query: Tens of thousands of licence fee payers objected to this, ultimately they are the BBC’s key stakeholder and that view is worthy of respect.  As an institution, the BBC may like to position itself as a global media brand but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is funded by, and chartered to serve, the British population. The whole British population. That combination – paying the pipers and calling the tune – would suggest that the corporation might be sensitive to that group.  If 50,000 to 60,000 users of any other brand registered their protest or objection to a product put forward by that brand, it would cause chaos, resignations, sackings and a rethink of whatever strategy had caused the problem in the first place.  In the case of the BBC, it caused a few slightly dismissive comments from senior managers, one editor resigned because he felt that the protesters comments were not being taken seriously and the organisation continued as though nothing had happened.  The sheer arrogance required for that response beggars belief. The BBC, as a public institution has a duty of care that might be thought of as greater than that of a private corporation. And yet it gave the impression of acting like it was just one of the other venues who had staged the opera. There is clearly a difference between a theatre that I choose to attend or not – and choose whether to support financially – and the national broadcaster which is beamed into people’s living room paid for by a compulsory licence fee.

positive: nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme In the same way that the BBC is routinely criticised from the political Right for its Left-wing bias and from the Left for a supposed favouritism to the Right, maintaining balance in any sphere of life is difficult. Freedom of speech demands that such a balance is maintained, however hard to do. That balance can mean that last week’s bosom buddies may be this week’s fiercest foes. The reality of both free expression and a public service ethos mean that one cannot, constantly yield to the cry of ‘more of what I like’. Any broadcaster could not show a greater disrespect to its viewers than by assuming they could not be capable of dealing with new ideas.

negative: Flag burning does not serve as an effective method of conveying a message, since it is always met only with outrage and sometimes even violent public unrest  It is highly questionable whether burning a flag can be considered a speech or expressive act at all. It seems to offer up no new concepts or true opinions to the "marketplace of ideas". Nothing is genuinely expressed by the act that could not be done through words or other, less fiery means. The act of flag burning does nothing to help the advancement or elucidation of truth, which is why people have the right to freedom of expression in the first place. Rather, it clouds the issue supposedly being furthered by the act. It welcomes the rhetoric of "un-Americanism", whereby critics and commentators question the protestors' general patriotism, not the validity of their underlying cause, which can eventually lead to the same criticism of their cause itself. Anger clouds the discussion, with people viewing the cause in terms of unpatriotic people supporting the cause, and thus calling for patriots to oppose it. Examples of this problem can be seen clearly in the various protests during the Vietnam War in which misguided protestors burned flags to show their opposition to the war and killing of innocents. The response to these protests, however, were accusations of lack of patriotism on the parts of those involved and gave a powerful rhetorical tool to the political groups still supporting the fight1. Furthermore, when anger and rhetoric cloud all discussion of an issue, it can lead to unmeasured, even violent responses from authorities and concerned citizens. Flag burning is thus counterproductive as a tool of protest, since it stops the message being propagated and pollutes the forums of discourse from being able to search for answers reasonably.  1 Amar, Akhil. 1992. "The Case of the Missing Amendments: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul". Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository.

negative: Universities cut across class and social divides in a unique way  University is a great equaliser. One positive side-effect of people going through university is that they are virtually guaranteed to interact with people who are different from them in all sorts of ways – including ethnicity, where minority groups are sometimes better represented than they are in the general population, [1] and international students account for 17% of the university population. [2] The more this mixing happens, the easier it is for people to be tolerant and sensitive to other people. While this isn’t necessarily a problem everywhere, there are still places where these divides cause tension and violence, so the fact that our policy helps to tackle this makes it good.  Vocational courses are rather less likely to be mixed. Certain careers are associated with certain groups, and people studying for that specific career will be drawn largely from that group. For example, the clients of an accountancy course and a construction course are not likely to overlap very much, if at all. Despite whatever merits vocational education may have, government policy is not just about education: it should take into account the wider social good, and so we should be on the side which produces a more tolerant society.  [1] Sellgren, Katherine’, ‘Rise in ethnic minority students at UK universities’, BBC News, 3 February 2010  [2] ‘International students in UK higher education: key statistics’, UK Council for International Student Affairs, 2011-12

negative: Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable  Banning religious slaughter will be perceived by religious people as a direct attack on their faith. Historically, religious minorities have been susceptible to persecution, and these groups tend to remain quite sensitive. Often, people seeking to discriminate against a group will jump on the bandwagon of legitimate criticism and turn it into persecution. Religious slaughter has been used in this way in the recent past: a proposed ban in the Netherlands received much support from anti-Muslim groups. [1] This sort of persecution makes minorities less likely to integrate into society and compare values with us, which is exactly what we would like to encourage.  Appearances matter greatly in politics. All too often, the media focuses not on what is actually happening but on how people and politicians are talking about it. When a senior British politician was reported as having called a police officer a “pleb,” the result was outrage over perceived elitism in the government. [2] If a ban on religious slaughter were to be imposed, it is virtually guaranteed that someone or other would make insensitive comments, and this is how the ban would then be reported, as in the example from the Netherlands.  This ban would play into the hands of those seeking to stir hysteria and outrage. Whilst the principle may be correct, the government cannot appear to be siding with such people.  [1] ‘Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals’, BBC News, 28 June 2011,   [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Andrew Mitchell resigns over police comments row’, BBC News, 20 October 2012,

