in the 1990's and many well-known female MPs were elected this way. Positive action is vital for reasons of justice and fairness.  1 'David Cameron: I will impose all-women shortlists' by Rosa Prince, The Telegraph, 18th February 2010  2 The Hansard Society  3 'All-women shortlists a must, says report' by Oliver King, The Guardian, 15th November 2005  4 'Call for all-women shortlists' by David Bentley, The Independent, 11th January 2010


All-women shortlists were declared legal in 2001 after a debate, and there has not been an issue about its legality since then1. Judges have ruled that quotas and other forms of positive discrimination are not in breach of any human rights or democratic law, and thus should be used. Positive discrimination compensates women for the many years that they were excluded and placed in the political wilderness. There is an unavoidable discrimination at work in the electoral systems worldwide, and if another type of discrimination is temporarily necessarily to combat it then it must be used. A true 'meritocracy' only works when candidates are starting from equal positions. Dame Ann Begg MP has said that positive discrimination is absolutely crucial for ensuring the best candidates apply: "If under-represented groups are not encouraged to apply, you cannot get the best person for the job. Women, for example, are less likely to put themselves forward as MPs"2. Nobody is saying that positive discrimination is without its problems, but in this circumstance the end must justify the means.  1 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001  2 'Positive discrimination crucial for democracy, says disabled MP' by Alev Sen, The Beaver, 15th March 2011


MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.


Artificial increases in numbers of women are not necessary, as there are other, less intrusive, alternatives to increase visibility of women in politics  Positive discrimination is an extremely heavy-handed way of increasing the numbers of women in parliament. Women should of course have the same opportunities for participation in politics (and other male-dominated institutions should as business) as men; but they should not have more; Ann Widdecombe has argued that female campaigners, such as the Suffragettes, "wanted equal opportunities not special privileges"1. Many believe that other empowerment programs, such as education, would be much more effective for creating equal opportunities and create less controversy which could end up being counter-productive for the cause. Statistically, 1 billion people in the world are illiterate; two thirds of them are women2. Education is the most crucial tool to give women the same opportunities of men, particularly in developing countries. That will insure that women too are participating in the governance of their countries.  It is also important to note that the situation is improving across the world on its own. Canada elected a record 76 candidates in the 2011 election, up from 69 the previous election3. Nordic countries average around 40% women candidates, which is about the ideal given that competency must be taken into account and 50-50 is unlikely4. Even in Iraqi elections, all political parties had to submit lists of candidates where every third person was a woman; this guarantees at least 25% of all elected delegates are women4. The numbers of women in power are also increasing: 20 countries currently have a female leader5, and to that list must be added Thailand who recently elected Yingluck Shinawatra as prime minister6. With this rate of change, equality will be achieved fairly quickly and the controversy and heavy-handedness of positive discrimination is not necessary. It may even be detrimental to the cause.  1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia  2 'Women and Literacy', SIL International  3 'Record number of women elected' by Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News, 3rd May 2011  4 'Women's representation worldwide', Fairvote  5 'Female World Leaders Currently in Power'  6 'Thailand: Yingluck Shinawatra wins key election', BBC, 3rd July 2011


THIS HOUSE WOULD INTRODUCE POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION TO PUT MORE WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT Women are vastly underrepresented in democratic legislatures across the world. Until 20 years ago women had never been more than 5% of MPs in UK Parliament1. Even today wom  How is this different to being elected because of the particular party you represent? Certainly Margaret Thatcher was not helped as a woman, but she was elected to represent Finchley, in Middlesex, which is a traditionally Conservative constituency; it was inevitable that she would be elected because she stood in a Tory 'safe seat'. Thatcher was thus elected not through her own individual merit or competence, but rather because she represented the party who always won there. It must also be noted that quotas and all-women shortlists do not necessarily mean that the best person is unavailable. Jacqui Smith, the first female Home Secretary, was elected on an all-women shortlist1. She would not have been appointed to the Labour government's cabinet if she had not been an outstanding politician; the all-woman shortlist not only did not prevent constituents from being represented by a capable MP, but in fact gave her a higher chance of being elected, which was to the benefit of all of us.  1 'All women shortlists' by Richard Kelly and Isobel White, House of Commons Library, 21st October 2009


Positive discrimination for women is discrimination  Merely glossing 'positive' discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The Labour Party's policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as it disadvantages potential male candidates1. The law may have been changed, but the principle of the objection remains and all-women shortlists are only legal until 20152which demonstrates a level of uncertainty and reservation about its true legality. Equality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. MPs should be the best on offer, and the one chosen freely by constituents, otherwise this is not democracy. All-Women shortlists seem to, in some ways, detract from the purpose of having elections if candidate lists are restricted.  1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia  2 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001


All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice  Article 21 of the Human Rights Act, clauses 1 and 3, state that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedure". Candidates on all-women shortlists would not be freely chosen by constituents but imposed upon them. Some constituencies would have all-women shortlists, and some wouldn't, and this would be completely arbitrary; people's choice of candidate would vary immensely according to where they live, and this is undemocratic. By allocating a specific number of seats to women in parliament parties would be infringing this universal law which will impact upon the fundamental human rights of the voters.


