query: Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future.  The opinion of the scientific community with regard to facts and theories has a great propensity to change with time. Once scientists adamantly maintained that the Earth was flat. For centuries it also maintained that there were two kinds of blood flowing through the human body. Science is not infallible and the prevailing theory is no more than the opinion currently in vogue among scholars. In light of new evidence, theories can change over time, giving way to better explanations [1] . For this reason, the evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to their position in spite of contrary evidence provided by Creationists is hard to understand. However, it becomes clear why the scientific establishment takes such a confrontational position toward Creationism when one considers that many eminent scientists and researchers have built their careers within the paradigm of evolution, and their research often depends wholly on its acceptance. These scientists would lose their exalted position in the light of a paradigm-shift in scientific understanding away from evolution. It is for this reason that scientists who adhere to established norms so often fight things like Creationism, even though they provide explanations where evolution cannot. For science to progress, these conservative impulses must be fought against, which is why it is essential that when science is taught, so are all the prevailing theories concerning branches of the sciences, including Creationism.  [1] Understanding Science. 2011. “Science Aims to Explain and Understand”. University of California Berkeley.

positive: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say "Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles." [1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren.  [1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855.

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence "proving" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot.

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.  Creationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms [1] . While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer.  [1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute.

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.  Creationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims. [1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data. [2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution. [3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom.  [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.  [3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive.

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.  Society is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true.  [1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times.  [2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either.

negative: Children should have the freedom not to be misled  Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to get accurate information. The students in school have this right not to be misled by their teachers [1] so teachers should have to concentrate on providing facts and evidence and what has been scientifically proven. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education argues “Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them” because there is no controversy among scientists. [2] The law as it stands may attempt to sound balanced but preventing “discrimination for or against religion or non-religion” [3] opens the door to any theory seeking to explain the evidence no matter how flawed. This would be directly counter to the objective teaching the bill claims to promote. If there is to be objectivity schools must stick to the evidence and what it shows; evolution. The teachers may of course encourage the students to come up with their own interpretations of the evidence but should not be attempting to force their own views upon the students.  [1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012,   [2] Strauss, Valerie, ‘Tennessee back to the future with new anti-evolution law’, Post Local, 11 April 2012,   [3] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,

negative: Teaching creationism as well as evolution gives students freedom to choose  This bill that opens the door to creationism is really about changing the way that teaching is done to make it more critical and analytical. This is an improvement in scientific education as it will help ensure that science is about critical, constructive discourse rather than just imbibing ‘facts’. [1] This bill aims to “inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens”. [2] How can students be critical and learn to analyse if there is only one theory available to them through which to look at and analyse those facts? That would not be education, it would be indoctrination. [3]  [1] Zimmer, Robin, ‘Critical Thinking, Analysis Foster Good Science’, The Tennessean, 11 March 2011,   [2] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,   [3] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012,

negative: Most scientists are not Christians and do not accept the Bible as God’s word: in 1996, only 40% of US scientists believed in God. [1]  Many Christians interpret the Creation account symbolically and have done so since long before Darwin. For example, in the 5th century, the theologian Augustine argued that the account in Genesis was not a literal, chronological account. [2] Even if Genesis was inspired by God, it could not have been intended to be a literal, scientific account, because it would have made no sense to the people of the time. It must be interpreted according to its original genre and purpose. [3]  When the Bible says death entered the world through Adam, it could refer exclusively to humans rather than the animal kingdom as a whole. Alternatively, it may refer to spiritual death, which is separation from God, rather than physical death, the separation of soul from body. [4]  Science proceeds by reason, evidence and observation, not by arguments from religious authority. If science contradicts the Bible, we should accept the findings of science, which is based on reason and evidence, rather than the Bible, which is based on faith.  [1] Edward J. Larson, Larry Witham, ‘Leading Scientists Still Reject God’, Nature, 23rd July 1998, p. 313  , accessed 24/5/11.  [2] Alister McGrath, ‘Augustine’s Origin of Species’, Christianity Today, May 2009,  Accessed 3/6/2011  [3] Ernest Lucas, Science and the Bible: Are they Incompatible? The Creation story as a test case,  Accessed 31/5/11  [4] ‘Was there Death before the Fall?’, Biologos Forum,  Accessed 2/6/2011

negative: Naturalistic assumptions  Evolutionary science rules out the possibility of God on principle, rather than on the basis of evidence. On an unbiased assessment, without the presupposition of naturalism, Creationism offers a better interpretation of the evidence. But most scientists refuse to allow the possibility of God creating the world, blinding them to the facts.  Secular science is committed to only looking for natural explanations (methodological naturalism), but this only makes sense if you already know that nothing supernatural exists (ontological naturalism). If God intervenes in the natural world, then this can be investigated empirically and scientifically.  Evolutionists assume that “the present is the key to the past”, otherwise known as uniformitarianism. They are attempting to reconstruct the past after the event from fragmentary evidence. But God was there in the beginning and so can tell us what actually happened. We should believe God’s revelation, not human speculation. [1]  [1] Jason Lisle, ‘Is the Present the Key to the Past?’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with "the designer did it". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant.

negative: This is not a freedom of speech issue. Teachers are already free to express their own views during their own free time. When teaching in a school however they are limited by the demands of what is necessary to teach their pupils. Freedom of speech does not give teachers qualified in one subject the wherewithal to teach their class a different subject which is effectively what teaching creationism means. Creationism should remain in religion classes and evolution should remain in science classes. Teachers are employed by the state in order to teach children facts, not spread personal ideology. It is therefore best to seperate facts and ideas into seperate subjects.

negative: Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren  For most post-medieval periods, it is possible to establish such "facts" with a very high degree of probability. To take the Holocaust as an example, fears of the events being erased out of history books drove Dwight Eisenhower to travel to Germany to witness the aftermath first-hand. The future American President was driven by a desire to be able to 'testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief that the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda'1. Furthermore, even if the historical facts are not as clearly evident as the Holocaust, and have to be simplified, this need not be "intellectually dangerous": it is impossible to prove that a real harm results from only knowing the academically dominant interpretation of a historical episode, even if it might be theoretically desirable to consider minority viewpoints too. Indeed, all school teaching involves simplification and generalization: much school science teaching entails discussion of how general rules (learned earlier during a pupil's school career) are not always applicable. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).

