debate.docx

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS ARE GOOD FOR EDUCATION

Single-sex schools are schools that only admit those of one specific gender, believing that the educational environment fostered by a single gender is more conducive to learning than a co-educational school. Studies conducted have shown that boys gain more academically from studying in co-education schools, but that girls find segregated schools more conducive to achievement. However academic results are not the only criterion on which the success of the education system should be judged. In the United States, a long-standing controversy over the Virginia Military Institute resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling, in June 1996, that the institute must admit women. Nevertheless the Court left room for private (i.e. not state-run) single-sex institutions and other such schools, where needed, to redress discrimination. Proponents of single-sex schools maintain that, by removing the distractions of the other sex, students learn more effectively and feel better about their education. Opponents maintain that co-educational schools in contrast are important in that they prepare students better for the real world, and do not attempt to segregate students from the realities of adult life. This debate can apply both to secondary school and college level, but single-sex institutions are found more frequently at the former.

Women are better off in single-sex institutions

POINT

Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose ‘male’ disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers. In the USA Who’s Who, graduates of women’s colleges outnumber all other women; there are only approximately 50 women’s colleges left in the States today.[1] Elizabeth Tidball, who conducted the Who’s Who research, also later concluded that women’s colleges produced ‘more than their fair share who went on to medical school or received doctorates in the natural or life sciences’, typically male fields.[2]

[1] Calefati, Jessica, ‘The Changing Face of Women’s Colleges’, US News , 11 March 2009.

[2] Kaimer, W. ‘The Trouble with Single-sex Schools’. The Atlantic, April 1998.

COUNTERPOINT

Other studies have found that women in fact are not any better off in single-sex institutions. A 1998 survey from the American Association of University Women, a long-time advocate of single-sex education, admitted that girls from such schools did not show any academic improvement.[1] That they are more inclined towards maths and sciences is of questionable importance to society as a whole. As the report noted, "boys and girls both thrive when the elements of good education are there, elements like smaller classes, focused academic curriculum and gender-fair instruction".[2] These can all be present in co-educational schools. Tidball in her research made the mistake of not

controlling for other characteristics, namely socio-economic privileges of those at elite women’s colleges.[3]

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES REALITY TELEVISION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOODReality television has become very popular over the past decade with shows such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The Apprentice" attracting big audiences and making a lot of money for broadcasters worldwide. A definition of reality television is quite difficult but at its most basic it means programmes that show things really taking place, rather than drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically reality TV involves a group of people who are not trained actors being filmed in unusual situations over a period of time. Sport and news programmes are not considered reality TV. Documentaries that explore aspects of society are a grey area, with some closer to news reporting and others blurring into reality TV because they set up situations which did not already exist. Recently celebrity versions of reality shows have made definition even harder, because they show the private lives of professional singers, actors, sportspeople, etc. as they cope with new situations. Reality TV is often a hot topic as proponents believe it paints an unrealistic and inappropriate portrait and is therefore bad for our society and the children that make up the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in the number of hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban them completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be allowed to watch what they like, and that reality programmes make good TV, as shown by consistently high viewer figures.

The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving TV producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows

POINT

Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers in 2003, its producers responded by attempting to shock the audience that little bit more1. "Big Brother" programmes have also shown men and women having sex on live TV, all in a desperate grab for ratings to justify their continued existence. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:

COUNTERPOINT

Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing. In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually

real and what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality programs.Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES REALITY TELEVISION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

Reality television has become very popular over the past decade with shows such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The Apprentice" attracting big audiences and making a lot of money for broadcasters worldwide. A definition of reality television is quite difficult but at its most basic it means programmes that show things really taking place, rather than drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically reality TV involves a group of people who are not trained actors being filmed in unusual situations over a period of time. Sport and news programmes are not considered reality TV. Documentaries that explore aspects of society are a grey area, with some closer to news reporting and others blurring into reality TV because they set up situations which did not already exist. Recently celebrity versions of reality shows have made definition even harder, because they show the private lives of professional singers, actors, sportspeople, etc. as they cope with new situations. Reality TV is often a hot topic as proponents believe it paints an unrealistic and inappropriate portrait and is therefore bad for our society and the children that make up the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in the number of hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban them completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be allowed to watch what they like, and that reality programmes make good TV, as shown by consistently high viewer figures.


POINT


COUNTERPOINT

Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing. In other words, the gap between what is

actually real and what is presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality programs.Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'

i

Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and discourages the value of hard work and an education

POINT

Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships for the entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.'2 Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the generally misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars they watch on their televisions.1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’

play that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.1

Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.2

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES REALITY TELEVISION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

Reality television has become very popular over the past decade with shows such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The Apprentice" attracting big audiences and making a lot of money for broadcasters worldwide. A definition of reality television is quite difficult but at its most basic it means programmes that show things really taking place, rather than drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically reality TV involves a group of people who are not trained actors being filmed in unusual situations over a period of time. Sport and news programmes are not considered reality TV. Documentaries that explore aspects of society are a grey area, with some closer to news reporting and others blurring into reality TV because they set up situations which did not already exist. Recently celebrity versions of reality shows have made definition even harder, because they show the private lives of professional singers, actors, sportspeople, etc. as they cope with new situations. Reality TV is often a hot topic as proponents believe it paints an unrealistic and inappropriate portrait and is therefore bad for our society and the children that make up the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in the number of hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban them completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be allowed to watch what they like, and that reality programmes make good TV, as shown by consistently high viewer figures.


POINT


improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing. In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality programs.Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'

improve this

Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and discourages the value of hard work and an education

POINT

Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships for the entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.'2 Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the generally misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars they watch on their televisions.1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television

channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’ play that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.1

Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.2

Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting television, encouraging such behaviour in society

POINT

Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting television. They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents doing very little. If they have to sing or dance, then they do it badly – which doesn’t make for good entertainment. They rely on humiliation and conflict to create excitement. Joe Millionaire, where a group of women competed for the affections of a construction worker who they were told was a millionaire, was simply cruel. The emotions of the contestants were considered expendable for the sake of making viewers laugh at their ignorance. Furthermore, the programmes are full of swearing, crying and argument, and often violence, drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to people that this is normal behaviour and helps to create a crude, selfish society. One American reality show, “Are You Hot?”, in which competitors submit to a panel of judges for ‘appearance-rating’, was blamed by eating disorder experts as encouraging the notion that ‘appearance is the most important thing’ (Becker, 2003).1 Furthermore, Paul Watson, a former reality TV show producer, believes they are ‘predictable and just creates more of the same and makes our film makers lazy’ (Jury, 2007).

1 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today

2 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent

improve this

Reality shows are not 'real', therefore they have no education value

POINT

Reality TV is dishonest – it pretends to show “reality” but it actually distorts the truth to suit the programme makers. The shows are not really “real” – they are carefully cast to get a mix of “characters” who are not at all typical. Mostly they show a bunch of young,

good-looking self-publicists, who will do anything to get on TV. Usually the programme makers try to ensure excitement by picking people who are likely to clash with each other. They then place them in unnatural situations, such as the Big Brother house or the Survivor island, and give them strange challenges in order to provoke them into behaving oddly. In The Bachelor, where a group of women compete for the affections of an eligible male, the ‘intimate dates’ they go on are filmed in front of any number of camera; that is not reality (Poniewozik, 2003).1 Finally the makers film their victims for hundreds of hours from all angles, but only show the most dramatic parts. Selective editing may be used to create “storylines” and so further manipulate the truth of what happened.

1 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Reality shows are real; they are real people operating without scripts and often, live. The fact that characters are often cast to encourage disagreements or tension does not take away from the reality of the program, in fact it only adds to it. The unrealistic settings of shows like Big Brother and Survivor do not take away from the educational value of observing how they cope. In fact, without such shows, most people would have little concept of how a group of strangers would be able to survive, co-operate and develop in such environments. As Time describes, 'they provoke, they offend but at least it's trying to do something besides help you get to sleep'. The insight therefore into the human condition is invaluable, and it is little surprise that viewers are eager to watch such programs. What is real is not always the same as what is normal, the events on Survivor Island are no less real for being in an unrealistic setting.

improve this

THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN HOMEWORK

Homework is a task (often called an assignment) set by teachers for students to do outside normal lessons – usually at home in the evening. Schools have been setting homework in developed countries for over a century, but until the past few decades usually only older students had to do it. More recently younger students have also been given homework by their primary or elementary schools. In England the government does not make schools give homework but it does set guidelines 1. Five year olds are expected to do an hour a week, increasing to three hours a week at 11 and ten hours or more a week at 16 2. American studies report the amount of homework being set for

younger students doubling over the past twenty-five years or so, although some doubt these findings.

Countries, schools and subjects differ a lot on how much homework is set, and at what age, but almost all high school students have to do at least some most nights. Most children have never liked homework but from time to time it is also debated by politicians, parents and teachers. Sometimes there are demands for more homework, as part of a drive for “higher standards”. At other times there are calls for less homework to be set, especially in primary/ elementary schools. This topic looks at whether homework should be banned altogether.

Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time

POINT

Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for primary/ elementary pupils. As Alfie Kohn notes, no study has ever found a link between homework and better tests results in elementary school, and there is no reason to believe it is necessary in high school.1 International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores - students in Japan and Denmark get little homework but score very well on tests.2 If anything, countries with more homework get worse results!

1 Sorrentino , 2011

2 Britt , 2005

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is because teachers do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it. Some teachers believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning new concepts. The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however, and related specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of educational value by helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in how much they are learning.

Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that by the high schools years, there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how well students do at school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in elementary school: 1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance learning, but in order to encourage the development of good study skills and

time management;2 2) young children have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on their work.3 Thus, they are more easily distracted from their homework assignments.

1 Strauss, 20062 Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsey, 20003Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001

improve this

Marking homework reduces the amount of time teachers have to prepare good lessons

POINT

Irrespective of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers' time. Australian teachers have complained that 'homework marking can result in four extra hours of work a day and they are rarely rewarded for their effort'.1 This leaves teachers tired and with little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. If the lessons aren't to the standard they should be, the point of homework is lost as the students have little to practise in the first place. The heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the talent pool from which schools can recruit.