negative: The internet allows political dissidents to communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement.  Another extremely important requirement for successful opposition movements advocating democratic reform is the ability to organize mass numbers of people. It is one thing if you hate your government, but don’t think anyone else does. It is entirely different if you can access the thoughts of thousands of others and realize that you are in fact not alone 1. Proportionally the number of people benefiting from repressive authoritative regimes is very small in comparison to the people who are suffering. Therefore, if the people who are hurt by the regimes realize the numbers that they have, it spells trouble for the governments. The internet has 2 billion users, and 950 million people have mobile broadband 2. Mobile phones with pay-as-you-go access plans are more available and affordable than ever before. Protesters do not need to own a computer: they can access social networking and news sites from their phones. The internet means that opposition groups don’t have to be organized under a particular leader, as there can now be many leaders and various causes that fit under the same umbrella and band together. These loose connections, as in Egypt, strengthen the movement 3. The internet also reduces the cost of organization, which can be the difference between success and failure 4. In the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia which called for democracy, the internet was first used to create events on Facebook to increase the number of people aware of and attending protests 5. Then the videos, photographs, and twitter posts that became available on the internet increased the support for the movement as citizens became aware of the violence the government was subjecting the country to. The internet allows users to communicate, then organize demonstrations, and then grow the movement. All of these functions of the internet are essential factors of a grassroots push for democratic reforms.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010, pp. 101-118  2. Melanson, Donald, 'UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscriptions top five billion', engadget, 28 January 2011  3. BBC, "Egypt's opposition pushes demands as protests continue", 2011  4. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2010  5. Alexander, Anne (2011), "Internet Role in Egypt Protests", British Broadcasting Company,

negative: The status quo promotes non-transparency  Non-disclosure can be perceived as objectivity. It is easier for the public to criticise a think tank that is openly associated with a particular funder. That kind of prejudice is stronger than the more general the prejudice against non-disclosure. A person might distrust a non-transparent think tank, but dislike a think tank that is funded by an organisation they are already prejudiced towards. [1] In any comparison between two such organisations the distrusted organisation will have greater impact than the disliked organisation. [2] This gives non-transparent think tanks an advantage over transparent and honest ones. Billionaires are then able to buy influence by secretly funding organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation or the Institute of Economic Affairs that is then listened to, by the media and therefore the public, when their own views would simply be dismissed due to the personal motivations of the backers. [3] By forcing all think tanks to reveal their funding, we level the playing field.  [1] Bentley, Guy. “The state funding swindle: how left wing think-tanks are pulling taxpayer-funded wool over our eyes”, Commentary, The Commentator. 20 September 2012,   [2] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524.   [3] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013

negative: Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.  The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive [1] . Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves [2] . Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public [3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations.  In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned [4] , all of these organisations are “corporate”.  The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.” [5]  The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech  Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy.  Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article [6] , the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights.  [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012.   [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011.   [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.   [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641

negative: nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross.  People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater.  Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery [i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position.  The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself [ii] ; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept.  On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”. [iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved.  [i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010.  [ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”  [iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010,