negative: The bill does not exclude evolution just allows room for other theories  What this bill allows is for the facts to be taught and then seen through the lens of various theories. The bill requires that the schools within the state remain within the state science curriculum. It “protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine”. [1] Evolution will therefore still have to be taught and won’t be replaced wholesale by any other theory. The result therefore is that this Tennessee law opens up academic enquiry and science rather than shutting it down as opponents claim.  [1] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.  Nature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the "motor" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design.  [1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:  Physics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding. [1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief. [2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy.  [1] Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.  [2] Russell, Bertrand. 1952. “Is There a God?” Campaign for Philosophical Freedom. Available:

negative: We cannot yet fully test evolution either; we can't recreate evolution in the lab. Creationism provides a valid critique and so should be taught alongside.

negative: It is prohibitively expensive to translate everything and difficult to prioritize what to translate  Ultimately any policy of translation of academic work must rely on a degree of prioritization on the part of the translators since there is no way that all academic work of any kind could be translated into other major languages, let alone into all the multitude of languages extant in the world today. In 2009, for example, the number of published research papers on science and technology exceeded 700,000. [1] That is a gigantic amount of research. Translating all of these articles seems to be an obvious waste of time and resources for any government or institution to pursue and increasingly so when one considers the more than 30,000 languages in current use today. Translations today currently exist for articles and research that is considered useful. Any blanket policy is infeasible. The end result will be only a small number of articles translated into a finite number of languages. This is the status quo. Expanding it only serves to further confuse the academic community and to divert useful energies away from positive research to the quixotic task of translation.  [1] ‘Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012’. National Science Foundation. 2012,

negative: Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments  It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age.  As well as condemning those who practice other faiths, or who choose to follow no faith, they have fought, and continued to fight, the expansion of the rights of women and of socially marginalised castes, among other social groups. All of the major churches and sects have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and most of them are still desperately trying to ignore the existence of modernity. While justifying their political and moral positions through obtuse and deliberately obscure interpretations of religious texts, obscure texts even the mainstream interpretations of major religions are usually sexist, frequently racist and almost universally homophobic.  Preventing access to contraception is the single largest block to women getting out of poverty. There are many other examples of the excesses and double standards of mainstream religion – too many examples to pick one.

negative: While it is true that extremists seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites challenging their skewed narrative is far more numerous. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the extremist view is fringe in the extreme. There is also little evidence that preventing access to some sites would make it more difficult for extremists, when large numbers of jihadi websites went offline in 2012 discussion simply moved elsewhere and leaders emphasized recruiting more people offline. [1]  [1] Zelin, A. et al. “The State of Global Jihad Online”. New America Foundation. January 2013.  /Zelin20130201-NewAmericaFoundation.pdf Pp.10, 15

negative: Teachers should not have freedom to teach whatever they wish as fact  There is a difference between a demand for freedom to teach what you like and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not apply in the classroom; students are not allowed to stand up and discuss whatever issues they want and neither should the teacher. Both have to stick to a syllabus that ensures that the children are taught the basics of each subject so that the student can move on to more advanced instruction.  Ultimately for students to be able to exercise their right to freedom of speech they need to have a well-rounded education that provides a grounding of knowledge and how to analyse that knowledge. The student is then perfectly free to challenge this teaching and exercise their freedom of expression and explore many more ideas and dismiss evolution if they wish.  Essentially this bill is encouraging criticism of science at too early a stage, in elementary or even secondary school teachers are still teaching what science is, what it is for and how it works and it does not help to ‘muddy the waters’. [1]  [1] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012,

negative: This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout.  Even if Propositions contentions were true, it can be argued that it is the lack of clear dividing lines between parties that can cause major disillusionment in politics, with many parties now subscribing to a broadly neoliberal world view as has happened in the UK where parties regularly cross-dress, appeal to the same groups and steal each other’s policies. [1] The lack of clear ideology engendered by Open Primaries would make such disillusionment worse. Two parties that agree on everything would seriously damage turnout as no clear choice is presented to the electorate.  [1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘If our political parties did not exist would we ever need to invent them?’, The Guardian, 25 October 2007,

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational The God hypothesis is unnecessary  Science provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in [1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief.  [1] Bube, Richard H, ‘Man Come of Age: Bonhoeffer’s Response to the God-of-the-gaps’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,  , p.207

negative: This argument is predicated on the idea that it is possible to build a model that would allow for adaptation. In the light of some of the challenges currently posed by Climate Change that seems improbable. Without a clearer idea of what adaptation would look like or what it could even potentially achieve, making it a priority against something that can be shown to work seems reckless in the extreme.

negative: Secular scientists extrapolate the age of the earth backwards from examining current natural processes, but they assume that they have always taken place at the same speed and for the same reasons, but this is not necessarily the case.  There are a number of possible solutions to the distant starlight problem: God could have created the light in transit; the speed of light may have been much greater in the past; Einstein’s theory of general relativity indicates that time is relative, and so a few thousand years on Earth could be millions elsewhere in the universe. [1]  The volcanic eruption at Mount St Helens, Washington State in 1980 shows how catastrophic events can very quickly lay down geological formations that appear to have formed slowly. The Genesis flood would account for the rapid formation of geographical features that evolutionists interpret as old. [2]  [1] James Upton ‘Beyond Distant Starlight: Next Steps For Creationist Cosmology’, Answers Research Journal 4 (2011) www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/distant-starlight-cosmology Accessed 31/5/2011  [2] ‘Mount St Helens in Washington State’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 1/6/2011

negative: The Bible says God created the world  The Bible is God’s Word, inspired and infallible, and it reveals that the world was created by him in 6 days within recent history (Genesis 1-2). God says it, so we should accept what he reveals as truth. [1]  If the Bible is true at all, it cannot just be ‘symbolically’ true about spiritual matters, but must be true in matters of fact and science as well. You cannot divide meaning from facts. Theologically, the Bible teaches that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12), which contradicts evolution because death is necessary for natural selection. [2]  There is no neutral interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists interpret the scientific evidence in light of the presupposition that there is no God, while Creationists interpret it on the presupposition there is a God. Christians who accept evolution have bought into secular assumptions that are inconsistent with their faith and what the Bible teaches.  [1] Don Landis, ‘“And God Said”’, Answers in Genesis,  Accessed 31/5/11  [2] Fred Van Dyke, ‘Theological Problems of Theistic Evolution’, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation,  Accessed 1/6/2011

negative: Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:  Space exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well. 1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. "Benefits of Space

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:  The reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes. [1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions. [2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods.  [1] Henig, Robin. 2007. “Darwin’s God”. The New York Times. Available:   [2] Pinker, Steven. 2004. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Evolution”. Annual Meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Available:

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Patenting enables knowledge sharing  Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All companies ask is that for a limited time they are able to benefit from their investments, and that in that period if another company wishes to pursue a project in their area then they should have to give their permission for the use of the patent. Patenting does not mean withholding information in secrecy.  On the contrary, patents actively encourage openness in science, because if you were not able to disclose your findings without fear of exploitation, then you would keep your findings secret. This would be to the detriment of medical advancement.  For example the Human Genome Sciences’ patented their discovery of the CCR5 receptor gene, which was then discovered by other scientists at the National Institutes of Health, that the small number of people missing the receptor appear to be immune to HIV 1. This could be done because Human Genome Sciences has a policy that "we do not use our patents to prevent anyone in academics or the nonprofit world from using these materials for whatever they want, so long as it is not commercial.2"  Patenting makes sure that the information is registered and shared. The other option, whereby companies do not patent the information and keep it as a “trade secret”, hurts everybody much more and slows down the rate of scientific progress.  1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO  2. Chartrand, Sabra, "Human Gene Patented as Potential Fighter Against AIDS" The New York Times, 6 March 2000,

negative: Authority aversion is a good counterargument here. (see op argument 4)

negative: It reduces the ability of universities to be self-sufficient and to fund other less potentially profitable pursuits  Universities often use the revenues from their more profitable researches to fund the less financially valuable intellectual fields. This often takes the forms of patent revenues from science and engineering departments going to pay for philosophy and English departments. While there is always a chance a new development in polymers or chemicals will generate some future profit, this is rarely the case for experts in medieval history. Yet universities, as the centres of learning and knowledge in society, value all avenues of academic exploration. State funding tends to go toward the development of new technology and other “hard” disciplines, as they can be explained to voters as valuable investments in society’s future. It is easy for them to sell investment in engineering projects. It is much harder for a politician to explain the need for funding a study in 19th century feminist critical theory. The result of this policy is to create a serious depletion of universities’ resources for cross-discipline funding, meaning that the study of the humanities and arts becomes less tenable. It is essential that universities retain the freedom to invest in all aspects of human knowledge, not merely those that might provide economic benefits. The quality of the human experience cannot be measured in euros or dollars alone, but must account for the understanding of things like the human condition. Only by allowing universities to keep the well-earned fruits of their researches can society hope to be able to explore all fields of human understanding.

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable  Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results.  The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment.  There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals.  Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:  Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense.  [1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.   [2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.


query: Illegitimacy of the 2006 referendum  South Ossetia was wrong to hold elections under conflict conditions. In 2006, South Ossetia can be said to have been in 8 conflicts with Georgia when it held its 2006 referendum on independence. Holding referendums under such conflict conditions is generally illegitimate because the results of the elections are skewed by the conflict, threats, and the various risks for the voters involved. This caused David Bakradze, the chairman of a Georgian parliamentary European Integration Committee, to comment, “Under conflict conditions, you cannot speak about legitimate elections.” [1] This mirrors European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe’s, denunciation of the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [2] Furthermore Russia's involvement in the 2006 referendum arguably corrupted its validity, as many of the authorities in S. Ossetia were installed there by the Russian government. [3]  [1] Radio Free Europe. “Overwhelming Support For South Ossetia Independence”. Radio Free Europe. The Journal of the Turkish Weekly. 13 November 2006.   [2] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.   [3] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.

positive: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the 2006 referendum as a “free expression of the will of South Ossetia’s people through democratic procedures. Many countries in Europe and America could only envy the level of organization and democratic transparency [in South Ossetia].” [1] (10)Similarly, Luis Tascón, a member of the National Assembly of Venezuela, stated during visit to S. Ossetia that “Those people who wish to be free will be free. And the free peoples will help South Ossetia with it.” [2] (13) Denying the legitimacy of this democratic referendum (whose flaws have not been proved to have been so severe as to discredit it entirely) is to deny the South Ossetian people the right to self-determination.  [1] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.   [2] Enotes. “South Ossetian independence referendum, 2006”. Enotes.

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgia has a right to territorial integrity  Georgia has a legitimate sovereign right to maintain its territorial integrity as well as the social contract accompanying it. Georgia has the right to take action to secure the integrity of these things, unless blocked by a higher international authority. Internationally, S. Ossetia's independence is recognised by only five nations (including Russia), demonstrating that the international community is not convinced that S. Ossetia's claim to self-determination trumps Georgia's claim to territorial integrity. [1] In order to obtain independence, it is important that a country be recognized diplomatically by a significant number of the members of the United Nations. This is important in large part because it ensures that a state will have viable diplomatic relations internationally if it becomes independent. It also demonstrates that the international system supports a certain action being taken internationally. Thus Georgia's claim should continue to stand until the international community changes its mind, and at the moment the international community has legitimate concerns regarding the regional instability and conflict that an independent S. Ossetia might foster. Moreover, as shown above the S. Ossetian state is entirely dependent on Russian support, and so it can be accurately stated that the issue of S. Ossetian independence, and its threat to Georgian territorial integrity, has arisen only because of Russian interference within Georgia. Even those who argue that any region has the right to self-determination would probably reject the idea that nations have the right to foster and encourage parts of other nations to secede from their current state and join another. The S. Ossetian independence movement can thus be correctly seen simply as Russian aggression against Georgia for its own advantage, not an issue of self-determination.  [1] RIA Novosti. “Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia”. RIA Novosti. 4 September 2008.

negative: It is far from the settled will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples that they wish to join NATO. Georgia’s President Saakashvili did wish to join, but after his disastrous attempt to regain control of South Ossetia was unable to bring his country with him. Saakashvilli was defeated in parliamentary elections and ran up against his term limit at the end of 2013 [1] opening the way towards better relations with Russia. Public opposition to NATO membership in Ukraine since the US-led war in Iraq 2003 outweighed support for joining the alliance. [2] Ukraine is split over NATO membership, with most of the Russian-speaking East of the country firmly opposed to the idea, and only about 30% support overall. [3] The crisis of Ukraine’s pro-western coalition over how to respond to the conflict in Georgia showed how divisive the question is; the President firmly supported Georgia while the PM kept quiet. [4] In any case, NATO membership should not automatically be extended to every nation which wishes it, but only offered when the current members of the alliance judge it to be in their strategic interest to do so.  [1] Traub, James, ‘The Georgia Syndrome’, ForeignPolicy, 13 August 2010,   [2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.  [3] Atwell, Kyle, ‘Two Different Paths to NATO: Georgia and Ukraine’, Atlantic Review, 7 November 2008,   [4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25,  , p.16  [4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25,  , p.16

negative: The vote will be illegitimate.  The public will not be properly informed: the issue is too complex for the average citizen to understand, and 83% of British voters know "little or nothing about the EU."1 A referendum cannot be permitted when the public simply does not know the repercussions of its decision, for it only fosters misinformation and subjectivity on the behalf of campaigners. Racist far-right parties can easily exploit European issues by playing on public fears about immigration. The referendum lead-up would provide a megaphone for these parties' unacceptable views. The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum campaign showed that the public readily believes misinformation and scare tactics and meaningful discussion of issues is drowned out. Leaving the decision to elected representatives preserves the rationality of the debate.  1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011.

negative: “Russian mobilisation is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out.” Argues US UN Ambassador Samantha Power. [1] There is little threat to Russian citizens or minorities from the new government. Putin has accused the new government of intimidating minorities and increasing anti-Semitism but Ukrainian Jewish organisations have said “does not correspond to the actual facts”. [2] Any protection of citizens should not be pre-emptive.  While it is right that the Crimea should be consulted on its future this should be done without any Russian intervention. Having Russian soldiers on the ground biases any referendum helping to make it illegitimate. With the referendum having happened after intervention Russia cannot say it was reacting to the demonstrated will of the people.  [1] Mardell, Mark, ‘Ukraine's Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN’, BBC News, 4 March 2014  [2] Zisels, Josef, et al., ‘Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’, Voices of Ukraine, 4 March 2014

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgia's government is democratic and modern in its institutions. It is fully capable and intent on governing S. Ossetia democratically and honestly. Moreover, if the aim of the S. Osseitans' is to join with Russia, upon seceding from Georgia (as seems likely), then the many arguments it is putting forward in support of its national identity and right to self-determination do not apply in the same way, as they would be simply exchanging minority status in one state for minority status in another, and not truly seeking their own homeland where Ossets would be a majority, as they claim. This means that arguments about Ossetian being its own language and the Ossets having a long history of self-rule are not in fact arguments for secession, as secession would simply result in a transfer to Russia and not a truly Ossetian state. Therefore, the real question is: does Georgia or Russia have a greater claim to S. Ossetia as part of its territory? The historical arguments made by proposition clearly should Georgia to have a greater claim here.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership Russia does not have true democracy  The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the Russian elections as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote. (3)  Furthermore not only there isn’t election freedom, there is not academic freedom either – “The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities” (4)  There are cases of murdered journalists, who were “inconvenient” to the authorities. This also raises the question whether a strong leadership is better for the people.  Basic freedoms are denied to the Russian population. In the 21st century this is simply unjust. Therefore strong leadership creates more wrong than it does good.

negative: The referendum is not an example of progress. It is not hard to see why many of those who demonstrated in Tahrir square were in the no camp for this referendum. “The president remains extraordinarily powerful. The amendments do nothing about due process and neglect other authoritarian aspects of the state” [1] The referendum was attacked for not dealing with large scale structural issues. Leading opposition figures such as Mohamed El Baradei argue “The referendum deals only with minutiae. It doesn't talk about the imperial power of the president, it doesn't talk about the distortion of the parliament, it doesn't talk about the need to have an independent constituent assembly that represents everybody. So we are going to say no.” [2] This means that the institutional problems that helped create an over-mighty presidency and autocracy have remained in place.  These countries have also not become much more stable. There have been clashes between Christian Copts and Muslims following the burning of two churches on the 7th of May, which have left 180 injured and raises the specter of sectarian violence. [3] Meanwhile in Tunisia the government has re-imposed night time curfews after four days of demonstrations were ended by police firing tear gas. [4] It is difficult to consider such unrest progress.  [1] Steven A. Cook, ‘Interview, Egypt’s Referendum: Nervous Steps Forward’, Council on Foreign Relations, 21st March 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [2] ‘Large turnout for Egypt's constitutional referendum’ BBC News, Mar. 19, 2011,   [3] Egypt Christians protest in Cairo after church attack, BBC News, May 9., 2011,   [4] Post-revolution Egypt and Tunisia gripped by unrest May 8, 2011,

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgian rule in South Ossetia is historically illegitimate and oppressive  Modern Georgia never really controlled S. Ossetia. South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia shortly after Georgia gained independence from the disintegrating USSR in 1991. South Ossetia has maintained de facto independence ever since. [1] Georgia, therefore, cannot really claim to have had sustained, legitimate sovereign control over South Ossetia in modern times. Even the USSR recognised S. Ossetia as distinct from Georgia, with the Kremlin stating in 1920 that “we consider that Ossetia should have the power it prefers. Georgian intrusion into affairs of Ossetia would be an unjustified intervention into foreign internal affairs”. [2] S. Ossetia was an autonomous region within the USSR. It was not considered part of the same region that is now Georgia, and thus during its years under the USSR, S. Ossetia built up a significant degree of autonomy and independence in its internal functioning. Therefore, Georgia's only real claim to South Ossetia must extend back nearly a century, before the time of the Soviet Union.  This significantly weakens Georgia's claim over South Ossetia, but moreover Georgia's historical claim on South Ossetia is quite weak even in isolation. This is because S. Ossetia has its own distinct language and history to that of Georgia. Ossetian or Ossetic is a member of the Northeastern Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. About 500,000 people speak Ossetian in Ossetia. [3] , [4] That Ossetia has this distinct language is an important fact in favour of its status as a nation-state and in favor of its independence. Georgia, however, has been accused of committing genocide against the South Ossetians in 1920, 1993, and 2008, with tens of thousands of S. Ossetians dying over the course of these conflicts. [5] The Georgian government has also attempted to suppress S. Ossetian culture and identity, for example banning the use of the Ossetian language in official documents and abolishing S. Ossetian autonomy within Georgia. [6] Georgian rule in S. Ossetia is therefore both ahistorical, due to S. Ossetia's long and recognised history of independence and cultural and linguistic distinctness, and illegitimate, as the Georgian government has waged war upon the very lives and identity of the S. Ossetian people.  [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [2] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007.   [3] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [4] Omniglot. “Ossetian”. Omniglot.   [5] Portyakova, Natalya and Sysoyev, Gennady. “Measuring South Ossetia by Kosovo”. Kommersant. 15 November 2006.   [6] Makarkin, Alexei. “How is South Ossetia different from Kosovo?”. RIA Novosti. 9 March 2006.

negative: The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in transition and cannot be a reason to claim that it is not stable. Even the Libyan people accept it with 71% of the population being optimistic about the current situation [2].  [1] Mats,Utas, ‘The Malian crisis; Causes, consequences, responses’, wordpress.com 7 May 2013  [2] JMW Consulting, ‘Believing in Democracy: Public Opinion Survey in Libya’, National Democratic Institute, August 2013, p.6

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be S. Ossetia has an effective democratic government which carries out an effective control over the territory and the population. It has independent legal procedure, army and militia and security service. The state levies taxes, provides property rights and social service – public health services, provision of pensions, public safety, power and road and transport services, etc. [1] (4) All this clearly points to the viability of an independent S. Ossetian state -a fact which already exists on the ground. Or, if it wants, after independence S. Ossetia is morally within its rights to re-join with its kith-and-kin in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. Of course, it would have to first separate from Georgia, whereupon it will have the capacity to then decide to join Russia. Moreover, few states n the world are truly self-sufficient, and there are plenty of poor landlocked countries, so in this sense S. Ossetia would not be unique. Furthermore, poverty from continual conflict is an argument to end the conflict, not against independence.  [1] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007.

negative: Referendums are very artificial.  The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field. [1]  [1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005.

negative: Referendums are not a right. Parliament has passed no law governing when referendums must be held. Because Parliament has set itself no guidelines on when to call referendums, the public has no right to one even if similar situations in the past have warranted them. Moreover, a system of representative democracy means referendums are not necessary -- it is MPs' job to make decisions. The public have the right to vote for leaders and hold those leaders accountable, not a right to vote on individual issues.

negative: There is legitimate precedent.  Kosovo became formally independent from Serbia in 2008 [1] and Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2006 [2] as a result of referenda within those territories. If these states and the many, many others which previously achieved independence have a right to self-determination why doesn’t RS? To deny some groups of people access to self-determination is hypocritical and unjust.  [1] BBC News, ‘Kosovo MPs proclaim independence’, 17 February 2008,   [2] BBC News, ‘Montenegro declares independence’, 4 June 2006,

negative: The requirement for unanimity is undemocratic  European Union has been based on principles of solidarity and mutual help. This means that sometimes, in order to ensure the ‘greater good’, one has to forgo a bit of his own self-interest. Because European Union holds together 28 culturally and economically different countries, qualified majority voting is sufficient to ensure that no state will be harmed by the decisions made on the international level. The fact that some states would like to retain their right of veto undermines the basic principles of the EU because no such process, where a single state is able to prevent majority from adopting a measure can be called democratic. It this system the minority, or individual state, can ignore the will of the majority indefinitely. Moreover, Zamora (in Sieberson, 2010) [1] states that “international agreement is impossible to obtain when any single participant can block a decision; to achieve unanimous consent… a decision must be diluted so as to please everyone,” concluding that such result is unsatisfactory and prohibits effective functioning of an international organization, mainly in regards to urgent, practical problems.  [1] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 932, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .

negative: The people of Ukraine and Georgia want to join  Many people in both Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, and that is the best reason for welcoming them into the alliance. NATO is an alliance of democratic states and should respond positively to the request of a sovereign nation. In Georgia a non-binding referendum on whether to join NATO showed 77% of voters in favor of joining. [1] Polls show that some 50% of Ukrainians in 2002 said that would support Ukraine’s membership in NATO if a referendum on this issue were held. [2]  Both states are at risk of being pushed around by Russia, partly because their desire to adopt “western” democratic values is at odds with the more autocratic values of Russia’s leadership. They also fear that Russia has designs on their territory and sovereignty, knowing that many in the Russian elite have never fully accepted the collapse of the old Soviet Union. These fears have been realised with Russian forces in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea. Joining NATO offers Georgia and Ukraine the protection of a proven alliance and a clear route to European Union membership that has already been travelled by other former Soviet states. Ukraine and Georgia as European states have a right to join NATO if they would satisfy all criteria for NATO membership. [3]  [1] NATO, ‘Backgrounder, Deepening relations with Georgia’, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 2011, p.15,   [2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.  [3] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘Puzzles of EU and NATO Accession of Post-Communist Countries.’ Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12 (3), 2011, p 309.

negative: Undeniably, any government needs confidence and trust from the population in order to implement reforms in an efficient way. You need the citizens to be on the same side with the elected officials rather than trying to impede them from doing their job. Despite this, there won’t be any lack of trust as a result of scraping warrants.  In order to prove this fact, one must look at the source that makes the population trust the government. There might be some mistrust in the beginning as a result of the protests that will come as soon as the scrapping occurs, but this won’t last long. In time, as society becomes safer, as terrorist attacks and crimes become scarcer, there government’s good image will return. Results are what people care about. Let us not forget that the biggest blow that a state’s image can receive happens when it is unable to protect its citizens. No matter if we are talking about 9/11, London Metro Bombings or the ones which happened at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, each and every time the government was held responsible for its failure to prevent the attacks.  If we are to talk about the state’s image and legitimacy, as the numbers of these types of regrettable events will decrease, the influence of the government and the way it is perceived can only rise.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.  Australia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924 1. Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a ‘valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’ which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is sufficient 2. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court 3. There is little reason to believe that this would be more difficult to implement in any other country. 1 Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January 2006), (accessed 4/8/11) 2 Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11) 3 Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901 , Australian Electoral Commission, 2010

negative: The UK or rUK is not going to leave the EU.  Despite the legislative activity an EU referendum is still not an immediate prospect. Legislation as it stands only calls for a referendum in the event of treaty change, which would itself take years to negotiate. The private members bill currently progressing through the Commons is likely to be butchered in the Lords and David Cameron's promise of a 2017 referendum relies on a Conservative victory in 2015. Such a victory may not happen, despite Labour's soft poll lead the natural bias of the current boundaries make an outright Conservative victory a very remote prospect. [1] Even if a referendum does get held the out supporters would then have to win it. Although polls for a prospective EU membership referendum tend to show those who favour the exit leading this cannot be taken as necessarily meaning that it is likely to happen. Polls change, the AV referendum saw numbers initially favourable to AV swing round to a decisive victory against AV over the course of the campaign. [2] There are a number of reasons why this is likely in an in/out EU referendum. A vote to leave the EU is in fact rather unlikely because of the full weight of the establishment in the staying in camp. Businesses tend to favour staying in because [quote=John Cridland, Director General of the CBI] being a member of a reformed EU is the best way to preserve market access [3] [/quote]. The CBI released a report that said that each UK household was £3,000 better off due to EU membership. [4] That is a lot of money and if opinions on the EU are anything like those on Scottish independence it is a killer argument. 56% of scots would favour independence if it would make them £500 better off but only 22% would still be in favour of independence if it would make them £500 worse off. [5] If similar swings were to occur in an EU referendum Britain would not be leaving the EU. Furthermore, the referendum is likely only to occur after a renegotiation which is bound to bring something, enough for the (presumably Conservative) Prime minister to recommend a vote to stay in, the result would be support for the EU across all three main parties, plus the nationalist parties as well. A renegotiation sufficient for a conservative PM to recommend staying in also has an interesting effect upon polled voting intentions by almost exactly reversing them. A YouGov poll (May 2013) found that while under the current terms 47% would vote to leave and only 30% to stay but after renegotiation 32% would vote to leave and 45% to stay. [6]  [1] Mylles, Richard, ‘The chances of an EU referendum in the next parliament are wildly overstated’, New Statesman, 18 July 2013,   [2] UKPollingReport, ‘Alternative Vote’, accessed 4 November 2013,   [3] Cridland, John, ‘Leaving Europe would be bad for British business’, The Guardian, 17 May 2013,   [4] CBI, ‘In with reform or out with no influence – CBI chief makes case for EU membership’, 4 November 2013,   [5] ICM, ‘Scottish Independence Poll – September 2013’, 18 September 2013,   [6] YouGov, ‘YouGov / Sunday Times Survey Results’, 10 May 2013,  p.15.

negative: Russian and US strategic interests conflict  Contradictions between Russian and U.S. interests will always exist. The United States is not Russia's ally, and it can be confidently predicted that it never will be. While politically the two countries sometimes temporarily need each other to face global challenges, as long as it does not harm them politically or economically, militarily they will remain positioned as strategic enemies. NATO is a good example of this. While the United States believes NATO brings peace and stability Russia feels directly threatened by NATO expansion into states that were once a part of the Soviet Union such as the Baltic states or the possibility of expansion to Ukraine or Georgia. [1] There have even been suggestions that Russia’s 2008 conflict with Georgia was to prevent Georgia proceeding down the path to NATO membership with US encouragement. A view partially substantiated by President Putin himself “it has become absolutely clear that the desire of Georgian authorities to join NATO is motivated not by their ambition to form part of a global security system and contribute to the strengthening of international peace. Tbilisi's NATO bid is determined by other considerations, namely an attempt to embroil other nations in its bloody undertakings… from a legal point of view, Russia's actions in South Ossetia are totally legitimate.” [2] As a result America's relations with Russia will never resemble its relations with France or Great Britain. U.S. strategic nuclear planning will always envisage a potential Russian nuclear attack on targets on American territory. Likewise, Russian planners will not rule out an American attack on Russian targets.  [1] Neuger, James G., and Alison, Sebastian, ‘Putin Says NATO Expansion Is Direct Threat to Russia (Update 2)’, Bloomberg, 4 April 2008,   [2] President Putting quoted in ‘South Ossetia – The Stakes’, globalsecurity.org,  accessed 27/4/11

negative: Unanimity requirement gives an enormous bargaining leverage to the hands of individual states  Unanimous voting provides states seeking additional gains with a tool to actually achieve their egoistic goals. In order for the whole Union to pass legislation that would be beneficial to all, a single state has power to negotiate further benefits for itself, thus holding up a deal and sometimes making it less beneficial for others. Similar concerns were expressed in the EU Commission White Paper on European Governance as consensus requirement “often holds policy-making hostage to national interest”. [1] What is more, such behavior sets dangerous precedents that nations can put national interests in front of communal, effectively deteriorating the cooperative spirit of the EU and eventually destroying it altogether. As Sieberson claims [2] , such was the case of French objections to the Treaty of Rome regarding the wider use of qualified majority voting in the fields of agriculture and the internal market. In the ‘empty chair crisis’ France boycotted Council meetings for seven months, until the deal called Luxembourg accord [3] was struck. “The Luxembourg accord is widely believed to have created a period of stagnation in the Community… Paul Craig describes this period as “the prime example of negative intergovernmentalism.” [4] It prevented consolidation of Europe and ensured the EC remained intergovernmental by effectively curtailing qualified majority voting as any state could veto by invoking national interests.  [1] European Governance, A White Paper 2001, Commission of the European Communities, pp. 29, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .  [2] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 934, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .  [3] Eurofond 2007, Luxembourg Compromise, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .  [4] Sieberson, SC 2010, ‘Inching Toward EU Supranationalism? Qualified Majority Voting and Unanimity Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 934, viewed 29 September 2013, <  .

negative: It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.  Even if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all.

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty Referendums are more about PR than politics.  Referendum votes always end up being about something other than the issue on the ballot paper. In many referendum campaigns the real issue becomes one of confidence in the government of the day and its management of the economy, law and order, public scandals, etc. So when people vote they are expressing their unhappiness at their national government rather than making a considered judgment about the future of the EU. This is exactly what happened in the French and Dutch votes on the EU Constitution in 2005. When asked what influenced their decision, most voters said that they disliked aspects of EU enlargement, especially the arrival of Eastern European workers who might take local jobs, and the proposed entry negotiations with Turkey – but none of this was anything to do with the Constitution [1]. Furthermore a referendum would be pray to media distortion, which could have swayed the votes with biased coverage. Referendums are too often about government confidence rather than the issue at hand, people may have voted to express other grievances with their current government and not the future of the EU.  [1] The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity?’ House of Lords European Union Committee (23 November 2006) viewed on 13 June 2011  , p.10

negative: international law philosophy political philosophy politics government house believes It is true that many modern states have somewhat artificial or arbitrary boundaries. However, this applies to some or other extent to all states everywhere in the world; indeed, the nation state as we know it is a relatively modern construct, and no nation state is completely ethnically or culturally homogenous. There are certainly places in the world where minorities are oppressed, but insisting on self-determination as a universal human right often merely encourages separatism, racial tension and conflict.  Furthermore, self-determination is often used by states as a casus belli and used to justify interference in neighbour's affairs and even invasion – as in the conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008, ostensibly over the treatment of ethnic Russians in South Ossetia 1, or Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 on the pretext that ethnic Germans in that area should belong to the German Reich 2. If we place too much emphasis on the importance of self-determination in all situations it may lead to worse international relations, not better. At any rate, it has not helped us solve problems in places such as Kashmir or the Falklands, which are still disputed.  Additionally, self-determination may not help us in cases such as that of the Falklands, where almost all the inhabitants are of British descent, since Argentina argues that they are in effect illegal settlers who have no right to be there in the first place.  Finally, the broader international context may mean that other interests or legal agreements must take precedence. For example, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997 not out of any desire of Hong Kong Chinese to self-determination but simply because Britain’s 99-year lease on the bulk of the territory was due to expire.  1 Cornell, Svante: “War in Georgia, Jitters All Round”, Current History, October 2008.   2 “Sudetenland”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2011.

negative: The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view.  Fincial and diplomatic engagement with the international community is essential for democracy to take hold. Tensions turn to conflict when governments are unable to provide basic services to the people, as was the case in Gaza when Hamas was elected in 2006 and the US and EU immediatey froze nearly all the funds and resources that were reaching the occupied territory. Furthermore, support from the West is necessary to provide the financial resources to rebuild after the revolutions damaged business and scared tourists away.  However the West’s does not support democracy unless the ruling party is guaranteed to act in the interests of the West. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States has either directly aided or executed the overthrow of over thirty foreign governments, many of which were popularly elected.a The US has in the past warned that aid to Lebanon could be jeopardized if Hezbollah was dominant in the government. [1] The US has a history of confrontation with the party that is the main political representation for the Shia element of Lebanese society which has eroded rather than supported Lebanese stability. [2] The victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections, winning 76 of 132 seats, did not result in any rapprochement with the Bush administration despite their professed desire to see democracy in the Middle East. [3] The result was that aid from Europe and the US was reduced to humanitarian aid only, rather than as before being a major element of Palestinian government income and expenditure. [4] The result being that in 2007 the ‘country’ was rent in two as Hamas seized control of Gaza. Of course another Middle Eastern state that holds democratic elections, Iran, is the very model of a pariah state from the western point of view. It seems that the west is less concerned about democracy in the middle east and more about stability.  a. Wikipedia, 'Covert United States foreign regime change actions;,   [1] ‘U.S. warns on ties with Hezbollah-backed Lebanon gov’t’, Reuters, 25 January 2011,   [2] Nicholas Noe, Lebanese government collapse: a history of missed opportunities, guardian.co.uk, 14th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Scott Wilson, Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast, Washington Post Foreign Service, 27th January 2006,  accessed 19/5/11  [4] Palestinian Parliamentary Elections 2006, GlobalSecurity.org,  accessed 19/5/11

negative: Federalization is a continual and on-going process. It does not happen overnight, and most importantly, it has been happening ever since the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) was founded. Therefore it is incorrect to think that there is anything like ‘hidden federalization,’ when its driving force are revisions of the common treaties which are agreed upon by all the member states. It is essential to point out that the EU is a democratic union, and member states joined the EU of their own accord. Becoming more federal would not affect this, there are many federal states that are democratic and not artificial such as Germany and the United States. Disposing of the unanimity requirement is not in any way harming the democratic principle of the EU as the changes will still have to be passed by Qualified Majority Vote. Strikingly, for many this is not enough, and other members have to understand that maybe without those who are not willing to move forward, the EU would be better off, what also means making tough decision of partially excluding those ‘backward’ states from further progress of the European Union. Concluding it in a single sentence, keeping the unanimity requirement intact servers only the egoistical needs of some specific nations.