1 Speranza, 2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Teachers accept that marking student work is an important part of their job. Well planned homework should not take so long to mark that the rest of their job suffers, and it can inform their understanding of their students, helping them design new activities to engage and stretch them. As for recruitment, although teachers do often work in the evenings, they are not alone in this and they get long holidays to compensate.

improve this

Homework reduces the amount of time for students to do other activities

POINT

Homework takes a lot of time up. In America, they encourage the '10 minute rule', 10 minutes homework for every grade, meaning that high-school students are all doing more than an hour's worth of homework each night.1 Being young is not just about doing school work every night. It should also about being physically active, exploring the

environment through play, doing creative things like music and art, and playing a part in the community. It is also important for young people to build bonds with others, especially family and friends, but homework often squeezes the time available for all these things.

1 Associated Press, 2009

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Homework has not prevented students doing other activities; it takes very little time to complete. Recent American surveys found that most students in the USA spent no more than an hour a night on homework. That suggests there does not seem to be a terrible problem with the amount being set. Furthermore, British studies have shown that 'more children are engaging in sport or cultural activities' than ever before.1 As such, there is no clear evidence to suggest that students are stuck at home doing their homework instead of doing other activities. In addition, concerns over how busy children are suggest that parents need to help their children set priorities so that homework does not take a back seat to school work.

1 BBC News, 2008

improve this

Homework puts students off learning

POINT

Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very stressful, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will take, or set an unrealistic deadline. Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something new well in class, the homework task is impossible. So children end up paying with their free time for the failings of their teachers. They also suffer punishments if work is done badly or late. After years of bad homework experiences, it is no wonder that many children come to dislike education and switch off, or drop out too early. Teachers in Britain fear that poor children, because they lack the support to do their homework, will be turned off school 1.

1 BBC News, 2008

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the teacher. As Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of Education notes, 'many teachers lack the skills to design homework assignments that help kids learn and don't turn them off to learning' .1 The best homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for themselves and follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can help students develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing. The research however suggests that homework is not in fact putting students off learning. Rather studies in Britain indicate that 'most children are happy (and) most are achieving a higher level than before'.2Homework cannot be blamed for a problem that does not exist. Poor children may indeed lack support to do their homework, but this just means that schools need to do more to provide the help they need.

1 Strauss, 20062 BBC News, 2008

improve this

Homework is about 'winning' on tests, not learning

POINT

Many governments make their schools give students a national test (a test taken by all students of the same age). After the tests, they compare schools and punish the schools and teachers whose students do badly. Because schools and teachers are therefore scared about their students doing poorly, they give them more homework, not in the hope they learn more but simply to do better on the tests.1 As such, homework is not designed to help the student, just their teachers and schools who want them to 'win' the test and make them look good, not learn for the students' own benefit.

1 Sorrentino

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at tests is beneficial to students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of assessing whether students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a good thing. Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the student, the two need not be separated.

improve this

The ban on homework could be easily enforced through school inspections

POINT

In many countries public schools require regular school inspections to ensure students are receiving a relatively equal level of education. In Britain for example, Ofsted is a public body that exists specifically to inspect public schools.1 A ban on homework would thus not require a level of trust between the state and individual school principals, for state inspectors could very quickly work out whether homework was being given out by asking the children themselves. Children, who don't like homework at the best of times, would not lie.

1 Ofsted, 2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Many states do not in fact have a structured school inspection system that could enforce such a ban. The United States, for example, has one of the largest student bodies in the world but the state does not have a formal inspection system that could enforce a ban on homework. Therefore any ban would only prove a recommendation at best, and could not possibly hope to be enforced.

Furthermore, even in those states that do have inspection bodies, the regularity of inspections allows school principals to prepare for their arrival. Students might be forced by their teachers to lie to inspectors, otherwise they would receive even more homework. Furthermore, the school inspections are partly so that they can test the ability of students – therefore teachers are encouraged to give their students homework so that they do better on these inspections.

improve this

THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN SCHOOL UNIFORMS - JUNIOR

In some countries, like the U.K., Japan, Hong Kong, and several African countries, school uniforms are worn in almost every school. In other countries, like France and Germany, school uniforms are only worn in a few schools, or even none. However, in some of these countries opinions are changing. For example, both France1 and Germany2 have recently considered bringing school uniforms back, and in the U.S.A. the percentage of public schools in which children wear a uniform has increased from 11.8 in 1999-2000 to 17.5 in 2007-20083. On the other hand, some schools in the U.K. have gotten rid of school uniforms4. With such different rules in these different countries, it is important to think about whether or not school uniforms are really necessary, and why.

Students should be allowed to wear religious dress

POINT

If children are religious, they should be allowed to wear the clothes that express their religion, but school a uniform can often restrict this. Religious beliefs can be extremely valuable and important to many children, giving their lives a great deal of meaning and structure and inspiring them to work hard and behave compassionately in a school environment. Some religions place a great deal of value upon worn symbols of faith, such as turbans, headdresses and bracelets. When a school demands that a child remove these symbols, it inadvertently attacks something central to that child’s life. This may cause the child to see her school and her faith as mutually exclusive institutions[1]. Vulnerable young people should not be forced into an adversarial relationship with their school, as close, collaborative involvement with teaching and learning techniques will greatly effect a child’s ability to adapt, learn and acquire new skills in the future.

For example, school skirts are often not long enough for Muslim girls, who believe that they should cover most of their bodies. To allow children to express their religions, we should get rid of school uniforms.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Some schools do have different rules for religious students, so that those students can express their beliefs. For example, a school might let Muslim girls wear some of their religious items of clothing mixed with the school uniform (e.g., Reading Girls' School)[2].

improve this

Dress Codes instead of school uniform

POINT

Rather than having school uniform, why not have a dress code instead? This has all the benefits of uniform without the many disadvantages. While uniforms force all children to wear the same clothes, dress codes give students a lot of choice what to wear. Only a few unsuitable things are banned - for example, gang colors, very short skirts, crop tops, bare shoulders, etc.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Dress codes are a half-way house that does not work. It does not make students look at all uniform and it does not show what school they are from. In the United States there

has been a move away from allowing either no uniform or dress codes towards having school uniforms.[6]

improve this

School uniforms are often impractical or uncomfortable

POINT

School uniforms are often not very comfortable or practical. In state schools (schools for which parents don't have to pay fees) in the U.K., for example, girls often have to wear dresses or skirts, when they might feel more comfortable in trousers, and boys often have to wear button-up shirts and ties, which can also be uncomfortable for active children[7]. In independent schools, uniforms are often even more impractical and uncomfortable, with blazers or even tailcoats for the children to wear[8].

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

A lot of schools have a choice of uniform so that children can wear what they feel most comfortable in. For example, in Australia, which is a very hot country, schools often have a summer uniform of clothes that are more comfortable in the hot weather [9]. This means that in summer, children might be allowed to wear shorts instead of trousers and short-sleeved instead of long-sleeved shirts.

If children were allowed to choose their own clothes to wear to school, instead of a uniform, they might choose impractical clothes themselves, like baggy tee shirts or long skirts, or jeans with chains hanging from them. To make sure that children are all wearing sensible clothes in which they will be able to take part in all their school activities, there needs to be one uniform that all children at the school wear.

improve this

School uniforms are often expensive

POINT

If a school has a uniform, parents are expected to buy it, and then buy a new one every time their child outgrows the last. This can be expensive. It has been reported that parents in South Africa[10], Australia[11], and the U.K[12]. have to pay a lot of money for their children's school uniforms, and it is probably the same in other countries too.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

In many countries, parents can apply for help with the cost of school uniform. For example, in the U.K., parents who don't earn a lot of money can get money from the government to help pay for their child's school uniform[13] . In Australia, the Australian Scholarships Group, which specialises in helping parents save money when it comes to their children's education, has tips for parents to get their child's uniform cheaper.[14]

Also, parents would probably have to spend a lot more money if their children didn't wear a uniform to school, because they would have to buy them more casual clothes. Since children don't like to wear the same thing too often (in case they get bullied), parents would have to spend a lot of money making sure their children have lots of different outfits.

improve this

Individuality and creativity should be encouraged

POINT

Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"[18]. Children's freedom of expression is restricted by school uniforms, because children who have to wear the same clothing as every other child in their school are not able to express their individuality and creativity. We should get rid of school uniform so that all children can express themselves freely.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Schools can foster creativity and individuality without getting rid of school uniform. There are many schools with a uniform which still support creativity and individuality with "Child Initiated Independent Learning", and other schemes which encourage children to think for themselves [19, 20]. Also, if children are participating in creative activities like art, it is surely better for them to wear sensible clothes, and it's easier to make sure all children are wearing sensible clothes if they all have to wear the same uniform.

improve this

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES WILD ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE KEPT IN CAPTIVITY

Zoos are premises for the captivity of animals, often in urban areas where many of the animals would not otherwise be found, with the intention of studying the animals and displaying them to the public at large. The predecessor of the zoo was the menagerie, which involved the captivity of birds typically for the entertainment of the aristocracy, and has a long history running back to ancient times. The first modern zoo evolved out of an aristocratic menagerie in Vienna in 1765. Many types of zoo now exist, from the petting zoos that encourage the public to get up and close with the animals to the large nature reserves that provide space for the animals to roam around within and most famously the large, urban zoos like the London Zoo which include elephants, lions and penguins and are usually notable tourist drawcards for the cities concerned. Proponents argue that zoos are beneficial both to the animals themselves, protecting endangered species with specific breeding programs, and the public, as an educational tool to increase both awareness and understanding. Opponents respond that the removal of wild animals from their habitat is wrong, that they should be left in their natural surroundings and not used as tools for public entertainment.

