_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 221
2.56k
|
|---|---|
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con04a | ethics life kill one save many junior We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations. |
training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02a | Speciesism is wrong Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger. You might think that we are allowed to have special relationships to people that are similar to us but there is a difference between special relationships and being active cruel and discriminatory. Our evolutionary instinct to protect our own species may not be ethically correct in contemporary society. Similarly, we ought not to 'put down' animals who are too expensive to care for. We do not allow human beings to kill off their children when they experience financial difficulty because we believe that human beings value their lives. It would be justifiable to kill off something that has no interest in living, such as a plant, but since we believe that animals do have an interest in living it would be speciesist to kill off a puppy simply because it is not human. We know that society believes animals have an interest in living sometimes because there is outcry when baby seals are clubbed or when elephants are poached for their ivory. Yet at other times we are happy to eat animal flesh and wear leather. This is a contradictory stance. We ought to be consistent in our views and to condemn speciesists. Refusing animals rights is speciesist. Speciesism is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to deny animals rights. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro03b | ethics life kill one save many junior We do not always choose the most rational course of action. If we do not know anything about who we are in the situation we still know that if the one person is killed then their life has been unfairly ended. If the five people die then we know that this is an accident. Therefore we might still choose to allow the five people to die. This is because we can still decide the right or wrong of the situation and choose not to make the decision based on self interest. |
training-law-cpshbsdcc-pro02a | We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education. We are not born with an innate sense of right and wrong, a prior knowledge of what is legal and illegal. We acquire it through education, both at home and at school. The internalization of these social norms is a crucial part of becoming a law-abiding citizen and acquiring the respect toward the law our society demands. Children from poor backgrounds are more likely to be raised in environments where such distinctions are blurred, where they are exposed to negative role models within their family or community. They may also experience very erratic or low-quality schooling, This may be because the schools have inadequate levels of funding or supplies, the classes are more likely to have disruptive children or that better teachers are more sought after and thus go to other schools. As a result, they might become desensitized to crime, or violence as a result of being exposed to it on a regular basis. They might then start to view crime not as against social order but as a part of it and that will make them more likely to break the law themselves. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro01a | ethics life kill one save many junior As humans we try to save as many people as possible There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con03b | ethics life kill one save many junior Our feelings are clouded by the way the situation is presented and so we cannot use feeling as a way to decide what to do. For example, most people instinctively say that they would pull the lever to save the five people. However, if the case is presented differently and to save the five people you have to push a man onto the track to stop the train then most people will say not to do it. The two situations are morally identical; the only change is the physical act that needs to be done. Therefore it is clear that our feelings can change despite the principle staying the same. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a | ethics life kill one save many junior We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future. |
training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro02b | We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro02b | ethics life kill one save many junior To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro01a | animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals have a right not to be harmed The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. [1] Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. [2] [1] Clark, S., The Nature of the Beast: are animals moral?, (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1982) [2] Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007) |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con06a | ethics life kill one save many junior Utilitarianism is demanding If we choose to save the five people just because we have the power to do so then we also have to consider all the other lives that are in our power to save. It is in our power to donate all of our excess money to charity to save lives and so we must also do this. Actions like this are worthy of praise but no one would suggest that we have a duty to do them. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con01b | ethics life kill one save many junior Choosing not to act in the situation is still a choice and does not remove the responsibility in the situation. If someone stands by and watched as another person drowns, even though they could have rescued them, then they are no better than the murderer who participates in a person’s death. The idea that active killing only relates to taking action to cause death is wrong. When one has the ability to prevent death then one is actively involved in the situation whether one chooses to accept it or not. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con05a | ethics life kill one save many junior The act of killing is emotionally damaging To actually be involved in the death of another person is an incredibly traumatic experience. Soldiers coming back from war often suffer from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ which suggests that being in a situation in which you have to take another persons life has a long lasting impact on your mental health. This is also true for people who are not directly involved in the act of killing. For instance, the people who worked on developing the atomic bomb described an incredible guilt for what they had created even though they were not involved in the decision to drop the bombs. The same traumatic experiences would likely affect the person responsible for pulling the lever. |
training-free-speech-debate-bphwpborfs-con02a | If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech. To argue that this is a matter of the infringement of the right to free speech is not only wrong but offensive to those who have had that right genuinely curtailed. A stifling of free speech is about cutting off people’s access to ideas, denying them the right to take those ideas and present them to others. The slow, natural death of Braille does not do that. Fewer than one in ten blind children now learn Braille [i] . Those who wish to continue to use Braille can do so just as those who prefer to write a letter rather than send an email can do so. Both groups however, accept that it is likely to become more expensive and exclude them from the rest of society as others adapt and new technologies become the norm. The information and ideas are there, they are available in a format that is available, even if it is not the format of absolute preference. The technology is available, many prefer it, those who don’t are free not to use it. [i] “The Death of Braille” – Appropriate or Ominous? Neatorama.com. 26 February 2010. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con01a | ethics life kill one save many junior Killing is worse than letting someone die People die in accidents and by natural cause all of the time. However, it is much rarer for a person to be actively involved in another person’s death. If one chooses to pull the lever and change the course of the train then one is actively participating in the death of the one person. The other option involves no action; it simply allows a set of events to run their course. There is, therefore, a greater responsibility involved in being actively involved in the death of another. |
test-politics-ypppdghwid-pro04a | y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it. Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1. 1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con04b | ethics life kill one save many junior The specific circumstances of every case need to be taken into account. In this case someone will definitely lose their life and one’s decision is to decide how to minimize the damage done. It is wrong to suggest that this is an act of killing; instead it is an attempt to reduce the number of deaths in a tragic situation. Pulling the lever is not an act that the person would do if the five people were not tied down and so it is very different from an act of intentional murder. |
validation-education-egpsthwtj-pro03a | Homework wastes teachers time We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use the classwork to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would save them time. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro03a | ethics life kill one save many junior Killing one person is the rational choice The philosopher John Rawls came up with a thought experiment to discover the right way to organize a society. When people talk about how society should be organized they generally take their own situation and interests into account. Rawls asked us to imagine a situation in which we do not know anything at all about our own lives and then try to organize society? Without knowing anything about our wealth, intelligence, personality, race, gender, religion etc., we would create the fairest society. This is because without knowing who we are we have no idea where we will be in society once it has been organized. So, in order to make sure we have the best chance to be treated fairly we create a society in which all people are treated fairly. The same experiment can be applied to the train problem. If we do not know anything about who we are in the experiment we would chose to kill the one person. This is because there is a greater chance of us being one of the five people and so killing the one person gives us the best chance to survive. |