negative: The referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of representative democracy EU membersh  Referendums are philosophically inconsistent with representative democracy. The public don’t have the time or resources to govern as effectively as Parliament: MPs have access to expert advice and are paid to learn about issues: the resources their position affords are a major justification for representative democracy. The UK must reverse its recent referendum trend (which only began in 1973) to avoid undermining government legitimacy and stability. In the status quo, referendums are deployed inconsistently, used as a political tool to hedge on issues, and used by parties to avoid tough internal conversations. Referendums also harm governmental accountability, which is key for a functional representative democracy because it protects voters. MPs avoid being held accountable by their constituents and fulfilling their own role in parliamentary democracy by using referendums to avoid taking a stance on politically contentious issues. In addition, the overuse of referendums causes governmental paralysis: see the US state of California’s initiative addiction. Referendums are a poor use of public funds: each costs £80-100 million 1 -- especially unacceptable since MPs can call referendums on a whim with no guidelines. In the current political, the referendum might tear apart the coalition government. Lib Dems and Conservatives are deeply divided from each other and internally over the issue. If the parties campaigned against each other the divisions formed during the AV campaign would widen. A broken coalition and new general election would interrupt government in a time of recession when the country desperately needs new policies and programs.  1 BBC NEWS DESK. February 1, 2011. “MPs reject Tory MP's call for 'in-out' EU referendum.” The BBC, accessed June 15, 2011.

negative: The UN charter is against it.  Article 2 of the UN charter requires all member states to ‘refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’.  Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which authorised the deployment of an international force to Kosovo to manage security and governance, explicitly affirmed the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the name for the Union of Serbia and Montenegro which ended in 2006) and the other States to that region. [1]  Recognition of an independent Kosovo is a violation of the territorial integrity of Serbia and thus a violation of the rights of the Serbian state.  [1] UN Security Council Resolution 1244

negative: The EU needs a dedicated defence force  It is important for the EU to have a defence policy independent of NATO. With its origins in the Cold War, and its preponderance of American influence, NATO carries a great deal of historical and geopolitical baggage. This means that NATO cannot easily intervene in Eastern Europe without incurring the displeasure of Russia. This was best proven during the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, when Georgia’s impending accession to NATO was seen as part of the incentive for Russian support to the ‘break-away’ regions in Georgia [1] . The European Defence Force will allow the EU to deal with crises in Eastern and Central Europe more effectively, as they will not have to tiptoe around Russia as much.  [1] Parsons, R. (8 August, 2008). Georgia pays price for its NATO ambitions. Accessed September 7, 2011 from:

negative: An independent Scotland would avoid having a referendum on EU membership  The Scottish National Party (SNP) has said that they would not hold an EU referendum in an independent Scotland. Scotland is [quote=Nicola Sturgeon] regardless of the direction of UK policy - Scotland is strongly committed to continuing within the EU as an independent nation [1] [/quote] A vote for independence would therefore be a vote for a stable relationship with Europe.  Interestingly should Scotland become independent and accede to the EU there would have to be a treaty change to provide for Scottish representation in EU institutions. [2] This could well trigger an EU referendum in the remainder of the UK (rUK) under the 'referendum lock'.  [1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013,  §9  [2] Avery, Graham, ‘HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 24 September 2012,  point 6.

negative: Scotland is more pro-EU than the rest of the UK  According to a February 2013 Ipsos-mori poll Scots want an EU referendum but 53% would vote to stay in the EU and only 34% would vote to leave. Indeed if Scotland became independent those who wanted it to be in the EU rose to 61% and the number who wanted out fell to 33%. [1] In England 48% would vote to leave (as of November 2012) and 44% would vote to stay in. [2] The UK Independence Party whose principal policy platform is a desire to leave the EU has performed considerably worse in Scotland than in England. In the 2010 general election UKIP received 3.1% of the vote [3] whereas in the Scottish election the next year they only received 0.9% of the vote. [4] Similarly in the 2009 European Parliament elections UKIP came second nationally receiving almost 2.5 million votes, 16.5% [5] of all votes cast but in Scotland it came 6th, beaten by all four main parties and the Greens receiving only 5.2% of the vote. [6] Scots clearly believe their interests lie with Europe and it would be better for Scotland not to be tied to a country where sentiment is considerably more negative towards the EU.  [1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013,   [2] Social Research Institute, ‘British public split on our future with the European Union’, Ipsos MORI, 15 November 2012,   [3] BBC News, ‘National Results’, Election 2010,   [4] BBC News, ‘Scotland elections’, Vote 2011,   [5] BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: UK Results’, Elections 2009,   [6] BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: Scotland’, Elections 2009,

negative: Constitutional ‘documents’ is exactly the problem. The EU is a very large (as of January 2007, 27 member states) international organisation with a considerable number of competencies and several important institutions. It is important to have one, clear document that precisely defines the different powers of, and relationships between the 27 member states, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Courts of Justice. But also the relationships between states that may have opted out of some parts of the EU; between those who are in Schengen and those who opted out, between those in the Eurozone and those outside. Complicated federal polities such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland have constitutions which define the limits of central power and the areas in which the states have autonomy; the EU should in this respect be no different.

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty Democracy itself is the delegating of decision making to elected officials and this is exactly what has taken place in the government's decision to not hold referendums but pass changes through national parliaments. Referenda undermines democracy by negating the representative government and parliamentary sovereignty, they have been chosen as the representatives of the people, by the people, and therefore have the right to make informed decisions on their behalf about what to do in the nation's best interests. If there are longer term issues with a government's decision then they can be made accountable at the next general election.