Wild animals in zoos suffer unnecessarily

POINT

Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer. They are inevitably confined in unnaturally small spaces, and are kept from the public by cages and bars. A study of British zoos found that elephant enclosures were 1000 times smaller than their natural habitats1. Wild polar bears are confined 'in spaces that are more than a million times smaller than their arctic territory.'1 They suffer psychological distress, often displayed by abnormal or self-destructive behaviour. Aquatic animals do not have enough water, birds are prevented from flying away by having their wings clipped and being kept in aviaries. Furthermore, the locations of zoos in urban areas leads to incidents like the fox attack at London Zoo in 2010 that killed 11 South African and Rockhopper penguins2.

COUNTERPOINT

Wild animals do not suffer in well-regulated, well-run zoos.There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. The Animal Welfare Act, enacted by the United States in 1970, is a good example of a step that can be taken to ensure all animals are treated appropriately and not misused or harmed1. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down.1 Grech, K. S. (2004). Detailed Discussion of the Laws Affecting Zoos. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Animal Legal and Historical Center:

improve this

Zoos encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment

POINT

Adults and children visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends, however it impinges on their freedom or quality of life. Therefore zoos will encourage poor treatment of animals more generally. People do not go to zoos for educational reasons they simply go to be entertained and diverted by weird and wonderful creatures seen as objects of beauty or entertainment. Dale Marcelini, a zoo curator in Washington, conducted a study that found 'visitors spend less than 8 seconds per snake, and one minute per lion.'1Otherwise, 'most people preoccupied themselves with eating, resting and shopping…people treated the exhibits like wallpaper’ 1. As a form of education the zoo is deficient: the only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its natural environment – the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the animal by isolating it from its ecosystem.

1.Berhaupt, 2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Zoos do not encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment. This argument assumes that both the harm suffered by these animals is tremendous and the only value gained from zoos is human entertainment. However, the motives of the general public and the professional zoo keepers are not one and the same. Zoo keeping is a trained profession. Animals in the zoo have regular access to good food and vets on standby should they fall ill. This is a far more luxurious lifestyle than they would have in their natural habitat. Furthermore, within zoos animals have many benefits that wild animals are deprived of, from human understanding to biological study. To see zoos as pure entertainment is myopic.

improve this

States can have immigration regulations in place that protect and conserve the populations of wild animals

POINT

States concerned with the protection and welfare of wild animals are able to close zoos, release the animals back into their natural habitats and thereafter enforce immigration regulation that would ensure they any live cargo entering the country would be searched and checked. If found to contain wild animals, they could be sent back to where they had arrived from and hopefully re-placed in their natural habitat. To cut supply would be

inadvertently to reduce demand, and eventually ensure that the trade in live animals would cease, to the benefit of the wild animal populations themselves.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Sending the trade underground is not the most effective means to ensure the protection and conservation of wild animals. A general populace with previous first-hand exposure to wild animals will not lose their appetite to them if zoos were closed, fostering a demand for a black market in the trade of live, wild animals. As such, the most effective means to protect and conserve the populations of wild animals is regulation of the zoos themselves, not restrictions on their very entry to the state. Furthermore, the release of previous-captive animals into their 'natural' habitats is not advisable, they are not fit to survive in an environment where food is not provided and predators not kept separate.

improve this

Wild animals belong in their natural habitat

POINT

Animals belong in their natural habitat, in the wild. It is a breach of their natural rights to take them by force into captivity for our own purposes. They are 'prevented from gathering their own food, developing their own social orders and generally behaving in ways that are natural to them.'1 No matter how we may try to replicate their surrounding in a zoo, we will never achieve the full result. Predators need to hunt and taking from them their ability to do so by taming/caging/drugging them is beyond cruel. A study by the journal Science in 2008 found that 'Asian elephants in European zoos had a median lifespan of just 18.9 years compared to 41.7 years for wild elephants in an Asian logging camp.'2Excessive human involvement in the food cycle has disrupted it considerably. Let nature take its course.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

The truth is that these claims are based around the logically-skewed ideas of animal rights groups. Their arguments have little or no factual basis/merit for we cannot measure animal happiness. We cannot really say that they would be best left in the wild. All we can do is review the information at hand. Domesticated animals; treated well, would you say they were unhappy? Well then how can we argue that taking animals out of the wild is wrong? We cannot. So rather than banning zoos, we should ensure that relevant safety measures are in place to ensure that these animals are as well looked

after as possible. Human beings are part of the animal kingdom thus food cycle and our involvement is part of nature.

improve this

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES MOTHERS SHOULD STAY AT HOME AND LOOK AFTER THEIR CHILDREN.

In the age of apparent equality women are increasingly encouraged to ‘have it all’, balancing career, children and marriage in order to be seen as successful. Some feel this is bad for children who are then cared for by a child-minder, nursery, or member of the extended family. Others feel that no harm comes to children if the alternative care is good and that children may in fact benefit if paid work makes the mother happier and her work improves the family’s living standards . Occasionally fathers will also decide to stay home as carers instead of mothers. In many countries, mothers (and sometimes fathers) have a legal right to maternity (or paternity leave). The Czech Republic has the longest parental leave programme, lasting until the children are 2-3 years old and can be taken by either parent. For UK women this comprises 26 weeks paid leave and 26 weeks unpaid leave. Recently the British government has made changes so that this leave can be shared between partners as the parents see fit. In Sweden, leave is offered to either parent until the child is 18 months old. The USA does not have a national paid maternity leave program (although there are schemes in some states), compared with 50 weeks paid maternity leave across the border in Canada. India, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Korea, and Japan (and many more) offer around three months paid maternity leave, and Australia began a paid maternity leave programme in 2011 (All statistics from the International Labour Organisation)1. Other options exist, such as protecting the right to ask for part-time work or flexible hours. However in many families, especially where the mother earns the majority of the family’s income and may be the only earner , it is financially impossible for the mother to stop work without considerable state support, which in most cases doesn’t exist. Many studies point to the years before a child starts school as the most important in its educational and emotional development. For this reason, should the mother be at home, at least until her children start school? Or can children develop equally well- or sometimes better- with support from others in addition to their mothers? In the context of this debate, I use the term ‘housemother’ to express a mother who stays at home to look after her children, and ‘housefather’ to mean the same thing in relation to their father.

The role of the mother is sacred.

POINT

In many religions and cultures the role of the mother is a sacred one. The bible, specifically in scriptures Timothy 5:14 and Titus 2: 4-5, focuses on women’s role as ‘keepers of the house’, who should bear children and raise them in the way of the lord. In Proverbs 31: 28-31 women as a whole are praised for the successful raising of children and home, and as such this role is valued more than a mother working. In the Quran, mothers are regarded highly (e.g. 17:23, 31:14, 46:15). The prophet Muhammad even stated that 'Paradise lies at the feet of your mother'. The Islamic Scholar Majmoo' Fatawa wa Maqalat Mutanawwi'ah explains that within the Quran ‘She [the mother] is to be given

precedence over and above the father’. Yet for a mother to earn this regard, she must stay in the home above all else, and this involves not gaining employment outside the home when caring for children. Hindu scriptures similarly often state that one must worship his or her mother first (Vanparva313.60, Apastamba Dharmsutra i.10.28.9). Thus for many religions the role of mother is sacred. This means that the woman should be viewed as privileged and valued as a housemother, a god-given position that is not available to the father.

In secular circles as well, often women look after children because in most countries they originally receive more maternity leave than a father does paternity leave1, or are necessary carers because they provide breast milk. In this case the mother’s choice to look after the child at an early age is merely a practical one, and if during this time a closer bond develops between mother and child, then it seems easier that they should continue to care for the child.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Scripture is out of date when it comes to issues of women’s rights and responsibilities no matter how sacred they may consider the role of motherhood. Focusing on the traditional stereotyped role of mother as the primary care giver is extremely restrictive for women. It is such religious beliefs that have meant that social prejudice is so developed world wide that even when women are given the option of letting the fathers care for the children, they often feel that this is not really a possibility. This severely limits a woman’s freedom of opportunities, and is likely to restrict her future employment prospects. As both partners have created their child, it is only just that the care of the child is assumed to be shared unless other issues, such as finance, change this position.Regarding the importance of maternal breast-feeding, few mothers breastfeed for longer than the period allowed for paid maternity leave in many countries. This is therefore not an argument for their staying at home for longer than the period of leave.

improve this

Childcare options are bad, and often unaffordable for poorer families.

POINT

The BBC has previously recorded that in the UK childcare options are often unaffordable, and families with two working parents are often not much better off than families with one working parent (October 2003) 1. There is more recent evidence of this from Aviva’s Family Finances Report in 2011, which found ‘parents questioning whether they can both afford to work, due to the high cost of childcare 2. Workingmums.net reports a similar situation in the USA, and from anecdotal evidence, such as a number of blogs, it appears

this situation is common worldwide. If this is the case, then maybe it is logical for mothers to save on childcare costs and give up their own work.

Furthermore, it is undeniable that a professional carer who looks after a group of children cannot give as much singular attention to one child, or know all the specific whims of each child. Psychologist Steve Biddulph 3 believes that this leaves the children desperate for a single adult to shower them with affection, and a denial of this desire can lead to higher levels of aggression by the time they reach primary school. However, a housemother would both be able to give the attention and know the details, and avoid an increase in these levels of aggression.

COUNTERPOINT

Childcare teaches children to socialise at an early age, and some are state sponsored. Places such as nursery/playschool or any form of group child care actually teaches children social skills, such as how to share toys with other children, how to make friends and how to cope without their parents for a short time at least1, and this is a happy, informal and easy way for children to learn these skills. Kathy Sylvia disputes the research illustrated by Biddulph and claims that after the age of two, and in good nurseries, children are no more likely to become aggressive than those who were looked after by a fulltime housemother. She also claims that in the cases where aggression levels are higher, this is usually dispelled by the age of 11. She bases her findings on the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education project, 2004 (explained further in scrapbook).

Instead of taking time off to look after their children, mothers might use their energy to protest in their right to free, reliable child care in order to allow them to work if they choose too.In reality, in Britain one in three working mothers rely on grandparents for childcare, who do provide affectionate one-to-one care 2. Grandparents are also not an unaffordable expense for poor families.

1 Garner, ‘Sending children to nursery early gives them a year’s head start at primary school’

2 Griggs, 'Protect, Support, Provide.'

improve this

It is better for society if mothers stay home.