test-international-bldimehbn-con02a | bate living difference international middle east house believes news Citizens deserve the right to know what is happening in their name. It is up to the public to decide whether those actions that are reported are right or wrong, journalists and broadcasters should not act as a filter in that process. Many of these actions – imprisonments, internments, brutality and others – are conducted by governments in the name of the people. Sometimes this is done under euphemisms such as ‘protecting public morality’ or in the name of a majority religion. This is used as a catch all as shown by the case of journalist Sofiene Chourabi who was arrested for ‘harming public morals’ in response to calling for a protest against the governing party in Tunisia. [1] It seems only reasonable that people have the right to know what is being done in their name, how their morality is being ‘protected’ or what their faith is being used to justify. The failure to do so assumes that the public – individually and collectively – are either to foolish to understand or too callous to care. Either or both of those things may be true, although it seems unlikely, but it is certainly not the role of the individual journalist or editor to make such an assumption. Even was that assumption true, it still does not change the facts. In the words of C.P. Snow, “Comment is free but facts are sacred”. [2] These events happened, they happened to citizens of that country, they affect how the rest of the world views that country and how the government views and treats its citizens. On every count, that is news. [1] ‘Tunisian journalist faces ‘public morals’ charge after criticizing government’, Amnesty International, 8 August 2012, [2] ‘Comment is free’, guardian.co.uk, |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro02a | ethics life kill one save many junior More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one When any life is removed so too is the future good that life may produce; all of the good that person would have experienced as well as all of the good they could have brought to other people’s lives will no longer occur. It is difficult to say precisely how much good a person may bring. However, it is fair to assume that saving five people brings with it a greater chance of higher levels of ‘good’. Considering the fact that one does not know anything about the people on the tracks one must assume that there will be five times more ‘good’ produced by saving their lives than if the one person is saved. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01a | The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible We have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones. Most people would even go so far as to say that, by virtue of being conscious creatures, human beings deserve to live. That is to say, they have a right not to suffer an untimely death. This is the reason that we normally abhor killing: it cuts short human life. However, in this thought experiment, the inescapable reality is that someone’s right to life will be violated. Either the one or the five will die, and all the horrible results attached to the cessation of a human life will inevitably befall one of the groups. In light of this fact, our moral obligation is to reduce the number of people whose right to life is violated and maximize the number for whom that right is actualized. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and that is to kill the one and save the five. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02b | ethics life kill one save many junior Given that we don’t know anything about these individuals all we have to work with are the numbers. If you take five random people and one random person then there is a greater chance that among the five people there is a life saving doctor. The only time this is not true is if the average person has a negative effect on the world. However, if this is the case we would always have to act in a way that fewest people survived which is absurd. |
training-law-phsdpww-con01a | Hypocrisy Suggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong. There is little evidence that it works; when Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.31 in 1980. [1] In that sense, imposing the death penalty makes the state no better than the murderer, and a murderer in itself by killing a person in such circumstances. If we are using the death penalty to punish the murderer then what should we use to punish the state for its actions? [1] Amnesty International, ‘Document – The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers’, accessed 3rd January 2014, |
training-religion-mhwkosm-con04a | We should not will a world where killing is acceptable in to existencele in to existence Knowing that we have agreed that there are situations where we can decide to kill others for the greater good makes us fearful of the prospect of others visiting such judgment on us (independent of whether such an act is objectively right or wrong). Immense psychological harm accrues from knowing that other people may actively judge oneself to be worth killing for an external purpose. Moreover, an acceptance of killing tends to brutalize society and make people more receptive to the idea of killing in general, which leads human beings to behave more violently. |
test-digital-freedoms-efsappgdfp-con02a | e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Lack of trust The problem is that when it comes to privacy it is not really our personal physical security that we are worried about. Part of the problem is that we value our right to a private life and that we should have control over that to the extent of being able to decide how much information others know about us. To a large extent this is an issue of trust; we (sometimes wrongly) trust our friends and others with information about us. We often trust faceless entities; companies and governments too though usually to less of an extent. But a lot of that trust is as a result of their willingness to tell us what they know about us, to provide information in return, or to provide methods for us to restrict what they know. In cases like this that trust has not been earned; we were not asked, and not obviously given anything back, and there seems little change of us changing the terms of the relationship. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con06b | ethics life kill one save many junior In the train example there is no one else around and it is only you that can save the five lives. With the charity example there are many other ways in which the lives can be saved; governments can save them or other people can donate money. Therefore the moral duty to act is dramatically reduced. |
training-law-cplghrhwrgo-pro02b | Those who satisfy these demands by citizens are more likely to be voted back into office. It is in their absolute interest to keep their focus on relevant emails or phone talks, as if they don’t do that, there is another person qualified for the job who will. Secondly, it is clear that in this quest for protecting society, it is in the government’s interest to obey the law. As recent events have proven, the population is allergic to any state agency’s violation of law, especially when it comes to warrantless tapping. They won’t risk breaking the law in the hope they will catch more criminals as they know there would be a society and media backlash. If anything, it is in any politician’s interest to search and investigate if any government agency is conducting such abuses and to reveal it with the resulting plaudits and votes it will bring. A politician will gain much more if it takes a public stance against that agency by imposing tighter controls and inspections rather than secretly supporting it. Let us not forget that it is the people who keep politicians in office. Thirdly, we must remember that there is a lot of pressure from different NGOs and even whistleblowers that is put on these officials not to make any wrong steps. They know that if the population finds out that they focused on anything else but catching wrong doers, their career is over and there is no coming back. As a result, we have every reason to believe that the government will maximize its efforts of protecting us, but abusing its powers won’t benefit it on any level. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro01b | ethics life kill one save many junior People suffer unfortunate deaths on a daily basis. The fact that people die in accidents does not necessarily mean that their right to life has been violated. Therefore, if one lets the train run its course five people will suffer an unfortunate accident. The real violation of rights in this situation is the action of changing the course of the train. The single person on the track is in no immediate danger. However, by changing the course of the train one is actively participating in the removal of that person’s life. If we believe that a person has the right not to be murdered then pulling the lever is a violation of that right. |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-con01a | ethics life house believes right die It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others. In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war. There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused [i] . As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another. It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here. [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-pro02b | To weigh up human lives in this calculated manner inherently strips them of dignity and reduces them to mere numbers. This “aggregative” ethical standpoint, in which a loss of utility to one person can be compensated for by gains in utility to other people, fails to respect “the separateness of persons” [1] . We are all different people, and we do not all share in the alleged benefits to maximizing total utility. For this reason, our moral intuitions reject out-of-hand many variants on “killing one to save five”; for instance, we would think it abhorrent to abduct a random person and harvest their organs in order to save five dying people, even in the absence of side effects like people now being afraid of having their organs taken. Also, see “different lives weigh differently” argument below. [1] Richardson, Henry S., ‘John Rawls (1921-2002)’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18 November 2005, |
training-international-amehbncag-pro01b | The argument here presented by the proposition that the majority of people in US are fed up with the war, true. But that is because they were not the ones facing abuse at the Taliban hands or fighting a civil war which resulted in the killing of 100,000, but the minority will be slaughtered if this is allowed to happen. [1] This genocide in the making should not be allowed to happen. This will also lead to a civil war. Though the minorities are exhausted but they broke it and have a moral imperative to fix it. A lot of people have come out in support of the "western" forces, they will face retribution and future attempts to win hearts and minds will fail when the fickleness of our resolve is exposed. This is a slippery slope if we slide down there is no telling how far down we will fall. This should be the centre of the discussion; our opponents want to put popularity before lives and security and which is wrong. [1] Dexter Filkins, «Overture to Taliban Jolts Afghan Minorities», The New York Times, published June 26, 2010, |
training-religion-mhwkosm-con04b | The moral agent’s decision will not necessarily have such wide-ranging consequences. In many cases, the matter will remain fairly quiet (even if it is reported to the police). Furthermore, this is only dubiously a “killing” if one does not adopt a deontological take on the action; it’s simply a weighing of the benefits of who can be saved. In another sense, branding it as making “killing” acceptable is misleading, because this is not a moral license to commit wanton murders, but instead a sacrifice in a situation with no bloodless answer. Moreover, even if the decision becomes public knowledge, and is defined as killing, people will recognize that the circumstances of having to make this decision were truly exceptional. |
