Debate Competition

1. This House would ban animal testing.

2. This House believes that capitalism is better than socialism.
CAPITALISM:
Capitalism is defines as an economic system that is based on private ownership of capital.
Capitalism, as defined economic system, evolved during the 16th and 17th centuries, with the rise of
merchant capitalism and mercantilism. This was an era when colonial powers such as Britain, France,
Spain and Portugal sent their explorers out into the world to discover new sea routes and new lands which
could be traded with. Feudal lords were being rapidly replaced by merchants and traders.
Capitalism as we know it today owes its origins to the industrial boom of the mid-18th century.
During this time, the various inventions and innovations in machinery, and the buildup of capital over the
past 100 years, gave rise to a new form of business: the factory system. This guaranteed mass production,
mass employment and massive profits. This was the era of the charter companies, such as the British East
India Company and the Dutch East India Company, which became the worlds first multinational
corporations.
The 19th century saw the rise of American capitalism. However, capitalism was given its greatest
push after World War II.
SOCIALISM:
Socialism is essentially an economic ideology, if isolated from its affiliations with political
theory. Its roots can be found in ideas put forth by classical economists in the 18th and 19th centuries. The
ideas of socialism and equality gained ground in the years following the industrial revolution, as the
common people realized that they had been cheated, first by the feudal lords and then by the industrialists
that took their place. Notable revolutions in the 18th century, such as the French Revolution and the
American War of Independence, were clear indications of people rebelling against exploitation.
In more recent times, the revolutions in Russia, Cuba and China heralded the birth of socialist
orders in those countries. Socialism then became part of the political theory, as many leaders thought of it
as a convenient tool to instill brotherhood, nationalism and obedience in the population.
Socialism essentially states that capitalism tends to seize the factors of production from the
rightful owners the people.
According to some economists, it can also be considered to be a phase between the economic
stages of capitalism and communism, where everything is state owned and the people are provided for
according to their needs and not their contribution.
PROs
Capitalism promotes economic growth by
providing an open competition in the market. It
also provides with far better opportunities for

CONs
Some consider the fierce competition brought about
by capitalism as its major drawback. They believe
that a capitalist economy can give rise to unfair

people to raise their income and thus achieving

economic growth.
Capitalism results in decentralized economic
system, this being considered one of its great
advantages. Individuals are therefore open to more
options in business, they are exposed to
competition and have to face different challenges
and find solutions. It is in a capitalist economy that
hard work is rewarded.
The competitive market provided by capitalism
facilitates the manufacture of a wide variety of
products and the formations of a wide range of
services. Consumers are happier in a capitalist
economy.

It encourages people to work towards financial

freedom.

People get to independently invent ideas without

worrying about any government bureaucracy.
Capitalism as a system works because it is based on
principles of transaction and value. In a socialist
conomy, employment is often directed by the state.
therefore, the state can provide full employment
even if workers are not doing anything particularly
essential.
There is no alternative system which has proved
itself to work in our modern age. Also, although
many argue that the exponential economic growth
is problematic, because the earths resources are
finite, on the other hand the rarer a resource, the
greater its monetary value, which leads to
innovation.
Capitalism works perfectly with democracy and
with human nature itself.

competition.
Capitalism makes an economy money-oriented.
Business corporations look at the economy with a
materialistic point of view. Profitability remains
their only primary business goal. Business giants
take over smaller companies. Employment rights
are compensated with the sole aim of higher
productivity.
The benefits of a socialist system relate to peoples
life opportunities. In a socialist system, individuals
are less likely to be held back by their social
position. Being born into an economically deprived
family is less likely to hamper an individuals
opportunities, since the gap between rich and poor
is not as great as in a capitalist society. All
individuals have access to a decent education and
this gives them more chances in life.
Consequently, with education, individuals are in a
better position to get a good job and to be able to
lead a comfortable life. They contribute more to the
system and the extra tax they pay will go towards
funding social security for those who are less welloff. The money that goes into the public purse will
also fund a medical care system which will ensure
that a persons economic situation will not stop
them from receiving treatment.
Larger monopolies encourage conformity, a slap in
the face to individualism. Capitalism encourages
greed and phony individualism.
In capitalist economic systems, the state doesnt
directly provide jobs. Therefore in times of
recession, unemployment in capitalist economic
systems can rise to very high levels.

Some economists believe that capitalism may lead

to a depletion of the resources on Earth, as it
requires continuous economic growth.

Nationalization of key industries such as mining,

oil, and energy allows the state to invest directly,
set prices and production levels, publicly fund
research, and avoid exploitation. Wealth
redistribution can occur through targeted,

progressive taxation and welfare policies such as

free/subsidized education and access to housing.
Social security schemes also provide security in old
age, while minimum wages, employment
protection, and other labor rights ensure a fair wage
and safety at work.
Socialism may sound just and equitable on paper,
but socialist countries have decayed over the years
as a result of human greed and corruption.
In a state managed economy prices are usually set
by the government this can lead to shortages and
surpluses.

Prices are determined by market forces. Firms with

monopoly power may be able to exploit their
position and charge much higher prices.

3. This House believes single sex schools are good for education.
History:
In colonial times boys and girls were educated separately. But by the mid-19th century financing
for education was becoming a public expense and girls and boys began to share classes. They still sat in
separate sections. Coeducation has only been the norm in the U.S. since about 1882.
The numbers of single sex private schools began to decrease in the 1960s and 1970s as social
change, particularly with respect to women's rights and equality, took hold. Coeducation was somehow
considered more fashionable, more progressive, the way to go. The federal government made single sex
public schools illegal in its Title IX legislation.
Then the pendulum began to swing back the other way in the late 1990s as parents began to
consider once again the benefits of single sex education.
Statistics:
The numbers are not in favor of single sex education. According to the 2007-08 Private School
Universe Survey, 96% of private schools are coeducational. Only 1.8% of girls and 2.2% of boys are
educated in single sex schools. These are tiny numbers when compared to the number of elementary and
high school students being educated in private coeducational schools.

PROs
Some parents don't want their children to be in
mixed-gender classrooms because, especially at
certain ages, students of the opposite sex can be a
distraction. Students in single sex classes are free to
interact and learn without the distraction of the
opposite sex. The value of this in middle and high
school is that students may be less concerned about
impressing the opposite sex and more focused on
instruction. Additionally, students may feel that the
social playing field is leveled with the absence of

CONs
Students in single-sex classrooms will one day live
and work side-by-side with members of the
opposite sex. Educating students in single-sex
schools limits their opportunity to work
cooperatively and co-exist successfully with
members of the opposite sex.

competition for attention from the opposite sex.

A driving force in the single-sex education

movement is recent research showing natural

differences in how males and females learn. Singlesex education enhances student success when
teachers use techniques geared toward the gender
of their students.

Few educators are formally trained to use genderspecific teaching techniques. However, it's no
secret that experienced teachers usually understand
gender differences and are adept at accommodating
a variety of learning styles within their mixedgender classrooms.

Some research and reports from educators suggest

that single-sex education can broaden the
educational prospects for both girls and boys.
Advocates claim co-ed schools tend to reinforce
gender stereotypes, while single-sex schools can
break down gender stereotypes. For example, girls
are free of the pressure to compete with boys in
male-dominated subjects such as math and science.
Boys, on the other hand, can more easily pursue
traditionally "feminine" interests such as music and
poetry. One mother, whose daughter has attended a
girls-only school for three years, shares her
experience "I feel that the single gender
environment has given her a level of confidence
and informed interest in math and science that she
may not have had otherwise."

Gender differences in learning aren't the same

across the board; they vary along a continuum of
what is considered normal. For a sensitive boy or
an assertive girl, the teaching style promoted by
advocates of single-sex education could be
ineffective (at best) or detrimental (at worst). For
example, a sensitive boy might be intimidated by a
teacher who "gets in his face" and speaks loudly
believing "that's what boys want and need to learn."
At least one study found that the higher the
percentage of girls in a co-ed classroom, the better
the academic performance for all students (both
male and female). Professor Analia Schlosser, an
economist from the Eitan Berglas School of
Economics at Tel Aviv, found that elementary
school, co-ed classrooms with a majority of female
students showed increased academic performance
for both boys and girls. In high school, the
classrooms with the best academic achievement
were consistently those that had a higher
percentage of girls. Dr. Schlosser theorizes that a
higher percentage of girls lowers the amount of
classroom disruption and fosters a better
relationship between all students and the teacher.

-Girls are more likely to take risks such as speaking

in front of the class.
-Girls may exhibit higher levels of self-confidence
and self-esteem.
-Boys tend to be less competitive and more
cooperative and collaborative.
-Boys feel less pressure as they mature and develop
physically.

Single-sex education is illegal and discriminatory.

Promotes gender stereotyping
Doesnt prepare students for work or family life
Makes exclusion acceptable
Doesnt value diversity

The cost of offering single sex classes at a

coeducational institution is greater than offering
comparable coeducation. Schools that offer single
sex classes and coeducational classes find

themselves funding these parallel programs at a

greater expense than just running the coeducational
program. Aside from the additional operational
expense and personnel expense, districts may
allocate additional funds for professional
development to train single sex teachers.

4. This House believes reality television does more harm than good.

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

CONs
Reality television is popular and TV producers
should give audiences what they want.
Reality television programmes are very popular
with audiences of all ages and types. They may not
be high culture but most people do not want that
from television. Most viewers want to be
entertained and to escape for a while from the
worries and boredom of their everyday life.

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.

COUNTERPOINT: Reality television is not what

audiences want, it is watched simply because it is
there.With tens of television channels and twentyfour hours of programming to fill, reality is simply
a cheap means to ensure there is always something
on TV to watch.

Reality TV encourages people to pursue

celebrity status, and discourages the value of
hard work and an education:

Reality TV can be educational and have real

effects in society in a way other television
programmes do not:

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.

Reality TV can be very educational. They educate

people by displaying disastrous consequences of
someone's behaviour, thus deterring others from
doing unplanned and silly actions.
COUNTERPOINT: The few reality TV
programmes that are educational and beneficial do
not balance the bad majority. The majority are not
educational, either to the public or the participants,
and the insight they purport to offer into the human
psyche are misguided.

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.
Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting The public can always just turn reality
television, encouraging such behaviour in
programmes off, or watch something else:
society:
Television provides a wide mixture of programmes,
Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting
including reality television.So, ultimately, reality
television. They mostly show ordinary people with shows have not ruined television as a whole, they
no special talents doing very little. If they have to
have merely added another option for viewers.
sing or dance, then they do it badly which doesnt Indeed, because they make a lot of money for
make for good entertainment. They rely on
broadcasters to spend on other types of
humiliation and conflict to create excitement.
programmes, they are actually good for all viewers,
Furthermore, the programmes are full of swearing, regardless of personal taste for genres.
crying and argument, and often violence,
drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to
COUNTERPOINT: Reality shows are driving out
people that this is normal behaviour and helps to
other sorts of programmes, so that often there is
create a crude, selfish society.
nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and
series can go on for months on end, providing
COUNTERPOINT: Reality TV programmes are
hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules.
not corrupting. They do reflect our society, which
isn't always perfect, but we should face up to these
issues rather than censor television in order to hide
them. o deride reality shows as 'corrupting'
therefore is misguided; it is society who is corrupt
and reality shows that offer a potential solution. To
solve a problem first requires accepting one exists,
and reality shows provide a means to do that; they
are a window into society, permitting everyone to
reflect on the issues that are most harmful to
society.
Reality shows are not 'real', therefore they have Reality television forces us to analyse our own
no education value:
behaviour as a society:
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. 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

Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our

society; they are effectively anthropological
experiments, allowing the public to study people
and societies from the comfort of their living
rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and
endlessly interesting to other humans. In these
programmes we see people like us faced with
unusual situations.

what happened.