POINT

Mothers who stay at home benefit society as a whole. The money that they save on childcare can be spent in other areas such as pensions, healthcare, or environmental issues.

Stay at home mothers are more likely to have time to be involved with their community. Volunteers are needed in many spheres of education such as PTAs (Parent-Teacher Associations), classroom assistants or organisers of school trips and sharing skills(News Talk Radio) 1. However there are many other areas where they can make a difference as they have the time, such as volunteering for charities or community groups and looking after other parents’ children. Those mothers who stay home are able to become more fully involved in these aspects of community life in the process making the community a much better place to bring up children.

1 News Talk Radio, '6 easy ways to help your child's school'

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Finally, why is it better for mothers to spend time outside the home volunteering rather than in paid work if we are concerned about the impact of separation from the mother on the child? Surely one is as harmful, or not, as the other? If mothers aren’t working and earning a living, where are they going to find the money for pensions, healthcare costs and environmental issues? Furthermore, if more women were working, then the state would have more funds from tax. Therefore the state would equally have more money to spend on these issues if more women worked than if women stayed at home to look after the children. If mothers work for a living, they can engage in society more directly through their job, and they can use the money that they earn to make a real difference in their community. The money that is earned by a working parent typically offsets the costs associated with childcare so leaving the children in a similarly well off situation1.

1. Aviva, 'Family Finances Report, August 2011 'UK: Parents give up work as childcare costs outstrip income''

improve this

What is best for children.

POINT

Early childhood is the most influential period in a child’s development 1. It is in this period that a child learns which social rules are to be obeyed and how emotions, such as anger, are expressed. Also it is the period of time when ‘attachment’ begins (see ‘attachment theory’ authors such as Donald Winnicott or John Bowlby, also discussed in ‘scrapbook’ below), and many psychologists believe this attachment is essential to normal social and emotional development in the child 2. Therefore the more time the mother spends with the child at this time, the stronger this attachment will be. Mothers who stay at home can ensure their children get the best possible start in life. They can help the child learn how to appropriately express emotions, and create a loving bond. This bond will ensure

that they know what their children are doing, how to make them happy, and when something is wrong.

When the children are older, a housemother is more able to monitor her children’s activities and therefore will know if the children are late home from school or tardy going to school and therefore will be able to notice any problems. Housemothers will also be better equipped to take their children to other after school activities or social events. For these reasons, if the mother stays at home when the child is young, she can better ensure that the child has a safer and more varied experience later on in life.

COUNTERPOINT

Attachment studies have actually shown that the best relationship occurs when the child accepts the fact that the mother will leave, but also knows she will return, and welcomes her when she does. If the mother never leaves the child there is no time for this belief to develop and the process of developing healthy behaviour concerning the mother's absence will be delayed.Furthermore, some of the studies referred to by the proposition, e.g., Bowlby were based on very limited or inappropriate evidence e.g., children wholly separated from their mothers in institutions.

Children do not need to spend their whole time with their mothers to develop well. Not all mothers are equally competent or nurturing. Mothers who are depressed or have other problems can be bad for the development of the child.In this age of technology, a mother does not need to be at home to ensure that her children are. Contacting the child on a landline telephone would be one way to ensure they are home. Also many homes are now equipped with internet video phones and a quick phone-call would be all that was needed to check they are at home and safe. This also suggests an element of trust between mother and child that would be well appreciated as a child grows older and teaches the child some forms of responsibility.Flexible and/or part-time working therefore enables mothers and fathers to combine supervision of children, taking to after school events with work. Part-time working has long been common for British mothers specifically.

improve this

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES SCIENCE IS A THREAT TO HUMANITY

Science is the accumulation of knowledge in a systematic method to create general truths on the operation of the universe, most commonly referring to “the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues.” (Webster’s)1 In this debate it can be understood to be the development and utilisation of new technology and the expansion of human knowledge in the modern era, though it should be noted that not all technological advances are from rigorous scientific analysis (such as the industrial revolution) and science has only significantly influenced technology in the last two centuries.2 What it means to be human is itself another debate, but here it can be understood to be both the collective entity of the human race and the defining features of humans which make them distinguishable from other beings.

Advancements in science have occurred for thousands of years as far back as the Ancient Greeks (who many believe invented scientific principles),3and their effects are becoming ever more pronounced. Production has shifted to mechanized factories and even killing in warfare is being replaced in parts with unmanned drones. The boundaries of medicine are being expanded with possibilities of cloning and stem cell research. Science has allowed acts that would otherwise be impossible for humans to consider undertaking. It has created previously unknown abilities to heal the sick or destroy all of humanity with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This debate questions whether or not being able to undertake those acts is a benefit, and whether science does more to improve lives or harm them. Whilst this debate is on the principle in question, a proposition could practically propose that society hold public debates about the implications of issues such as genetic engineering, with possible moratoriums following.

New communications have dissolved traditional families and led to the creation of harmful new relationships.

POINT

New technologies have broken down traditional social relationships which provide stability and are important for psychological health. Many individuals are increasingly becoming self-absorbed in videogames and autonomous lives on the internet without making lasting connections with people face-to-face 1.Technology is not necessary for a fulfilling life, as the Amish show by avoiding technology which damages the community and harms social relations. 2

1The Atlantic, 2008, 'Is Google Making Us Stupid?'

2BBC , 'The Amish,'

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Traditional social relationships are not necessarily good things. Often, such as with the family, they were arbitrary based on the location that someone lived or how they grew up. The internet allows people to form relationships which they can choose to fit their personalities and preferences. Thus, technology is not inherently harmful to socialisation. The Amish do not reject technology per se, they just regulate what they use in order to ensure a healthy society. It is just their preferences differ from “mainstream” society.

improve this

The manipulation of life is Playing God.

POINT

Science has moved into new areas which violate the boundaries of morality. Research into cloning of persons and animals is taking place, as well as work on genetic manipulation.1 Such work is reckless and involves taking the position of God as an entity which decides what forms of life to create. Genetic testing involves the abuse of animals, which are used merely as tools in studies to increase knowledge.2

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

The state should not preference individual belief systems above others and dictate morality accordingly, thus the idea of “God” is irrelevant given significant numbers of people do not believe in this as a basis of morality.

The problems raised by the proposition are an argument for proper regulation, as with any human action, rather than abolition since the boundaries raised are human creations themselves. Cloning a human perhaps should be banned, but not because there are fundamental ethical differences to IVF or existing twins but because there is a significant danger of physical abnormalities. 1 Suffering in research perhaps should be banned, but is also part of a cost-benefit analysis as to the benefits of such research (such as fighting disease). Such suffering is not gratuitous, but necessary in order to obtain vital medical advances.2

1. Wolpert, Lewis. 'Is Science Dangerous?' Nobel Symposium. NS 120. 2002.

2.Avert.org, 'HIV animal testing'

Parent, Jason, 'Is Animal Testing in Scientific Research Needed?', Biology @ suite 101, 13 November 2009

improve this

Science has created new means for the state to control the lives of its citizens.

POINT

Technology allows governments and those in authority to develop more powerful means to monitor citizens and control discussion. The totalitarian governments of the twentieth century (such as Stalinist Russia) utilised modern technology to monitor and indoctrinate populations.1 Even in democracies, monitoring of communications and centralisation of information makes it much more difficult for an individual to oppose actions they do not

consider moral as any attempts to organise against it could mean arrest. 2It is no longer the case that citizens can chose to “opt-out” of control by a higher body by withdrawal to less controlled areas, such as the countryside.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

The proposition has not considered that technology can also empower individuals. Modern communications allow citizens to organise together to combat centralised control. The use of social networking for the modern movement of “flashmobs” and the 2011 riots in the United Kingdom illustrate this.1 The internet allows citizens’ access to vast amounts of data previously only available to powerful and connected, allowing more informed decision making.

1. Business Inside, 'The UK is Considering Twitter, Social Media After Huge Riots,' BBC, 2011, 'England Riots: Government mulls social media controls,'

improve this

Science enables much greater destruction

POINT

Advances in technology have increased the destructive capacity of conflict by enabling killing to occur much more rapidly, as can be seen by the destruction of the First and Second World Wars with their unprecedented number of deaths.1More “advanced” societies, or rather those with more destructive technology have been able to subjugate and oppress other societies with different value structures, such as Native Americans, Aborigines and all other colonised peoples.2 The development of Weapons of Mass Destruction has raised the threat of total global destruction.3 Science has produced the means for more suffering in an almost infinite capacity, which surely outweighs the benefits towards healing the sick.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

The proposition ignores the capacity of science to protect humanity, by allowing it to bypass natural phenomena and survive. The ability of humans to colonise other worlds in the future could be a useful means to avoid a natural disaster (such as the impact of meteors on earth).

Humans have also reacted to this increase in destructive capacities by working to reduce them. The use of Mutually Assured Destruction (where both sides knew that the other

could retaliate sufficiently that both would die in any conflict) prevented the escalation of the Cold War between the USA and USSR. 1 Modern global politics recognises the risk of WMDs and seeks to address this. Humans are destructive, rather than the tools they use. The Rwandan genocide was perpetrated mostly with simple machetes, not the advanced weapons the proposition points to 2.

Science leads to the damaging of the environment

POINT

The pursuit of industrialisation and the use of modern technology require the generating of enormous amounts of energy. Such production creates severe damage to the environment via pollution 1. Renewable energy is currently expensive and difficult to reliably produce2. Humanity is treating itself as more important than the billions of other life-forms on earth who have rights themselves. The damage to the environment also threatens to leave the earth uninhabitable, which would also harm humanity’s interests. 3

COUNTERPOINT

Science responds to the desires of humans to research new areas. It is being used to address pollution and create sustainable fuel to ensure the survival of the planet. Moreover, the effect of development on animals should not be overstated. It is true that many animals have suffered, and whilst wanton cruelty is unacceptable, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted. Animals have rights and preferences, but these are surely weaker than humans given their reduced capabilities 1. Development has raised millions of humans out of poverty and improved their lives. 2 Scientists are the very group of individuals at the forefront of preventing global warming, so to blame them for the misuse of their developments is ridiculous.3

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT CANNABIS SHOULD BE LEGALISED

Governments all over the world have spent decades and billions fighting a "war on drugs". However, many believe that the most commonly used illegal drug, cannabis, should not be illegal at all.