test-health-ppelfhwbpba-pro03a | pregnancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable. [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010, |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con05b | ethics life kill one save many junior The same traumatic affect would also result from not pulling the lever. One must still cope with the fact that one could have saved the five lives. Post traumatic stress disorder can be brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro01b | animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings (that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting other animals because the animal that is hunted feel’s pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-pro01b | The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect. “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure. In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident. By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered. When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right. Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others. Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty? If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind. |
training-environment-assghbansb-pro02a | Harming animals for entertainment is immoral If a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. As Bentham previously noted, it does not matter that they cannot express this suffering in the same way as humans can (by speaking about it) or reason about their suffering in the same way -the important thing is that they can suffer in the first place. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our 'enjoyment'. If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings.(5) Bullfights perpetuate the idea that injuring and killing an animal for amusement is acceptable, and that is not an idea which any state with any concern for animals, or for its human citizens, should wish to be prevalent. Part of the 'attraction' of bullfighting for crowds is witnessing death. Advocates of the practice make this into an argument for the practice. But, a desire to see death in front of one's own eye's amounts to bloodlust. Why should humans be accommodated in such a morbid pursuit? Eric Gallego, an animal rights protester, said in 2010: “Bullfighting is a bloody entertainment. We must stop this cruelty because we don’t want to be a barbaric society in Europe.”(6) This argument applies just as much to any other country in the world: why would we want to encourage people to enjoy pain and suffering, as we have laws which make causing pain and suffering illegal (both for humans and animals) in almost every other context? Bullfighting is therefore immoral, and encourages cruel and immoral behaviour in other areas, and so it should be banned. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-con03b | Moral intuitions are even more unreliable than that. When the “kill one save five” dilemma is presented in the form of pulling a lever to divert a train onto a track with one person on it, most people say to do it. However, when it is presented as pushing a fat man onto the track in order to stop the train, most people say not to do it [1] . The two scenarios are morally identical; the only change is what physical act needs to be done in order to result in the one person getting hit by the train. This demonstrates that we cannot directly consult our intuitions on this question. [1] Reiner, Peter B., ‘The trolley problem and the evolution of war’, Neuroethics at the core, 11 July 2011, |
training-environment-aelmmhbahr-pro03b | Equality requires that two beings are actually equal on some fundamental level. Human beings have certain essential similarities that make them equal. These do not stretch to animals. Human beings are able to distinguish right from wrong while animals have no notion of ethics. We are thus able to consider what kind of a society we want to live in and we are affected when we feel that there is social degradation. Animals, however, do not have this sense. We have fundamental dignity which animals do not. This is clear in the fact that animals do not experience shame or embarrassment, desire respect, or have a notion of self. Furthermore, human beings can consider their future and have particular desires about how they want their life to play out. These are different for every individual. This is why we are concerned with choice and protecting individualism and religion. Animals on the other hand are concerned only with immediate survival. They have only instincts, not individual desires and wants. For these reasons, we can't consider animals to be equally morally considerable. As for the propositions standard of relevance for the criteria which distinguish animals from humans in any given case, we would argue that the fundamental individuality and humanity of our species is relevant in every case because it makes animal life fundamentally less valuable. |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro01b | ethics life house believes right die It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded |
test-health-dhghhbampt-con01a | disease health general healthcare house believes alternative medicine poses threat A huge number of fully accepted medical practices started being seen as something a bit off the wall, it’s wrong to deny sick people access to a treatment that may be mainstream in 20 years There is a fine line between what is considered alternative and what is thought of as mainstream. Techniques do move across that line and when they do so, they are seen as mainstream. However, this process of reform, refinement and acceptance takes time. In the meantime it is simply unfair to deny treatment to patients who want it because the medical establishment is beholden to a conservative academic orthodoxy and drug and treatment providers with vested interests in ensuring that particular cures and techniques will continue to be purchased and utilised. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-pro03a | Give a choice, all rational individuals would prefer to live in a world in which behaviour prefered the choice to sacrifice one to save many While Rawls did oppose utilitarianism, he generated a hypothetical scenario that is useful, even to the utilitarian, for evaluating moral theories. Imagine that all human beings were placed in a scenario where they knew nothing about their station in the world, and know only the basic laws of reasoning and human nature. They do not know what their level of intelligence, personality traits, gender, socioeconomic status, race or religion will be, nor even when or where they will be born; they are “behind the veil of ignorance.” Every single person who will ever exist is placed in this situation at the beginning of the universe. Next, these human beings are told they will decide which rules will govern human conduct when they come to inhabit the world. In such a situation, all rational human beings would ensure that they are treated fairly no matter who they are; they will have perfect sympathy for every human being ever, because they could end up being that person. Whatever rules they come up with in this situation are the rules that are ethically correct, because these rules will never treat anyone unfairly (as that would be an irrational move). [1] So how would people in this hypothetical treat the decision whether to kill one to save five? Rational actors would agree on the rule to kill the one and save the five. After all, any given person is five times as likely to end up as a member of the five rather than as the one. Thus, behind the veil of ignorance, the rational human being would proudly prescribe “Save the five and kill the one.” [1] Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University press, 1971, p.136 |
training-health-ahghhwdsas-con05a | Denying healthcare to smokers is a restriction on people's liberties Whether or not you believe it should be, smoking tobacco is legal. At the same time, healthcare is regarded as a fundamental human right, alongside rights to education, food and water. Denying someone healthcare is to impede upon his/her basic liberties and this cannot be justified when, in the eyes of the law, they have done nothing wrong. Criminals have the right to healthcare – it is often that you hear that the trial of a war criminal is being delayed while they receive treatment. Take the cases of Ratko Mladic or Slobodan Milosevic for example 1. If healthcare is given to men who have committed genocide then surely it should be given to smokers. Also, if a Government adopts the line that one's behavior determines the kind of health service one receives then what is to stop that Government applying such a mantra beyond smoking and controlling the practices of those they govern in any number of ways? 1. and |
training-religion-mhwkosm-con01b | Consequences do in fact matter more. People ought to be morally judged by what occurred when they had the power to decide who lives or dies; fatal non-action is just as blameworthy. This is the reason why many countries, particularly those with a civil law tradition as is the case in most of continental Europe, have Good Samaritan laws creating a legal responsibility to provide help when one can. [1] Someone who stands by and watches someone drown, even though they could have thrown them a rescue line, is rightly thought of as being no less heartless than a murderer. As Sartre put it, choosing not to act is still choosing to act. [2] Moreover, defining an “active killing” is difficult; how direct must one’s involvement in the cause of death be to constitute a killing? A prohibition on active killing overemphasizes the physical rather than the moral aspect of the choice. Finally, an absolute prohibition on killing to save a larger number soon fails to square with our moral intuitions if we crank up the numbers: if the choice is whether to kill one person in order to save five billion, then almost no one would disagree with the act. [1] The Dan Legal Network, ‘The Good Samaritan Law Across Europe’, [2] Daniels, Victor, ‘Sartre Summery’, Sonoma State University, |
test-education-pstrgsehwt-con01b | primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02b | animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1] [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007) |