COUNTERPOINT: Reality TV is less about

exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our
COUNTERPOINT: Reality shows are real; they are own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing
real people operating without scripts and often,
particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately
live. The fact that characters are often cast to
misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it
encourage disagreements or tension does not take
implies authenticity and honesty, two things that
away from the reality of the program, in fact it only most reality TV programmes are not. They serve
adds to it.In fact, without such shows, most people
not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce
would have little concept of how a group of
the often false notions we already collectively hold.
strangers would be able to survive, co-operate and
develop in such environments.
Reality TV is kind of dumbing down television as a
whole. Networks have learned that, because actors
demand such high salaries and production costs are
high, it's actually cheaper to do reality television,
where the contestants pretty much work for free.
We also see unrealistic behavior (like the
housewives-of-anywhere), and people like to
emulate some of the behavior they see on TV.

5. This House would raise the legal driving age to 20.

PROs
-The number of serious or fatal road accidents in
the UK will be reduced
-17 year olds are simply not mature enough to cope
with the skills required for driving
-Young people may have a racer boy attitude to
driving
-Raising the age limit may do something to
promote more environmentally friendly alternatives
-They should undergo a one year 'settling down'
process
-People who go to university will hardy have any
time to learn how to drive!

CONs
-Other countries are even younger in America
only 16!
-The accidents may just be delayed by one year
-It removes the freedom of young people
-There are alternatives such as making tests more
rigorous
-Parents can provide guidance to their teens
-It denies young people access to safe
transportation
-Driving ability should be judged more - why not
also a maximum age?!

Young people are generally more

technologically capable, and are more likely to
be distracted by mobile media devices than
older people.

For many young people the ability to travel is

essential for their livelihood.

For example, texting has been identified as a

serious problem among teenage drivers2 who are
themselves more familiar with the technology and
do not see driving as an environment in which it is
inappropriate to divert ones attention. Adding at

In our modern society driving is essential

mobility has to be regarded as a right you gain in
your mid-teens. 18 and 19 year olds often need to
drive to get to school or work, and many live in
rural areas with few buses or trains. Most of the
activities that teach young people about the world,
like sport, school clubs, bands, and part-time jobs,

least a year onto the legal driving age would bring

maturity in all areas and an increased awareness of
the dangers of driving whilst using mobile media
and communication devices.
COUNTERPOINT: Once again this is more a
question of experience and individual adherence to
good driving rather than a question of age. If young
people are more likely to be using mobile phones
even where it is legal, raising the age restrictions on
driving would not solve the problem. Every year
children are becoming more technologically adept,
so it stands to reason that this would simply delay
any potential problems rather than solve them.

Driving is considered to be an 'adult

responsibility' similar in nature to drinking or
smoking cigarettes, and should therefore carry
the same age restrictions.
Few countries think 16 and 17 year olds are grown
up enough to vote, drink alcohol or smoke. Yet
most allow them to get behind the wheel of a car,
even though it is a dangerous weapon in immature,
careless or reckless hands. Society usually sees 20
as the age at which young people become adults.
Shouldn't driving be one of the privileges ad
responsibilities of adulthood?
COUNTERPOINT: Allowing young people to
drive right at the point at which they are also able
to consume legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine is
surely a step in the wrong direction. By allowing
young people the responsibility to learn to drive
without the temptation of performance inhibiting
drugs you at least give them a chance to learn the
real dangers and challenges of driving so that they
will hopefully be able to make safer decisions
while driving. Driving is also not comparable to
drinking or smoking in that it requires a proficiency
test, and those who drive have to adhere to strict
laws. Young people are not simply 'let loose' in
cars - they are taught how to use them properly and
have to prove they are able to do so.

can only be done if teens can drive themselves. All

these things are about gaining autonomy making
personal choices and beginning to find your own
way in life as you become independent from
parents. Mobility is needed to make those choices
and it is for these reasons that many parents are just
as opposed to raising the driving age as teenagers
are.
COUNTERPOINT: In a world with soaring petrol
costs1 and often ridiculously high insurance
premiums for young people that argument can no
longer be valid. Indeed, the cost of running a car
has gone up so much that there are actually fewer
young people choosing to drive. In these conditions
it is unlikely that a 18 and 19 year old would be
able to fund their own cars anyway, putting
increased pressure on parents to pay the difference.
Putting the age restrictions up would not only save
parents money, but also increase the chances of
new drivers being able to pay for driving
independently.
Pure statistical analysis and stereotypes of
'reckless boy-racers' should not be blankly
applied to an age group.
Many teens are safe and careful drivers, and almost
all adult drivers today started before they were 20.
It would be unfair to punish all 18 and 19 year olds
for the bad behaviour of a few. Instead of a blanket
measure like raising the driving age, there are other
steps that could be taken to make the roads safer.
These include making the driving test tougher,
requiring driving graduate programs and training1
and requiring a retest and compulsory retraining for
any new driver caught driving badly. Parents could
even be brought in to the decision making process
as to whether or not their children are mature
enough to learn to drive.
COUNTERPOINT: What other data can we look at
in this debate if not the crash statistics? Although it
is not ideal to 'punish' everyone for the mistakes of
a few, when it comes down to saving lives this
shouldn't matter. Raising the driving age is a
practical means of doing this which could be
implemented with relative ease, cost far less in the
long term than creating extra programmes for
young drivers as well as avoid problems of
discrimination along gender lines. "Being young" is
not the same as "being male" in that the former will

inevitably change and the latter will not - there is

no question of infringement on rights in this case, it
would simply make the roads a safer place.
Every study carried out in this field shows that
Learning to drive is an important point in the
younger drivers are more likely to be involved in social development of children - a quantifiable
serious accidents - raising the age would make
point at which they become more like adults.
the roads a safer place.
Were this taken further away, young people
would be more frustrated and immature.
Human life is precious and whilst driving remains
one of the most dangerous things people do on a
Learning to drive is often considered a 'major
day to day basis1, we must do everything
milestone' in the life of a child. As well as being
reasonable to prevent deaths. Raising the driving
economically important to many, the social aspects
age will cut the number of accidents on the roads.
of the car should also be considered. Sharing lifts to
In 2008 alone in the USA there were 6428 fatalities school or college is not only a good way of making
involving young drivers and passengers aged under friends, it also saves fuel and reduces traffic
20. Raising the driving age will greatly reduce
congestion. Being made to wait an extra year or so
these accidents and deaths.
would seem a token gesture to most teenagers who
might be encouraged to drive illegally in the
COUNTERPOINT: Young drivers do have more
interim period.
accidents, but that is because they are not very
experienced, not simply because they are under 20. COUNTERPOINT: Again this comes down to the
If we raise the driving age, it will be 20 year old
distinction between 'treating people unfairly' and
new drivers having more accidents instead of 18
saving lives. Ultimately even if a small
year olds. With this in mind, options like having a
improvement is made by changing the age limit so
more rigorous driving test or imposing stricter rules that fewer people die the move is a good one. Most
on young people even after they have passed would children around that age will indeed have friends or
do a better job of saving lives.
relatives that are able to drive them to school,
college or to social events - if anything this will
raise the level of responsibility and trust in those
who are old enough to drive. There may be a short
period in which young people are more frustrated
about the changes, but very quickly the
'quantifiable point' will simply have moved to the
higher age and will carry exactly the same level of
excitement and responsibility. We must remember
that although driving is a step towards adulthood, it
does not grant immediate experience.
Government has a responsibility to restrict
driving to make it safer.
In most countries there are strict rules that govern
who is and is not allowed to drive. Practically
speaking, the infrastructure is already there to
enforce an increase in the age limit. Governments
already restrict driving to make it safer through
laws concerning alcohol use, insurance and the age
limits already in place. Making the age limit higher
would simply add to this campaign to make the
roads a safer place.
COUNTERPOINT: Governments already do a lot

to restrict road use to make it safer. Unfortunately

we live at a time in which financial resources for
such ventures are very limited and the police forces
around the world are often stretched to breaking
point. It has even been suggested that we already
need more officers to make the roads safer - asking
the police to enforce a change like this would just
make the situation worse.

6. This House supports the death penalty.

PROs
It helps the victims' families achieve closure.
The death penalty can also help provide closure for
the victim's family and friends, who will no longer
have to fear the return of this criminal into society.
They will not have to worry about parole or the
chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a
greater degree of closure.
COUNTERPOINT: Many victims' families oppose
the death penalty. While some might take comfort
in knowing the guilty party has been executed,
others might prefer to know that the person is
suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable
knowing that the state killed another human being
on behalf of the victim.
Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist
David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not
only fails to provide closure but often causes
symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far
removed from experience it.'

CONs
State-sanctioned killing is wrong.
The state has no right to take away the life of its
citizens. By executing convicts, the government is
effectively condoning murder, and devaluing
human life in the process. Such acts violate the
right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights1 and the right not to be subjected
to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment2.
On top of this, the state forces executioners to
actively participate in the taking of a life, which
can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent
psychological scars. Thus, a humane state cannot
be one that exercises the death penalty.
COUNTERPOINT: A just state regularly abrogates
people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of
others. By sentencing people to prison, for instance,
the state takes away rights to movement,
association, and property rights from convicted
criminals. The right to life should be no different.
When you commit certain heinous crimes, you
forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life,
but rather affirms the value of the innocent life
taken by the criminal. Certain crimes are so
heinous that the only proportionate sentence is
execution.
As for the executioners themselves, there are
methods of execution that involve multiple
executioners which might reduce the associated
psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is
forced to become an executioner, and people who
choose to take on that role do so with full
awareness of the risks involved.

The death penalty deters crime.

The state has a responsibility to protect the
lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death
penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of
violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of
execution can play a powerful motivating role in
convincing potential murderers not to carry out
their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may
be frightening, surely death is a more daunting
prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the
cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be
so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them.
COUNTERPONT: There are many reasons to
doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For
one thing, many criminals may actually find the
prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and
thus, less effective as a deterrent) than spending the
rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by
execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime
in prison can be seen as a much more intensive
punishment.
Moreover, even if criminals preferred life
in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a
harsher punishment would effectively deter
murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of
the moment, with little consideration for their legal
repercussions.
Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it
would have to be immediate and certain. This is not
the case with the death penalty cases, which often
involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in
acquittals.
Execution prevents the accused from
committing further crimes.
The death penalty is the only way to ensure that
criminals do not escape back into society or
commit further crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for those
receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide,
suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is
no worse punishment they can receive. Putting
dangerous murderers in prison endangers other
prisoners and the guards who must watch them.
COUNTERPOINT: Escapes from prison, though
sensationalized by the media, are relatively rare
occurrences. On top of this, it is not impossible for

The death penalty is a financial burden on the

state.
Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on
taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of
alternative punishments such as life in prison.
A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million
as a result of the intensive jury selection, trials, and
long appeals process that are required by capital
cases2. The cost of death row presents an
additional financial burden associated with the
death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death penalty in
Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for
every case in which the death penalty is not
sought1.
In California, death row costs taxpayers $114
million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning
convicts for life.
This money could instead be better spent on
measures that are of much greater benefit to the
criminal justice system- greater policing, education,
and other crime-preventing measures that are far
more cost-effective.
COUNTERPOINT: Justice is priceless. Even if the
death penalty is more expensive than other
punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it.
Fair and proportionate punishments should be
independent of financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death penalty
less expensive than it is today. Shortening the
appeals process or changing the method of
execution could reduce its costs.