Advocates of legalization point out cannabis' medicinal properties, its ability to open up the mind, and plentiful evidence that it is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco. Critics of legalization meanwhile cite studies showing cannabis' harmful physical and psychotic effects and its tendency to act as a gateway to harder and more dangerous drugs.

The debate can also be framed as one that pits the concept of freedom of the individual against the concept of the paternalistic state. Some will argue that people should be allowed to do whatever they please to their own bodies. Others believe the state has a

responsibility to protect people from harming themselves, and indirectly harming others, by smoking cannabis.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies

POINT

It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.)

Smoking cannabis may have effects on others, such as through the effects of passive smoking. However, regulation has been brought in to minimize the effects on others for alcohol and cigarettes, such as bans on smoking in public places, and the same thing could be done for cannabis.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

While individual liberty is an important good, there are cases in which a Government can be justified in behaving in a paternalistic manner, even to prevent individuals harming themselves. Few people debate the law that you must wear a seatbelt in cars, for example.

Moreover, cannabis can harm others and many of the ways in which it does so would not be possible to counter with regulation. In the words of philosopher George Sher, "Drug use harms strangers by involving them in the collisions, shootouts and other catastrophes to which the impaired and overly aggressive drug users are prone. It harms family members by depriving them of the companionship and income of their addicted partners. It harms fetuses by exposing them to a toxic and permanently damaging prenatural environment. It harms children by subjecting them to the abuse of their drug-addled parents"1.

Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.

POINT

Although cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202.

Given that tobacco and alcohol are more likely to harm the user and other people, it seems ludicrous that they should be legal and cannabis should not be. The legalization of cannabis would remove an anomaly from the law.

COUNTERPOINT

It is difficult to assess the true harm caused by cannabis. There are limits to the scope for information on its effects because of its illegal nature1. However, it is widely acknowledged that there are links between cannabis use and mental and physical health problems2. It is also widely acknowledged that excessive cannabis use can harm relationships and prevent people from acting as functional members of society. Cannabis is generally smoked with tobacco and cannabis users are more likely to drink alcohol. Regardless of whether cannabis itself is worse for you than tobacco or alcohol, it is still bad for you and therefore it should remain illegal.

The reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is not related to their effect on our health. They (alcohol and tobacco) are legal as they have existed in this country since long before laws were passed in relation to health and were far more popular than cannabis so it would have been much harder to ban them. Cannabis is illegal not because it supposedley is worse but because it is was less commonly consumed. That said, alcohol and tobacco are irerelvent in this debate.

If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated

POINT

Many of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so.

In 2009, the UN estimated that the market for illegal drugs was worth $320 billion. This market is run by criminals and is often blighted by violence. It has cost thousands of innocent lives, particularly in supplier countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan 1. In the US, Milton Friedman estimated that 10,000 people die every year as a result of drug dealers fighting over territory 2. Many of the victims are innocent people, caught in crossfire. By legalizing cannabis, the size of this market for illegal drugs would be significantly reduced and so, effectively, would the number of crimes and unnecessary deaths that come with it.

Another way of seeing the problems of prohibition is to look at the failed attempt at alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. People continued to consume alcohol, only it became 150 per cent stronger, was as easy to obtain for minors as for adults, and was sold by murderous gangsters like Al Capone 3.

Given all of the problems associated with prohibiting cannabis, it seems nonsensical to spend billions fighting a drugs war when instead governments could reduce crime and make money by selling cannabis in a regulated manner. They could spend some of the profit on treating people who did experience any harmful effects.

COUNTERPOINT

Legalizing cannabis would not stop the criminals who currently sell it from continuing to commit crimes. They could simply diversify their activities. Many of them would already be dealing other drugs or involved in other criminal activities. The legalization of cannabis could simply give them a legitimate base from which they may operate.

In order to end the "war on drugs" and the problems of violence associated with it, all drugs would have to be legalized. While some debate the harmful effects which cannabis may have, few argue that drugs like heroin and crack cocaine do not present a serious threat to people. To sell these kinds of drugs legally would be irresponsible and would ruin lives, families and communities.

improve this

Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner

POINT

Cannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1.1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post:

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Cannabis does not open the mind. Rather, it harms it. Many researchers have concluded that cannabis impairs short-term memory, cognition and motivation. It has also proven to be highly addictive for some users and has damaged people's mental capabilities and abilities to function in society1.2 Mabry, C. D. (2001, October). Physicians and the war on drugs: the case against legalization. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Qualified Surgeons:

improve this

THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALIZE THE SALE OF HUMAN ORGANS

As our knowledge of surgical and diagnostic techniques has increased with time, so has the success rate of organ transplants. However, the number of patients who require organ transplants exceeds the number of organs available, particularly if the patient has a rare blood type[1] or belongs to an ethnic minority where organ donations are even lower than normal[2]. For example, although black people are three times more likely than the general population to develop kidney failure, and the Asian community has a particularly high demand for organs, organ donation within these groups is relatively low[3]. It is important for the donor and recipient to have the same blood type and similar genetic make-up in order to minimize the change of the receiver’s body rejecting the organ[4]. More than 10,000 people in the UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting list[5]. In the US, over 100,000 people are still on the waiting list[6]. Although these figures are astonishing in themselves, the genuine figure is probably higher, inflated by the deaths of patients who are never waitlisted for a transplant. Some patients are never placed on the waiting list because they have certain habits – such as smoking[7] – and the precious few organs available are prioritised for patients who fit recipient categories.

The sale of human organs offers a possible solution to this crippling shortage of organs. There is already an established black market trade in organs[8] [9] . Entrepreneurs offer British and Western patients the opportunity to receive privately financed transplants in countries such as India and Malaysia[10]. In 2006, investigators discovered that Chinese hospitals were providing organ transplants using the organs of executed prisoners[11]. In 1983, Dr. Barry Jacobs requested that the US government should create a fund to compensate the families who donate the organs of their deceased relatives.[12] He also proposed a business plan to buy kidneys from living donors to transplant to American patients[13]. However, these is still plenty of opposition to these ideas, and the National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984 still prohibits the sale of human organs from both dead and living donors[14].

The proposition line could argue that organs are the property of the donors, and so they have a right to do with them as they wish. In this case of buying human organs, it is much easier to argue that the profits would go to the donor rather than (for example) hospitals or governments which may not have a vested interest in those concerned. It would be useful to outline in the mechanism that these organs will be transferred through a unique medical group or business which has the technology available to match up donors to potential recipients and so avoid potential medical complications as far as possible. After this, it would be like any other financial transaction. This debate will focus on the United Kingdom, but the arguments would be relevant to most countries considering this policy change.

We already recognize the benefits of individuals who are able to pay for their healthcare doing so.

POINT

The ethics of private healthcare are not in question here; indeed, the UK government has stated that as many people as possible should be encouraged to pay for private healthcare in order to relieve the strain on national resources[1]. Critics have understood this as the government prolonging waiting lists until the patients ‘remove themselves’ either by going private, or dying[2]. There is, however, a general understanding that the NHS in the UK is overburdened and that increased private healthcare would help to balance this[3]. Meanwhile, in the US, private healthcare is the norm[4]. Allowing the sale of organs is merely an extension of this principle and provides utilitarian benefit. Not only would those who are able to pay for an organ enjoy a much better chance at recovery, but there would be more time, space, and resources for the people who could not afford to do this privately.

COUNTERPOINT

If payment-for-organs is introduced as a general norm, this will extend to the state-financed hospitals which are so burdened in the first place. Few families would turn down the opportunity to receive ‘compensation’ or payment for the families of their loved ones which could ensure financial stability, particularly if the family member who died was the sole or main earner. Therefore, either these families will charge the hospitals the same prices, or they will refuse to donate the organs, and turn to a private market instead. Given that the black market price for organs can reach tens of thousands of pounds[1], it seems unlikely that struggling health systems would be able to afford it, and this would only encourage an incredibly harmful disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. Unless the proposition case wants to argue that a rich person inherently has a greater right to an organ than a poor person, their point falls.

[1] Suddath and Altman, 2009http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912880,00.html, accessed 20/08/11

improve this

Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the black market and ensure safer transplants.

POINT

Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption currently associated with the organ market. It can also make it easy to regulate, and so safer. Given the mystery of the black market, medical complications are much more likely; it is necessary to match the donor and recipient together[1], but this cannot be easily done when every step of the organ collection and donation must be hidden for fear of prosecution. Legalisation could also stop the ‘theft’ or organs and abuse of people like Chinese prisoners[2] who are currently exploited for their organs[3] – authorities will become accountable to a publicly recognised and enforced system

COUNTERPOINT

If certain people are already risking punishment by harvesting and transplanting organs illegally, it seems unlikely that they will suddenly become accountable to a system that recognises that organs can be bought and sold arbitrarily. If Chinese officials are already suspected of these activities, it would be very difficult to ensure that profit from the donated organs did go to the donors or their families rather than corrupt authorities. Finally, legalizing an action that is currently carried out in appalling conditions essentially legitimizes appalling human rights violations, and allows human sacrifice.

improve this

People should have rights over their own body and body parts.

POINT

The proposition is not concerned with live people trying to donate their hearts, or other vital organs which they cannot live without. No matter how impoverished that person might be, they will not choose certain death for a cash payoff. However, organs like kidneys, and sections of liver, can be and often are donated from a live donor without significant lasting damage[1] [2] . It is patronising to forbid an individual to sell or donate an organ when it is possible for them to live without it. Similarly, the family of a deceased relative, as next of kin, should have the right to receive financial remuneration from their organs.