test-law-phwmfri-con02a | punishment house would make fines relative income The rich will resent this The rich will feel like they are receiving an unfair, ‘greater’ punishment. This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich just as is the case with progressive taxation which is often attacked as an assault on ‘wealth creation’.1 This may well increase the extent to which they break the law, because if you perceive the law to be applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider it to be making an accurate assessment of whether an action is right or wrong in any given situation. That is, in situations where you are unlikely to be caught committing a crime, the deterrent is clearly not the possible punishment (which you won’t face, because you won’t be caught). Rather, the deterrent is the extent to which you believe the illegal action to be morally wrong. If you believe a law is applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider the prohibited action to be actually, morally wrong, and therefore more likely to commit that act. 1 Cianfrocca, Francis, ‘Wealth Creation Under Attack’, Commentary, June 2009, |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro01a | ethics life house believes right die Suicide is a rational choice in many situations. When confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people [i] . It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing. Neither of these issues arise with either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Proposition has no difficulty at all with the suggestion that both procedures should be regulated and take place in safe, medically supported, environments. However, if an individual accepts that death is their preferred option in such a scenario, it is difficult to comprehend of reasons why they should not be allowed to proceed. Our social rejection of murder does not, ultimately relate to death itself but to the denial of choice. With murder someone is denying that person all their future potential so denying their freedom of choice, and this remains the case even if the murder was completely painless. Here, reason tells us, the virtuous act is death and the reservation of that choice. The determining element of humanity is that we are rational beings; a blanket ban – legal and social – on choosing the time and manner of our deaths reflects our primeval fear of a death that comes, unwanted, in the dark of the night, not the mature judgement of modern, thinking (and long-lived) humans. [i] Andy Bloxham. Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder. The Daily Telegraph. 10 March 2011. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro05a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its A code of conduct is needed not a ban The current arms ban is purely symbolic. China is already able to buy a range of military items from Europe ($555 million worth in 2003) [1] and the USA, which has a similar "ban" on weapons sales to China. This is because the EU’s current ban is not legally binding and it is up to each EU member to define and implement the embargo meaning the embargo is not effective. [2] An arms ban is therefore a blunt instrument that does not work. Instead future sales should be regulated by a tough EU code of conduct which prevents military equipment being sold to any state which might use it for external aggression or internal repression. Such a code of conduct for all arms exports has already existed since 1998. [3] Such a code of conduct will be a much better guarantee that China is not sold arms unless EU states are sure they will not be misused. [1] Tkacik, ‘E.U. Leadership Finds Little Public Support for Lifting China Arms Ban’, 2005. [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p5. [3] Ibid, p21 |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con02b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China is increasingly able to develop its own high tech weapons so by continuing to have a ban in place will make very little difference to China’s capacity to build high tech weapons. This is shown by China’s unveiling of a prototype stealth fighter the J-20. [1] Even if the code of conduct is not watertight neither is the current arms ban as some weapons are still sold in spite of the ban. [1] Foster, Peter, ‘China stealth fighter a ‘masterpiece’ of homegrown technology’, 2011. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con01b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its The arms ban is an anachronism - only China, Myanmar and Zimbabwe are singled out by the EU in this way from all the regimes in the world. [1] China is therefore right to call this policy as showing a “political prejudice against China” [2] as many other nations have perpetrated similar human rights violations. This is pointlessly offensive to the Chinese government and people, who see it as political discrimination against them, and it should be lifted. The new code of conduct should be sufficient to prevent worries that European weaponry will be used to repress demonstrations as it prohibits exports where there is a “Risk that export would be used for internal repression or where the recipient country has engaged in serious violations of human rights”. [3] [1] BBC News, ‘EU China arms ban ’to be lifted’’, 2005. [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010. [3] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p21. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con04b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Lifting the arms ban will not strengthen China militarily. Not only would sales be restricted by the new code of conduct, but China’s Ambassador to the European Union has also clearly reiterated "We have stated several times that we do not intend to buy European military equipment" as "We cannot afford to buy such expensive weapons". [1] Even if China was sold high-tech European equipment, this could even be beneficial for the EU as it would make China dependent on the EU for such items and make it less likely to pursue its own research and development programmes. [1] Rufino, Filipe and Vucheva, Elitsa, ‘EU Arms Embargo is ‘political discrimination, says Chinese Ambassador’, 2005. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con03a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China is a threat to regional stability China poses a threat to regional and international peace and should not be encouraged and helped by European arms sales. It has territorial disputes with most of its neighbours, particularly over oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. The regime has also encouraged an assertive nationalism, damaging relations with Japan, for example with protests over the Japanese detention of a Chinese fisherman who rammed a Japanese coast guard boat. [1] Most seriously, China claims ownership over Taiwan, [2] a pro-Western Chinese democracy, and is rapidly building up the kinds of military forces it would need for an assault on that island, which it is now believed could be taken in as little as three days, [3] as well as staging exercises designed to intimidate its people. In 2005 the Chinese parliament passed a law that force should be used against Taiwan if it declared formal independence. [4] Quite apart from the principle of backing a repressive state against a democratic one, it is not in the EU's interests to make a war between two of its major trading partners more likely, especially as other powers such as the USA, as has happened in the past in 1995-6, [5] and perhaps Japan are then very likely to be drawn into the conflict. [1] Banyan, ‘Doth we protest too much’, 2010. [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘What is meant by the Taiwan question?’, 2000. [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Taiwan War Games’, 2010. [4] People Daily, ‘China’s parliament adopts Anti-Secession Law’, 2005. [5] Ross, Robert S., ‘The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation’, 2000. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con04a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its There is no reason to strengthen China militarily Lifting the arms ban will strengthen China militarily. The US fears less the Chinese purchase of EU weaponry and armour, than that the regime will get hold of advanced communications and control systems, as well as high-technology guidance systems, night-vision equipment, etc. [1] - all of which would make its existing military far more effective. Even if the EU is reluctant to sell such material to China, the possibility will give the Chinese leverage in negotiations with existing suppliers like Israel and Russia, who will feel under more pressure to sell China their most modern technology. In time, China's ability to "reverse engineer" high-technology equipment will also boost their own military research and development programmes. [2] [1] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p16. [2] Page, Jeremy, ‘China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets’, 2010. |
training-free-speech-debate-fchblmdakw-pro03a | The military can only be held to account if there is transparency States have militaries to protect themselves creating a paradox that “The very institution created to protect the polity is given sufficient power to become a threat to the polity.” [1] The Military is a powerful institution even in a stable democracy like Israel, it needs to be held to account because it is the institution within a state that has most capability to use force if it wishes. An unaccountable military is a military that is much more likely to engage in coups and other anti-democratic actions. Israel is an unusual case in the west in that it has allowed the boundaries separating government, military and society to become blurred leading to worries of military influence on policy. [2] None the less most of the time we can trust the government to hold the military to account however the only sure guarantee is for everyone to have access to all information that have a very low risk of resulting in lives lost; designs of weapon systems, current deployments or planning for current and future missions. This transparency should of course be from the top down with the military giving out this information freely as the military is in a position to know what information is still current and may result in lives being lost. However if the military refuses to be transparent on crimes committed then there is a need for individuals to provide that transparency themselves. Cases like Anat Kamm’s which punish attempts by soldiers to call their superiors to account are therefore damaging as it shows that the officers will not be brought to justice but the leaker will be punished. [3] This actively encourages the military to believe it is above the law and is not accountable to the people. [1] Peter Feaver quoted in Norton, Augustus Richard, and Alfoneh, Ali, ‘The Study of Civil-Military Relations and Civil-Society in the Middle East and North Africa’, in Carsten Jensen (ed.), Developments in Civil-Military relations in the Middle East, pp.7-28, p.7 [2] Weinraub, Alan, ‘The evolution of istaeli civil-military relations: domestic enablers and the quest for security’, Naval Postgraduate College, December 2009. [3] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro03b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Just because others will sell if the EU does not is not a reason to lift the arms ban. The EU’s weaponry is often more advanced than those produced by Russia and may be originally built to fight alongside the US so potentially be more damaging US security. It is also not always true that China can simply go and get high tech arms elsewhere. Under US pressure Israel said that it would allow U.S. officials to review weapons transactions so making it much less likely to transfer the most high tech weapons. [1] Russia is also unwilling to sell high tech weapons to China both because it fears their impact on the balance of power in North East Asia where China could potentially be a future threat to the Russian Far East and because China has often copied Russian technology and improved upon it resulting in lost business in the long term. [2 ] [1] Wilson, Scott, ‘Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure’, 2005. [2] Weitz, Richard, ‘Why China Snubs Russia Arms’, 2010. |