The death penalty is a financial burden on the

state.
Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on
taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of
alternative punishments such as life in prison.
A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million
as a result of the intensive jury selection, trials, and
long appeals process that are required by capital
cases2. The cost of death row presents an
additional financial burden associated with the
death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death penalty in
Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for
every case in which the death penalty is not sought.
In California, death row costs taxpayers $114

people to commit further crimes while on death

row. Those sentenced to death may be even more
eager to escape prior to their execution than those
awaiting life in prison, so it is not true that
execution necessarily prevents further crimes.

million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning

convicts for life.
This money could instead be better spent on
measures that are of much greater benefit to the
criminal justice system- greater policing, education,
and other crime-preventing measures that are far
more cost-effective.
COUNTERPOINT: Justice is priceless. Even if the
death penalty is more expensive than other
punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it.
Fair and proportionate punishments should be
independent of financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death penalty
less expensive than it is today. Shortening the
appeals process or changing the method of
execution could reduce its costs.

The death penalty should apply as punishment

for first-degree murder; an eye for an eye.
The worst crimes deserve the most severe
sanctions; first-degree murder involves the
intentional slaughter of another human being.
There are crimes that are more visceral, but there
are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous
crime can only be punished, in a just and fair
manner, with the death penalty. As Time put it,
'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital
punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to
feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime
deserves no less than the worst possible
punishment'.Human life is sacred; there must be a
deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that
those violating that fundamental precept are
punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value
and importance placed upon the maintenance of the
sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would
fail in this duty.

Wrongful convictions are irreversible.

COUNTERPOINT: There is no fairness or

consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards
justice. Justice should remain above the petty
retributive justice that marks street or community
warfare, whereby the murder of one family member
justifies a revenge attack against the murderers'
family. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other
areas of the law. Capital punishment 'attempts to
vindicate one murder by committing a second
murder. And the second murder is more
reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned and
done with great ceremony in the name of us all'.
The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is

There are an alarming number of wrongful

convictions associated with the death penalty. So
far, more than 130 people who had been sentenced
to death have been exonerated. In many cases,
unlike those who have been sentenced to life in
prison, it is impossible to compensate executed
prisoners should they later be proven innocent.
The state should not gamble with people's lives.
The chance of wrongful execution alone should be
enough to prove the death penalty is not justifiable.
COUNTERPOINT: Wrongful convictions are
particularly rare in cases where the death penalty is
sentenced. The lengthy and thorough procedures
associated with death penalty cases offer sufficient
protection against wrongful convictions. If there is
any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, they
will not receive the sentence.
Finally, even in cases where there is a wrongful
conviction, there is generally a lengthy appeals
process for them to make their case. For example,
in 1993, Alex Hernandez was sentenced to death
for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 10-year
old girl in Chicago; he was released a number of
years later due to his lawyers proving both a
paucity of evidence and the confession of her actual
killer. As a result, very few innocent people receive
the death penalty, and the legality of capital
punishment does not increase wrongful or
prejudicial convictions.
The death penalty can produce irreversible

undermined not merely by the Pope himself, who

advocated 'clemency, or pardon, for those
condemned to death', but scripture itself, which
preaches mercy just as vigorously as it does
retribution.

miscarriages of justice.
Juries are imperfect, and increasing the stakes of
the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of ways.
First, implementation of the death penalty is often
impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or
racial biases, disproportionately impacting certain
victimized groups in society and adding a certain
arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study
found that the death penalty was three to four times
more common amongst those who killed whites
than those who killed African Americans or
Latinos, while those who kill women are three and
a half times more likely to be executed than those
who kill men.
COUNTERPOINT: The fact that juries are prone to
several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to
capital punishment.
If there are racial or prejudicial issues in
sentencing, these are likely to present themselves
just as often in cases where the punishment is life
in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die
or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not
commit. These errors suggest that the judicial
process may need some reform, not that the death
penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors
that result in discrimination can and should be
corrected.
Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases
are even present in most death penalty cases. A
study funded by the National Institute of Justice in
the US found that differences in sentencing for
white and non-white victims disappeared when the
heinousness of the crimes were factored into the
study. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the
race, of the accused accounted for some of the
purported racial disparities that were found.
Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such
cases, meaning that they are comfortable
sentencing someone to death should the fact
indicate their guilt. Thus, it is unlikely that many
jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because
they are uncomfortable with the death penalty.

Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of

prisons.
The death penalty can help ease the problem of
overcrowded prisons in many countries, where
keeping people for life in prison contributes to
expensive and at times unconstitutional

overcrowding. As such, the death penalty may be

preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a
pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It
is better to execute those who deserve it than to be
forced to release dangerous offenders into society
because prisons are overcrowded by people serving
life sentences.
COUNTERPOINT: Executions are rare enough
that they do not have a significant impact on prison
populations, which are largely composed of people
who would not be eligible for the death penalty.
Even if large numbers of people could be executed
instead of serving prisons, resources would not be
saved due to the expenses associated with death
penalty cases.
Instead of execution, there are better, more humane
solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One
could increase community service requirements,
build more prisons, or target broader crime
reduction programs.
The death penalty honors human dignity by treating
the defendant as a free moral actor able to control
his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat
him as an animal with no moral sense. Also, our
society has nonetheless steadily moved to more
humane methods of carrying out capital
punishment.

Death sentences are imposed in a criminal justice

system that treats you better if you are rich and
guilty than if you are poor and innocent. This is an
immoral condition that makes rejecting the death
penalty on moral grounds not only defensible but
necessary for those who refuse to accept unequal or
unjust administration of punishment.

Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells

us that the death penalty will deter murder... People
fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing
will deter a criminal more than the fear of death...
life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly
prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not
try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of
death... Therefore, a life sentence must be less
deterrent than a death sentence. And we must
execute murderers as long as it is merely possible
that their execution protects citizens from future
murder.

There is no credible evidence that the death penalty

deters crime more effectively than long terms of
imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws
do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than
states without such laws. Also, Retribution is just
another word for revenge, and the desire for
revenge is one of the lowest human emotions
perhaps sometimes understandable, but not really a
rational response to a critical situation. To kill the
person who has killed someone close to you is
simply to continue the cycle of violence which
ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the
offender.

Society is justly ordered when each person receives

what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order,
for the criminal takes from people their lives,
peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give
himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment
protects society morally by restoring this just order,
making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the

A shocking two out of three death penalty

convictions have been overturned on appeal
because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, as
well as serious errors by incompetent courtappointed defense attorneys with little experience
in trying capital cases.

harm he has done.

Death is... an unusually severe punishment, unusual

in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity...

7. This House would ban school uniforms.

PROs
Students should be allowed to wear religious
dress.

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.

CONs
School uniforms create a sense of equality.
School catchment areas are diverse and in private
schools, some children are there on a scholarship.
So, without uniforms there are clear indicators of
wealth between what children wear. This makes
poorer children stand out, (or even possibly the
reverse). Children can then be bullied for being
different, which diminishes a child's enjoyment of
school.
A study in New York has shown that 84% of
parents think uniforms promote equality, and 89%
of guidance counselors think uniforms help teach
children to be more accepting of others who are
less fortunate. This perception among parents will
help create the same perception among their
children. This is also likely to translate to the
teachers who will therefore treat their pupils more
equally.
COUNTERPOINT: There will always be teasing
between children. If it's not based on what clothes
the kids are wearing, it'll be because of their hair
colour, or the fact that they wear glasses . Children
need to learn from an early age that everyone is
different, or how can they learn to accept that? The
differences between people should be embraced; in
making students wear a uniform, schools are
wrongly teaching children that everyone should
look the same.
When it comes to the opposition's evidence it
should be remembered that opinion polls
themselves are slippery, depending on the question
asked, as is something like a belief in the benefits
of school uniforms. There is also no evidence to
link parent's belief that it promotes equality to
whether it really does.

Dress Codes instead of school uniform.

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

School uniforms contribute to the sense of

school unity.
Schools that have a uniform often say that they do
so because wearing a uniform helps their students
feel a sense of unity and pride in their school (e.g.,
Sacred Heart Catholic School, 2010). The

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 childs life. This
may cause the child to see her school and her faith
as mutually exclusive institutions. 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 childs
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.

what to wear. Only a few unsuitable things are

banned - for example, gang colors, very short
skirts, crop tops, bare shoulders, etc.
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.

School uniforms are often impractical or

uncomfortable.
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. In independent schools, uniforms are
often even more impractical and uncomfortable,
with blazers or even tailcoats for the children to
wear.
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. This means that in

headmistress of Fulham Cross School in London,

England, has been quoted as saying that
introducing a uniform at her school gave students
"an incredible sense of pride"; after the introduction
of a school uniform, GCSE passes at her school
rose from 42 to 53 per cent.
This sense of unity is especially important on
school trips, where teachers need to be able to tell
which children belong to their school, so that no
one gets lost.
COUNTERPOINT: School uniforms might help
improve the feeling of unity within schools, but
pride in one's school is dependent on being distinct
and different from another school. This can lead
increase rivalry between schools (already present
from school sports matches). There are many
examples of school rivalry (often made worse by
the fact that children from different schools are
made to wear different uniforms) leading to
children being beaten up or worse. For example, in
New Zealand, a boy was beaten up by boys from a
rival school; he said that the boys told him he
should be shot because he went to a different
school, which they could see from his uniform.
Because of this rivalry, it might be better for
students not to wear school uniforms on outings,
where they might encounter children from other
schools. Schools can use other things to make sure
children don't get lost on school trips, like buddy
schemes where each child has a buddy, and having
plenty of teachers or assistant teachers.
School uniforms encourage discipline.
Having to wear smart clothes encourages children
to respect their school and their teachers and
behave themselves. This is because of the
association between smart clothes and work.
Casual wear at school can also make students feel
over-relaxed and 'at home,' meaning they don't
focus as much on work. A lot of schools are
bringing back school uniform because they want to
improve discipline.
Moreover, school uniform can actively encourage
students to enter into an adversarial relationship
with the curriculum and their teachers. Exercising
arbitrary control over children in the interests of
discipline is likely to convince them that the very
sensible, rational principles of learning and critical
thought that they acquire during the school day are
equally arbitrary and meaningless. By refusing to
allow children to participate in enjoyable, beguiling
processes of discovery and understanding unless

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.

they comply with unjustified and meaningless rules

about dress, schools risk being seen as oppressive
and capricious by their students.
COUNTERPOINT: Researchers have actually
found that having to wear a school uniform does
not make children better behaved. For example,
Brunsma and Rockquemore looked at data for more
than 4,500 students and found that those who wore
a school uniform did not have fewer behavioural
problems or better attendance. School uniform does
not encourage discipline, so there is no need to
make children wear one.