COUNTERPOINT

The state often denies individuals the right to do certain things with their bodies. For example, the state makes hard drugs illegal[1] [2] because it recognizes that sometimes individuals do not make the best decisions for their health or lifestyle choices, and that the physical damage to their bodies is often lasting and life-changing in ways which that individual did not apprehend. Furthermore, somebody who is selling an organ to try and pay off debts or to relieve financial pressure is unlikely to be thinking entirely rationally; this is an incredibly extreme measure, and allowing individuals to take control over it for a cash reward is a dangerous way to create an incentive to cause bodily harm.

The donor should be able to benefit financially, rather than being expected to donate organs with no reward.

POINT

Given that the doctors, nurses and surgeons who work around organ transplants are all paid, it is nonsensical that the donor, the most important figure in the organ transplant, should be left out. The United States already allows markets for sperm[1], blood[2], human eggs[3] and surrogate wombs[4]. There is no good reason why organs should be excluded when these other human products are not; there is no moral difference between a kidney and an ovum. Moreover, organ donation is a lifesaving process, whereas sperm and egg donation are not. Simply put, incentivizing donations through payment will save the lives of many patients in need. The payment from these organs could also hugely improve the quality of life of the donors by lifting them out of debt, or allowing struggling individuals, such as students, to improve their career potential by paying for their university fees.

COUNTERPOINT

It is exactly because organs are potentially life-saving that it would be dangerous to legalize their sale. Sperm and egg donations are a last resort for a couple struggling with infertility[1] [2] [3] ; they have had time to weigh their options. Similarly, when sperm, blood or eggs are donated, they regenerate – kidneys do not. When an organ is the only and final chance for the patient’s recovery, the patient loses rationality and becomes desperate to obtain one[4] – to the point where the donors can essentially name any exploitative price he or she likes. Not only are these individuals then exploited, and the poorer patients left to die, but hospitals will be unable to afford them – so the overall chance of a patient receiving an organ will plummet for the majority without the money to pay for it.

THIS HOUSE WOULD PERMIT THE USE OF PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS IN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS

At least as far back as Ben Johnson's steroid scandal at the 1988 Olympics, the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports had entered the public psyche. Johnson's world record sprint, his win, and then, the stripping of his gold medal made news around the world. However, performance-enhancing drugs in sports do not begin with Johnson. A quick overview of drugs in sports reveals the earlier use of questionable substances; some even argue that drugs in sports date back to the earliest Olympic games.

An alarming number of sports today, baseball, football, track and field, and especially cycling, have been shaken by doping scandals in recent years. Several Olympic champions were stripped of their medals as a result of positive drugs tests. Although attention is often focused upon athletics, almost all sports have a “drug problem” and devote considerable energy to testing competitors regularly, banning those who fail them. An anonymous survey conducted by the U.S. Anti-Doping agency revealed that about one tenth of all athletes admit to having used drugs, even though illegal (2). Nonetheless, doubts remain as to the effectiveness of these tests and the fairness of some of the resulting bans, and some argue the whole approach is deeply flawed.

Performance-enhancing drugs include steroids (the male hormone testosterone), Human-growth hormone (HGH), recombinant erythropoietin (r-EPO), an artificial hormone and other drugs taken to build muscle-bulk during training, and stimulants or blood-doping taken to improve performance in competition. Authorities tend to deal with this problem

in different ways, for example, for the Tour de France cycling competition all sportsmen were deemed suspicious and ranked on a list from 1 to 10 (1), others impose random tests on athletes. The market for performance enhancing drugs, such as EPO (erythropoietin) is big, in 2001 alone, EPO--generated more than $5 billion for inventor Amgen (2). Question is what is the appropriate measure to deal with performance enhancing drugs – is there a way to control them and is there any sense in controlling them at all.

Most such drugs have some medical uses and are prescribed legally in certain non-athletic contexts; it is unlikely that a Proposition would also wish to legalize “recreational” drugs such as cocaine, heroin and amphetamines, although all of these could be regarded as performance-enhancing in certain sporting contexts.

take risks when training and competing

POINT

Freedom of choice: If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information.

Even if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is also true of tobacco, alcohol and boxing, which remain legal. We allow world class athletes to train for 23 hours a week (on average), adjust their diets and endanger themselves by pushing the boundaries of their body. We let them do it, because it is what they chose which is best for them. According to the NFL Player Association the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years of age (1). Thus already we allow athletes to endanger their lives, give them the choice of a lifestyle. Why not also extend this moral precedent to drugs?

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public

places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

improve this

There is no distinction between "natural" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement

POINT

The natural/unnatural distinction is untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their performance. There is nothing ‘natural’ about taking vitamin pills, wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments, spending every day in a gym pumping weights or running in shoes with spikes on the bottom. Diet, medicine, technology, and even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed. So taking these drugs is no more unnatural than what happens today.

A practical example of an unnatural aid is the Speedo worn in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics. FINA, the world governing body of swimming was concerned about the extraordinary statistics in Beijing where swimmers wearing the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit won 90 per cent of all available medals and broke 23 world records. Since Speedo launched the suit in 2008, 108 world records have fallen (until February 2009) (1).

COUNTERPOINT

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. Eating a balanced diet and wearing the best shoes are clearly in a different category from taking steroids and growth hormones. We should continue to make this distinction and aim for genuine drug-free athletic competitions.

improve this

Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport

POINT

The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years.

The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.

COUNTERPOINT

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

improve this

Improving safety standards in sport

POINT

It does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: “Rogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.” The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require "lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, "some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year."(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs.

1. Steven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=doping-by-design, accessed 05/19/2011

improve this

THIS HOUSE WOULD ALLOW PRISONERS TO VOTE

Many countries restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. For example, convicted prisoners are automatically banned from voting in Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania, Russia and the United Kingdom. In Australia, prisoners are only entitled to vote if they are serving a sentence of less than three years. Eighteen European states, including Spain, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, place no formal prohibition on prisoners voting. In practice, however, it is often difficult for prisoners in some of these countries to vote: in the Republic of Ireland, prisoners have the right to be registered to vote in their home constituency, but have no right to either a postal vote or to be released to cast a vote at a ballot box.

The issue is particularly controversial in the United Kingdom and the USA. In April 2001, the British High Court rejected a case brought by John Hirst (a man serving a life sentence for manslaughter), who argued that the ban on prisoners voting was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Court's Grand Chamber rejected the British government's appeal in October 2005. Proponents argue this is proof that the right to vote is an unalienable right that cannot be taken from a prisoner, regardless of the severity of his crime. Opponents maintain that disenfranchisement is a suitable punishment for those who have proven unable to adhere to society's laws and will act as a deterrent against re-offending. As a result, in the United States, one in forty Americans of voting age are ineligible to vote because they are, or have been, in prison. The arguments below relate directly to whether those currently serving prison sentences should be allowed to vote.

Read more

discuss this

POINTS FOR

POINTS AGAINST

Prisoners are less likely to re-offend if encouraged to participate in the civic process as part of their rehabilitation

POINT

Prisoners are more likely to ease comfortably and peacefully back into civilian life if, whilst in prison, they retain links with the democratic process. Enfranchisement confers not only self-worth and meaning within a society, but can encourage research and engagement with contemporary issues. To deny this right is to force 'the disinherited (to) sit idly by while others elect his civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family'1. Such an outcome conveys to prisoners that not only they committed a crime, but that they committed that crime because they were incapable of acting in a manner fit for society. Mistakes made by otherwise altogether rational, beneficial members of society should not be punished by preventing their say in how that society is run.1 Johnson-Parris, A. S. (2003). Felon Disenfrachisement: The Unconscionable Social Contract Breached. Virginia Law Review, 109-138.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Prisoners care little about the politicians and political process that puts them in jail, therefore enfranchisement would do nothing to discourage them from re-offending. These are citizens who have shown that their means to correct supposed wrongs are not that political process or the rule of law, but crime. Prison should be about deterring criminals from re-offending through taking away their rights, like freedom, and demonstrating to them the price paid if you act contrary to the interests of society at large. That would be effective as part of their rehabilitation.

improve this

Prisoners retain their right to basic human rights

POINT

Prisoners remain human beings. We should respect their human rights and should infringe upon their liberty as little as possible, except where it concerns the protection of the public. Denying prisoners the right to vote does not protect the public in any way and is therefore an unwarranted infringement upon the human rights of prisoners. As the U.S. Congress decreed in 1993, 'the right of citizens to vote is a fundamental right'1. Those rights which are unalienable should not be lost when one is incarcerated.1 U.S. Congress. (2003, May 20). Civil Rights Division. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The United States Department of Justice:

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Prisoners remain human beings but the right to vote is not fundamental, for it is not granted to all; only the trusted members of society are granted the right to vote; Minors, for example, are deemed not responsible enough and therefore have to wait until they are a certain age for the right to vote. Prisoners are deemed similarly irresponsible and therefore stripped of their right. As the U.S. Supreme Court ordered in 2000, the law 'does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote'1. Prisoners disqualify themselves through their actions; if, as a British Member of Parliament put it, the courts deem a prisoner unfit for normal society, how can it be sensible to give them a sayin how that society is run?’2

1Jackson , Jr., 2003

2BBC News, 2001

improve this

The views and needs of prisoners should be represented in a democratic system

POINT

The refusal to grant prisoners the right to vote 'is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'1. Such societies pride themselves on the participation of all in the political process, regardless of wealth, class, gender or sexual orientation. The objective of such systems, to ensure that all views are represented fairly and voters represented equally, does not stop at the gates of a prison. Issues such as prison overcrowding and abuse by warders are not treated seriously as political issues, since those most directly affected cannot vote and the public generally has little interest in prisoners' well-being. Prisoners should also have the opportunity to influence the formation of policy on healthcare, education, the environment and all the other issues that affect the world into which almost all of them will someday be released. Prisoners are not treated as "civically dead" when it benefits the State: they are liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. There should be no taxation without representation.1 CTV News. (2002, November 1). Supreme Court backs prisoners' right to vote. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from CTV News:

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

If prisoners refuse to act responsibly in a democratic system, why should their views and needs be represented? As regards the claim that since they pay tax, they deserve representation, in practice few prisoners earn enough to be liable for taxation. In any case, the right to vote does not follow from the obligation to pay tax. In many countries, people start earning money and paying tax before they are old enough to vote (particularly if they leave school as soon as they are allowed to do so). This implies that

the right to vote is given to those who can be expected to use it responsibly. Those convicted of serious enough crimes to be imprisoned have shown that they have no respect for society and, given the vote, would 'make a mockery of justice'1. They therefore cannot be trusted to vote responsibly in the interests of society; many would probably simply vote for candidates promising lighter sentences for criminals. Prisoners' interests are already represented by NGOs and statutory prison inspection bodies, which ensure that they are not ill-treated. They do not deserve any further representation.1 BBC News. (2001, March 21). Prisoners' voting rights bid attacked. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News:

improve this

The legislature of the state is charged with determining whether prisoners have the right to vote

POINT

The right to vote is enshrined in the constitution or legislation of all democratic states and their collective parts. Governments, national and state, and their elected officials are charged with passing the changes to such documents that would permit or deny the right to vote to specific groups in society. In the United States, only two states, Main and Virginia, have laws allowing incarcerated felons to vote1. In Australia, a 2008 High Court ruling passed the right to vote to all felons serving sentences of three years of less2. Both examples prove the capacity of the state legislature to rule on the issue of the prisoner's right to vote.