training-free-speech-debate-ifcidffe-pro03a | The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments Corporations are private entities that have the right to sell their services and to deal with agents foreign and domestic, including governments. However, this right can be limited when those actions are oppositional to the aims of the home state in which they are incorporated. The sale of surveillance technology to undemocratic regimes stands against the avowed aims of democracies and against their strategic interests in bolstering democracy abroad and maintaining a reputation for fair dealing. For this reason it is perfectly legitimate for governments to ban the corporations within their borders from selling dangerous technologies to foreign governments. Such is already the case with many kinds of strategic technology, especially weapons technology. [1] The EU, for example, bans a range of arms sales to various oppressive states on these grounds, [2] China in particular is an example where it would potentially be very lucrative to overturn the ban. [3] Corporations benefit from the protection of democratic states, as they provide bases of operations that shield their right to property and ensure stability and the rule of law. If corporations wish to benefit from these provisions they must be willing to accept the instructions of the states that house them regarding what can and cannot be sold to foreign powers. [1] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012. [2] Banks, M. “Senior MEP Calls for Freeze on Arms Sale to North Africa”. The Parliament.com. 7 July 2011. [3] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the European Union should lift its ban on member states selling arms to China’ |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con05a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Lifting the ban will damage relations with the U.S. Even if it was in Europe's interest to sell arms to China, the damage from upsetting the United States by lifting the arms ban would be much greater. This is partly because America takes the human rights situation in China more seriously, but mostly because the USA has a major commitment to the freedom of Taiwan. If China did attack the island, America would almost certainly intervene. As the US State Department has said in relation to lifting the ban, "We don't want to see a situation where American forces face European technologies." [1] Congress has already threatened to restrict technology transfers to Europe if the ban is removed. [2] For fear of this, BAE Systems, one of Europe's largest defence firms, has said that it would not sell to China even if the ban was lifted. [3] [1] Brinkley, Joel, ‘Rice Sounds a Theme in Visit to Beijing Protestant Church’, 2005. [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p34-5. [3] Evans, Michael et al., ‘British arms firms will spurn China if embargo ends’, 2005. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con01a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its The arms ban is still necessary The European Union should stick to its principles. The arms ban was imposed for a reason - the massacre of students demonstrating for democracy and openness in 1989. Nothing China has done since shows it regrets its savage actions in Tiananmen Square - indeed many of the demonstrators are still in prison today. [1] If the ban is lifted, the EU will be implying that it should never have placed the ban on arms sales in the first place, and signalling that China can do what it likes to its own people without fear of EU objections. Indeed if there is an end to the arms ban, the next time that peaceful demonstrators are attacked by the armed forces in China, they may be able to do it with European weapons. Overall, China's human rights record is still very bad. It still hasn't ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is regularly criticised by Amnesty International [2] and Human Rights Watch [3] for imprisoning political and religious activists without trial. This is not a state that should be rewarded with EU favours. [1] Jiang, Shao, ‘List of “June Fourth Tiananmen Prisoners” still held in custody and their backgrounds’, 2010. [2] Amnesty International, ‘Annual Report 2011 China’, 2011. [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘China’ |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro03a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China will simply get similar products elsewhere In a global marketplace, if EU states don't sell China arms, others will. Russia and Israel [1] already sell China much high-tech military material, between 2001 and 2010 Russia sold over $16billion of arms to China. [2] As Israel is a key American ally, US criticism of Europe over lifting this ban is particularly unfair. It is in Europe's economic interest to gain part of the huge Chinese market and so safeguard European jobs. And if European arms industries cannot find export markets, their production for domestic military forces is simply not enough to support the cost of research and development, [3] so our indigenous arms sector may collapse. [1] BBC News, ‘US ‘anger’ at Israel weapons sale’, 2004. [2] Ottens, Nick, ‘Russian Arms Sales to China Drying Up’, 2010. [3] Ashbourne, Alex, ‘Opening the US Defence Market’, 2011, p1. |
training-free-speech-debate-ifcidffe-con03a | This ban will alienate non-democracies from discourse and stifle reform efforts When a state is declared illegitimate in the eyes of a large part of the international community, its natural reaction is one of upset and anger. A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies would be seen as a brutal slap in the face to many regimes that consider themselves, and are often considered by their people, to be the legitimate government of their country. The ban will result in further tension between non-democracies and democracies, breaking down communication channels. Democracies are best able to effect change in regimes when they seek to engage them constructively, to galvanize them to make gradual connections to the development of civil society and to loosen restrictions on freedoms, such as reducing domestic spying. The ban makes it clear that the ultimate aim of democracies is to effectively overthrow the existing governments of non-democracies in favour of systems more like their own. The outcome of this conclusion is far less willingness on the part of these regimes to discuss reform, and makes it more likely that they will demonize pro-democracy activists within their borders as agents of foreign powers seeking to subvert and conquer them. This particular narrative has been used to great effect by many regimes throughout history, including North Korea and Zimbabwe, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa for example denounced a travel and arms sales ban as attempting to “undermine the inclusive government”. [1] By treating non-democracies as responsible actors democracies do much more in effectively furthering their own aims. [1] BBC News, “Zimbabwean minister denounces EU”, 14 September 2009, |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro05b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its A Ban that is not very effective is better than no ban at all. That the Chinese are so determined to get the ban lifted shows that it does make a difference and is therefore worth keeping. Either way the European Union should not give it up for nothing. Rather as the Danish lead opposition to lifting the ban argues "Any decision to lift the arms embargo must be linked to specific Chinese steps on human rights." [1] [1] EUobserver, ‘Leaked cable shows fragility of EU arms ban on China’, 2011. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro01b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its The idea of a "strategic partnership" with China is both vague and cause for concern. It is unclear what such a partnership would involve and questionable whether it is desirable. On one hand, by lifting the arms ban the EU will be showing that it favours stability over democracy and profit over principle. Other repressive regimes and would-be tyrants will surely take note. On the other hand it is unclear what actual harm there is to Europe from keeping the ban in place. Despite Chinese rhetoric about it damaging their trading relationship with the EU, it is not clear how European states are disadvantaged compared to other countries, as mentioned China is the EU’s largest trade partner already. As a WTO member China is committed to further market opening anyway, [1] and as a member of the UN Security Council it is in its own interests to cooperate with others for mutual benefit. [1] Kim, Ki Hee, ‘China’s Entry Into WTO And Its Impact ON EU’, 2004 |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro04b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Cooperation has very little to do with influence in international affairs, what matters is how aligned the national interests of the two powers are. This is the case with Russia and China where both want to blunt western power, prevent separatism, and endorse what Russia calls ‘sovereign democracy’ which means a rejection of notions of universal human rights. [1] The areas that the EU most wants progress on among the least likely for there to be Chinese action without any kind of incentive. Lifting the ban will likely help with trade, something that China sees as being in its interest, but will make little difference to China’s policies towards human rights and other areas where it considers any criticism to be outside interference. [1] Menon, Rajan, ‘The China-Russia Relationship’, 2009, pp.13-15. |
test-law-cplglghwbhwd-con02a | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state. In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another. However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights. The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10 |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-con05b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Lifting the ban may briefly result in condemnation from the United States but it is unlikely to damage relations over the long term. The United States and Europe are strong allies in NATO and both accept that from time to time one partner will do things the other does not like. |
test-law-cplglghwbhwd-con02b | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc The right for Americans to bear arms used to be important for symbolic reasons. However, now such a symbol does not serve to act in the same way that it once did. It was once realistic that American citizens would be able to counteract the monopoly of violence that the state has. However, in this age of modern warfare, such power simply does not exist in any real form any more. Weapons as symbols in this way are just symbolic of the loss of power that the citizens of the U.S. have undergone over time and further are symbolic of a fruitless endeavour in resistance of the state through violent means. The fact that the citizens of America feel the need to resort to violence as a symbol for the ability to stand up to the state harms what the state stands up for now, which is change through peaceful and democratic protest. Further, even if the right to bear arms was still symbolic in a positive way, the good feeling such a symbol gives simply does not compare to the number of lives lost to things such as gun violence year on year.11 |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro01a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China can’t be ignored Europe has a developing strategic partnership with China. China is Europe’s largest trading partner with EU exports in goods of €113.1billiion and imports of €281.9billion and in services of €20.2billion and €16.3billion respectively, [1] and as China's rapid growth continues it is playing an increasingly important part in the global economy and in international affairs. Clearly it is in the EU's interests to work together with this emerging superpower. Ma Zhaoxu a Foreign Ministry spokesman called it ‘the obstacle to the sound growth of the China-EU relationship,’ [2] after more than fifteen years, it is time to lift it. China has repeatedly said that it will never enjoy a normal trading relationship with the EU until the ban is lifted. Europe’s first responsibility is to its own citizens economic wellbeing which would benefit from greater trade ties between China and the European Union. [1] European Commission, ‘China’, 2011 [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010 |
training-free-speech-debate-fchblmdakw-pro02a | The public have a right to know what is committed in their name “There were aspects of IDF operations which I thought should be brought to the attention of the public.” [1] Kamm is correct; in any state, but especially in a democracy like Israel, the military is there to protect the state and its people. It is paid for by the people through their taxes. The military is composed of the people through conscription. And as a result what it does is in the name of the people. The accountability of the instruments of the state, including the military, is at the core of what it means to be a democracy. It is therefore essential that the people know what it is doing in their name. Many democracies have laws giving a “right to know” for example the United State’s Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment right of access. [2] It is therefore in the public interest to expose activities that may be detrimental to the state. In this case the military was exposed doing something it has been specifically ordered not to do by the courts so exposing a military that was disobeying civilian authority. [1] Collins, Liat, ‘My Word: Questions and secrets’, Jerusalem Post, 5 November 2011. [2] Papandrea, Mary-Rose, ‘Under Attack: The Public’s Right to Know and the War on Terror’, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Vol.25, Issue 1, pp.35-80. |
training-international-ghbssbupd-pro02b | Because of the size of the global community, and ease of communication and transport, most countries can still attain necessary weapons and tools. As the world has globalized and information can be passed, attained, and hidden, with the click of a button, arms embargos are much more difficult to maintain. The UN placed an arms embargo on the Sudan due to fears of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Janjaweed, yet it was reported that there were violations of the embargo on all sides of the conflict. In fact, there were accusations backed up by pictorial evidence that even after the arms embargo was put into place, China and Russia, both members of the UN security council, were selling weapons to the country1. Arms embargoes often fall short of their goals. 1 BBC (2007), "China, Russia deny weapons breach", [Accessed June 10, 2011] |
test-economy-bepighbdb-con02a | business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best Development is about more than economic growth Amartya Sen has argued that “the removal of substantial unfreedoms […] is constitutive of development [in so far as give people] the opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency [1] ”. In a broader sense, democracy is necessary for a developed society because a precondition of a developed society is for that society to be able to decide for itself what its objectives are. It is society as a whole that needs to define what it considers to be development. The Myanmar under the junta may have considered its goals to be a strong military showing that Burma was developed. But without the citizenry agreeing this would not make Burma a strong state. Quite the opposite the lack of freedoms would show the country is not actually developed. Development means more than economic growth, it has to include other indicators as in the Human Development Index, but also things that are not even captured by that measurement such as freedom of speech. Economic growth and GDP are even worse at demonstrating which countries are developed. Development only occurs when the wealth, and the choices it brings, reaches the people which is why Equatorial Guinea is not a developed nation despite its high income. Even in the economic realm therefore it is not just the absolute growth that matters but how it is distributed. Przeworski and Limongi show that from 1951-1990 dictatorships had higher growth rates than democracies (4.42% against 3.95%) yet the growth rate in GDP per capita was higher in democracies (2.46% against 2%). [2] [1] Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxfor University Press. p. xii [2] Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi, 1997a; in M. ANTIĆ: “Democracy versus Dictatorship: The Influence of Political Regime on GDP Per Capita Growth”. EKONOMSKI PREGLED, 55 (9-10) pp. 773-803 (2004) |
test-politics-nlpdwhbusbuc-con02b | national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Whilst the ban prevents engagement with countries that use cluster bombs, it also limits the supply of cluster bombs to these countries significantly. The West ceasing the manufacture of cluster bombs means that many countries will cease being able to get their through second or third hand sources. Whilst the Chinese might be able to fill the gap, their cluster bomb technology is not on the same level as that of the West and as such the lack of reliability with the Chinese weaponry will cause fewer countries to employ the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Further, the ban on cluster bombs by Western countries sends out a strong moral message that many other smaller countries are likely to obey and follow. With the US accepting the ban international prosecution, or potentially even sanctions is considerably more likely. The U.S. holding out however, shows the West to be divided on the topic and as such prevents other countries that might be better off from banning them owing to their fear of indecision in the West.6 |
test-international-gmehwasr-con04a | global middle east house would arm syrian rebels Possibility of being drawn into a long drawn out conflict Even just providing the rebels with arms risks drawing the powers that supply those arms into the conflict. [1] This is because it gives the intervening power a stake in the conflict. Once weapons have been supplied allowing the Syrian government to reassert control would be a large foreign policy reversal and would damage relations with the Syrian government for years to come. We need only look at the Vietnam conflict to know that what starts out as a very small commitment can rapidly escalate when the government decides it cannot afford to back down. What starts as just arming the rebels could quickly lead to troops on the ground. Indeed it might require men on the ground right from the start as if we were to be providing heavy weapons the rebels would need training in how to use those weapons if they are to seriously be considered an equaliser. [1] Byman, Daniel, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013 |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro04a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Cooperation is the best way to gain influence Cooperating with China is the best way to gain influence with the regime in order to promote democracy and human rights, engage it internationally, etc. The Chinese respond very badly to being publicly lectured or threatened, [1] but they will listen to those friendly nations who have earned their trust in ways like these. China for example often follows Russia, since the beginning of the 1990s its biggest arms supplier, when it comes to voting in the United Nations Security Council. Thus both vetoed sanctions against Syria in 2011 and shortly after Russia shifted its position to urging Assad to carry out reforms China followed. [2] The influence of the United States over other East Asian states in encouraging their democratization also shows that friends can apply influence on issues such as human rights as well as where interests coincide; The United States played a key role in sheparding Philippine dictator Marcos out of office and then encouraged Korean President Chun Doo Hwan to stick to a single term of office and not to use force against the opposition in 1988. [3] Lifting the ban is an investment in the future of the Europe-China relationship, and could be of benefit to the whole world, not just the EU. [1] Byrnes, Sholto, ‘David Cameron’s China visit’, 2010. [2] Chulov, Martin, ‘China urges Syria regime to deliver on promised reforms’, 2011. [3] Oberdorfer, Don, The Two Koreas, 2001, pp.163-4, 170. |
test-international-ehbfe-pro03b | europe house believes federal europe Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation. None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”. [1] [1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’ |
test-politics-oepdlhfcefp-pro01b | onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreement. The UK and France have only been willing to cooperate bilaterally and outside the EU framework, within a set of nationally-framed security interests. Both states are also very traditional military powers. While some states pretend to support the creation of a credible EU military capacity, they are unwilling to contribute seriously to its construction and when faced with a crisis almost always turn to the United States for military solutions. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept US protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power. |
test-politics-nlpdwhbusbuc-pro03b | national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster The U.S. is currently developing cluster bomb technology that will prevent cluster bombs from remaining armed over a long period of time. Given that the U.S. is a pioneer in this area, it knows more about the development of the technology than other countries that might have signed up to the treaty. If the efforts of the U.S. prove to be fruitful then their decision to avoid the ban will prove them as being the more politically shrewd of other liberal democracies. Further, political status with other countries is unlikely to be entirely determined by treaties regarding cluster bombs. In fact these treaties are relatively minor and have almost no political affect by comparison to more pressing issues such as economics or other parts of international policy.7 |
test-international-gpdwhwcusa-pro03b | global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army A UN standing army would still have the same drawbacks as the current model. Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations, irrespective of whether they have been trained together. In the heat of the battle, troops that have grown up in different cultures, speaking different languages will understandably fall back upon what they know. Cultural instincts cannot be retaught or unlearned in a military barracks; they will prove an obstacle to operational effectiveness. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from a particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force? A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to provide it with quality arms and armour. In that case, the UN standing army becomes both another rival in the global balance of power and may drive opposition to the institution itself and its long fight to garner respect. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro02b | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its While many things may have eased up for a few years in the 2000s China has since hardened its policies in many areas rolling back progress. On the one child policy for example Zhang Feng, director of the provincial population and family planning commission, has said there would be "no major adjustments to the family planning policy within five years." [1] Meanwhile village elections have never gone further than the villages and the odd trial in townships and are still one party affairs. [2] When it comes to international affairs China is not using the veto any more than previously but its rise is no longer considered so peaceful after a string of clashes with its neighbors, particularly on its sea borders such as the South China Sea where Vietnamese vessels have been harassed inside Vietnamese waters. [3] China is obviously not following a straight line towards peaceful coexistence and democracy. The EU should keep the arms ban to pressure China into continuing progress. [1] AFP, ‘China province cools hopes of ‘one-child’ policy easing’, 2011. [2] Brown, Kerry, ‘Chinese democracy: the neglected story’, 2011. [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Vietnam Eyes Foreign Help’, 2011 . |
validation-economy-eehwpsstbm-con04a | It is impossible to implement. Students come from very different backgrounds and have very different skill-sets. This makes the attempt to define a measuring system that covers all cases a bureaucratic nightmare. Even if this succeeds, it is still very difficult to define what a 'good performance' is, because a student's individual performance is determined by many other factors than the teacher and also because an individual student's 'performance' is actually a complex set of attitudes, skills and abilities which are in and of themselves hard to operationalize in a standard test. And even if this succeeds, then the questions is how much of a student's performance is attributable to what specific teacher: oftentimes, at least in high school, students will have many different teachers, making it impossible to gauge what teacher was responsible for what test result. Finally, it should be noted (per the argument included above) that merit based education does not encourage the dissemination and normalisation of best practice. A merit-based pay scheme is likely to collapse when too many of those who work under it meet its criteria for bonus payments, making it too expensive. Once merit based pay becomes part of the structure of an institution, it will become hard to attract and retain staff if it is removed. Concurrently, performance at the same level will be expected by the public, although an institution may not be able to afford it. For the reasons stated above, good ideas are unlikely to be shared by teaching staff under a merit-based status quo, for fear that they may be giving away a competitive edge over their colleagues. It might be better to raise standards in education by investing sustainably in improved training for teachers and improved facilities in schools, rather than creating an unsustainable merit-based reward system. |
test-politics-nlpdwhbusbuc-con02a | national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster The Ban is Unfeasible The problem with the ban on cluster bombs is that it is unfeasible in the prevention of the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries aside from the U.S. will continue to use the weapons and will likely do so less responsibly. There is no way to persuade these countries to abandon the weapons. Countries such as China and the US are unconcerned by threats that their use can be a crime against humanity and might result in international criminal prosecutions as they are not signed up to the ICC and as Security Council members can prevent investigations of themselves or their clients. The U.S. and Western powers continuing to manufacture cluster bombs allows them to engage with the other users of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries import weapons from Western powers and as such, continuing the manufacture of cluster bombs allows Western powers to keep a check on their use by other countries. Further, the ability for Western powers to use cluster bombs allows Western powers to discourage their use on the battlefield through the threat of retaliation with the same weaponry. As such, banning the weapons could cost the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.8 |
training-international-eghwgepsusc-pro03a | The European Union is meant to prevent war being on the UNSC would allow it to actively promote peace. The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. The political resolution of the Congress of Europe in 1948 said “it is the urgent duty of the nations of Europe to create an economic and political union in order to assure security and social progress… the creation of a United Europe is an essential element in the creation of a united world.” [1] The Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context. Europe has been successful in creating peace on a previously warlike continent. It has also had successes in encouraging reform in the countries of Eastern Europe and is continuing to do so in the Balkans through enlargement. [2] Croatia was at war with its neighbors fifteen years ago and part of Yugoslavia twenty years ago but will become the 28thmember of the EU in 2013. [3] Being a member of the UNSC would deepen Europe’s commitment to international peace-keeping and peace-making missions, something which currently varies very widely between member states, and push them to spend sufficient on equipping their militaries for such missions. The UNSC could turn the EU’s soft power outwards to help the world. As a result it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution. [1] Congress of Europe at the Hague, 1948, [2] Bildt, 2005, [3] BBC News, 2011, |
training-politics-dwdfiphwut-con01a | Sanctions require international agreement to be effective When is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures. The problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there. [1] [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012, |
test-international-epdlhfcefp-pro01a | europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The EU has already been unifying on multiple fronts, this is just a step in the same direction. The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to pool European military capacity. In addition, the EU itself has created new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has had military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the creation of a Common Security and Defense Policy with 3-4,000 troops on permanent standby in multilateral ‘battlegroups’ ready for immediate deployment(see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below)1. While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. The Union has also placed that military capacity within the broader context of a security strategy designed to promote international peace, justice and development. 1. Schnabel, Rockwell A., 'U.S. Views on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy', The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. IX. Issue2., (Winter/Spring 2003) accessed 1/8/11 |
training-economy-bepeechbem-pro01a | The EU should guarantee youth a job in order to equal their chances. The EU member states should rely more on public employment services, which should be focused on finding jobs for young people. With government funding, they can work with the private sector to offer decent temporary jobs to young people. This model is common in the Nordic states [1] and other countries, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland also have similar programs. Youth unemployment is already far higher than for older people. Less than a third of under 25s who were looking for a job in 2010 found one in 2011 [2] – this may be due to ageist discrimination against young people, and employers seeking people with experience. People over 25 are also considered as a high risk group. They have little experience so the employer is taking a risk in employing them. There is also a desire for stability; those who already have a family are unlikely to want large changes so employers feel they can bet on them for the long term. If the problem is a lack of experience then this proposal solves the problem. Giving younger people a temporary job and the experience that goes with it will help give everyone an equal chance at getting a job, irrespective of age. Therefore, the EU should step in and help provide jobs for younger people. [1] International Labour Office, ‘Youth guarantees: a response to the youth unemployment crisis?’, International Labour Organization, 2012 [2] European Commission, ‘Youth employment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, |
training-international-epdtwhblew-pro01b | While keeping sight of the UKs national interests is important almost all of them can be carried out as well with the European Union as outside it. In particular the whole of Europe is interested in preventing terrorism. In other areas such as maritime security it makes sense for the UK to specialise in it while other countries specialise in other areas such as having larger armies. Moreover it should be noted that the UK is in one of the safest areas of the world with no hostile states in any direction. In this sense the EU is a buffer between the UK and less stable areas such as North Africa, the Middle East, or Russia so it makes sense to work with them as part of the same organisations including the EU. |
training-law-cphwusbaw-con01b | Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. This is an area where the bill of rights is clearly outdated and out of touch; today’s militia is clearly the standing army and so this should just be interpreted as only granting members of the army the right to carry arms. The maintenance of “the security of a free state” clearly is not something that today is done through the citizenry having access to guns, whether assault weapons or not. Moreover it is difficult to see why if there is a right to bear arms that is unconnected with the security of the state these arms should be these particular assault weapons rather than types of weapon that we are not looking to ban. Would a rifle not be as useful in the event of invasion as a semi-automatic? The Bill of Rights was written at the end of the eighteenth century when the weapons were muzzle loading muskets it was not conceived with powerful, accurate, modern weapons that are capable of mass murder without reloading. |
training-international-ghweunsc-pro05b | In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world's foremost military powers, with the world's largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, and the world's highest military expenditure after the USA and China. By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power. |
test-politics-eppghwgpi-pro02a | eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration. By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry. [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection) [Accessed 22 September 2011] |
test-digital-freedoms-piidfaihbg-pro03b | p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google China won’t budge that easily China has already faced trade sanctions for its human rights abuses for years, in particular there are bans on arms sales by the European Union that are still in place more than twenty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre that precipitated them. [1] These haven’t helped a bit. [2] Why would a relatively small move like Google stopping its censorship work? Moreover: true reform in China has to come from within. When it’s forced from the outside, it will not be accepted. If Google stops cooperating with the government, reform-minded Chinese officials will have a harder time, because they will seem to be losing face in the eyes of more hardline officials. [3] [1] See debate on EU arms sales to china [2] James Dorn, ‘Improving Human Rights in China’, February 8, 1999. URL: [3] Shaun Rein, ‘Opposing View: Google’s Big Mistake’, March 28, 2010. URL: |
training-international-gmepwhbuil-pro01b | The president’s office released this statement, justifying the engagement in Libya: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors." 1 As such it is justifiable to say that the conflict in Libya do not amount to legal hostilities. Secondly, the U.S. gave control of the operation in Libya to NATO on April 1st 2011. As such the U.S. government is not in violation of U.S. laws as it is not the U.S. prosecuting hostilities should they be considered to be happening. It is instead NATO doing it. Given that NATO is part of U.S. spending and that NATO commitments require contribution from all member states in some way, the U.S. does not have to justify the engagement in law as the U.S. is not culpable for its participation, NATO is. Further, whilst regime change was a consequence in Libya, it was not the military objective of the campaign in Libya, which was to simply limit Gadaffi’s ability to use aircraft to visit harm upon his citizens. Regime change was just a happy coincidence that benefitted the people in Libya. As such the conflict did not amount to “hostilities” as U.S. participation in said conflict was incredibly limited. 2 BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011, Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011 |
training-politics-oegpdhwdn-con03b | The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows? [1] [1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship. |
test-international-eghrhbeusli-pro02a | europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China has changed a lot since Tiananmen China has changed over the past two decades, becoming more open to the world and more open domestically. For example it is experimenting with democratic elections at village level and since 1998 begun extending these to townships. [1] It has also effectively scrapped the repressive one-child policy. Internationally China is a responsible member of the international community, as befits a permanent member of the UN Security Council. At the United Nations, although it occasionally abstains from votes, it very rarely threatens to use its veto power in the Security Council, it has only used the veto six times since 1971 when the PRC joined the UN [2] - unlike the USA, for example. Its "peaceful rise" can also be seen in its hosting of the six-nation talks over North Korea's nuclear programme. And China is increasingly willing to operate within regional diplomatic frameworks covering East Asia, SE Asia and Central Asia. [1] Horsley, Jamie P., ‘Village Elections: Training Ground for Democratization’, 2001 [2] Sun, Yun, ‘China’s Acquiescence on UN SCR 1973: No Big Deal’, 2011. |
test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-con02a | media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Pornography liberates women Pornography is massively produced and distributed: this provides women with a vast platform through which to define their sexual identity. This has been a great tool in the past: in the 1920’s America, the flapper became a great role model for women by promoting revolutionary values of a strong, sexual woman: she danced wildly in jazz clubs, was openly lesbian, and sexually active. This image spread throughout the country thanks to the boom of the film industry in the Roaring Twenties (Rosenberg). [1] Now pornography plays, or at least can play, this same role. Pornography breaks the taboo of sexuality for women, and promoting the continuation of taboos is a label and a stereotype which the feminist movement must oppose. Instead, it should use pornography to spread its values. There is nothing intrinsic about pornography that makes it anti-women. There is female-friendly pornography, and in fact there are Feminist Porn Awards granted every year since 2006 (Techmedia Network). [2] There is also homosexual porn and porn that presents women as dominant: this can empower women and break current stereotypes, not only that women are not sexual, but that women in general cannot be powerful in society. The feminist movement should seek to promote this flow of ideas of what gender can be and allow women to influence the way their sexuality is perceived by men. [1] Rosenberg, Jennifer. Flappers in the Roaring Twenties. About.com, [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award. |
test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-pro03a | media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Pornography fuels unreachable ideals Pornography presents a distorted perception of people, sexuality, and relationships, which has a further effect on a broader societal level. It promotes unreachable ideals of how both women and men should be in bed, and pushes both in the direction of what is idealised in pornography. This may push men to be more dominating than otherwise and women to suffer from anorexia, low self-esteem, and promiscuity. We can expect women to be the most affected by this, simply because the porn industry is owned almost entirely by men, and because there are pre-existing patriarchal structures in society ready to promote the idea that women are there to serve men. Altogether, pornography merely promotes a new stereotype: that women are generally happy to have sex at any time, that they will respond positively to any man’s advances, and if a woman does not, there is something wrong with her. |
test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-con02b | media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist It is simplistic to assume that the problems women face now, are the same that they faced in the 1920’s. All they have in common is that, in some sense, women are used for men’s ends. In the 1920’s it was primarily as housewives, but now, it is as sexual objects. The kinds of images of women employed in advertisement and most kinds of media testify to this, and in pornography these views are expressed in a particularly forceful way. Furthermore, it is a misconception to say that pornography can lead to revolutionary gender stereotypes when fundamentally it depends on stereotypes, the sexy teacher/nurse/friends’ mother being common themes. Through pornography, the best women can achieve is to jump through one label to another. Why? Because it is an industry fundamentally controlled by men, for men. As a result, furthermore, there can be no self-expression when you are doing what a director (often male) tells you to do. Even if the feminist movement has in fact succeeded in promoting their values in a portion of pornographic films, this will have no effect if people do not watch it. There is nothing to indicate that soft, female-friendly pornography will be more appealing to men than what is currently all over the net: over 100,000 sites offer illegal child pornography, and over 10,000 hard-core pornography films are released every year and the numbers increase exponentially (Techmedia Network). [1] [1] Techmedia Network. Internet Pornography Statistics. TopTenReviews, n.d. |
test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-pro02b | media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Pornography does not objectify people, for they are portrayed as acting. Objects do not act, subjects do. Telling people what they cannot do is a greater loss of identity than any way by which they may be portrayed by pornography, for only the latter can be challenged. Sex is not negative towards women, repression is, sex is liberating not dehumanizing! The only thing that is dehumanizing is the belief that natural impulses as sex should have negative moral conotation, including the expression of it(in this case porn). |
test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-pro04a | media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist Pornography eroticises violence Many forms of media are often accused of inciting violence, promoting stereotypes, or indoctrinating in some form or another. While this is contentious, the key principle that ‘sex sells’ is more obvious. Pornography is not like other media in that, while most other films are aimed at entertainment, this is aimed at arousal. That is, it is aimed at immediate and fully selfish pleasure, which is much more forceful and addictive than mere laughter. The psychological effect of pornography is harmful due to the associations it conditions its audience to make. It eroticises violence through portrayals (fake or genuine) of rape and a general treatment of women that is comparable to torture, yet presented in a context that necessarily biologically excites its viewers. Through continuous exposure to the link between abuse and intense pleasure, this link is easily extended to personal relationships. The master-slave dialectic suddenly becomes acceptable. Compulsive rapists, such as Ted Bundy, are often found to have consumed mass amounts of pornography (Benson). [1] More subtle, yet certainly still present is the force of such associations on young teenagers who have not yet had a sexual relationship and rely on pornography for guidance. This has a potentially massive impact given that 11 is the average age of first internet porn exposure (Techmedia Network). [2] [1] Benson, Rusty. “Vile Passions.” AFA Journal August 2002. [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award. |
test-society-mmcpsgfhbf-con01b | media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist The consent women supposedly show in the pornographic industry is no more valid than it is considered in prostitution or sex trafficking. Non-pornographic actresses are often coerced into pornography by their agents or producers. The pornographic industry preys on vulnerable parties: poor, psychologically vulnerable, or dependent people. Furthermore, even if some do give full consent, this does not apply to all the women who are forced into prostitution or pornography, raped, sexually harassed, or generally oppressed as a result of the harms produced by pornography. Pornography makes the emancipation of women from men impossible, and the feminist movement cannot condone it even at the expense of a few women who want to express themselves. Other safer forms of art exist for this purpose. |
Subsets and Splits