negative: The People’s Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States constitution that attempts to address corporations’ increased freedom to engage in political campaigning. Referring to the First Amendment, section 2 of the PRA states “The word people, person or citizen as used in this constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State the United States or any foreign state.” [1]  The US Supreme Court justified striking down the BCRA by stating that “if the first amendment has any force, it prohibits congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” [2] However, the BCRA was never intended to limit US citizens' right to engage in effective and public political speech. The First Amendment to the constitution was not overridden by the BCRA. Newspapers remain effectively exempt from the powers granted to the FEC by the BCRA for this very reason, and, paraphrasing Justice Stevens’ opinion in Citizens United, it remains possible for the Supreme Court to challenge any attempt to legislate against freedom of the press – but such action has not yet been taken [3] .  Although ordinary citizens rely on corporate structures and company law to make the process of gathering and publishing publicly relevant information easier, corporate structures are also used to fulfil goals that are not related to the interests of the general public. Information released “in the public interest” is intended to be engaged with in a critical fashion. Voters receive information- even if it is biased- on the understanding that it represents an earnest commentary on the strengths and weaknesses and candidates' policies. Voters receive information during elections on the understanding that it relates directly to their interests and their welfare – to how they should vote.  The communications targeted by the BCRA, and by the proposition mechanism are those that seek to serve the interests of profit-led businesses by distorting political debate. The large raw materials business Pacific Lumber engaged in an abuse of direct democracy proceedings in Humboldt county, California, when it attempted to use a ballot initiative to remove the county's district attorney from office [4] . The attorney had brought a public suit [5] against Pacific Lumber after incompetent tree felling practices had caused flooding in the area. In plainer language, the corporation tried to use Humboldt County's electoral system to extricate itself from a court case brought by a state official. Such a bold and blatant move should not have been available to Pacific Lumber in the first place.  Balloting against Humboldt County's incumbent sheriff was conducted in a manner intended to mislead the public. The purpose underlying Pacific Lumber's actions was kept concealed from the citizens approached by the business's poll operatives. This runs contrary to the ideological objectives of ordinary political campaigning. Even inflexible ideologues that choose to hit the campaign trail will be acting to try and convince their audience that the normative content of their message has value and relevance for society as a whole. A campaign co-ordinated by a profit-led corporation will be geared only to serve the interests of that corporation.  Electioneering communications sponsored by corporations damage free speech by failing to contain any normative reasoning or content. They do not represent an honestly expressed view of the direction that society should take, of the policies that should be deployed to address flaws in society.  Far from limiting ordinary citizens’ access to the free speech protections that are a feature of liberal democracies, the proposition side are simply attempting to address an aspect of the on-going debate over the how best to protect the quality and vibrancy of free speech. It has always been necessary to ensure that free expression does not become a licence to exploit the credulous, but it is also important for democratic states to allow heterodox and unpopular ideas to be discussed as freely as those that receive widespread social approval. In this instance, legislation that was intended to achieve this objective in the USA has been exploited by corporations to use free expression to forward their own- very narrow- interests, usually under the guise of protecting others' essential freedoms and economic interests.  In cases such as this, where the marketplace of ideas has undergone a market failure, where legislation is being applied to scenarios that fall outside of the range of problems it was originally created to address, it is appropriate to reconsider the limits and purpose of freedom of expression. New legislation- including any proposed replacement for the BCRA- must take a case-specific approach to free speech issues due to the wide range of organisations that choose to define themselves as corporations. As discussed in the proposition side's substantive argument, the law must accord speech rights to corporations based on their stated goals, priorities and the groups whose interests they serve.  [1] “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations…” Joint resolution, United States House of Representatives.   [2] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [3] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [4] “Humboldt DA fights to keep job”. San Francisco Chronicle, 28 February 2004.   [5] “Humboldt County D.A. sues logging firm, alleging fraudulent practices”. Los Angeles Times, 26 February 2003.

negative: Why cause offence to no purpose?  The important issue here is the outcome. In most imaginable instances the person or group causing the offence has nothing to gain. If people of faith find things offensive in a way that a comparable devotee of Marx or Adam Smith does not, why cause that offence? We don’t wander around pointing out that people are ugly or fat – not because it isn’t true but because there is no reason to cause offence except in extreme circumstances [i] .  The Innocence of Muslims film is a perfect example; what was its point? As a conversion tool it seems utterly useless. It is hardly setting out detailed theological arguments, it doesn’t seem to be trying to make a point. It’s only apparent function seems to be to cause hurt and offence [ii] .  The idea that causing offence to some purpose may be an unavoidable bi-product of life would be one thing but in many cases there appears to be an intention to offend and if this is the case then it should be stopped.  Even where there is another purpose in mind, why not avoid causing offence wherever possible. In no other area of life would we comment of act in a way that may cause offence unless there was great need. If the creators of Innocence of Muslims wanted to point out failings in Islam then they could have had a reasoned documentary considering and weighing up evidence like Thomas Holland’s book ‘In the Shadow of the Sword’. [iii] Freedom of expression is not there to allow anyone to offend whoever they please.  Religious sensibilities should have a block on free expression in the same way other sensibilities do – in the usual course of events, they’re taken into account. Without great cause nobody would criticize troops at a veteran’s event or deliver a broadside against young people at a gathering of students. In the same way, should religious sensibilities, in and of themselves, be a block to freedom of speech? Yes. All other things being equal, should religious sensibilities be respected? Yes, of course.  [i] BBC material hosted on Youtube. Conversation between Jonathan Miller and Daniel Dennett. The Atheist Tapes.  [ii] Omid Safi. Religion News. What would Mohammed do? 12 September 2012.  [iii] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012,

negative: Moving now would be unfair to the other bidders  Qatar beat bids from Australia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan to win the right to stage the 2022 World Cup. Moving it to another date other than the one they all had to include in their bidding offers would be unfair towards the losers of that bidding process.  When submitting their bids to FIFA for hosting the World Cup, every nation has to consider a lot of factors in order to decide the budget, the venues, etc. One of the biggest and most important factors is of course the date of the World Cup. Each country had to take into consideration the events that happened in that respective time frame in their area, how long it would take to build the facilities, the organizing staff’s availability and many other factors. As a result others bidding offers would have been different if the event were to take place in winter, instead of summer. The FFA chairman, Frank Lowy broke cover to call on the world game's ruling body to promise that "just and fair compensation should be paid to those nations that invested many millions, and national prestige, in bidding for a summer event if the tournament is shifted to Qatar's winter".(1) As the race was extremely close, any change in the parameters that determined the winner could have a significant impact on the outcome of the race. Football League chairman Greg Clarke, who was part of England's 2018 bid delegation three years ago when Qatar won the vote for 2022, said “FIFA should run the vote again rather than switch the tournament to the winter”.(2)  Undoubtedly, it is fairness and equality that must be prioritized in deciding the winner of such a big event, which would bring a lot of social and economic benefits to the winner. As a result, there mustn’t be any room for error, but changing the date of the World Cup creates exactly such a problem and looks like favouritism.  (1) Owen Gibson “FIFA tells Australia to forget about £25m World Cup bid compensation” The Guardian, 17 September 2013   (2) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013

negative: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system  Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system.  As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising.  Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States [1] .  Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter. [2]  Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.  [1] Heath Care in the United States.   [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  , accessed 07/30/2011

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at  Many child performers would undoubtedly protest if their right to perform were taken away from them, and justly so. This can be seen in quotes from the likes of Roddy McDowall, who said in an interview in 1963 that he “had a particularly wonderful time” as a child actor, [1] and would presumably have been quite upset had a ban been enforced in his lifetime. It is beyond the rights of the government to make illegal an opportunity that allows those talented on the stage, in front of a camera, on the pitch, etc. (who might well not be so strong in other, e.g., academic, areas) to make a living from doing what they do best.  Some child performers have also proved to be extremely business savvy – the ‘Olsen Twins’ have built a massive industry off of their Disney stardom.  [1] BBC News. ‘Actor McDowall dies aged 7 0

negative: Public bodies require the ability to discuss proposals freely away from public scrutiny  Knowing that everything is likely to be recorded and then published is likely to be counter-productive. It seems probable that anything sensitive – such as advice given to ministers by senior officials – would either not be recorded or it would be done in a way so opaque as to make it effectively meaningless [i] .  By contrast knowing that such conversations, to focus on one particularly example, are recorded and can be subjected to public scrutiny when there is a proven need to do so ensures that genuine accountability – rather than prurience or curiosity, is likely to be both the goal and the outcome.  None of us would like the process of how we reached decisions made public as it often involves getting things wrong a few times first. However, there are some instances where it is important to know how a particular decision was reached and whether those responsible for that decision were aware of certain facts at the time – notably when public figures are claiming that they were not aware of something and others are insisting that they were. In such an instance the right to access is useful and relevant; having records of every brainstorming session in every public body is not. As the Leveson inquiry is discovering, an extraordinary amount of decisions in government seem to be made informally, by text message or chats at parties. Presumably that would become evermore the case if every formal discussion were to be published [ii] .  [i] The Pitfalls of Britain’s Confidential Civil Service. Samuel Brittan. Financial Time 5 March 2010.  [ii] This is nothing very new, see: Downing Street: Informal Style. BBC website. 14 July 2004.

negative: Corporates that attempt to address social issues damage political discourse.  Corporate personhood is a challenging concept for liberal democracies. On the one hand, the legal fiction that underlies personhood enables groups of citizens to quickly and efficiently join forces to make collective grievances heard and to use weight of numbers to match the influence of wealthier individuals. However, corporations, particularly in the business context, can also be large and unaccountable organisations.  This proposition must address two issues. First, whether acts of free expression engaged in by corporations generally should benefit from the same protection as acts of expression engaged in by individuals. Second, whether there should be more scrutiny of the membership and objectives of corporations – or whether corporations should receive rights conditional on their activities.  If we follow the reasoning in the Citizens United case, which radically changed the interpretation of corporate speech rights in American law, it is clear that acts of corporate speech should benefit from a high standard of protection. Corporations can take the form of churches, trades unions or political campaigning groups [1] . The fiction of personhood allows these organisations to operate more freely, ignoring many of the bureaucratic burdens associated with partnership organisations. It also allows citizens to found non-profit making groups, such as PACs, without the risk of being made liable for the debts that those groups generate.  Profit-led corporations may be used to publish examples of free expression, without necessarily wishing to influence or misuse the ideas expressed. The publishers of political science textbooks, of annotated editions of Kapital and of Capitalism and Freedom are still profit-led businesses. In short, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. For this reason, where a corporation is permitted to engage in free expression, the contents of its acts of expression should not be subject to restrictions that differ radically from those applied to individual acts of expression.  But what about the second issue? Natural persons are allowed- as a general rule- a broad right to free expression. This right is subject to certain caveats, but there is always a presumption that expression should be free and subject to as few limitations as possible. Should corporations benefit from the same presumption? No. The proposition side suggests that corporations’ access to constitutional free speech rights should depend on their goals, objectives and membership.  Corporations, unlike natural persons, are inflexible in their motives and influences. Free speech is preferable to conflict because it acts as a conduit for compromise, but before compromise can take place it must be possible for the participants and audience in a discussion or an exchange of views to be influenced by their opponents’ arguments. Profit-led corporations owe a very specific duty to their shareholders- the individual who support and constitute the corporation. Under the corporate-laws of almost all liberal democracies, business corporations must act in their interests, and this invariably means generating profit and increasing the value of the equity that each shareholder has in the business [2] . Because this duty is a legal one, and failure to uphold it can be cause to remove corporate decision makers (directors and executives) from their jobs and even to bring them to trial.  This behavioural imperative is absolute. Were a business corporation to announce that it would no longer operate with profit as its core priority, it would collapse [3] . Even if this process might not be inevitable in the real world, it still informs corporate culture to a significant degree. Natural persons are flexible and pragmatic; at the very least they have the potential to be so. Profit-led corporations are not. Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.  [1] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US  [2] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004  [3] “Kay needs to replace ‘shareholder value’ with ‘corporate value’.” Professor Simon Deakin. Financial times, 20 March 2012.

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel has no right to the occupied territories.  Because Israel won the land during war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it. [1] In July 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion observing that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections, but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation. [2] Even the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that “Judea and Samaria [a.k.a. The West Bank] areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” [3] Therefore, Israel has no better claim to these lands than that it won them in a war, which is an illegitimate claim under international law, and also illegitimate as a thinly-disguised, morally abhorrent “might makes right” argument. The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. [4] A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. One bad act does not justify another bad act in return. Moreover, it is notable that the nations which Israel took Gaza and the West Bank from in 1967 (Egypt and Jordan, respectively) were not representative nations of the areas' majority inhabitants, the Palestinian people. [5] It is thus illegitimate for Israel to claim ownership of Palestinian land because it defeated non-Palestinian nations in a war, and Israel should therefore return to its pre-1967 borders, leaving Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. International Court of Justice, United Nations Organisation. July 2004.   [3] The Supreme Court of Israel. “Mara'abe vs The Prime Minister of Israel”. The Supreme Court of Israel. June 2005.   [4] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [5] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.

negative: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or "chavs." This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns.  1 'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010 , accessed 24th July 2011

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be A South Ossetian state is unviable  There are many factors that make South Ossetia unviable as a state. South Ossetia is very small with a very small population. It is also a landlocked state and very poor. These facts make it unlikely that South Ossetia could act effectively as an independent state. The result is that it would become dependent on other states. [1] This can already be seen from the fact that S. Ossetia has only been able to secure its current de facto independence with substantial military and foreign aid from Russia. [2] S. Ossetia is economically unviable as an independent state. It is landlocked and only has meaningful road access to the sea through Georgia. S. Ossetian GDP was estimated at US$ 15 million (US$ 250 per capita) in a work published in 2002. S. Ossetia is arguably lacking in the basic economic necessities for autonomy. Indeed, a $15 million GDP would make South Ossetia one of the poorest nations in the world. Particularly following a war with Georgia in the 1990s, South Ossetia has struggled economically. Employment and supplies are scarce. The majority of the population survives on subsistence farming. Virtually the only significant economic asset that South Ossetia possesses is control of the Roki Tunnel that links Russia and Georgia, from which the South Ossetian government reportedly obtains as much as a third of its budget by levying customs duties on freight traffic. The separatist officials admitted that Tskhinvali received more than 60 percent of its 2006 budget revenue directly from the Russian government. [3] [4] Finally, S. Ossetia has a population of roughly 70,000. [5] This would make it one of the smallest states in the world. This fact, combined with its high level of poverty, makes it a poor candidate for independence, and shows that its “independence” would compel it to become even more dependent on Russia, or else risk disintegrating as an unviable state.  [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [2] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.   [3] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.   [4] Vaisman, Daria. “No recognition for breakaway South Ossetia's vote”. The Christian Science Monitor. 10 November 2006.   [5] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.

negative: nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross Declaration of the faith is a key part of Christianity and that should be respected.  The UK is a nation that claims to be tolerant of all faiths and to respect religious beliefs. If that is the case then it must be accepted that the law should respect actions in accordance with those beliefs insofar as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Demonstrating one’s commitment to the cross is part of that faith [i] and should, therefore be shown some respect in a religiously diverse and tolerant society.  There may be more militant forms of religious profession that would be inappropriate in a workplace but wearing a simple piece of jewellery causes no harm or offence to others.  Both women have stated that they felt that wearing the cross was an important part of their faith [ii] and respect for those beliefs should be shown if society’s claims of tolerance and diversity are to have credibility.  As with the demonstration of any right, the fact that its exercise may not be convenient does not supersede its validity. Indeed the only way of demonstrating that a society is, in fact, a tolerant one is, by definition, when it tolerates the exercise of legitimate practices which are inconvenient.  [i] Galatians 6:14 among others  [ii] BBC News Website. “Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida Take Cross Fight to Europe.” 12 March 2012.

negative: africa global law human rights international law house believes Fear of prosecutions cause leaders to do more damage  Instead of giving up fighting, leaders continue to fight, disrupting the ability of a country to move on, for fear of prosecution. Pol Pot, for example, rebuilt armies and continued to fight long after his regime was overthrown, killing thousands more people. Had an amnesty been offered, he might well have given up and allowed the country to heal with far less death. Joseph Kony also continues to plague Uganda from within bush land even though he has offered to surrender for amnesty, because the ICC refuses to grant him any indemnity for his crimes [1].  [1] BBC news Africa, ‘LRA leader Joseph Kony 'in surrender talks' with CAR’, bbc.co.uk, 20 November 2013,

negative: Publication is inconsistent with other legislation.  Publication of the book provides another symbol for European neo-Nazis who present a very real threat. The Swastika and Nazi salute remain banned in Germany and other jurisdictions; this should be added to that list. [i]  If Mein Kampf were one of a kind, there might be an argument in favour of treating it in the manner suggested by Proposition. However, the reality is that it isn’t. All sorts of Nazi imagery remain banned and not just in Germany and not just because others find them offensive. They are banned because they serve as rallying points for some of the most dangerous elements in society who, in turn, pose a very real and immediate threat to the physical well-being of groups ranging from immigrant to Jews to homosexuals.  The real issue of consistency, if the Swastika is banned, then why not add Mein Kampf to the list? At the time of the prohibition of these other images, there was no need to do so as it was unavailable as a result of copyright. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, had that not been the case, it would have been banned at the time. All additional legislation would do now is to rectify an historical oversight.  [i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012,

negative: Private schools provide a better education than state schools  In 2007, Time the US magazine discovered that private schools in the US received much higher SAT scores that the state counterparts. Research suggests that private education puts a greater emphasis on critical thinking, while state schools emphasise memory and learning by rote (time.com). These types of critical skills mean that students from private schools have a better start at university education as they are more used to what will be required of them. Furthermore, students from private schools are more likely to get into a university in the first place (Time, 2007/ BBC, 2010). In the US students are twice as likely to get the grades allowing them to go to university if they have had a private education, and for minority groups in America it is more than double (Capenet.org, 2001). This is likely to be replicated across the world. Private schools in Brazil also provide better education, as there is one teacher per 10 students in comparison to the 45-50 students per class in a government funded school. (Cabra; and Throssell 2010). Therefore by denying private education the effect may be disastrous for these minority groups.

negative: No country can pay its bills or increase the prosperity of its citizens if it is wasting money on unnecessary programmes. The principle problem with government funding is that it is not addressing any of the problems that Proposition raises. In many countries, The ideology of state intervention is has made government ever larger, building ever more excessive and bloated bureaucratic empires with fiefdoms and sinecures for every busybody and apparatchik more interested in monitoring change than making it, and more concerned with process than people.  It is not uncommon – indeed it is not even unusual - for private sector organisations to shed ten percent of their workforce when the judge themselves to have become uncompetitive, unprofitable or administratively unwieldy. Both the governments of France and Canada have done that in recent years and yet maintain high standards of government support [i] .  For average public sector wages to be out stripping those of the private sector (who ultimately pay them) is ridiculous. It becomes more worrying when preferential health and pension plans – where the public sector outstrips the private by nearly four to one are taken into account [ii] .  There is no question that it would be great if everybody could earn more, have more lucrative and more secure pensions, the world would be a nicer place. However, to penalise those who are making the money to subsidise those who aren’t simply makes no sense.  Typically a government’s solution to an issue like child poverty is to establish a commission to discuss it – when it reports several years later it informs the waiting nation who paid for it that the solution might well be if their parents had a job. Most people could have figured this out in two minutes and at no cost [iii] .  [i] "Big government: Stop!" The Economist. January 21st, 2010  [ii] Dan Arnall. ABC News. Working in America: Public vs. Private Sector. 18 February 2011.  [iii] Michael Cloud. “Why Not Big Government. Five Iron Laws.” The Centre for Small Government.

negative: th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease  A needle exchange as mentioned in the introduction allows drug users to trade in dirty needles for new ones. This can prevent disease simply by preventing transfer of fluids from one drug user to another. As such, if one drug addict has HIV and has not yet been diagnosed it becomes less likely that he will transmit the disease to another person. Further, many drug addicts fail to even consider the possibility of infection via dirty needles, the mere presence of a needle exchange in the nearby vicinity causes drug addicts to be more aware of the dangers associated with dirty needles.  Further, the liberalising effect that needle exchanges have on public opinion can often cause societal change that allows needles to be bought over the counter. This is especially good in targeting drug users who do not wish to reveal that they have an addiction and allows them use of clean needles.  To back this up it has been found by some researchers that, there has been a one-third reduction in HIV prevalence in New Haven, Connecticut, after its NEP had been in operation for only 4 months. Researchers found an 18.6% average annual decrease in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had introduced an NEP, compared to an 8.1% annual increase in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had never introduced NEPs. HIV prevalence among NEP attenders in a Canadian city was low, even though high-risk behaviors were common. Injecting drug users in Seattle who had formerly attended an NEP were found to be more likely than non-exchangers to reduce the frequency of injection, to stop injecting altogether, and to remain in drug treatment, while new users of the NEP were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than never-exchangers."1  1. Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004 www.mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/Needle%20Exchange.pdf

negative: Protecting sovereignty  The international community should respect the sovereignty of developing nations. Side proposition has attempted to mischaracterise states in receipt of aid as undemocratic, authoritarian, kleptocratic or Hobbesian wastelands. Side proposition has done precious little to acknowledge that many states that are reliant on ODA are functioning or emerging democracies. Kenya, despite its growing wealth and increasing trade with Asian states still makes extensive use of aid donations. In 2012 Kenya will hold elections for seats in its national legislature – its first since a presidential election degenerated into political violence in 2007. However, even this extended period of civil disorder was brought to an end when the main contenders in the presidential ballot agreed a power sharing deal – a peaceful compromise that has now been maintained for almost five years [i] .  Reducing government aid to developing democracies prevents these states from allocating aid in accordance with their citizens’ wishes. In the world created by the resolution, aid distribution will be carried out by foreign charities that may have objectives and normative motives at odds with the aspirations of a government and its citizens. There is a risk that governments will abandon heterodox or non-liberal approaches to democracy in an effort to obtain tools and support from NGOs that they would otherwise be unable to afford. State actors will be placed in a position where any action they take will entail a significant sacrifice of political authority. A state that capitulates readily to the demands of a foreign NGO will not be seen as a robust representative of the national political will; it will be considered weak. Similarly, a state that refuses to accepting funding or the donations of new infrastructure materials will be forced to deal with the consequences of prolonged fiscal and economic deprivation within its borders.  NGOs are, as a general rule undemocratic, unaccountable interest groups. Like any other private organisation, they are not bound by the transparency and freedom of information regimes that western governments have submitted to. In many states, especially India, NGOs are subject to less regulation and less stringent accounting requirements than for-profit businesses. The American or European origins of the wealthiest NGOs, along with the large numbers of western professionals that they employee make auditing and judicial supervision of their activities difficult for poorer states. It can be complicated and expensive to challenge international conflicts in private law regimes; it can be equally complicated for new governments to renege on agreements that their predecessors may have concluded with NGOs.  Popular concern about the safety of western citizens working for NGOs in foreign states can lead to unbearable diplomatic pressure being applied to governments that attempt to discipline organisations that exceed the authority they have been granted or adopt a lax attitude to national laws or social taboos. An attempt by a French charity to evacuate one hundred and three children from Chad to Europe was subject to wide spread criticism [ii] when it emerged that the charity had produced fake visas for the children and had attempt to conceal the operation from Chadian authorities. The charity had previously published press material that contained open admissions that it was acting without the support of any national government or international organisation. Nonetheless, the French government attempted to influence the outcome of the criminal investigation that was mounted against the Charity’s workers [iii] .  The resolution would remove control over development policy from emergent representative institutions created at great financial and political cost. The resources and political capital normally bound up in ODA would then be transferred to NGOs that may be less accountable than national governments, that may sow conflict within divided communities, and may act unilaterally and without respect for the laws of aid receiving states. The message that the resolution would communicate is directly contradictory to the ethos of responsible, accountable and democratic intervention in marginalised or failing states that has underlain the last twenty years of development policy.  [i] “Deal to end Kenyan crisis agreed.” BBC News Online. 12 April 2008.   [ii] “Profile: Zoe’s Ark.” BBC News Online. 29 October 2007.   [iii] “’Families weren’t duped’, Zoe’s Ark duo tell court.” Sydney Morning Herald. 24 December 2007.

negative: economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Capitalists often disregard the fact that people, although being individuals, also are formed by their social circumstances 1/2. People's class belonging, sexuality, sex, nationality, education etc. have a major impact on people's opportunities; there might be cases of individuals achieving the American dream like Barack Obama despite their social background, however this is not applicable to the majority of people. In capitalism the people with the most opportunities are usually the people who have the most capital, take the example of university students: universities in many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom charge students high tuition fees, if one is not wealthy enough to pay for these fees the likelihood to continue into further education is much lower (if a loan is provided one would have to risk to be indebted for a long period of one's life, or not have the opportunity to study at university at all)3. This can by no means be called an equal opportunity for everyone. It is not enough to provide opportunities; people must also be in a position to grab them.  1 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi : hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet. (S. T. Olsson, Ed.). Falun: Wahlstr

negative: political philosophy politics terrorism house believes terrorism can be Corrupt states  States or institutions created in concession to terror are often corrupt, dominated by men of violence with links to organised crime. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used. Terrorist organisations have often a military and violent character. The sort of people who attracted to committing acts of terror often glorify illegitimate acts of violence and justify the possible harm done to civilians by proving their complicity or the outcome of the actions. More precisely, they have only the interest of their ideology or the minority they are supporting. When these people are put in a position of power, they are likely to follow the same lines as before, especially when they do not have a political background. They are likely to be ignorant of how political processes work, and will appoint people that have the ideology in other powerful positions. This will make the whole political system inefficient and biased towards a minority or a fringe interest. As a result, level of corruption could rise, and in extreme cases people with other opinions can be persecuted. Iran went from a Westernizing state to an Islamic one, and is now hostile to dissidents. [1]  [1] BBC News. (2012). Iran Profile, Retrieved 17 February 2012 from BBC News:

negative: Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide  Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status.

negative: Tibetans want independence, not the 'Middle Way'  The Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' is far from popular amongst the Tibetan population. Many ordinary Tibetans have criticised the Dalai Lama's conciliatory approach to China. His refusal to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games is symbolic of this conciliatory approach where the majority of the Tibetan population, particularly the young disagreed with him. "China does not deserve to host the Olympics. It's evident that they do not deserve the Olympics," said Tsewang Rigzin, the leader of the Tibetan Youth Congress, at Dharamshala in 2008. [1]  Tsewang Rigzin also stated “There is a growing frustration within the Tibetan community, especially in the [younger] generation... I certainly hope the Middle Way approach will be reviewed. As we can see from the protests here and all over the world, the Tibetan people remain committed to achieving independence.” [2]  The (sometimes violent) 2008 protests made it clear that many Tibetans don't support the Dalai Lama's peaceful, non-revolutionary, non-independence 'Middle Way'. The Dalai Lama even had to threaten to resign if violent protests continued. Clearly, these protests showed that the Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' lacks support amongst the young of Tibet – the individuals who will comprise successive generations of political, religious and business leaders. [3]  Within Tibet, pro-independence protesters have recently had more leverage than 'Middle Way' voices. The 'Middle Way' is a nuanced approach to the Tibetan issue and, therefore, is a less potent rallying for Tibetans who have been marginalised or excluded by Chinese policies in the region. Calls for Tibetan Independence mobilise more support among grass-roots activists in other areas of the world. [4] This is valuable, and is an argument in favour of, at least, continuing to call for Tibetan Independence, not merely the 'Middle Way'; it has a greater impact.  In this situation, it makes no sense for the Dalai Lama to alienate so many of his young people, so many of the most dedicated to the Tibetan cause, by preaching his 'Middle Way' when he should be calling for what his people truly want and need -Tibetan independence.  [1] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.   [2] Bell, Thomas. “Tibetans criticise Dalai Lama's 'middle way'”. The Telegraph. 18 March 2008.   [3] The Economist. “Trashing the Beijing Road”. The Economist. 19 March 2008.   [4] The Economist. “A flaming row”. 9 Arpil 2008.

negative: 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,

negative: Amnesties are unpopular; governments need to get tougher if they want to be reelected.  Amnesties are unpopular, in the UK for example 65% of the population wants tougher immigration laws, [1] and so most governments are unlikely to resort to them except as a last resort. Instead of granting an amnesty governments need to get tougher on illegal immigrants in order to find, deport and deter them. This would be a much more popular policy and could be achieved using better monitoring and communications between departments. For example in the United States the Inland Revenue Service knows where millions of illegals live and are employed as they know 600,000 people work under the Social Security number 000-00-0000, presumably many more were used different made up numbers. [2] This would therefore not only catch illegal immigrants but would help end misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers. There are also other tactics that can make illegal immigration more difficult and less likely to pay such as preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licences or, as in Tennessee, employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants can have their business licence suspended. [3]  [1] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010,   [2] Sensenbrenner, James F., et al., ‘Social Security Better Coordination among Federal Agencies Could Reduce Unidentified Earnings Reports’, United States Government Accountability Office, February 2005, p.3.   [3] Department of Labor and Workforce Development, ‘Illegal Alien Employment Act Frequently Asked Questions’, Tn.gov,

negative: Sponsors pay for the privilege  Sponsors pay an enormous amount of money to support events such as the Olympics, it is only fair that they can protect themselves against ‘ambush advertising’ by competitors. This is an issue of simple financial reality. Although there have been some unpleasant – and probably unwise – accounts of smaller traders getting caught up in the crossfire, and opposition concedes that should be rectified in future events – the purpose of this kind of legislation and the regulations it spawns is to prevent direct competitors of sponsors finding ways to ambush the event [i] .  The issue of concern is not really a lone athletics fan wandering into the final of the Men’s 100m with a can of Pepsi. The intention is clearly to prevent representatives of that company standing outside the venue handing out thousands of free T-shirts.  There have been some problems with the implementation of this legislation but the principle remains sound and serves to the benefit of all. The alternative would be both Coke and Pepsi reps handing out T-shirts outside and the organisers of the event not getting a penny from either. It is only fair that those who pay the piper to a certain extent get to call the tune.  [i] London 2012: Coe Sparks Olympic Sponsorship Row. Shiv Malik. The Guardian. 20 July 2012.

negative: It causes problems in schools  Like in society as a whole, religious symbols are divisive. It marks some out as different from the others, which could cause bullying. They may also be impractical for PE, technology or science lessons where they get in the way.  Face veils also mean that people’s lips cannot be seen when they are speaking, which can cause problems with communication (especially with any D/deaf people who lip read). For this reason, a UK court considered it reasonable for a school to not permit a teacher to teach while wearing a face veil [1] .  [1] BBC News, ‘School sacks woman after veil row’, 24 November 2006,  . See court case listed higher up for full legal decision (resource for teachers).