COUNTERPOINT

A legislative mechanism on its own is insufficient to determine whether prisoners are granted the right to vote in any specific environment; a public and political will must also be present. When the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British denial of prisoners' right to vote was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, public outcry in Britain, both among the general population and in Parliament, prevented the passing of new legislation1. In February of 2011, the British Parliament voted 234 to 22 in favor of maintaining the ban, in direct repudiation of the European Court's insistence that the law be changed2.

Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary and therefore wrong

POINT

Many people who commit serious crimes are not sent to prison because of their age, the effects upon their dependents or the likelihood that they will not re-offend. Others committing equivalent or lesser crimes, without these special circumstances, may be imprisoned. Even if it were ever right to deprive people of the vote as a punishment, this should not automatically be associated with imprisonment, but should be decided separately, as in France and Germany. As the Australian Democrats argue, 'to deny [the right to vote] is to impose an additional penalty on top of that judged appropriate by the court'1.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

The supposed arbitrary nature of disenfranchisement for prisoners is not an argument for letting all, or indeed any, prisoners vote. The imposition of a prison sentence is a good general index of the seriousness of a crime, and those who have committed serious crimes should suffer "civic death". Where people are exceptionally not imprisoned, they should be deprived of the right to vote for the period for which they would usually have been imprisoned. As David Cameron has admitted, 'it makes me physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners. They should lose some rights including the right to vote'11

THIS HOUSE WOULD REINTRODUCE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS

Corporal punishment is a physical punishment in which pain is deliberately inflicted on a perpetrator of a wrong in order to exact retribution and to deter similar behavior in future. An accepted form of discipline through the ages, it has been upheld by all the Abrahamic religions, and has been practiced in some form in almost every human civilization. Corporal punishment was for a long time considered an appropriate method for disciplining children in schools. The birch rod was once a fixture of the schoolhouse. In the latter half of the 20th century, however, a growing number of states have outlawed the use of corporal punishment, particularly in schools. Corporal punishment in schools is now illegal in all European countries, except for France and Czech Republic. Corporal punishment is practiced in schools across the world, including 20 states of the USA. Proponents of corporal punishment need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method as a tool of discipline. Opponents on the other hand highlight the costs both physical and mental inherent in the punishment.

The kind of punishment used can vary considerably both in terms of the severity and were is being hit with what as well as in what context. A traditional case is the implementation of a "school disciplinarian" who performs the actual punishment so as to avoid excesses or misapplications by individual teachers not versed in such methods. Likewise, having a separate disciplinarian means teachers too physically weak or timid to mete out the punishment themselves, have recourse to an external arbiter that does not look like an abrogation of responsibility, and thus weakness, in the eyes of the class1.

Strict regulation of the extent of acceptable punishment is also important to consider when proposing such a disciplinary regime.

Discipline is more important than enjoyment in the classroom

POINT

Teachers are there to help children learn, not to be their friends. While teachers can maintain a convivial atmosphere in the classroom, having access to corporal punishment is simply an extra weapon in the arsenal of learning tools available to teachers, giving them greater control over the classroom and their students, an essential part of the teaching environment1. When the teacher does not control the classroom, teaching is difficult, or impossible. Studies show that teachers, parents, and most students agree that discipline is an essential part of classroom order2. In a Gallup poll in 2002 76% of the public thought that discipline in US Schools was a very or somewhat serious problem.3 If the teacher is busy dealing with unruly children, and thus forced to divert from the lesson plan, there is less time to devote to actually teaching the students who want to learn. For the sake of students' futures they must be brought to heal, by the threat and application of force when necessary.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Discipline is not to be lauded at all times over enjoyment in the classroom. Children's minds must be treated with great care and the teacher must earn the respect of his students through capable teaching, not just the threat of force. Students who fear the lash will be less likely to develop to their full academic potential, for fear that "showing up" the teacher might result in punishment. In order to grow and push mental boundaries, students must feel free and safe to ask difficult questions. Corporal punishment creates a confrontational relationship between student and teacher, in which such mental development is hampered.

improve this

The threat and capacity for violence is essential for efficient conflict resolution

POINT

In terms of conflict resolution, without access to corporal punishment, the teacher-student relationship is at an imperfect equilibrium in the context of Game Theory1. In this scenario, the two players, the teacher and the student, have a set of options. The teacher, when making a threat, can either follow through on the threat and enact corporal punishment, or he can not do so. The student can either consider the threat to

be credible and will thus modify his behaviour in accordance with the teacher's demands, or he can determine the threat to be non-credible and thus "call his bluff". Without the ability to follow through on the threat, an imperfect equilibrium is reached in which the teacher's bluff is called and his authority undermined. With the ability to make good on the threat, however, the teacher can either effectively intimidate potential miscreants or deliver on the promise of punishment. This produces an efficient equilibrium in which the teacher has greater control over the class. To take an example from international relations, the relations between the United States and Israel can be analyzed in this way2. Currently, when Israel makes a decision to expand settlement building in Palestinian territory the United States threatens a withdrawal of certain supports. Israel can either call their bluff or fold. Currently, because Israel does not consider the United States' threats to be credible, it persists in its operations unabated. Thus this situation is an imperfect equilibrium. Were the United States to actually make good on its threats, Israel would be forced to suffer the punishment if they persist in their activities, incentivizing them instead to be cooperative. From the international stage to the classroom, conflict resolution plays out in much the same way.1 Myerson, Roger. 1997. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.2 Gates, Jeff. 2009. "How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare". Foreign Policy Journal.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Simple conflict analysis may be able to explain some facets of classroom life, but it is a gross oversimplification of the dynamics of a real-life school. There are many factors driving student interactions with teachers, from problems at home to internal popularity contests between students. Corporal punishment creates serious psychological harms that are not accounted for effectively under a conflict resolution model.

improve this

Keeping the few unruly children in line makes learning possible for the majority of students

POINT

It is often the case in classroom environments that the vast majority of students are eager, to various extents, to learn. Disruption almost always originates with one or a few students who act up for attention or to cause problems. Corporal punishment deals effectively with these unruly individuals who make learning more difficult and school time less productive for the rest of the class. Without effective disciplinary mechanisms, these troublemakers impose costs on all of their classmates. By introducing corporal punishment, troublesome students are forced to internalize the costs, disincentivizing similar behavior in future1. It is deeply unfair to the rest of the class that the teacher's time and effort be sapped by dealing with uncooperative students at the expense of

more interested classmates. Application of corporal punishment demonstrates a dedication to the right to education, which should not be disrupted by unruly individuals seeking to undermine the authority of the teacher.1 BBC News. 2000. "Should Corporal Punishment Return to the Classroom?".

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Targeting troublemakers will likely not stop their bad behavior. Proponents of corporal punishment do not show proper regard for the reasons behind students' acting out. Often class clowns and troublemakers come from unstable or abusive homes where violence is already employed, often with greater liberality than would be considered acceptable in schools. Thus employing further violence in the form of corporal punishment will do little to modify the behavior of these students and will likely turn them away from seeking the help of teachers, who might otherwise have been approached regarding problems at home.

improve this

Engendering respect for authority at an early age is essential for individuals to engage successfully in society:

POINT

Generating a natural respect for authority is a necessary priority of the state, and thus of education whose purpose is to prepare young people to be effective members of the state1. To do this it is necessary to maintain the threat of, and to have the capacity to make recourse to, corporal punishment. There is nothing wrong with students having a bit of fear with regard to teachers, just as it is right to have a healthy fear of the state, insofar as transgressions of the law will be met by serious repercussions. Coddling children and limiting the level of punishments that can be leveled against them too strictly does not prepare them for the real world in which infractions of the law have serious consequences. It is this lack of respect that is often blamed for increasing crime, Estelle Morris, then UK Education Secretary in 2002 blamed a "cycle of disrespect" between schools and home that leads to crime.2 The existence of scholastic corporal punishment hammers this reality home at an early age and better acclimates children for their future as adult members of society.1 Bloom, Scott. 1995. "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child? A Legal Framework for Recent Corporal Punishment Proposals". Golden Gate University Law Review.2 BBC News, 2002, "Bad parenting 'causes child crime'",

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

The learning environment is most beneficial to students when they feel safe in it. When students are forced to keep up their guard and to fear the pain of discipline, they become less forthcoming in the classroom and are less likely to develop the life-long love of learning the holistic system of primary and secondary education employed in North America and Europe seek to engender 1. Additionally, students will internalize the painful experience of the classroom, which will bleed into their interaction with the state in the future, resulting in more confrontational attitudes toward the state and its institutions.

1. Clark, 2011

improve this

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES PEOPLE SHOULD NOT KEEP PETS

Humans, as a natural part of the animal kingdom, have interacted with the animals around them for the entirety of their existence. One of the defining characteristics of the human race is that we developed the ability to domesticate and eventually tame other species for our use. The first evidence of a close relationship between humans and animals can be traced as far back as 20,000 years ago1, when human beings and wolves would hunt the same animals for food. Around 12,000 years ago this relationship developed into the domestication of dogs as a separate species from wolves through selective breeding to choose those individuals who were most obedient and less likely to harm their human keepers. It is this process which created the initial bond between humans and dogs that extended beyond their use for hunting and was the necessary foregrounding for keeping pets in general. Dogs appear to have been with early humans in many different parts of the world - the domestication of cats on the other hand was rather more localised. The Ancient Egyptians first bred wild cats 5000 years ago to eventually produce the domestic cats we know today. Other people around the world seem to have tamed many sorts of animals as companions and pets, from goldfish and birds to monkeys and reptiles, and the isolation of these instances suggests that it is an intrinsic human quality to tame animals beyond the role of hunting. Despite the vast popularity of pet ownership, especially in more economically developed countries, the question still remains as to whether the practice should be continued.

The keeping of pets results in a huge drain on resources that could be put to better use.

POINT

According to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association (PFMA), there are around 8 million dogs and 8 million cats in the UK alone in 20111. These vast numbers equate to almost half the households in the country owning a pet, and ownership requires feeding, medical care, the dedication of a considerable amount of time and of course, waste disposal. In an economic climate in which food prices are rising at unprecedented levels2 the question must be asked as to whether we can afford to look after so many animals. Of course, the impact isn't just on the people - in America the recession has hit pet owners very hard, and this has lead to increased instances of abandonment and mistreatment3. There is also the wider humanitarian question to consider - with the amount of money

spent on looking after pets in comparison to the lack of aid being sent to the poorest nations.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

The idea of controlling what people are allowed to spend their money on raises serious moral questions in itself. However in the case of keeping pets, it would be a better use of resources than, for instance, buying a more expensive car or any other luxury item. The difference with owning a pet is the level of commitment required given the rising cost of food and veterinary bills. The burden of responsibility lies with the owner, and if they make the choice to take on a pet and are able to do so then fundamentally that has to be allowed. There is also another side to the economic argument, as because there are so many pets in the world it has created a huge industry in food, leisure and other ancillary produce. If keeping pets were to be banned, all the people involved in these industries would lose their jobs, further worsening the economic situation.

improve this

As well as the risk to health of the animals, keeping pets can be damaging to human health.

POINT

Diseases that can be transferred between animals and humans are called "zoonoses"1. The list of these diseases is long and varied, and they are often transferred by a subsidiary medium - a parasite like a flea or tick. The risk of contracting these diseases is greatly increased by living in close proximity to the animal carriers, a fact made more significant when we consider the seriousness of some of the diseases. Recent worldwide pandemic alerts have come as a result of zoonosis2, so surely it is a sensible idea to remove the threat of disease from within people's homes.

COUNTERPOINT

That recent world flu pandemics have come as a result of zoonosis has little to do with the keeping of pets. The World Health Organisation (WHO) advise that "slaughter, defeathering, handling carcasses of infected poultry, and preparing poultry for consumption... are likely to be risk factors"1 - none of these activities are involved in keeping pets. Diseases are generally only transmitted in working environments, and animals that are kept as pets are kept in better health and are less likely to carry disease than wild animals. Even the parasites that transfer the diseases from animal to human can be controlled2, so the potential for disease does not seem a strong enough reason for preventing the keeping of pets. Pets like cats can actually be advantageous in fighting disease, as they can catch and kill other animals which may carry infection.

1Information on avian influenza: accessed 11/06/112 Information on the control of parasites: accessed 11/06/11

improve this

Keeping pets is a violation of animal rights.

POINT

This debate raises questions about the similarities and differences between human beings and other animals. An article in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy argues that "humans are morally considerable because of the distinctively human capacities we possess, capacities that only we humans have"1. If this is the case, then should we apply our unique morality to animals who have no consideration of it - should we be able to decide to keep them in an unnatural environment that they have no understanding of? Many animal rights groups would argue that "Pets are our property. Dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits, and other animals are mass produced like bolts"2 and that this is wrong. Living creatures deserve the basic rights which captivity denies even though they may have no moral comprehension of their experiences. It is up to human beings, who do have an awareness of these factors, to ensure that these rights are maintained. Beyond this there is the issue of tampering with evolution to change the appearance of animals for our enjoyment. In some countries, cats are declawed and dogs have their tails docked (cut off) to make them easier to sell - both cruel and painful processes. This interference with the natural process of evolution is morally wrong and in many cases cruel to the animals in question.

COUNTERPOINT

The keeping of pets is born out of something totally natural. It is a blind misconception to assume that humans are somehow 'outside' of the natural world - we coexist with the life around us. In the vast majority of cases, the welfare of the animals kept as pets is vastly improved, they are kept safe, healthy and in a social environment, despite the difference in species. The positives to keeping pets are demonstrated by numerous campaigns for adoption and re-homing1. If keeping pets was detrimental to the animals, then animal welfare organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) would not encourage it as a practice. Even exotic animals can be kept in conditions which are in no way detrimental to their health, although in these cases careful regulation is required to ensure that the people are able to look after the animals properly. If they are, then having exotic pets is one way of protecting animals which are at risk in the wild - especially those which are hunted for sport or for tradable resources like their skins.

1 Example Example of animal related pandemic: accessed 11/06/11

improve this

Keeping pets, especially those of a more exotic species, is unnatural and detrimental to the welfare of the animals.

POINT

Anything beyond the initial taming of animals for protection and hunting is unnatural. Most of the animal species that we keep as pets cannot be 'domesticated' - they are simply wild animals in captivity. Especially in the case of birds, keeping them as pets greatly limits the experience they would have in the wild, and as Monica Engebretsen argues for Born Free USA, "Birds are routinely denied two of their most fundamental natural behaviors — flying and socialization. Denial of these activities can cause physical and behavioral abnormalities including incessant screaming, pacing, head-bobbing, feather-plucking, and self-mutilation”1. From a basic animal welfare point of view then, many animals which are currently kept as pets are not suited to that lifestyle, and the fact that they are often suffering for no other reason than human gratification is reason enough to stop this from happening. This is also a problem that is growing rather than receding, as zoo vet and government inspector Matt Brash points out: “There is a big problem out there. There are an awful lot of exotics in the country. A lot of them are not being kept properly"2. These animals are not only being kept in unsuitable conditions which damages their health, but they are also a serious risk to any humans they come into contact with.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Keeping pets is a complicated task that many people are not prepared for. There are many ways in which people do not properly look after their animals, either by giving them inappropriate treatment or an inappropriate environment1. Dogs, for example, are pack animals that need companionship, but they are often kept singly and left during the day as a result of the work-oriented nature of modern society. Because of this, the contact time and enjoyment people get out of owning pets is perhaps out of proportion with the negative impacts on the animals - they are often seen more as objects than living creatures. Daniel Morgan makes the point in a debate in The Guardian, that "a pet is a kind of ornament - the best ornament you can have because not only is it (usually) very aesthetically pleasing, it moves around the home of its own accord, it is warm and smooth to the touch, and it responds to our presence and keeps us company"2.

1 BBC Ethics Guide for the keeping of pets: accessed 11/06/11

2 Online debate "Why do human being keep pets?", The Guardian (Daniel Morgan cited): accessed 11/06/11

improve this

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES WE'RE TOO LATE ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Global Climate Change, formally referred to as global warming, is the largest threat facing the long term survival of the human species. The leading authority on climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. Although debates in the media still rage over the causes of climate change, today the majority of climate scientists believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the best known, are building up in the atmosphere causing global temperatures to slowly rise. The continued rise of atmospheric GHGs (measured in parts per million [PPM] of CO2 equivalent) may have catastrophic consequences for earth and its inhabitants. While some people hold out hope that new government policy, new technology, and/or greater individual action will reverse the pattern of rising annual GHG emissions, others are less optimistic and believe that by the time humanity recognizes the true costs of climate change, it will be too late mitigate the consequences.

POINT

The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm.

COUNTERPOINT

The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)

improve this

Developing world

POINT

Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, "China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change.

COUNTERPOINT

Rising countries, such as India, China, and Brazil, are adopting more efficient technologies than are currently in use in much of the world. While the developing world is contributing to net GHG emission growth, their GHG per person is still far below that of a developed country. And, as a result of the adoption of newer technologies, it is unlikely that their GHG per person will ever equal that found in the developed world. If reductions can be made in the developed world, where it is a fact that the economic resources exist to do so, then net emissions can be stabilized even while emissions in the developing world continue to grow.

improve this

Failure to reach global accord

POINT

The Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless.

1. The Economist, 'A bad climate for development', 17th September 2009.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Protocol, local, regional, national, and international organizations are all still working on solutions for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was a failure by virtue of its design (too many credits would have gone to former Soviet countries whose GHG reductions were entirely attributable to economic collapse, which would have resulted in a cash transfer but no real reductions). Discussions continue on how best each country can reduce their GHG emissions while remaining economically competitive. The EU ETS trading scheme is an example of just such an endeavour. (See Carbon Trading Schemes)

improve this

Consequences of increased GHGs

POINT

Increased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences:

-glaciers, ice sheets, and perma frost will continue to melt. This will increase water levels, release more GHGs (methane, which is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2), and reflect less heat back into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change1.

-the oceans (which are a natural carbon sink) are becoming increasingly acidic which will significantly damage ecosystems such as coral reefs. Additionally, changes in the chemistry of the ocean could affect the amount of CO2 it can absorb and process annually.

-there will be increasing incidents of extreme weather such as hurricanes, floods, and record high/low temperatures. Extreme weather can destroy ecosystems that capture CO2 such as forests and peat bogs leading to less natural CO2 absorption.

These events will accelerate climate change making it more difficult for humans to reduce GHG ppms to a sustainable level. Once average temperatures are above 2.5C, events will be triggered that will be irreversible and it will take 1000s of years of lower GHG emissions for the earth to return to normal 2.

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of

these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)

improve this

debate.docx

Documents

educationsinglesex schools

singlesex education

coeducational schools

single gender

segregated schools

coeducation schools

proponents of single

longtime advocate of