School uniforms are often expensive.

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,
Australia, and the U.K. have to pay a lot of money
for their children's school uniforms, and it is
probably the same in other countries too.
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. 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.
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.
Individuality and creativity should be
encouraged.
Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states that "Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression". 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

School uniforms costs less as compared to

preferred clothing of the child.
Students reduce the pressure of deciding what
dress to wear each morning to going to school.
Encourages a discipline.
School uniforms improve students attendance.
Children are free to concentrate on their lessons.
Students have less time to prepare and get ready
for school in the morning.
School uniforms decreases the possibility of

that all children can express themselves freely.

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 . 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.

violence within the school premises.

School uniforms decreases the pressure of
wearing trendier brands.

School uniforms costs less as compared to

preferred clothing of the child.
Students reduce the pressure of deciding what
dress to wear each morning to going to school.
Encourages a discipline.
School uniforms improve students attendance.
Children are free to concentrate on their lessons.
Students have less time to prepare and get ready
for school in the morning.
School uniforms decreases the possibility of
violence within the school premises.
School uniforms decreases the pressure of
wearing trendier brands.

8. This House believes that internet brings more harm than good.

PROs
The quality of information online cannot always
be relied upon.
The Internet has become a major source of
information for many people. However, online
information has usually not gone through the same
checks as newspaper articles, books or factual
television programming. There is a higher risk that

CONs
The quality of information online cannot always
be relied upon.
The Internet has become a major source of
information for many people. However, online
information has usually not gone through the same
checks as newspaper articles, books or factual
television programming. There is a higher risk that
some of the facts or quotations from a particular

some of the facts or quotations from a particular

source in an article are false. Whereas newspapers
might lose customers if people find out they have
been selling lies, a blog and other online content
can be easily created and uploaded as well as just
as quickly being deleted. If people base their
opinions on the information they find online, they
could well be basing their opinion on false
information. Take for example the 2006 conspiracy
film Loose Change which has had millions of
views. A report from the thinktank Demos in a
report titled Truth, Lies and the Internet: A Report
into Young Peoples Digital Fluency[1] state that
the film contains a ...litnay of errors,
misattributions, vague insinuations, subtle
misquotes, and outright falsehoods... Since the
Internet gives equal space to material of greatly
varying quality, the degree to which the internet
can been viewed as being a total force for good is
drawn into question. If an informed society is an
empowered society it therefore stands to reason
that a misinformed society is disempowered
society.
COUNTERPOINT: The Internet gives millions of
people access to information they would not
otherwise have had, which is a huge benefit. People
who read the news, offline or online, are not
inherently dupable, they like all people do not
simply accept messages they are, to varying
degrees, critical of what they read and not simply
passive. When people spend a lot of time reading
online content they can differentiate between
bloggers who are untrustworthy or extremely biases
from bloggers who carefully refer to legitimate
sources. The problem of bad information in newsmaking is not unique to the Internet; there are lots
of trashy magazines and poorly researched news
content in traditional print channels of
communication as well. We learn in formal
education to double-check our sources and not
believe everything we read, and we can apply that
skill while surfing the Internet.
It is not enough to say that the internet contans
falsehoods to dismiss the value of the internet. All
mediums contain falsehoods whether intentional or
unintentional but there is a much broader picture
that needs to be considered in terms of the ability of
the internet to provide people with freedom of
expression and freedom of information, if it being a
free for all has the downside of some falsehoods
then thaty is a price worth paying.

source in an article are false. Whereas newspapers

might lose customers if people find out they have
been selling lies, a blog and other online content
can be easily created and uploaded as well as just
as quickly being deleted. If people base their
opinions on the information they find online, they
could well be basing their opinion on false
information. Take for example the 2006 conspiracy
film Loose Change which has had millions of
views. A report from the thinktank Demos in a
report titled Truth, Lies and the Internet: A Report
into Young Peoples Digital Fluency[1] state that
the film contains a ...litnay of errors,
misattributions, vague insinuations, subtle
misquotes, and outright falsehoods... Since the
Internet gives equal space to material of greatly
varying quality, the degree to which the internet
can been viewed as being a total force for good is
drawn into question. If an informed society is an
empowered society it therefore stands to reason
that a misinformed society is disempowered
society.
COUNTERPOINT: The Internet gives millions of
people access to information they would not
otherwise have had, which is a huge benefit. People
who read the news, offline or online, are not
inherently dupable, they like all people do not
simply accept messages they are, to varying
degrees, critical of what they read and not simply
passive. When people spend a lot of time reading
online content they can differentiate between
bloggers who are untrustworthy or extremely biases
from bloggers who carefully refer to legitimate
sources. The problem of bad information in newsmaking is not unique to the Internet; there are lots
of trashy magazines and poorly researched news
content in traditional print channels of
communication as well. We learn in formal
education to double-check our sources and not
believe everything we read, and we can apply that
skill while surfing the Internet.
It is not enough to say that the internet contans
falsehoods to dismiss the value of the internet. All
mediums contain falsehoods whether intentional or
unintentional but there is a much broader picture
that needs to be considered in terms of the ability of
the internet to provide people with freedom of
expression and freedom of information, if it being a
free for all has the downside of some falsehoods
then thaty is a price worth paying.

The Internet is a threat to privacy.

Everyones privacy can be greatly harmed by the
Internet. Some websites store information. Some
ask us to fill in information which can be sold to
other sites for commercial purposes. As the Internet
gains more and more users the temptation for
criminals to gain our private information becomes
greater. Hackers can hide their true location when
engaging in illegal activities online, so the
likelihood of their being brought to justice is low.
Whenever people post something online, it
becomes almost impossible to erase, and with the
proliferation of social networks posting personal
information online is becoming second nature, this
is a dangerous precedent. Take for example the
posting of our locations online via geotagging, this
for many is an action which doesnt take much
consideration, however, to demonstrate the danger
of this designer Barry Borsoom setup the website
PleaseRobMe.com which would grab geocaching
data and tell people when a persons house was
potentially empty.
With the aid of the Internet then, we are
symbolically sleepwalking into a big brother style
existence, in an information age all data about
ourselves is an important asset and one which
needs defending. The infringement and degradation
of our privacy as a side-result of the Internet should
be of great concern, and it is potentially one of the
most detrimental effects the Internet could have on
society.

The Internet has increased economic and

creative prosperity in a leveled way.
The Internet has brought greater prosperity,
allowing not only established business more
distribution channels over a wider geographical
area but it has also allowed individuals through ebay, for example, and small independent businesses
to flourish. This has brought a lot more choice to
ordinary people, and also driven down prices as
people find it easier to compare different
companies products. The main advantage to small
businesses is that they can cheaply set up online
and find a global market for their goods and
services. By making it easier to work anywhere
with an Internet connection, the internet has also
allowed many more people to work from home and
to share projects with co-workers across the whole
world which has allowed for greater economic
efficiencies.

COUNTERPOINT: Privacy online is a big

concern, but an educated citizen can navigate the
Internet in a safe and sensible manner with minimal
privacy issues, although as with being offline a the
threat of crime can never be entirely eliminated.
When we go online no-one forces the user to share
private information, it is volunteered by the user in
exchange for a free service, it is often a small price
to pay for the services that can be received in
return, such as free e-mail or free webspace. Of
course privacy can be infringed in other ways, by
unlawful access to personal files for example, but if
protection such as firewalls are setup and users are
careful about what they download privacy online
can be easily maintained. It is misleading to say we
are sleeping walking into a big brother existence, it
gives in impression that the effect the Internet is
having on society is conspiratorial, this is clearly

COUNTERPOINT: The Internet has certainly

allowed many new small businesses and
independent creative people to win international
exposure at a low price. However, the Internet is,
on the whole, dominated by big companies taking
most of the business while smaller organizations
struggle. The Internet has in fact damaged
independents more than it has helped, as offline
shops struggle to compete with the financial
savings of operating entirely online. This is also
true for art and other creative pursuits, because
independent offline art projects are being harmed
by the convenience of simply posting work online
digitally. The economic benefits being spoken of
do exist, but they favor the already powerful
conglomerates over independents, as those
conglomerates can use their vast income base to
dominate. It is especially bad when these big

The Internet has also provided a cheap and widereaching platform for independent creative people
to share and distribute their work. This is done via
self-promotion similar to small business, in the
form of digital portfolios and self-hosted blogs as
well as sharing content more generally, take for
example the vast array of independent movies gets
regularly posted to video-hosting websites such as
Vimeo. The Internet has given anyone creative
equal footing by which to compete as everyone has
the potential to reach the same global audience.

not the case, people like the way the Internet can
bring people all over the world together. Privacy is
no more of a problem online than privacy is in the
offline world, the issue is being overstated by the
proposition.

companies migrate online, because they shred

important jobs, to the detriment of society. The
lowered barrier to entry means that anyone can
setup business online, but on the whole the
majority will struggle to survive and only a rare
few will flourish.
The power that the Internet gives to citizens is
good for democracy.
People often complain that their opinions are
ultimately pointless as nothing will change. This
trend can be demonstrated with the numbers of
people going out to vote consistently falling,
however with the rise of the Internet this trend
could reverse. What the Internet has enabled is for
everyone, in one way or another, to have the
chance to truly have their voice heard. It has given
them the ability to fully engage in topics that matter
to them on a personal level. As this website and
this very debate show, people can debate, share
opinions, and start petitions in ways that were
never truly available before. Not only is democracy
being revived, it is also being demanded in
countries that do not have democracy due to
Internet access. This can be seen in what has been
described as the Arab Spring, whereby the Internet
was used as a tool to organize pro-democracy
protest in a number of Middle-Eastern countries
including Tunisia, Egypt and Syria, to name a but a
few.
COUNTERPOINT: It is overly hopeful to suggest
that simply because people now have another
medium through which to discuss their views and
opinions that they will necessarily go out and vote.
The decrease in voting is a concern for western
countries, but the Internet should not be seen as the
panacea that will singlehandedly solve the problem.
In reality, the situation is much more complex. Of
course the Internet provides a unique platform to
discuss ideas, but it is not revolutionary. The
opposition paints a picture suggesting that
grassroots movements could not happen without
the Internet. This clearly is not true, as a brief look
at history will show. While the Arab Spring shows
a positive use of the Internet in aiding democracy,
the same tools can be applied toward negative
goals. Indeed, the Internet is not intrinsically
geared towards aiding democracy. For example,
much of the organization for the attacks and looting
of at the UK riots in August 2011 was organized
via social networks and blogs

The Internet has allowed a large amount of

criminal, offensive and discriminatory
information to be easily accessed.