If people feel that a woman has been appointed simply for her gender rather than for her talents, then this will damage rather than enhance the status of female MPs1: they will, many argue, become simply "token women"2. Many leading female MPs oppose all-women shortlists on a matter of principle. Ann Widdecombe claims they are "an insult to women": she said, "Neither Margaret Thatcher nor I needed this kind of help to get into Parliament"3. At a different time, Ann Widdecombe has said: "The concept of merit is going out of the window. I don't care whether an MP is male or female, black or white, rich or poor, old or young. What matters is the merit they bring. We really cannot have targets for particular categories. It's frankly insulting because it suggests women and ethnic minorities cannot get there on their own merit"4. Whether it is true that a lesser-able candidate gets an easier ride in on all-women shortlists, the fact remains that people will perceive that as having been the case. This may result in their views being taken less seriously than MPs elected in an open ballot, and this is not democratic. It is far better than women fight their way in and are respected once they are in parliament.  1 'Women-only shortlists are a patronising stunt


Other options will not have a large enough or fast enough impact on the state of politics. Most women have found that "Even where women have indicated willingness and self-confidence to stand for public office, their efforts had been thwarted by male dominated and administrative structures"1. Certainly women must be empowered through education and other such indirect methods, but that is not enough alone to increase female MPs. Shortlists and quotas are a necessary step to raise the profile of women in politics, and would only be needed up until the point where their representation is equal without this. Education is a crucial part of a long-term strategy, but we also need short term impetus. Positive discrimination gives women a temporary platform from where they can make a difference for generations to come.  1 'Director calls for affirmative action for women into leadership positions', Modern Ghana, 19th December 2006


Countries can develop their nuclear-related technologies without the need to direct efforts to the construction of extremely dangerous, miniature nuclear weapons. Rather, if superior technology is desired, the resources exist in Western countries to do most research without even touching nuclear materials, being able to do much of the research by means of computer. Dominance in nuclear engineering does not require the creation of such weapons. It is better to direct research toward peaceful applications of nuclear technology.


Designing and constructing tactical nuclear weapons allow a state's scientists to maintain a competitive position in nuclear technology.  Research and development into tactical nuclear weapons are essential for countries to maintain their technological edge in the field of nuclear science. The United States has long enjoyed technological dominance in the field of nuclear weaponry. However, in recent years China and Russia have begun to pour effort into developing ever-smaller nuclear weapons for tactical deployment. If the United States and the other nuclear powers wish to maintain their position within the nuclear tech order, they must begin investing further in development of similar miniaturized nuclear devices. Research into the design and construction of mini-nukes provides a number of benefits beyond the tactical flexibility conferred by such weapons. First, developing mini-nukes puts designers and scientists in the West on the same intellectual page as those seeking to devise nuclear weapons suitable for use in terrorist attacks, such as so-called suitcase-nukes1. By learning how to build such weapons scientists will be able to devise means of counteracting them should an enemy attempt to employ them in an attack. Furthermore, the miniaturization of nuclear weapons has applications in other nuclear technologies such as in the design and manufacture of smaller nuclear power facilities. Military technology always finds an outlet in civilian use. Such was case with Cold War technological endeavors, such as the Space Race, which yielded everything from superior computer processors to ballpoint pens. Clearly, the public will in many ways reap the boons arising from the development of smaller tactical nuclear weapons. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.


All rogue states that might attack the United States or other Western countries would likely be unable to withstand a conventional military attack from one of them. For this reason, any retaliation to a crude nuclear attack from a rogue state would more likely, and more justifiably, incur retaliation by conventional military force. With its massive conventional bombs, air and sea dominance, and tactical superiority, the United States, for example would be better served by responding to nuclear aggression with overwhelming conventional firepower. Rather than validating nuclear retaliation, and thus opening the door to similar responses in the future, it is better to respond to such situations with conventional power.


All countries have an inherent right to self-defense even when they lack the capacity to do so with conventional weapons.  States, as the building blocks of international society, have an inviolable right to self-defense, and this right extends to the possession of miniature, tactical nuclear weapons. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of small and poor states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. When armed with tactical nuclear weapons, all states become equal in terms of capacity to do harm to one another. If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to severely damage, or even destroy, the would-be invader's military capacity with a few well-placed miniature nuclear missiles [1]. An example of this is the 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russian troops, which would likely never have occurred had Georgia possessed an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, as Russia would have thought twice when considering that its large tank formations could be wiped out by a single well-placed tactical warhead. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves.  [1] The Economist. 2011. “A Rivalry that Threatens the World”. The Economist. Available:


Countries need to design nuclear devices to adapt with changing defensive technology.  There are a number of technological developments that have made the use of conventional weapons ineffective in combating certain threats. For example, some bunkers are buried so deeply underground that conventional bombs cannot penetrate them. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), currently in development in the United States, would be able to penetrate such bunkers, while leaving no more surface damage than a conventional bomb1. Deployment of a weapon such as the RNEP might prove necessary in order to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in rogue states, as for example, Iran has built extremely tough bunkers for the purpose of nuclear testing and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Blocking the development of necessary tactical nuclear technologies actually raises the chances of these dangerous states obtaining nuclear weapons. Another instance of tactical nuclear devices proving useful is in the destruction of clandestine biological and chemical weapons factories. Were such facilities destroyed by conventional bombing, some of the materials being manufactured could easily leak into neighbouring population areas, leading to increased casualties. Clearly, in light of these defense innovations, tactical nuclear weapons are an essential addition to a nuclear power's arsenal. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News.


Conventional weapons are perfectly capable of dealing with the issues and conflicts for which tactical nuclear weapons are designed, and are less risky to employ. The predictions by the United States government that the RNEP would produce little fallout, for example, appear unfounded. On the contrary, the weapon would likely scatter deadly nuclear fallout for miles around a target site, causing terrible destruction and collateral damage1. Furthermore, developments in conventional weapons can serve the same purposes, if with slightly greater difficulty. New super bunker-buster bombs are in development in the United States that do not carry a nuclear payload, and fuel-air bombs can, with their wide incendiary range, destroy factories and incinerate any hazardous materials quite effectively. New nuclear weapons are not necessary for the tactical concerns of the future. 1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator".