query: The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.  In our traditional human rights there is a hole when it comes to a right to receive and be able to seek out information. Almost everyone would consider freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be human rights but these rights are not very effective if there is not a way for those who wish to access that information. Michael L Best contends that Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on freedom of expression implies some symmetry but that freedom of authorship is privileged over freedom of readership. [1] In short governments could allow freedom of expression while ensuring that those expressing dissenting views have a very minimal audience without breaking human rights.  A right to the internet is the perfect human right to fill this gap. The internet is estimated to have over 35 billion web pages, [2] and the most recent digital universe study estimates that 1.8 trillion gigabytes would be created in 2011. [3] The sheer size of the internet means that it is the ideal medium for providing this right to access information. [4] The internet is also increasingly accessible to everyone making it possible to be considered universal; it is no longer something that the poor cannot hope to have access to. There are already over 2.1 billion people using the internet worldwide including 118 million in Africa. [5]  [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23 (n.b. this link comes up with a warning when opened, dont worry it is safe - ahelling)  [2] World Wide Web Size.com, ‘The size of the World Wide Web (The Internet)’, 17 April 2012 .  [3] McGaughey, Katryn, ‘World’s Data More Than Doubling Every Two Years – Driving Big Data Opportunity, EMC2, 28 June 2011.  [4] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23  [5] Clayton, Nick, ‘Internet has More Than 2 Billion Users’, TechEurope The Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2012.

positive: access information house believes internet access human right The freedom of speech does not mean that there is a right to reach as broad an audience as possible. It does not mean there is a fundamental right to access the internet or any other individual medium of communication. If indeed there is some kind of ‘gap’ in human rights it does not mean that it has to be filled by creating some spurious new right for individuals to enjoy. If there was a lack of recognition of a freedom of readership then this is because there is no need for the human right to exist let alone in a form that privileges access to the internet over other forms of information access.

negative: We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.  Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside.  Government aid programs from democracies in Western Europe and America are already concerned with promoting human rights including freedom of speech. Australia’s aid program for example has a Human Rights Fund of $6.5 million per year that provides grants to among other things “educate and/or train human rights victims, workers or defenders”. [2] Enabling victims of human rights abuse to get around their government’s censorship is the obvious next step.  The concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’ introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 provided that when governments were unable or unwilling to protect their own citizens then that responsibility devolves to the international community and may ultimately lead to military action for particularly gross violations. This responsibility to react should be “with appropriate measures” [3] and for the breach of the human right of freedom of expression providing a method to enable those whose freedom of expression/speech is being violated to exercise this right is the most appropriate and proportional response.  [1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Article 19’, 1946.  [2] AusAID, ‘Human rights and Australia’s aid program’, Australian Government, 22 February 2012.  [3] Evans, Garath and Mohamed Sahnoun Chair’s, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Center, December 2001, p.XI.

negative: e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship  Governments are trying to control what citizens can and can’t say online and what they can and can’t access. This can vary from France and Germany requiring Google to suppress Nazism in search results [1] to the Great Firewall of China, where the Chinese government almost fully controls what’s said and seen on the internet and has an army of censors. [2]  This type of internet censorship is bad because citizens should have freedom of speech and uninhibited access to information, [3] a right so fundamental that we have enshrined it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [4] and reaffirmed by the participants of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. [5]  [1] Zittrain and Edelman, Localized Google search result exclusions, 2005  [2] Internet censorship in China, 2010  [3] Free Speech Debate, 2012  [4] article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights  [5] Declaration of Principles, article 4, 2003

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent  The universality of human rights, of the freedom of speech and of due process is all touted as crucial by the world’s democracies. Democratic countries are frequently vocal on the subject of liberty, on the superiority of their system of government that provides for the best protection of human dignity. By offering amnesty to bloggers, the people standing at the forefront of the democratic cause in oppressive regimes, Western countries take a largely low-cost action that provides for the security and safety of some the bravest people in the public arena. The West must stop kowtowing to oppression and make a stand to offer an umbrella of protection to those who need it. That protection is absolutely crucial to the development of more dissent in the blogosphere and on the ground. Only by nurturing dissent can it ever take root and overcome the vast powers of authoritarian government. The promise of protection is hugely powerful because it gives bloggers a safety net to fall back on. Those already active will feel more empowered to speak out against their oppressors, and some currently cowed by fear will have the courage to speak up. The guarantee of amnesty also removes the perceived randomness of such offerings that currently occur, as in the recent case of Cuba in which two bloggers of similar pedigree asked for asylum in the US, but only one received it. [1] Such inconsistency has bred fear in the minds of dissidents. This policy would correct for it and help bolster the cause of justice on all fronts. It is through offering amnesty that democracies can provide the catalyst for the change they avow to be the paramount aim of human civilization.  [1] Fox News Latino. “Cuba: Prominent Blogger-Dissidents Receive Contradictory Results on Visa Petitions”. 31 January 2013.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights  Autocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III),   [2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171,   [3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar,  p.54

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.  We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases.  [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11  [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11

negative: access information house believes internet access human right Being a human right does not prevent commoditization going alongside this. Everyone has a right to own property, as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, but it is accepted that property is also valuable in a commercial sense. Or more generally everyone has a right to shelter and this means that governments provide council housing and shelters for the homeless at the same time as houses often having very high prices. The human right is for a very basic level while those who wish can pay for more.

negative: While this might be a valid argument if the United Nations Committee for Internet Related Policies means handing over governance to an individual state it is difficult to question that collectively through the United Nations system states have generally worked to improve citizens quality of life and human rights. CIRP will be just such a multilateral institution so will not be a threat to freedom on the internet. It is even suggested that the mandate for the new organisation include “the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development”. Even those who don’t want governmental control accept that there is a need for some form of constitution with a bill of rights and some kind of board for review [1] – thus showing that under ICANN the internet is not governed in the interests of the users.  [1] ‘ A plaything of powerful nations’, The Economist, 1 October 2011.

negative: Western democracies have a moral duty to aid the liberation of oppressed people where it can effectively do so  Western democracies make frequent declarations about the universality of certain rights, such as freedom of speech, or from arbitrary arrest, and that their system of government is the one that broadly speaking offers the most freedom for human development and respect for individuals. They make avowals in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and the need for reforms. Take for example Obama addressing the UN General assembly in 2012 where he said “we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values; they are universal values.” [1]  By subverting internet censorship in these countries, Western countries take an action that is by and large not hugely costly to them while providing a major platform for the securing of the basic human rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression, they claim are so important. Some potential actions might include banning Western companies from aiding in the construction of surveillance networks, or preventing Western-owned internet service providers from kowtowing to repressive regimes’ censorship demands. [2] Few of these regimes would be able to build and maintain their own ISPs and all the equipment for monitoring and tracking they use. [3] Other actions might include providing software to dissidents that would shield their identities such as Tor. [4] All of these are fairly low cost endeavours. The West has an absolute duty to see these and other projects through so that their inaction ceases to be the tacit condolence of repression it currently is.  [1] Barak Obama, ‘President Obama’s 2012 address to U.N. General Assembly (Full text)’, Washington Post, 25 September 2012,   [2] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006,   [3] Elgin, Ben, and Silver, Vernon, ‘The Surveillance Market and Its Victims’, Bloomberg, 20 December 2011,   [4] Tor, Anonymity Online,

negative: The internet should be governed in the interests of freedom  The internet is used by everyone and so should be governed in such a way as reflects the desires of the users of the internet; and this is somewhere where internet users are often at odds with their governments. Where the freedom of individuals are concerned it is undoubtedly the bottom up system of ICANN which will be less restrictive than the option of top down control through an international organisation in which governments have the lion’s share of the power. While governments are meant to be protecting the interests of their people and their rights it is rare that this is actually the case. More usually it is states that are violating the rights of their citizens both online and offline as is shown by the human rights records of countries like Iran and China. On the internet government involvement equally regularly means attempts by states to create restrictions and prevent the internet from being a place where citizens have freedom of expression. This can even be the case in democracies, for example in South Korea a critic of the government who called the president names found his twitter account blocked as a result. [1]  [1] Sang-Hun, Choe, ‘Korea Policing the Net. Twist? It’s South Korea.”, The New York Times, 12 August 2012.

negative: Internet anonymity enables citizens to exercise their right to free speech  Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously. [1] Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences.  The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions. [2]  Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions. [3]  [1] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL:   [2] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL:   [3] University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL:

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression These people are under serious threat for their pursuit of justice  The internet has become the paramount means of voicing dissent within repressive regimes. As the technology regimes have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology adding to their already formidable arsenals of physical oppression, the internet has become the only platform to express meaningful dissent. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been dubbed the Twitter Revolution. [1] Bloggers have become a major voice of dissent in other repressive regimes, including Cuba and China. Yet the blog platform is far from safe. Governments have sought to crack down on bloggers’ ability to dissent, using draconian methods like imprisonment to cow them into silence. In China the arrests of bloggers like Zhai Xiaobing, who was arrested and detained for simply posting a joke about Communist Party, have served to frighten many into silence. [2] So long as information is denied to the public, governments are able to maintain their repression. Only external help from democratic, or at least more liberal, states can provide the safe haven for people who have rubbed their governments the wrong way in their pursuit of reform and justice.  [1] Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011.   [2] Wong, G. “Zhai Xiaobing, Chinese Blogger, Arrested for Twitter Joke About China’s Government”. Huffington Post. 21 November 2012.

negative: p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Not censoring doesn’t advance human rights in China at all  Human rights in China are violated on a daily basis. For example, the incidence of people ‘disappearing’ for no apparent reason has been on the rise. [1] These human rights violations won’t suddenly end if Google were to stop censoring its results.  What’s more likely to happen, when Google stops censoring results at google.cn, is that Google.cn will get shut down within days – thus, leaving Chinese citizens with no good way at all to access information, since google.com is on the other side of The Great Firewall and Baidu is a Chinese company fully compliant with the government’s wishes. By staying, Google can at least broaden the access to information the Chinese citizens have, something Google itself had acknowledged in 2006 when entering the Chinese mainland. [2]  [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Enforced Disappearances a Growing Threat’, November 9, 2011. URL:   [2] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL:

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse [1] and racism [2] , and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011. [3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief [4] .  [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011,  on 16/09/11  [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010,  on 16/09/2011.  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011,  on 09/09/11

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression This offer of amnesty serves as a powerful public statement in favour of free speech and rule of law  In offering amnesty Western governments make an exceptionally powerful public statement in the international arena, an area in which they already hold great sway as norm-setters. It is a statement that shows that they will not simply ignore the abuses of power used by repressive regimes to stifle dissent and the voices of reform. [1] Ultimately, the power of oppressors to act with impunity is the product of democracies’ unwillingness to challenge them. Authoritarian regimes often claim to value freedom of the press, for example article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees it, [2] and this policy challenges them to make their practice more like what they preach. A policy of amnesty for those threatened with the lash of tyranny serves to actively protect those people while at the same time upholding the avowed principles of justice and fairness the West proclaims. This will show that the West does not play favourites or turn a blind eye to these repressions, but is an active player, willing to step in to shield those who share its dreams of a freer world. The international ridicule these policies can generate will serve to shame regimes into relaxing their policies and to embrace at least a road to reform. Nor should it be assumed that this rhetoric will have no real consequences, many authoritarian regimes encourage investment by companies from democratic countries, such investment is less likely when that company’s home state is publically condemning that state by granting amnesties to dissident bloggers.  [1] Clinton, H. “Conference on Internet Freedom”. U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011.   [2] Fifth National People’s Congress, “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China”, 4 December 1982,

negative: Providing secure channels is the easiest way to help dissidents and democracy activists  If democracies are to provide money to help dissidents then this option of funding research into and distributing software to defeat censors is the easiest way in which to help these dissidents. Those who are trying to exercise their freedom of speech do not want help in the form of military intervention or diplomatic representations rather they want to have the space and capacity to exercise those freedoms. The internet means that for the first time it is possible for external actors to provide that platform for freedom of speech without having to take those who wish to exercise these freedoms outside of the country that is violating those freedoms.  The internet is very important in the economies of many authoritarian regimes. In China for example there are 145 million online shoppers and the e-commerce market is worth almost $100 billion and could be worth over $300 billion by 2015. [1] As a result authoritarian regimes can’t easily just turn off the internet and ignore it so long as they want their economy to operate. As a result except in extreme cases such as North Korea or for particularly prominent dissidents who are locked up physical access to the internet is unlikely to be denied.  So long as there is physical access to the internet it will be possible to help by providing ways to avoid firewalls so that they can access information their state has banned and express opinions to both the outside world and their compatriots. It is equally important to provide ways for these people to avoid being tracked by the authorities so as to prevent retaliation against them for evading censorship. While Haystack was a failure there have been other projects that are receiving state department funding that may be more successful such as ‘InTheClear’ which provides a “panic button” app for smart phones allowing contents to be quickly erased and prewritten texts sent so having the dual effect of making it more difficult for those making the arrest to find out what the user was doing and raising the alarm that this person has been arrested. [2] This technology helps meet a clear need; Egyptian democracy activists when asked what kind of technology they needed most said they wanted safer cellphones. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘An internet with Chinese characteristics’, 20 July 2011.  [2] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.  [3] McManus, Doyle, ‘Technology that protects protesters’, Los Angeles Times, 18 September 2011.

negative: People have a right to freedom of religion.  Freedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” [1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life.  Under the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights.  The government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation.  [1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18

negative: That there is a right to freedom of speech does not mean that we have an obligation to make sure that everyone around the world has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is indeed a human right in the universal declaration of human rights however this is something that it is obligated for governments to uphold for their own people rather than for other countries to enforce. If governments are infringing on the freedoms of their people the correct way to counter this is through international diplomacy rather than seeking to undermine that state.  The responsibility to protect, itself controversial, was only ever meant to apply to the very worst human rights violations - such as the genocide in Rwanda. If there are massacres of civilians and all other options have failed then there may be a need to intervene to prevent more killing. However violations of freedom of speech are not something that is time dependent. Diplomacy may often take a long time but can eventually work, as is being shown in Burma's opening up

negative: Violation of Sovereignty  Sovereignty is the exercise of the fullest possible rights over a piece of territory; the state is ‘supreme authority within a territory’. [1] The sovereignty of nations has been recognised by all nations in article 2 of the UN charter. [2] Funding attempts by citizens of a nation to avoid its own government’s censorship efforts is clearly infringing upon matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states and is as such a violation of sovereignty. It is also clear that when it comes to enforcement of human rights there is a general rule should be followed that states should have the chance to solve their own internal problems domestically before there is international interference. [3]  Censorship by governments can be there for the good of society; for example South Korea censors information about North Korea and forces internet users to use id cards and real names when posting on forums and blogs making them easy to trace. [4] This does not however mean that democracies should be helping South Koreans to bypass this system, South Korea as a nation has decided to place some restrictions on the use of the internet and that should be respected by other nations.  It is simply unfair and unequal to apply one set of standards to one set of nations and different standards to another. If democracies have the right to decide how their internet should operate so should non democracies. The fundamental principle of non-interference should apply to all states.  [1] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.333  [2] Charter of the United Nations, ‘Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles’, 1945.  [3] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.202  [4] The Economist, ‘Game over: A liberal, free-market democracy has some curious rules and regulations’, 14 April 2011.

negative: Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.  Migrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws.  Human rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, which migrants are often denied. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.” [1]  It is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when there is a sweeping change in their legal protections in and between the nations of the world.  [1] Migrant Rights, "Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees," October 1st, 2010 , accessed June 30, 2011,  .

negative: Freedom of expression is a political right  Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitutions of all WLDs because it is a necessary political check on the government. For example article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights [1] and The First Amendment in the United States. [2] The protection of this right is most severely tested when the ideas are abhorrent to our morality but when one person is denied their freedom, it is a harm to everyone’s freedom.  [1] ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, June 2010,   [2] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute,

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Police should not block the communications and freedom of expression of law-abiding citizens  The blocking of social networks, of the internet, or of mobile phone networks in times of riot would be an illegitimate curtailment of a private company’s right to do business and serve its customers. Social networks are business and have many users. Even more important is the impact on everyone who is not associated with the rioting. When these actions are taken it harms everyone, perhaps even millions of people at a given time. [1] The action taken by the state to seek to prevent the spreading of the riots is not only ineffective it is also a massive imposition on the rights of the citizens of the polity. Their freedom of speech is curtailed, business is harmed, and the riots continue. Studies of the use of Twitter during the riots in London showed that during rioting it was mostly used to react to the riots to send warnings to avoid trouble rather than incite violence. [2] Blocking access or cutting off communications would therefore mean putting at risk those people who otherwise would have been warned not to go near areas with rioting.  [1] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.   [2] Ball, J., and Lewis, P., “Riots database of 2.5m tweets reveals complex picture of interaction”, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

negative: Internet anonymity isn’t necessary to exercise citizen’s right to free speech  Even when we accept the theoretical principle of free speech, the past years have shown that internet anonymity is not necessary for citizens to exercise their right to free speech.  First, look at ‘access to the internet’ as a prime factor, regardless of whether it’s anonymous or not: In the case of the Arab spring, the causes of the unrest were increased oppression and a declining economic climate. [1] Internet access wasn’t that much of an enabling factor in the Arab Spring: the countries that saw the highest mobilization of citizens (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen) actually rank lowest in internet penetration of all Arab countries. [2]  Secondly, let’s look at anonymity on the internet, provided that access is given: Again, the Arab Spring shows that anonymity isn’t a decisive factor at all. In Egypt and Tunisia, Facebook was a main vehicle to organize protests, [3] yet Facebook doesn’t allow anonymity – up to the extent that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks called Facebook ‘the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented’. [4] All this shows that internet anonymity isn’t as crucial a factor in fostering political dissidence as its proponents like to believe.  [1] Foreign Common Wealth Office, ‘The Causes of the Arab Spring’. URL:   [2] Yale Global, ‘Three Myths About the Arab Uprisings’, July 24, 2012. URL:   [3] The National, ‘Facebook and Twitter key to Arab Spring uprisings: report’, June 6, 2011 URL:   [4] Cnet, ‘Assange: Facebook is an appaling spy machine’, May 3, 2011. URL:

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance. [1]  [1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011,

negative: Relative perceptions of human rights  If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew [1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms. [2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA [3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights [4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights. [5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights.  [1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998.  [2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000.  [3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787.  [4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.  [5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010.

negative: p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google China won’t budge that easily  China has already faced trade sanctions for its human rights abuses for years, in particular there are bans on arms sales by the European Union that are still in place more than twenty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre that precipitated them. [1] These haven’t helped a bit. [2] Why would a relatively small move like Google stopping its censorship work?  Moreover: true reform in China has to come from within. When it’s forced from the outside, it will not be accepted. If Google stops cooperating with the government, reform-minded Chinese officials will have a harder time, because they will seem to be losing face in the eyes of more hardline officials. [3]  [1] See debate on EU arms sales to china  [2] James Dorn, ‘Improving Human Rights in China’, February 8, 1999. URL:   [3] Shaun Rein, ‘Opposing View: Google’s Big Mistake’, March 28, 2010. URL:

negative: Parents should have freedom of choice  People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2.  1. U.N. General Assembly. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from United Nations:  >  2. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post:

negative: p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Not censoring its search results is a victory for human rights  The problem with Google censoring its results, is that in doing so, it is complicit in China’s repression of free speech: it adapts its own search engine to display only the results the Chinese government wants, thereby limiting its citizens’ basic human right to free access to information (a corollary to free speech). By avoiding this complicity, Google is taking a bold, praiseworthy step towards enhancing respect for human rights in China and with it, Google can set an important example for other businesses with dealings in China. [1]  [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Google Challenges Censorship’, January 12, 2010. URL:

negative: The internet is different from reality since the magnitude of consequences you might suffer is much greater. While there might be a school laughing at you over something in real life, on the internet it might be the whole world. We accept ridicule and embarrassment in real life not just because it happens, but also because the effect is not so overwhelming in the majority of cases. People get bored of the news and stop talking, while in the digital era new people can always find you and laugh at you – memories fade, photos and videos online do not. So internet is different from the real life and requires new rules.  Moreover, the right to be forgotten is not applicable to the real life not because of a principle, but because we cannot enforce it. We can’t delete people’s memories. But we can delete information online.

negative: Advanced surveillance technology prevents dissidents from being able to organize and sue for freedom  High-tech surveillance technology has given repressive governments and police states a new lease on life. Now more than ever they can intrude into every aspect of people’s lives, ensuring that dissent is cowed for fear of the ever present threat of the security services. The vision of Orwell’s 1984 has become a living nightmare for people all over the world. Their power has made it extremely difficult for movements for reform, government accountability, and democracy, which have foundered when faced with these sophisticated security apparatuses (Valentino-Devries, 2011). [1] By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Thus China blocks access to the internet and to other forms of communications in Tibet to “ensure the absolute security of Tibet’s ideological and cultural realm”. It cuts the Tibetan people off from outside world so as to prevent any rerun of the instability that occurred in 2008, which China blamed on the influence of the Dalai Lama from outside. [2]  Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies. The surveillance equipment on which these regimes rely is often only available from firms and governments in the democratic world where, by and large, technology is generally far more advanced than in the non-democratic world. Without access to these technologies, the regimes would be far more hard-pressed to keep rigid tabs on their citizens, allowing for the seeds of dissent to take root. Only then can the forces clamouring for democracy hope to be able to organise networks of activists, and to have their views considered by the state.  [1] Valentino-Devries, J. “US Firm Acknowledges Syria Uses its Gear to Block Web”. Wall Street Journal. 29 October 2011,   [2] Human Rights Watch, “China: Attempts to Seal Off Tibet from Outside Information”, 13 July 2012,

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters  What matters for a state when it comes to foreign policy, and therefore with helping to circumvent censorship, is whether the policy is considered legitimate domestically. Since a government's legitimacy is domestically derived from the support of its people if they support the policy then it is legitimate. While it is often not considered a top priority people in democracies usually support promoting human rights and spreading democracy around the world. [1]  [1] Stevenson, Kirsten, “Strong support for democracy promotion in national opinion ballot”, Foreign Policy Association, 23 October 2012,

negative: Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered  Of course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would be hypocritical to be highlighting the plight of the Copts in Egypt while ignoring gender equality in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political freedoms in Belarus. [1] All of these things are a part of the same agenda of encouraging human rights.  Moreover why should promoting religious freedom in Saudi Arabia be placed above promoting gender rights or political rights? Are the Shiites of the country somehow more worthy than the women? Currently the promotion of religious freedom is within human rights, so for example The Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [2] Having religious freedom within promotion of human rights is the right approach to take as it means whichever human rights are most at risk can be promoted and aided in any given country and it encourages the linking of religious freedom with other freedoms. Egyptians may not be very receptive to religious freedom but obviously are to political freedom so religious freedom needs to be linked as a part of having political freedom.  [1] Chapman, Annabelle, ‘When doing nothing is free expression’, FreeSpeechDebate, 10 February 2012  [2] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Religious Freedom’, U.S. Department of State


query: Trade is good for democracy.  Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been making sustained efforts to boost his influence in Latin America, with regional tours and substantial investments in neighbouring economies, fuelled by Venezuela’s oil money [1] . He is staunchly anti-American and a supporter of Iran. Meanwhile, he has been restricting freedom of speech in his own country, has done away with presidential term limits, and has essentially proven himself as yet another Latin American dictator in the making. If the US hopes to counterbalance his influence, it needs to become more economically connected to Latin America. Showing that the United States is willing to trade fairly with Latin America would undermine his message. This would not only be the case for the United States as it would also allow Brazil and other successful democratic Latin American states to boost their influence.  [1] Carroll, Rory. “Chavez Opens His Wallet Wider to Boost Latin American Influence.” The Guardian. 9 August 2007.

positive: economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation The US has a long history of toppling unfriendly regimes in Latin America and propping up dictators who were agreeable to the US, from Panama to Nicaragua. This has made the people of Latin America very mistrustful of any American intervention in their politics and economy. In fact, many South American leaders see the FTAA as another attempt by the US at imperialist expansions in their continent. This would give them more reasons to rally around Chavez rather than isolate him.

negative: The existence of slums and favelas and their increasing criminality in Latin America cannot be explained by the lack of social subsidies. In fact, quite the opposite is the case: the leftward turn in Latin America with an increase in state subsidies that promised to help poor communities has yet to ease the problems of criminality. Subsidies not only do not help or provide only weak temporary relief, but they are also used to manipulate political opinions and influence the poor particularly around election time. The successful presidential campaigns of Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have been run precisely on promises to the poor that for the most part were left unfulfilled. Because government subsidies are not efficient, the large problem of social unrest is not avoided.  Furthermore the poor communities in the suburbs of Paris were already receiving state subsidies for housing and education, but this did not keep them from rioting. Therefore subsidies do not guarantee a reduction in crime.

negative: economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Multilateralism is preferable to bilateralism.  It is preferable for Latin American countries to band together when negotiating trade deals with the US and Canada, to better protect their interests. After FTAA negotiations failed, the US focused on bilateral strategies and trade deals where the imbalance of power was much greater in favour of the US, and it therefore could more easily dictate terms of the agreement that were detrimental to the interests of the developing country. For example, El Salvador, who is a member of CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement), together with only five other Central American countries, has found itself under legal attacks by foreign investors when it refused to lower its environmental standards in the gold mining industry [1] . Having an emerging global power, like Brazil, be part of the agreement, would counterbalance US influence over the terms.  [1] Gallager, Kevin. “Stop private firms exploiting poor states.” The Guardian. 5 February 2010.

negative: The United States has far too often relied on the use of force and coercion. For much of the Cold War and thereafter, America covertly and openly helped overthrow and wage war on governments that it perceived to be hostile to its national interests. From Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, coercion and war has often been America’s primary foreign policy tool. Moreover, this continues to the present time. Not only has Iraq highlighted America’s propensity to use force, but even the more internationally backed “war on terror” has featured unilateralism and controversial military practices such as “drone attacks,” which many say are counterproductive and undermine the importance of a law-based rather than militaristic approach to tackling terrorism.[6] Even in nominally ‘multilateral’ bodies such as the WTO and the UN, the US has often gotten its way through bribes, backdoor deals and coercive measures.[7]  [6] Howard, Michael (2002), ‘What’s in a name? How to Fight Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.  [7] Wade, Robert (2004), ‘The Ringmaster of Doha’, New Left Review 25, January-February 2004.

negative: Meeting with the leader of the United States can equally bolster a leader’s support and strengthen his or her position. After all, the US will always prefer and support a leader that is seen as reasonable and willing to compromise rather than a hard liner. Hosni Mubarak is a prime example of a dictator whose position was strengthened by his good relationship and close ties to the US [1] . Therefore, many of these dictators may see it in their interest to agree to preconditions, if that will buy them American favours.  [1] Murphy, Dan. “Joe Biden says Mubarak no dictators, he shouldn’t step down.” Christian Science Monitor. 27 January 2011.

negative: Often decisions are forced on states by powerful neighbours. Examples include the South African policy of dumping crops in neighbouring states, Russia's brief war with Georgia and the United States' treatment of Latin America.1 Under the proposition they at least have the ability to influence and challenge decisions that are being made.2 There are also the comparative benefits of being within the federal state, detailed in the Proposition section. 1 'A Good neighbour? South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets and policy makersACB Briefing Paper p. 14 'The Russia-Georgia war, three years onThe Economist 'Bullying Latin AmericaQuarterly Americas 2 'FederalismSection 3.1, Stanford

negative: This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.  Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America.  Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens.  Giving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous [1] . There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens.  Alternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual’s identity.  If the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants’ quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American’s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals.  [1] "Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens." News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

negative: economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Latin American countries do not have the same interests to protect. There are high disparities within the region itself. It would be naïve to believe that Brazil, a country of nearly 200 million people who recently overtook the UK as the world’s 6th largest economy, and Haiti, that has 10 million people and one of the lowest GDPs in the world, have the same national interest to protect. Even among richer South American nations, there are differences. Brazil tries to protect its industry from American competition while Argentina is strongly against farming subsidies. A country like Brazil will not necessarily stand up for those most vulnerable in the region at the negotiating table.

negative: Exactly the same point could be made of any number of member states. It is highly questionable as to whether the authority of the central governments of Afghanistan or Pakistan extends into much of their territory, it certainly doesn’t in Iraq or many of the nations in central Africa.  Much of Latin America is under the control of warlords and drug barons but nobody would suggest that they should be represented at the United Nations. Effective political control is ceded to devolved authorities in many nations but they are not recognised as states. Political confusion is no reason no ignore the existence of a state.

negative: Sacrifice of sovereignty  Guinea-Bissau would have to sacrifice its autonomy if it became the new front for the war on drugs. In order to receive assistance from the US, a state must adhere to US policy on drugs. If it fails to do so, like Bolivia did in 2009, then aid is severed under the certification system1. This restricts the recipient state’s ability to respond to the drug threat in a way that they deem suitable to their own circumstances. As a state should be free to form domestic policy without influence by external actors, the USA’s certification process is a violation of national sovereignty.  1) Walsh,J. ‘U.S. Decertification of Bolivia: A Blast from the Past’, Washington Office on Latin America, 17 September 2009

negative: The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil  Currently, the United States imports nearly two-thirds of its Petroleum, with the leading suppliers including nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. [1]  Due to political instability and the difficult US relations with these nations, US supplies cannot be considered secure, and with the results of research into alternative sources of energy being decades away from fruition the United States needs alternative sources of oil today.  One option is Canada, which is individually already the United States’ single largest energy supplier. Canada’s known reserves total 179 billion barrels, placing it third behind Saudi Arabia, but some estimates have put its total at as high as 2 trillion barrels. [2]  The XL Pipeline project would help bring this oil overland into the United States. On the Canadian end, the increased market access would lead to rapid development, which in turn would increase Canadian capacity to the level to which it could reach a much greater portion of US demand.  Furthermore, the United States enjoys close relations and an open border with Canada, meaning that this oil will likely arrive without the strings attached that come from buying from Venezuela or the Middle East. In the case of the latter the Pipeline would allow the US to disengage from the region to a degree.  Even if hypothetically Canadian relations were to turn frosty, the existence of the pipeline would nevertheless ensure that the US would remain the only viable market.  [1] U.S. Energy Information Administration, ‘U.S. Imports by Country of Origin’,   [2] Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, ‘Alberta’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry’,

negative: Poor communities create criminality  The longer suburbs sectioned off for the economically vulnerable are in existence, the more likely they will turn into real slums, creating long lasting problems such as the ones currently experienced in the cities of Latin America. Latin America contains 13 of the 20 countries with the highest intentional homicide rate (Global Burden of Armed Violence, Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 2008). Brazil is one of the most criminalized countries of the world with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents, muggings, robberies, kidnappings and gang violence (The Economist, ‘No End of Violence’, 2007). These areas have become a haven for criminals and drug lords, who both have a clear interest in keeping these communities poor so that they can continue to exert their influence on them and use them as a hiding and recruiting ground for illegal activities. Subsidies would help people escape poverty and as a result break the cycle of crime.

negative: This kind of idealism and desire to make the world an equal place has already gotten us into quite a bit of trouble, ruining a large part of the world under the rule of communism. The idea that we could solve all the world’s problems through redistribution of wealth through government subsidies is not only naïve but also dangerous. Being committed to new human rights and wanting to offer help to the poor is not the same thing as imposing subsidies. Indeed, in many countries subsidies for particular activities end up favouring well-off landowners and the urban middle classes. Examples include agricultural subsidies in the EU (Financial Programming and Budget, 2011) and the USA, subsidies for power and water in rural India (Press Trust of India, ‘World Bank asks India to cut ‘unproductive’ farm subsidy’, 2007), and subsidies for water or Higher Education in much of Latin America. In each case the well-off benefit disproportionately, while the poor end up paying via the tax system and through reduced economic growth (Farmgate: the developmental impact of agricultural subsidies, ukfg.org.uk). It would be much better to price these activities at commercial levels and to develop economic policies aimed at growth and job creation.

negative: Prevent drugs from reaching Western markets  By joining the war on drugs, Guinea-Bissau will be in a better position to thwart the transportation of cheap cocaine and heroin to Europe and North America. Guinea-Bissau’s position makes it ideal for the cocaine trade, where drugs can be unloaded from Latin America and then distributed more easily to the West1. Around 18 tons of cocaine (worth $1.25 billion) passes through West Africa annually, most of it travelling through the state2. US assistance and interdiction operations would help prevent illicit drugs from reaching the profitable Western markets.  1) Smoltczyk,A. ‘Africa’s Cocaine Hub: Guinea-Bissau a “Drug Trafficker’s Dream”, Spiegel, 8 March 2013  2) Hoffman,M. ‘Guinea-Bissau and the South Atlantic Cocaine Trade’, Centre for American Progress, 22 August 2013

negative: To limit the ability of any person or a group, to influence a democratic political process is rather undemocratic and discriminatory. Groups should to be able to express their voice, and attempt to influence politics. Any form of limitation of that is an infringement of their rights as citizens in a democratic country.  Limiting contributions could equally be used to achieve a partisan advantage. The Tillman Act banning corporate contributions to campaigns in 1907 is a good example. It was sponsored by the South Carolina senator Tillman who wanted to embarrass President Roosevelt for his heavily reliance on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign. Tillman often bragged about his role in vote frauds; thus, revealing his bill was less about public good and more to gain partisan advantage. [1] This was repeated a couple of times since, despite the numerous regulatory bills that have been passed. According to Smith’s research, the effect of campaign-finance regulations has been to help people who passed them and to strengthen special interest, rather than to cleanse American politics of the influence of self-interested factions. Money is the means by which those who lack talents or other resources with direct political value are able to participate in politics beyond voting. This reform favour people and corporations skilled and able to afford political advertising over those skilled in other building homes or other fields with no media influence.  Thus, the reform undermines efforts for equal access to the political arena by restricting campaign contributions.  Data analysis of the last three elections also shows that campaign –finance regulations are of little value. Many scholars, such as Stephen Ansolabehere, James Snyder, and John de Figueiredo, believe that it is not the contributions that corrupt politicians, therefore, limiting contributions will not tackle the problem of corruption. Legislators’ votes usually depend on own beliefs and preferences of their voters and their parties and contributions have no detectable effects on legislative behaviour. [2] The past two elections at which Obama won over better known and funded leaders like Hillary Clinton and Romney who did not lack funds shows that support for ideology was more important than funds.  [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.52  [2] Smith, 2011, P.54

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official England today owes much to Roman settlers, and for nearly four centuries it was governed by a French speaking nobility – yet this is not a reason for Britain to have either French or Latin as official languages.  The fact is that we can recognize that all Americans today speak English, while also recognizing that their parents, grandparents, and great-grand-parents may not have. In fact that is exactly what making English the official language will recognize, the role English has played in bringing people together and creating a national identity by making these people Americans.

negative: Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years  Government expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.  There is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.  This only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.  So-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.  The military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.  Instead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.  As far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .  So called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.  [i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.

negative: SWFs should be welcomed for the benefits they bring rather than ostracized for doing what others do.  Developed countries are guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy in their attitude to the sovereign wealth funds of emerging economies. In the past their own companies were used as instruments of state power, for example BP’s origins lie in Britain’s attempt to dominate Iran’s (at the time known as Persia) oil wealth. [1] The developed world is always willing to buy assets on the cheap, as shown by American banks buying up Asian banks during the Asian Financial crisis at the end of the 1990s. [2] Recently SWFs have proved willing to channel a great deal of investment into poorer states, particularly in Africa, their investments have already surpassed the IMF and World bank’s, [3] boosting their economies and assisting their long-term development through the provision of infrastructure such as roads and ports. This is a much more equal relationship than that promoted by the west, with its manipulation of aid and loans to maintain political influence in former colonies.  [1] BP, ‘Our history’.   [2] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008.   [3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Africa and the future’.

negative: Tax cuts and spending cuts are necessary for growth.  With a national unemployment rate of 8.1% as of September 2012 [1], the United States economy has not recovered from the global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed it. Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to cut taxes would lessen the burden on American citizens, and spur businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs.  Governor Romney advocates a Reagan-esque devotion to laissez-faire economics, arguing that with substantial tax cuts and limited regulation on private businesses, the economy will naturally grow. Mr Romney states on his website that he would reduce government spending from its current level, around $33,000 per household, to around $25,000, while maintaining individual tax rates but decreasing rates for private corporations. [2]  Regarding government programs, Governor Romney opposes President Obama’s spending, vowing to repeal Mr Obama’s healthcare act, saving the country around $95 billion, according to his website. He also has advocated cutting spending on social programs by 5 % (without touching national security spending) and pulling funding from the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation. Furthermore, he plans to save up to $100 million by reducing foreign aid.  The budget deficit will be reduced despite the proposed tax-cuts. This is because tax cuts will have a positive effect on growth, while the spending cuts and clamp down on loopholes and inefficiencies will also help cut the deficit.  Overall, Mitt Romney’s economic policies boil down to taxing less and spending less, allowing the free market to work uninhibited. As with Obama, Romney’s position on this issue reflects his broader beliefs about the problems facing America. His plan to eliminate Title X Family Planning funding, for example, draws quite publicly from his opposition to abortion rights. While, also like Obama, his main concern is lowering the national deficit and paying back the national debt, the ways he would go about it are very different from those of his opponent, and realistically would benefit very different types of Americans.  [1] Google Public Data,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [2] Mitt Romney Website,  , accessed 8/10/2012

negative: International relations  Returning the islands would vastly improve Britain’s relationship with Argentina and Latin America as a whole. This would help Britain’s diplomatic and economic ties with the region. It would also be consistent with Britain’s post-war policy of decolonisation, which has seen it withdraw from almost every other colonial possession since 1945. Not only has Britain withdrawn from India, Africa, Malaysia and much of the Caribbean, it has also handed back Hong Kong to China – surely a similar case to that of the Falkland islands and Argentina.

negative: This is in fact a good thing. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer between large and small countries. [1] One of the great problems of history for tiny nations like Georgia or the Baltic states is that they have consistently been at the mercy of Russia. Nuclear weapons will allow them to fight the Russians on an equal level, and therefore deter the Russians from intervening as actively as they have in the past.  In the case of Iran and its neighbours, Iran’s position would actually be weakened if everyone in the region acquired nuclear weapons as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain cannot compete with Iran conventionally, but could compete in a nuclear arms race. Wider uptake of nuclear arms would reduce Iran’s power and influence.  Moreover there is little evidence that this domino effect will happen. North Korea detonated its first nuclear weapon in 2006 but there has been no response from other countries in the region even though South Korea and Japan could have rapidly gone for nuclear breakout. [2]  [1] Buchanan, Patrick J., ‘The Great Equalizer’, The American Conservative,   [2] Berganas, John, ‘The Nuclear Domino Myth’, Foreign Affairs, 31 August 2010,

negative: Cuba will never make up more than a tiny percentage of America’s trade and it is able to source and sell all the products it needs elsewhere. Even if Cuba was a vital market for American goods it would be worth giving up some economic growth in order to maintain a commitment to the freedom of the Cuban people. As it is, the total Cuban GDP is a drop in the ocean and at this point is almost entirely irrelevant to the United States.

negative: europe house believes federal europe Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation.  None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”. [1]  [1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’

negative: There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council.  There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance – “Currently, four out of five veto-bearing members are industrialized countries and the fifth, China, is rapidly approaching industrialized status. Many in the rest of the world seethe at their exclusion from this elite group. Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent voice on the council. Without a voice, it is understandable why many countries are unwilling to send troops or aid whenever the Security Council demands it. This imbalance, highlighted by the Iraq war, has made Security Council reform a hot topic of debate.” [1]  [1] ) Teng, Michael. 'United Nations Security Council Reform Autumn 2003'

negative: Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote  It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they will be more likely to make their decision on which party had the best image; so will vote for parties that put up celebrities. They are also more likely to vote for extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!). It is notable that in late 1990’s Russia 80% of the Communist party’s members were under 30, and a far right nationalist party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has called to lower the voting age to 16. [1] A study from the University of Nijmegen found that younger people are over represented in voters for extreme right wing parties, [2] and the same goes the other way with younger people more likely to support left wing populist measures at the expense of democracy, rights, and freedoms. [3]  [1] ‘Extremists push for young voters’, Times Higher Education, 7 December 1998  [2] Lubbers, Marcel et al., ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, 2002, pp345-378, p.364  [3] Seligson, Mitchell, A., ‘The Rise of Populism and the Left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.18 No.3, July 2007, pp.81-95, p.91

negative: bate media and good government international africa house believes limited Authoritarian leadership  President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1].  Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress.  The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3]  [1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014  [2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011  [3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection.  While being a child performer is legal, these children’s working circumstances are under the protection of the law and monitored by government departments such as the Inland Revenue, Health and Safety, etc. Were child performers to be banned, it is certain that some children would still perform, but would not be thus protected. This has already happened in certain professional sports where athletes can benefit by lying about their age. For example, it is easier for Latin American baseball players to sign with U.S. Major League teams if the teams think they are young. As a result, countless players have lied about their age, including a number of high-profile cases, such as Miguel Tejada who was named Most Valuable Player in 2002. [1] Many of these young players, however, have been less successful. There are too many unfortunate examples of players who came to the United States at a young age and, under the increased pressure, fell victim to serious drug problems, often resulting in overdose and death. [2] [3] A ban would not prevent children from performing; it would actually further expose them to whatever risks may be involved.  [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.”  [2] Zirin, “Can’t Knock the Hassle: Chavez Challenges Baseball.”  [3] Helfgott, “The international game.”

negative: The US has arrogantly (and dangerously) sought to reshape the world in its own image.  A commitment to American ‘exceptionalism’ has led US policymakers to view the United States as the political and cultural centre of the world. Consequently, they expect others to follow their own standards on political, economic and cultural issues, with free and open markets, liberal democratic structures, and individualistic cultural norms serving as models for other countries to follow. This is not simply propaganda; the US has used considerable resources to influence other nations in this respect, including military interventions, coercive austerity measures through the IMF/World Bank/WTO, economic sanctions, and the categorization of certain countries as “rogue states” for not following American standards.[23] American corporations have also been responsible for a form of cultural imperialism by exporting consumerist and materialistic ways of life around the world, often threatening indigenous cultures. In some instances this has caused what Samuel P. Huntington calls a ‘clash of civilizations,’[24] leading other cultures to respond violently to the introduction of American cultural exports, as is the case in some conservative Muslim societies and in India, where a major political party (BJP) actively orchestrates opposition to Western ideals of sexual permissiveness and individualism.  [23] Huntington, Samuel P. (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.  [24] Huntington, Samuel P. (1993), ‘The Clash of Civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, September 1993.  , Accessed 17th May 2001.

negative: The ethical implications of paternalism are that the government is taking away personal freedoms because the government presumes that it “knows best” for the population. Paternalism inherently assumes that individuals cannot be trusted to make its own decisions. Personal freedom, however, is a cornerstone of the United States; The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee individual’s freedoms, limit the role of government, and reserve power to the people. [1] A competent person’s freedoms should never be infringed upon, even for that person’s own good. John Stuart Mill wrote, “. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign”. [2] The paternalistic policies cited by the proposition that apparently set a precedent for this ban on soda are not good comparisons. Smoking bans for example are paternalistic in nature yet are morally acceptable because smoking not only harms the person but also those surrounding the smoker through passive smoking. Henry David Thoreau was quoted in saying "[If] . . . a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life". [3] No government can be sure that their policies are what are universally right for its people; this should be left for the individual to decide.  [1] McAffee, Thomas B., and Bybee, Jay S., ‘Powers reserved for the people and the states: a history of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments’, Praeger Publishers, Westport, 2006, P.2  [2] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1859.  [3] Andre, Claire, and Velasquez, Manuel, ‘For Your Own Good’, Issues in Ethics, Vol.4, No.2, Fall 1991.

negative: Money stifles, it does not advance debate.  We protect speech under almost all circumstances and cherish its freedom as a tenet of democracy because it enhances debate and better decision-making. We believe that in the free marketplace of ideas, where everyone is given an equal opportunity to advance competing points of view, based on ever more complete information, voters will be better informed to make the right choice for themselves in the voting booth. But money, unlike speech, does not have the intrinsic property of enhancing a debate. At best, it can be a facilitator for the debate, without having communicative value of its own. But at worst, instead of enhancing the democratic debate, it distorts it, by giving certain ideas disproportionate influence, based not on the value and strength of their arguments, but on the spending power of their supporters. A clear example is the U.S. Tea Party movement, which has not enriched the debate in American politics. It has made it acrimonious, divisive, and radicalized. The Tea Party has empowered the fringes of American extremism. One has to wonder if these ideas would have done so well on their own, without having been bankrolled by millionaires like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers [1] . It may also be used to stifle the other side; it is notable that in the 2012 presidential campaign more than 80% of adverts were negative so not attempting to inform voters. [2] For this reason, not only does money not fulfil the role which earns speech its expansive protections, it actively works against it. Money should be tightly controlled, not equated to speech and given limitless protection.  [1] Frank Rich, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party”, New York Times 2010.   [2] “Mad Money: TV ads in the 2012 presidential campaign”, Washington Post, 14 November 2012.

negative: The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, the situation will become so bad that US military intervention is necessary - this is hugely costly compared to funding preventative action through the United Nations. The role of failed states as reservoirs from which refugees, narcotics, terrorism, illegal diamonds, etc. are exported means that the USA already spends many billions of dollars a year in dealing with the mess they create. Finally, there is an opportunity cost of lost trade and investment which applies to the developing world and developed economies alike (e.g. the benefits to the US of trade with oil-rich Angola, Sudan and Congo).

negative: The US had led the world through consent rather than coercion.  An important part of the liberal international order the US maintains is that power is diffused and is based on negotiation, strategic bargaining and the exercise of power through mutually-agreed rules and institutions. Globalization and the liberalization of the global economy has been actively supported by many nations in the world, some of whom—such as China, Japan, and Germany—have even used it to compete economically with the United States. Other states have also enjoyed significant decision-making powers in international institutions. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions are made on the basis of a ‘one country, one vote’ system.[4] This consensus-based exercise of power has provided the US with a relatively large degree of legitimacy in world opinion, often outstripping the global approval ratings of other major powers.[5]  [4] Ikenberry, G. John. “Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order”, Foreign Affairs, March/April (2004), 144-156  Mark Beeson & Richard Higgott (2005), “Hegemony , Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy : theory and practice in comparative historical perspective” Third Word Quarterly , Vol.26, No. 7.  [5] Gallup, ‘Worldwide Appeal of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers’, March 24, 2011.  , Accessed 12th May 2011.

negative: The US has used its power to undermine the sovereignty of other nations, often through coercion and violence.  As Samuel P. Huntington has written, the US suffers from “benign hegemon syndrome.”[19] Its self-perception as an exceptional, virtuous superpower is at odds with the violent history of its foreign policy. Since the end of World War II, it has sought to overthrow over forty governments, and to destroy numerous populist-nationalist movements.[20] Its interventions in other countries have substantially increased following the end of the Cold War and the absence of a rival power balancing against it; one study has shown a 60% increase with an average of two interventions per year.[21] In addition, the US often interferes in the internal affairs of other countries; including through perverting elections, applying sanctions to change behaviour or influence domestic politics, propping up opposition forces, and even trying to assassinate foreign leaders (for example, Fidel Castro and more recently, arguably, Colonel Gaddafi). Therefore, while it may see itself as a benign hegemon, many see America as a rogue superpower.  [19] Huntington, Samuel P. (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999.  , Accessed 17th May, 2011.  [20] Blum, William (2002). Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (London).  [21] In Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies (2003), Why Do People Hate America? (Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd.), pp. 67-68.