The Internet helps to bring communities and the

world closer together.
With the ability for anybody to easily and quickly
share rich information online, via a whole host of
The ability for anyone to be able to publish
tools, the Internet serves bring people together.
anything online without barriers resulted in a large
Firstly take for example social networks. Friends
amount of information which could not only be
can remain connected to each other when miles
incorrect but could also be criminal, offensive or
apart. People can maintain and even create
discriminatory if it were available to the general
friendships without the barrier of geography.
public. This sort of information would not usually
Additionally, social networks have a capacity to
be widely published via offline channels, but with
distribute news in a timely and targeted manner,
the advent of the Internet it is very easily accessible directed at the people whom it mostly concerns,
by anyone like never before, and this is a dangerous that is far greater than that of traditional media
president. A cavalcade of propaganda from
cannot compete. Secondly there are many instances
extremist groups such as religious zealots or Neoof hyper-local news communities springing up
Nazis for example can be accessed by anyone
online in which people can truly engage in their
around the world. This is dangerous as vulnerable
community, and help improve it. This model can
people could easily be taken in and exploited if the and is extended to bigger areas, helping to engage
discovered this material. It is quite often found that society for its greater good. For example
lone-wolf terrorists, for example, have gotten
Fillthathole.org.uk, provides a nationwide portal for
their information and inspiration from the Internet. U.K. citizens to report road potholes. Thirdly the
Garry Reid, deputy assistant secretary of Defense
Internet brings the world together by not only
for Special Operations and Combating Terrorism in encouraging direct communication with people
the USA states that Enabled by 21st-century
from other countries, but also by being able to
technology, extremists have optimized the use of
share and distribute information in a way which
Internet chat rooms, Web sites and e-mail chains to traditional forms of communication could not do.
spread their virulent messages and reach a global
audience of potential recruits.[1] But it is not only COUNTERPOINT: This image of the Internet
terrorists who are utilizing the Internet at a
drawing people being closer together is simply an
detriment to society. Various reports have linked a
illusion. Sitting in front of computers rather than
sharp rise in paedophilia with the growth of the
getting out in the world in fact isolates people from
Internet as it is an easy and often anonymous way
one another. Some academics argue that narcissism
to share such material with the world. The ability
is the glue that keeps social networks together. If
for anyone to publish anything online could clearly people didnt believe that their views were
do considerable harm to society, which would have important and needed to be heard, then social
otherwise been much less prevalent and easier to
networks would be unable to function. Social
control and regulate.
networks encourage people to express what they
are doing rather than reading what others have to
COUNTERPOINT: Freedom of information
say. If people want to feel integrated into their
should mean freedom of all types of information,
communities, they should get out and about and do
even if it is extreme propaganda from fringe groups something active for it. Complaining about things
such as neo-Nazis or Al-Qaeda. The public must be online will not result in direct action solving the
trusted to be able to make its own decisions on the
problem. Although it is true that people all over the
value of such texts. What is great about the Internet world are now theoretically able to communicate
is that points of view that would not necessarily get with one another more easily, that is not how the
much publicity in traditional media can be aired
Internet is actually used most of the time. Many
and discussed online, from serious issues such as
Internet users either read digitized versions of
capital punishment to less serious ones like aliens.
traditional information sources, and when they are
Of course one of the downfalls of such freedom is
on social networking sites, they engage most often
that illegal content such as child pornography can
with real-life friends, with whom they could easily

be made available in a way which it could not have

before, but highlighting this issue is not entirely
fair as it is greatly outweighed by the information
available online that is perfectly fine and legal.
This does not of course excuse the publication of
such images. It is, however, a slight misnomer to
suggest that the Internet is entirely free from the
restraints of law. In issues of legality, governments
can take action: they can either trace the origin of
the images or force web space providers and ISPs
(Internet Service Providers) to take down the
content. On the whole, having ready access to such
a large amount of information, and being able to
freely add and discuss it, is beneficial to society,
because it is both liberating and educational.

spend face-to-face time. Language is the other

major barrier to worldwide integration. While there
are translation tools online, most people online will
stick to communicating in their native language,
and this is particularly true of English speakers.
The idea that the Internet is bringing new people
together is on the whole a myth.

9. This House would ban homework.

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

CONs
Homework encourages students to work more
independently (by themselves).

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.
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. If anything, countries with
more homework get worse results!
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'. If
the homework was consistent however, and related

Homework encourages students to work more

independently, as they will have to at college and in
their jobs. Everyone needs to develop responsibility
and skills in personal organization, working to
deadlines, being able to research, etc. If students
are always spoon-fed topics at school they will
never develop study skills and self-discipline for
the future. A gradual increase in homework
responsibilities over the years allows these skills to
develop . For instance, to read a novel or complete
a research project, there is simply no time at school
to do it properly. Students have to act
independently and be willing to read or write,
knowing that if they struggle, they will have to
work through the problem or the difficult words
themselves. Diane Ravitch points out that a novel
like Jane Eyre cannot be completed if it is not read
at home students have to work through it
themselves .
COUNTERPOINT: Setting homework does little
to develop good study skills. It is hard to check
whether the homework students produce is really
their own. Some students have always copied off

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)
young children have less developed cognitive skills
to focus and concentrate on their work. Thus, they
are more easily distracted from their homework
assignments.
Marking homework reduces the amount of time
teachers have to prepare good lessons.

others or got their parents to help them. But today

there is so much material available on the internet
that teachers can never be sure. It would be better
to have a mixture of activities in the classroom
which help students to develop a whole range of
skills, including independent learning.
Furthermore, if teachers want to develop
independence in their students, students should be
given a choice in the matter of homework.
Otherwise, theyre not using their judgement and
therefore they arent being independent at all .

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.

Having homework also allows students to really fix

in their heads work they have done in school.
Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students
strengthen their understanding and become more
confident in using new knowledge and skills. For
younger children this could be practising reading or
multiplication tables. For older ones it might be
writing up an experiment, revising for a test and
reading in preparation for the next topic. Professor
Cooper of Duke University, has found that there is
evidence that in elementary school students do
better on tests when they do short homework
assignments related to the test . Students gain
confidence from such practise, and that shows
when they sit the tests.

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.

Homework reduces the amount of time for

students to do other activities.

Homework ensures that students practise what

they are taught at school.

COUNTERPOINT: Homework does not ensure

that students practise what they are taught at
school. To practise what a student has been taught
requires the presence of a teacher or tutor who can
guide the student if they get something wrong.
Homework, done by the student on their own,
offers little support and is only a source of stress. If
confused, the student may only come to dislike the
topic or subject, which will only further reduce
their ability to remember what they were taught.
Homework provides a link between child, school
and the home.

Homework takes a lot of time up. In America, they

encourage the '10 minute rule', 10 minutes
homework for every grade, meaning that highschool 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.
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.
Homework puts students off learning.
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.
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

Education is a partnership between the child, the

school and the home. Homework is one of the main
ways in which the students family can be involved
with their learning. Many parents value the chance
to see what their child is studying and to support
them in it. It has been described as the window
into the school for parents, the area in which
schools, parents and students interact daily. And
schools need parents support in encouraging
students to read at home, to help with the practising
of tables, and to give them opportunities to research
new topics.
COUNTERPOINT: Homework is a class issue. In
school everyone is equal, but at home some people
have advantages because of their family
background. Middle-class families with books and
computers will be able to help their children much
more than poorer ones can. This can mean poorer
children end up with worse grades and more
punishments for undone or badly done homework.
David Baker, a researcher, believes too much
homework causes parents and children to get angry
with each other and argue, destroying the childs
confidence . On the other hand pushy parents may
even end up doing their kids homework for them
cheating and not helping the student learn at all.

Homework is an essential part of education,

allowing students to learn information beyond
that which they are taught at school.
Homework is a vital and valuable part of education.
There are only a few hours in each school day not
enough time to cover properly all the subjects
children need to study. Setting homework extends
study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and
deeper education. It also makes the best use of
teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather
than just supervising individual work that could be
done at home. Education is about pushing
boundaries, and the learning should not stop at the
entrance to the classroom students should take
skills learnt in the classroom and apply them at
home. Homework allows this to happen,
encouraging students to go above and beyond what
they do in school. Reading is the best example,
students learn how to read at school, but in order to
get better, they need to practise and that is best
done at home, with the support of parents and at the

design homework assignments that help kids learn

and don't turn them off to learning' .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'. Homework 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.

right pace for the student.

The ban on homework could be easily enforced

through school inspections.

Homework can provide important practice for

many of the skills required for learning, particularly
in the areas of rote learning.

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.
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

COUNTERPOINT: Homework is not an essential

part of information. If what was to be learnt from
homework was that essential, it would not be left to
the child to learn on their own and away from
school. In fact, many teachers admit to simply
setting homework because they are expected to set
it, not because they think it will be helpful 1. The
best environment for learning is in a classroom,
where the student is able to ask for assistance if
stuck and the teacher is available to help.

Homework involving simple math operations,

spelling and vocabulary lists can help students
build the foundation for further learning.
Homework can be necessary when classroom time
is not enough to provide the subject exposure
needed to do the job.
Homework instills discipline, and creates a superior
intellect.

inspections.
Homework is about 'winning' on tests, not
learning.
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.
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.
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.
Many studies indicate that homework has little
positive effect on the performance of students in
the earlier grades. There is only so much that a
mind of that age can absorb through self study, and
piling on homework doesnt change that.
Too much homework does have its down side as
well. Students will have less time exploring their
talents and develop other areas of interest such as
music and sports.
Additional studies have shown that the over
application of homework can stress individuals to
the point that it has a negative effect on
performance, resulting in an outcome opposite of
desired goal.
Homework on weekends and holidays is also
shown to be more of a detriment than an aid to
learning. Kids need time off too.

Homework, especially in high school and college

level coursework, is crucial if a student is to absorb
all of the material required to master a subject.
Class time at these levels is best used to embellish
and build on the information the student has
already acquired during periods of self study. It
allows a teacher to go beyond the textbook.
By having homework, students can concentrate on
what matters the most during school time, which
are discussions, learning, experimenting and asking
questions.

10. This House believes university education should be free.

PROs
Individuals have a right to the experience of
higher education.

CONs
The cost to the state is far too great to sustain
universal free university education.

It is a fundamental right of individuals to

experience university and to have access to the
knowledge it affords. University offers a huge
opportunity. It is a treasure trove of knowledge to
be gained and experiences to be had. University
provides an opportunity that exists at no other time
in an individuals life. It is a time of personal,
intellectual, and often spiritual, exploration. In
secondary school and in professional life, no such
opportunities exist, as they are about instruction
and following orders, not about questioning norms
and conventions in the same way university so
often is. University serves as an extremely valuable
forum for different views, which everyone has a
right to experience should they wish. A life without
the critical thinking tools provided by university is
less full because those without it lack the facility by
which to unlock all the doors of perception and
knowledge laid before them. University experience
serves also, in its giving of these opportunities, to
shape individuals views of themselves and society,
helping to give form to the relationship between
citizen and state on a deepened level. The state has
a duty to facilitate this development, as its
responsibility includes providing citizens with the
wherewithal to take meaningful part in the
democratic process. A state can only truly be
considered legitimate when an educated electorate
approves it. Without a proper education,
individuals cannot be effective citizens. A
university education in the modern world is
essential to the development of such informed
citizens. For this reason, free university is a great
benefit to a citizen as an exploration for his own
development on a personal level, and with his
relation to society as a whole.

The social-democratic model, most prevalent in

Europe, is a failure. The system of paying for
universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc.
threatens to bankrupt the countries maintaining
them; it is simply unsustainable. The cost of paying
for free university education is ruinously high. The
government money needed to be channeled into
universities to provide for free education, as well as
into various other generous social welfare benefits,
has been a case of borrowing from future
generations to finance current consumption. For
these countries to survive, and lest other countries
attempt to follow suit with similar models, they
must rethink what they can afford to provide freely
to citizens. In the case of education, it seems fair to
say that all states should offer access to their
citizens to primary and secondary education
opportunities, since the skills acquired during such
education are absolutely necessary for citizens to
function effectively within society; reading,
writing, basic civics, etc. are essential knowledge
which the state is well-served in providing.
University, on the other hand, is not essential to life
in the same way. People can be functional and
responsible citizens without it; it can be nice to
attend, but one can live effectively without it. For
this reason, the state must consider university in the
same way it does any non-essential service; people
may pay for it if they wish to partake, but they
cannot view it as an entitlement owed by the state
that will simply provide it to everyone. The cost is
just too high, and the state must act from a
utilitarian perspective in this case. Instituting fees
will place the cost of education upon those wishing
to reap the benefits of education, and not on the
taxpayer.

COUNTERPOINT: There is no right to the

university experience. University life is a piss-up.
Students rarely take their time in university as
seriously as some would suggest. Rather, university
life is about alcohol first, education second. Such
education can provide valuable knowledge, but it is
not the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund it.
Self-knowledge and genuine wisdom come from
study and reflection. This can be done anywhere,
not just in a university. There is no fundamental
right of individuals to be allowed to take four years
free of charge to learn new skills that will benefit
them or how to be better citizens. The states duty
is to provide a baseline of care, which in the case of
education secondary school more than provides. If
individuals want more they should pay for it
themselves.

COUNTERPOINT: It is far from impossible to pay

for free university education. States waste money in
many activities, and if they were to cut back on
other discretionary spending then the cost of free
higher education would be entirely feasible. Cuts to
defense spending in countries with overinflated
militaries, or ending farm subsidies in many
European states, are just some of things states can
do. Furthermore, the benefits of higher education
are to everyone, not just those who receive it
directly. It is beneficial to all of society when there
are educated professionals within it. It is thus
absolutely essential for states to fund higher
education, and to maximize the numbers who
attend so as to reap the rewards of an educated
populace.

The state benefits in terms of superior economic,

cultural and leadership development from a
university-educated populace.

Maintaining a system of free university

education leads to an inefficient allocation of
state resources.

A university-educated populace is of great value to

any state, and provides three main benefits. The
first benefit is that it provides extensive economic
boons to society. At present, Western countries
have a substantial comparative advantage in terms
of the production of services and high technology,
though this is diminishing gradually as the
developing world continues to build up
technologically and economically. There is a
profound advantage to countries that actively
promote a culture of smart economy[1]. By
facilitating higher education, through state funding
of university study, countries increase the
likelihood and quantity of investment in their
economies by both domestic and foreign firms, as a
highly educated and skilled workforce is a country
trait many businesses consider highly desirable
when making investment decisions. Economic
growth and building competitiveness in the 21st
century are thus dependent on extensive investment
in education. The second benefit accrued to the
state from investment in free university education
is the gain in cultural relevance it sees with a highly
educated population. Students of the arts provide
extensive intangible benefits to society, through
beauty in architecture, painting, crafts, etc.
Likewise students of history, literature and classics
provide boons in the form of helping society to

When the state offers a universal service,

inefficiencies inevitably arise with its provision.
There are four principal economic problems that
arise from free university education. First, there is a
major problem of resources being lost to
bureaucracy. In a state-funded university system,
tax money is wasted on paying civil servants to
deal with procurement questions with regard to
funding for universities, as well as in misallocation
of funds due to bureaucrats lack of expertise and
specialist knowledge necessary to know the correct
funding decisions, which independent universities
would be able to make on their own more
efficiently. Second, when the state funds all
university education for free, funding will be
allocated to unprofitable courses. As there is no
profit motive or price mechanism driving these
decisions, there is no way of reaching an efficient
decision except by guesswork. The funding of
students who are not really interested in attending
university or who are apathetic toward higher
education creates the third problem. Such students
only attend because it is free to do so, and it would
be much better to enact a system whereby such
students cannot claim a trip to university as an
entitlement. A moral hazard problem emerges
among such students. They are allowed to reap all
the benefits of education, while needing to incur

understand itself and its place and relevance in the

world by fostering an understanding of its past.
Without free university education, fewer people
would be able to dedicate themselves to the study
of such subjects, reducing the amount of beauty
and culture in society, to its detriment. The third
benefit is the development of leaders in society.
States function best when the best and brightest
have the opportunity to rise to the top. The barrier
to entry created by fees and other costs of
university will prevent some potentially high-worth
individuals from ever reaching levels of success.
Free university education allows all individuals to
attend university, guaranteeing that the leaders of
tomorrow have the chance to show their worth. For
all these reasons, it is clear that the state benefits
instrumentally from providing free university
education to its citizens.

none of the costs. The student who goes to

university to waste three or our years and study an
easy arts course imposes an unjust cost on society,
who has to pay for these students who are not in
university to gain from it, but merely to waste time
and not work hard. The fourth problem of free
university education is saturation of degree-holders
in the market [1]. In order to have value, a degree
must be a signal of quality. When everyone has a
degree, the value of such a qualification plummets.
The ability for employers to ascertain high quality
potential employees is thus presented with greater
difficulty in making a selection. The flipside of this
is that graduates end up serving in jobs that do not
require a degree-holding individual to do them.
Thus, a system of fees is superior to free education
because it allows for more efficient allocation of
resources to universities and to individuals.

COUNTERPOINT: A highly educated populace

does not provide the great economic bounties the
supporters of free university education propound.
Countries need educated people, including a certain
amount of university graduates, but the idea
proposed, that everyone having a degree would
benefit society economically, is unfounded. There
is no economic benefit when people with degrees
are doing jobs that do not require university
education, and represents a substantial
misallocation of resources on the part of the state.
As to developing future leaders, those who are
gifted or particularly driven can still rise to the top,
even if university is not free, as scholarships tend to
be mostly aimed at such individuals. Surely,
society does not benefit at all from university being
free.

COUNTERPOINT: While there will of course be

people who do not try to get the most out of their
university educations, what matters is that everyone
has access to it. It is a fair trade between
inefficiencies created by inattentive students and
diligent students who would have lacked the
facility to attend without it being free. As to
signaling value, there will be other indicators of
value, such as performance in university to show an
individuals worth. More degree-holders thus do
not automatically diminish the value of having
degrees.

Individuals have a right to equal opportunity in

order to maximize their personal utility, and to
break free from the social strata in which they
are born.

The quality of education suffers when university

education is free.

In order to guarantee equality of opportunity for all

citizens the state must acknowledge the right to
university education and to the opportunities such
education provides. University education gives
individuals many opportunities that will serve them
enormously in later life. It does so by providing
opportunities to people while they are in university
and opens doors for them once they leave. When
people are attending college they have the ability to

Without university fees, universities become

dependent on the state for funding. The problem
with this is that the states aim is to increase
university attendance levels for the sake of political
gain, while at the same time striving not to increase
spending on the universities. The result is an
increase in attendance, without commensurate
increase in funding from the state. This leads to
larger class-sizes and less spending per student.
Furthermore, these problems result in disconnected
lecturers who, due to increased class sizes, cannot

gain exceedingly useful information that they can

employ in a future career. Likewise, the people an
individual meets while in university can be very
advantageous in later life; as a networking
opportunity, university has no equal. The
advantages of attending university likewise extend
to life after university, particularly in terms of
career opportunities. The employment prospects
created by a university degree are substantial, and
many lines of work are only available to university
graduates. People are even hired with degrees not
specific to the job they will do, because the degree
itself, not the subject studied, is viewed as a signal
of an individuals intellectual and professional
quality. Without a university degree many paths are
permanently denied. Access to the careers and
beneficial connections furnished by university
education should not be the province of the wealthy
and privileged alone. True merit should define the
ability to attend university, not the accident of
birth. With the institution of fees, access becomes
more difficult, and will certainly lead to lower
attendance by poorer groups, as the opportunity
cost of attendance is increased by higher prices of
education. This serves to lock people into the
economic strata whence they were born and raised,
as getting out is much more difficult when denied
access to most high-income jobs. With free higher
education, people have the ability to improve their
own future utility, irrespective of their present
economic standing.
COUNTERPOINT: There is no fundamental right
to a university education; it is a service, and people
should pay for it, not freeload on the taxpayer.
Rights exist to provide people with the necessities
of life. Some people may never have the
opportunity, ie. wealth, to visit Hawaii, yet that
is not unfair and the state should not be expected to
fund every citizens tropical vacation. Yet even in
the presence of fees, access to scholarships and
loans make it possible for people from
disadvantaged economic backgrounds to find their
way into university. In this way there is a degree of
equality of opportunity in so far as those who are
able are afforded the opportunities financial
incapacity would deny them. If people want to take
advantage of the networking opportunities
available in university and the employment benefits
available to graduates, then they may pay for it.

connect to their students or offer more than cursory

assistance to struggling pupils. The decline in
teaching quality is further exacerbated by their
need to focus less on teaching and more on
research, which is more profitable and thus
encouraged by cash-strapped universities. With
fees, on the other hand, the quality of universities
increases for three reasons. First, funding improves,
as university may charge in accordance with need
rather than with making do with whatever the state
gives them to fund teaching. The result is a
consistent quality in education resources rather than
it being dependent upon what the state happens to
give universities, and on how many students it
pushes to be accepted. Second, quality of teaching
is improved. Because a university wants people to
attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees
they offer have to be good signals of quality.
Universities thus stay in business only so long as
they remain purveyors of high quality educational
goods. They must thus let in smart people,
irrespective of their financial background, which
will in part serve to admit and finance capable
people from disadvantaged backgrounds through
targeted financial aid programs. Third, the average
quality of students attending university will
improve. This is because students feel they need to
get the most from their investment in education,
which can be quite substantial. They will thus be
more attentive and more interested in doing well.
An example of higher quality education stemming
from fee-paying higher education systems is that of
the United States, which has twenty of the top fifty
ranked universities in the world. Quality is clearly
improved when university is not free.
COUNTERPOINT: State funding of higher
education is actually beneficial to universities. It
allows universities to get on with their research and
teaching without worrying about competing and
spending money on getting students to attend. The
money wasted in pursuit of high numbers of
students is thus saved, as the state can tend to the
needs of universities.[1] The idea that the state will
simply neglect its universities is silly, because
society relies on having capable professionals
whose qualifications have value. It is always in the
interest of the state to promote the success of its
institutions of higher learning.

In order to foster social equality, the state must

actively encourage groups in society without
cultures of university attendance to seek higher
education.
There are often sections of society, in many
countries, that on average attend university with
less frequency than even other groups with
comparable economic means. For example, poorer
white Americans are still more likely to attend
university than similar poor African-Americans.
The reason for this is that the cultural impetus to
attend university has an impact on whether people
attend, not simply financial means. In the case of
the United States there is a perception within inner
cities that university is principally for privileged
white people.
This sentiment is pernicious, as it causes people in
such areas to not seek university education, even
when they might find access to scholarships or
loans. The state can ameliorate this problem by
eliminating fees. In doing so, it can act to inculcate
the notion of university education as a right for
everyone, not just the privileged, which serves to
break down cultural biases against higher
education. The impetus to attend university will
benefit these disadvantaged areas by creating an
educated populace who can find work in careers
other than unskilled labor and tradecraft that
currently predominate. It will also aid in rebuilding
social connections between these often-isolated
groups and the rest of society. Clearly, free
university education benefits societal harmony.
COUNTERPOINT: Making university free will do
little to foster social engagement from
disenfranchised groups like inner city AfricanAmericans. Rather, free university education does
little other than benefit those who would already
have attended; only without fees they can do so for
free. Groups with an anti-education bias will not
simply be convinced of its merits by its being made
free. Spending taxpayers money on social outreach
programs and other civic activities are the way to
contact these groups and encourage them to enter
university. Making university free is a pointless
gesture.

Knowledge should not come with a price tag. I

Free university education unjustly benefits one

subset of society at the expense of everyone.
Not everyone goes to university. Many do not go
because they simply do not want to. Others feel
they can do something more productive than
continuing in education. Yet all taxpayers fund
higher education when it is a state-funded
enterprise. The state funds essential services, but
higher education is not such a service. People do
not need it to live. For this reason the state should
not allow a subset of society to mooch on the
taxpayer for its own benefit. Attendees already tend
to make lots more money than non-graduates, and
will, if they make good decisions, have the facility
to pay back loans if they need them in a fee-paying
system. Additionally, the specific subset free
university education tends to benefit is not the
disadvantaged, the group the state talks about
helping when it institutes such policies, but rather
the middle and upper classes who would have paid
fees, but now can enjoy a free education courtesy
of the taxpayer. This pattern has been seen in
Ireland, for example, where poorer communities
still view higher education as something for the
rich even though it is free. These groups continue
to enter the workforce in similar numbers as they
had before the ending of fees, and they still tend to
prefer trade schools to universities if they do seek
qualifications beyond the secondary level[1].
Clearly, the implementation of free university
education does not open it up on an instrumental
level to individuals who would not have attended
otherwise due to being from poor areas. Higher
education is a luxury not everyone chooses to
partake of, and it certainly should not be purveyed
of as a right, but should be paid for like any other
service.
COUNTERPOINT: Many state services are
furnished that benefit a few and are not used by
others. That is often just the way such services
operate. So long as everyone has access to the
service, then it is just to provide it out of tax
revenues. Every individual, when higher education
is free, can attend university without cost. That is a
right every taxpayer can enjoy. If some choose not
to do so, that is fine, but it does not delegitimize the
government outlay.
From where will the money come? Obviously

actually wish it was how it was back in the days

when people were taught their professions by other
people while on the job, or accepted into schools
based on high marks. Winning a scholarship should
be attainable to all people who do well
academically.
In the US, higher education is seen as a privilege
and not a right, but not everyone has that privilege
and with the way higher education costs now, less
and less people will be able to go.
Some people cant afford it and if they really are
showing intrest in getting a higher education they
should be able not having to worry about the cost.
With a higher education status it is easier to find
higher level jobs and is best for most people. If
everyone was able to have access to university it
would be easier for poorer people to change their
living situation.

they'll raise all taxes. And it will make the poor

more poorer and have no chance at all to send their
kids to school.
Another reason is at free higher education leads to
poor quality because it will be supplied or served
by low paid (unmotivated) human resources.
If you take a special view on this, you will notice,
that the government cannot offer free education just
like that. The government would have to make
more money, so they would increase the taxes. So
its another way of redistribution.
And if you think, that everyone would have better
chances for a job now, then you are wrong.
Because there are also other skills asked for some
jobs which you cant learn at the university, for
example practice experience. So its a bad thing, to
offer free education to everyone.
The cost of providing higher education would
outweigh the benefits to society.
Money is needed to fund education, research, and
advancements. Tuition is necessary, and as soon as
you hand out education for free, the overall value
of that education will go out the window.

11. This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile
phones.

PROs
Mobile phones keep children safe.
Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier
for parents to stay in touch with their children and
for children to contact someone in an emergency.
Through calls and texts, parents can know where
their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe,
all the while their children know they are never
more than a phone call away from help. As Leslie
Sharpe argues, I wanted to ensure that they had a

CONs
There are long-term health risks to mobile
phone use.
There are possible potential long-term health risks
from using mobile phones. In May 2011, the World
Health Organisation classified the radiation emitted
by handsets as possibly carcinogenic. It has been
widely accepted that the radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones
are absorbed into the body, much of it by the head

way of contacting me in an emergency. It is,

however, true that some children carrying the most
sophisticated or Smart phones are more
susceptible to being robbed, but thieves are always
after something new. Phones now are both much
more widespread and security coded, so the
benefits to thieves are no longer as great or
immediate. Traffic accidents that are the result of
children being distracted by their phones while
walking across roads should be blamed on bad
safety education rather than on the actual phones.
Ultimately, mobile phones provide parents and
young people with peace of mind and children with
a safety net in emergencies, whether calling parents
or the emergency services.

when the headset is held to the air.Because

childrens brains are still developing, any possible
damage to them is even more worrying than for
adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof
about this, but it is better to play safe than take
risks the precautionary principle. Until science
can prove mobile phones are completely safe for
young people to use, they should not be allowed to
have them. As Christopher Wild, who headed a
study into the health risks of mobile use, instructed,
it is important to take pragmatic measures to
reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or
texting. The damage, despite not being conclusive,
is potentially serious enough to warrant caution and
prevent children being unnecessarily exposed.

COUNTERPOINT: The ostensible goal of keeping

children safe is neglected if the device is at the
mercy of whoever holds it. The link between
parents and children that phones ostensibly provide
is easily broken if, as Janet Bodnar notes, your
child doesnt want to be reached, she can always
turn off the phone and plead the no service
defence.Not to mention the fact that children, with
phones, who miss calls or fail to call their parents
causing more stress and worry than others who
dont carry phones with them. Phones give parents
a reason to be concerned if not used. Furthermore,
any person who does not want a child to reach their
parents can easily take it off them before they are
able to use it. True safety is provided by maturity
and good parenting and good communication not a
phone line.

COUNTERPOINT: Mobile phones are medically

safe for children to use we should ignore scare
stories in the media. The latest research has not
proved that mobile phones damage brain cells. Ed
Yong, head of health information at Cancer
Research UK, has been quoted as saying the risk
of brain cancer is similar in people who use mobile
phones compared to those who dont, and rates of
this cancer (glioma) have not gone up in recent
years despite a dramatic rise in phone use during
the 1980s.Furthermore, the European Unions
public health body concluded in 2008 that mobile
phone use for less than ten years is not associated
with cancer incidence. Regarding longer use, it was
deemed difficult to make an estimate. Even those
earlier studies that suggested there might be a
problem thought that people would have to use a
cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect.
It is true that there is no 100% proof that mobile
phones are safe to use, but that is true of any
scientific study. Further investigation should be
encouraged, but without conclusive proof, the
benefits of mobile phone use will continue to far
outweigh the costs.
Mobile phones are too expensive for children.

Children should be comfortable with modern

technology.
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
is now a normal part of modern life, used by
everyone from toddlers to pensioners. So children
need to grow up making use of technology such as
mobile phones if they are to be able to fully
participate in contemporary society. The average
age at which children get their first mobile phone is
eight according to a recent study. To prevent a

Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Even

if basic models are cheap to buy, calls are
expensive and charges soon mount up because
what kids really want to do is text-message their
friends, download music or play games. Many
young people run up big bills their parents have to
pay. A few rich families might be able to afford
this, but for many parents the hours their kids spend
on their cell phones are an uncontrollable expense

child from having a mobile phone at that age is to

put them at a clear social disadvantage compared
with their peers. Mobile phone use develops skills
for the modern workplace with its need for techsavvy employees with communication skills and
the ability to work flexibly. In any case, children
often have better phone manners than adults they
are less likely to shout into the phone, more likely
to text discreetly, and more aware of text and phone
etiquette. Such manners are the direct consequence
of familiarity with the device and an understanding
of appropriate use in certain contexts.
COUNTERPOINT: Children should not be
comfortable with modern technology, merely the
modern world. Mobile phones are a distraction
from the real world, having a negative impact on
children interacting with those around them. A
survey of 1,500 parents found that more than three
quarters said that technology has had a negative
effect on family life and a third said they ban
mobile phones from the dinner table. Furthermore,
a survey of American teenagers in 2009 found that
whilst 51% of respondents talk to their friends on
their cell phone every day, only 29% spend time
with friends in person doing activities outside of
school. This probably reflects wider social changes
as the outside world is perceived as risky Constant
talking, texting, and games playing take the place
of proper socialising. Young people grow up
without good manners, unable to relate to those
around them in a normal way. Parents, anxious that
their traditional role as the shoulder to lean on is
being superseded by friends and access to the
internet, are increasingly turning to spying on their
children. The mutual distrust, fuelled by access to
modern technology, is not a positive development.

they cannot cope with. Others are under peer

pressure to get the newest, most stylish phones with
all the latest gadgets.
COUNTERPOINT: Mobile phones are not too
expensive for children children use pocket money
to buy credit and often inherit hand-me-down
handsets initially. As noted by the opposition, basic
models are cheap and the subscription itself is at
the mercy of the buyer. Parents can always say
no or set limits on what the children can spend.
With modern payment plans children can be given
a set amount of credit for calls and texts. Learning
to work within financial limits is an important part
of growing up. In any case, many young people
have part-time jobs so they are spending their own
money, not their parents and learning to control use
and financially managing phone use is a very good
skill to learn. Nevertheless, even if it were the case
that mobile phones are too expensive, that does not
render their ability to keep children safe negligible,
for one cannot place a price on a childs safety.

Mobile phones encourage the development of

independence and interpersonal skills.

Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in

school.

Education is as much about the growth in character

and dealing with risks as it is the accumulation of
knowledge; mobile phones provide for children a
means to converse with peers, develop friendships
and resolve disputes, all within minutes of each
other, night and day. For them, getting a cell
phone is a step towards independence and a status
symbol among their friends. The confidence and
self-esteem derived from having a mobile phone
cannot be underappreciated, as proven by the

Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They

take students attention away from their lessons and
undermine discipline. Rules about having them
turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce
students just put them in silent mode and secretly
text or play games in the back of the class. There
have been many cases of students using mobiles to
cheat in tests, in 2005 60% of cases involving
taking unauthorized items into exam rooms
involved mobile phones, and some of students

corresponding negative impact of losing ones

phone. An Independent study in 2004 found that 55
per cent of people cited keeping in touch with
friends or family as the main reason for being
wedded to their handsets'. Furthermore, the
increasing potential of smart phones facilitates the
accessing of information in real-time and on the
move; a determined child with a grasp of the
potential of their mobile phone can illuminate
themselves on matters like directions to
destinations, opening times for activities and
immediate weather forecasts. With such
information, children can begin to reason with each
other and make decisions without resort to more
mature advice.
COUNTERPOINT: Independence is by its very
nature unsupervised, therefore, the only way
parents know how mobiles are being used is to be
told by often shy teenagers. In some cases, this has
led to sex offenders being able to hide behind the
anonymity of chat rooms and phone numbers and
develop relationships with young children.This
would be less of a problem if children were aware
of the dangers. However a recent Taiwanese study
found that though 43% of parents were worried that
their kids would meet strangers online, only 10% of
children were similarly concerned. The true extent
of online grooming remains unknown. There are
ways of encouraging independence without risking
exploitation in new media environments; however,
honest discussions and responsible education can
ameliorate some of these risks.
Schools can implement programs to encourage
responsible and considerate mobile phone use.
All technological platforms have the potential to be
abused or act as a negative medium, what is
important is that children are taught to use their
mobile phones responsibly. Schools should
introduce programs and classes that teach children
not only how important the devices are to their
personal safety, but also how to exploit the
advantages of the software. All children with
sufficiently smart mobile phones should know how
to find out where they are at any given time using
map functions, and how to use the internet to find
information on the go but to be vary of revealing
their location to others and possible commercial
exploitation of certain location based services. This

recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to

post on the internet. Schools are for learning and
anything which gets in the way of that should be
banned.
COUNTERPOINT: Mobile phones are now a
valuable part of student life. They can be used for
creating short movies, setting homework
reminders, recording a teacher reading a poem and
timing science experiments. Moreover, because
parents feel their children are safer carrying a
phone, they are more likely to allow them to travel
to school on their own rather than driving them.
This promotes greater independence for the
children, while taking traffic off the roads which is
environmentally-friendly. Like many other things,
mobiles can be distracting in class but this doesnt
mean they should be banned. Many schools allow
some actively encourage - phones to be carried
providing they are turned off in lesson.

Mobile phones are open to abuse.

Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities
which are very inappropriate for children. The
ability of modern phones to display graphics has
led to the rise of mobile pornography, sexting,
gambling and cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict
their childrens television viewing and computer
use, but it is much harder for them to monitor
mobile phone use. In 2004, British mobile phone
operators, in an effort to combat mobile abuse,
enacted regulation that prevents children
purchasing phones with unlimited internet
access.Though this demonstrates a problem has
been identified, the solution does not address
phones bought by parents for their children or
children who already own phones with unlimited

advice should be taught alongside warnings about

the limits of mobile phone technology, ensuring
that the children dont trust them blindly but use
them as verification tools or means of starting
enquiries. What should emerge is an environment
where phones can be used as teaching tools and
facilitating social cohesion rather than simply being
a distraction in class.

internet access. Given this, it is best that children

are not allowed to own them.
COUNTERPOINT: Anything can be abused or
used to harm other person, including pencils and
paper. New technology carries some risks but we
should not be rushed into panic measures. Children
got hold of pornography, gambled and bullied each
other long before mobile phones were invented.
The relationship between childhood and new
mobile technologies is complex.These problems
wont go away if we ban phone use they can only
be dealt with through good parenting and moral
education. In the meantime, parents can get phones
which block inappropriate content, and ensure that
their children do not have credit cards to pay for it.
They should make sure that children know how to
report abuse or what to do if they receive
inappropriate material on the phone. An American
company Disney Mobile is also one of an
increasing number of phone makers who provides
families with mobile phones specifically designed
for tweens, young teens and parents who want to
keep an eye on them. The potential for the abuse
of mobile phones is low if parents are informed and
vigilant and ensure they buy their children the right
phone and right plan.

12. This House believes that assisted suicide should be legalized.

PROs
Every human being has a right to life.

CONs
It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused.

Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our

rights. However, with every right comes a choice.
The right to speech does not remove the option to
remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the
right to abstain. In the same way, the right to
choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The
degree to which physical pain and psychological
distress can be tolerated is different in all humans.
Quality of life judgements are private and personal,
thus only the sufferer can make relevant
decisions.[1] This was particularly evident in the

The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no

harm: a physician must not be involved in
deliberately harming their patient. Without this
principle, the medical profession would lose a great
deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an
acceptable part of a doctors role would likely
increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not
reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an
unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily
decisions made in order to preserve life can be
difficult enough; to require them to also carry the

case of Daniel James.[2] After suffering a spinal

dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he
decided that he would live a second-rate existence
if he continued with life and that it was not
something he wanted to prolong. People are given a
large degree of autonomy within their lives and
since deciding to end your life does not physically
harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to
decide when you wish to die. While the act of
suicide does remove option to choose life, most
cases in which physician assisted suicide is
reasonable, death is the inevitable and often
imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by
suicide or pathological process. The choice for the
patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease
suffering.
COUNTERPOINT: There is no comparison
between the right to life and other rights. When you
choose to remain silent, you may change your mind
at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no
such second chance. Arguments from pro-life
groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of
those who kill themselves have been shown to have
a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months
preceding suicide. The majority suffer from
depression that can be treated.[1] If they had been
treated for depression as well as pain they may not
have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in
someones death is also to participate in depriving
them of all choices they might make in the future,
and is therefore immoral.

Those who are in the late stages of a terminal

disease have a horrific future agead of them.
The gradual decline of their body, the failure of
their organs and the need for artificial support. In
some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their
minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not
the case, the huge amounts of medication required
to control their pain will often leave them in a
delirious and incapable state. At least five percent
of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the

immense moral responsibility of deciding who can

and cannot die, and the further responsibility of
actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is
why the vast majority of medical professionals
oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending
the life of a patient goes against all they stand for.
The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide
states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody
if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this
effect.'
COUNTERPOINT: At the moment, doctors are
often put into an impossible position. A good
doctor will form close bonds with their patients,
and will want to give them the best quality of life
they can; however, when a patient has lost or is
losing their ability to live with dignity and
expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally
unable to help. To say that modern medicine can
totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification
of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated,
the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of
the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can
be horrific. A doctors duty is to address his or her
patients suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a
result, doctors will in fact already help their
patients to die although it is not legal, assisted
suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that
fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on
justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls
indicate that half the the medical profession would
like to see it made law.It would be far better to
recognise this, and bring the process into the open,
where it can be regulated. True abuses of the
doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of
involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to
limit. The current medical system allows doctors
the right to with-hold treatment for patients.
Though, this can be considered to be a more
damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.
If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is
your moral duty to try to stop them.
Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those
who attempt to take their own lives are not
prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try
and prevent people from committing suicide. You
would not, for example, simply ignore a man
standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply
because it is his choice; and you would definitely

best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane

that those people be allowed to choose the manner
of their own end, and have the assistance of a
doctor to die with dignity. One particular account
was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou
Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with
the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one,
waste away until the day came when, fully
conscious, she would choke to death. She begged
the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be
allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of
death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the
verdict and with the help of an anonymous
physician committed suicide in February 1994.
COUNTERPOINT: Modern palliative care is
immensely flexible and effective, and helps to
preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There
is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in
pain, even at the very end of the course of their
illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The
future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of
course terrifying, but societys role is to help them
live their lives as well as they can. This can take
place through counseling, helping patients to come
to terms with their condition.

Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in

secrecy and often as a cry for help.
The impact on the family who remain can be
catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of

not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the

same way, you should try to help a person with a
terminal illness, not help them to die. With the
exception of the libertarian position that each
person has a right against others that they not
interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little
justification is necessary for actions that aim to
prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive.
Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to
convince her of the value of continued life,
recommending counseling, etc. are morally
unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the
individual's conduct or plans except by engaging
her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35;
Cholbi 2002, 252).[1] The impulse toward suicide
is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by
mental illnesses such as depression. While these
facts together do not appear to justify intervening in
others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that
the suicide may be undertaken with less than full
rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is
irreversible, when these factors are present, they
justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the
grounds that suicide is not in the individual's
interests as they would rationally conceive those
interests. We might call this the no regrets' or err
on the side of life approach to suicide intervention
(Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002)
COUNTERPOINT: Society recognises that suicide
is unfortunate but acceptable in some
circumstances those who end their own lives are
not seen as evil, nor is it a crime to attempt suicide.
It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime.
The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore
particularly cruel for those who are disabled by
their disease, and are unable to die without
assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony
Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for
three years before a Court Order allowed his
degradation and indignity to come to a merciful
close. It might cause unnecessary pain for people if
they make an attempt at suicide themselves and
subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free
methods that could be available through doctors
and modern medicine.
Only God can give and take away life.
Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life,
this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and
assisted suicide are wrong. There are many

how their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such

as Megan Meier, an American teenager who
committed suicide by hanging herself in 2006, as
the parents have to launch police investigations into
why their child might have felt so desperate. By
legalising assisted suicide, the process can be
brought out into the open. In some cases, families
might have been unaware of the true feelings of
their loved one; being forced to confront the issue
of their illness may do great good, perhaps even
allowing them to persuade the patient not to end
their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the
process: they can understand the reasons behind
their decision without feelings of guilt and
recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can
speak openly to them about their feelings before
their death.
COUNTERPOINT: Demanding that family take
part in such a decision can be an unbearable
burden: many may resent a loved ones decision to
die, and would be either emotionally scared or
estranged by the prospect of being in any way
involved with their death. Assisted suicide also
introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may
be pressured into ending their lives by others who
are not prepared to support them through their
illness. Even the most well regulated system would
have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.

passages within the bible that speak of the idea that

God has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews
9:27, And as it is appointed unto men once to die,
but after this the judgement: Ecclesiastes 3:1-2,
To every thing there is a season, and a time to
every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born,
and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
pluck up that which is planted; Ecclesiastes 7:17,
Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish:
why shouldest thou die before thy time?[1] In
addition to this, physicians are nowhere in
Scripture given authority to take someone's life.
Apart from the government in the case of capital
punishment, all other human beings are given the
commandment Thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20:13
and Thou shalt do no murder, Matthew 19:18.
COUNTERPOINT: 'Were the disposal of human
life so much reserved as the peculiar province of
the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his
right for men to dispose of their own life, it would
be equally criminal to act for the preservation of
life as for its destruction'. If we accept the
proposition that only God can give and take away
life then medicine should not be used at all. If only
God has the power to give life then medicines and
surgeries to prolong people's life should also be
considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest
that medicine can be used to prolong life but it
cannot be used to end someone's life.
It would have a damaging effect on society.
Some people who do not agree with voluntary
euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would
damage the moral and social foundation of society
by removing the traditional principle that man
should not kill, and reduce the respect for human
life. It might also be the case that once voluntary
euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to
cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out.
With people deciding that someone else's life such
as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth
living and therefore performing euthanasia without
their consent. A recent study discovered that some
sufferers of locked-in syndrome as many as three
out of four of the main sample were happy and
did not want to die.
COUNTERPOINT: However, the idea that we
should not kill is not absolute, even for those with
religious beliefs killing in war or self-defence is

justified by most. We already let people die

because they are allowed to refuse treatment which
could save their life, and this has not damaged
anyone's respect for the worth of human life.
Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary
euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia
being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest
this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors
know the moral difference between helping people
who beg to die and killing those who want to live.'