query: 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,

positive: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers. [1]  [1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,

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: Repressive governments rely on internet censorship to stifle dissent and entrench their power  The internet has become the ultimate platform for dissent within repressive regimes. It breaks the government monopoly on information and communication. As the technology governments have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology, CCTV, wiretaps, etc., the internet has become the only means of people to express their anger and to organize that is not entirely under state control. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator, Ben Ali, involved numerous internet tools to share information and coordinate their efforts. [1]  Yet in many countries the internet too is highly censored, with security services investigating online posters and bringing them in for their version of justice, denying access to parts of the internet through state censors, and even ordering internet service providers to abide by strict censorship rules. Yahoo, for example, has bent the knee to China’s severe censorship laws in order to maintain its lucrative market in the country. [2] All of these factors have compounded to make internet dissent risky, and much harder for inquisitive minds to get access to information that is critical of their governments. 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. 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.  [1] Zuckerman, Ethan, ‘The First Twitter Revolution?’, Foreign Policy, 14 January 2011,   [2] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006,

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks The state can use blocking Twitter and its ilk as precedent to censor the internet in the “public interest”  The state always likes to expand its powers over speech, particularly when that speech is damaging to the government’s credibility. The freedom of speech is a critical right in all free societies precisely because it is the ultimate check ordinary citizens have to challenge the powers that be, to express dissent, and to organize with like-minded people dissatisfied with the way government is running. The internet has been the most powerful and valuable tool in the expansion of individuals’ power of their governments. [1] The state quakes at the raw people power services like Twitter provides. It is the last frontier largely free of the state’s power, and the state has sought to expand its influence. By blocking Twitter the government would be able to get its first foothold in blocking free speech online. [2] The power of that beachhead would serve to give it further credibility in censoring other services online in the public interest. It is much better that the government be kept entirely out of these services, than let them begin the slow creep of intervention that would be a serious threat to the freedom of individuals on the internet.  [1] Anti-Defamation League. “Combating Extremism in Cyberspace”. 2000.   [2] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.

negative: p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Not censoring puts global pressure on China to change its free speech policies  Google’s decision to stop censoring was world news, and has put internet freedom on everyone’s agenda – even so much so, that U.S. Secretary of State mentioned internet companies ganging up to censor the Chinese corner of the internet specifically as a threat to freedom worldwide in a recent speech. [1] This helps to inform ordinary citizens of other countries who may not know about the ‘great firewall’ what the Chinese government is doing. By making a high-profile decision like this, and by engaging and informing the governments and publics of free and democratic countries like this, Google increases the public and political pressure on China to change its ways.  [1] Hillary Clinton, ‘Conference on Internet Freedom’, December 8, 2011. URL:

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China is a threat to regional stability  China poses a threat to regional and international peace and should not be encouraged and helped by European arms sales. It has territorial disputes with most of its neighbours, particularly over oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. The regime has also encouraged an assertive nationalism, damaging relations with Japan, for example with protests over the Japanese detention of a Chinese fisherman who rammed a Japanese coast guard boat. [1] Most seriously, China claims ownership over Taiwan, [2] a pro-Western Chinese democracy, and is rapidly building up the kinds of military forces it would need for an assault on that island, which it is now believed could be taken in as little as three days, [3] as well as staging exercises designed to intimidate its people. In 2005 the Chinese parliament passed a law that force should be used against Taiwan if it declared formal independence. [4] Quite apart from the principle of backing a repressive state against a democratic one, it is not in the EU's interests to make a war between two of its major trading partners more likely, especially as other powers such as the USA, as has happened in the past in 1995-6, [5] and perhaps Japan are then very likely to be drawn into the conflict.  [1] Banyan, ‘Doth we protest too much’, 2010.   [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘What is meant by the Taiwan question?’, 2000.   [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Taiwan War Games’, 2010.   [4] People Daily, ‘China’s parliament adopts Anti-Secession Law’, 2005.   [5] Ross, Robert S., ‘The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation’, 2000.

negative: This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws  This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world.  One of the most effective ways to engage the international community on swift action to protect certain rights is to make a clear, bold statement against a particular type of behaviour. By acting to not just condemn a certain behaviour, but actively circumvent states’ ability to carry out such a behaviour, the international community sends a message of the unacceptability of such practices.  Moreover, and more importantly, regardless of if the countries are persuaded into agreeing with the international community on the issues of LGBT rights, this action will still change state behaviour. This will happen for two reasons:  Fear of sanction and condemnation. Most countries in the world are heavily interdependent and specifically dependent on the West. Falling out of popularity with Western countries and their populations is a particularly risky situation for most countries. An action such as this signals seriousness of the international community on the issue of sexual orientation equality and can be used as an influential tool to convince leaders to liberalize sexual orientation laws.  Loss of internal support. One of the biggest losses a leader can have in terms of democratic support and the avoidance of violent unrest is being seen as impotent and weak. When the international community effectively sets up a system of immunity to your country’s laws and is more powerful is protecting people and helping people avoid the laws of your country than you are in implementing them, you lose face and integrity in the eyes of your constituents. This can make leaders look weak and incapable of administering justice and fulfilling the needs of society. Furthermore, it makes leaders seem weak and subservient to the rest of the world, removing perceived legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy and support is a major consideration for state leaders. As such, a declaration of an asylum policy for sexual orientation can persuade leaders into changing their anti-homosexuality laws to avoid asylum being granted to people from their country to save face and continue to look strong and decisive as a leader and avoid the damage such a policy would do to their rhetoric of strong leadership.  The best example of this is that due to strong and vocal condemnation of the Bahati Bill in Uganda which would have imposed the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality, the Cabinet Committee rejected the bill [1] .  Therefore, this policy is instrumental in changing state behaviour towards sexual orientation and making the first steps towards acceptance and ending discrimination.  [1] Muhumuza, Rodney. "Uganda: Cabinet Committee Rejects Bahati Bill." allAfrica.com 08 May 2010.

negative: The inability to use advanced technologies merely forces non-democracies to utilize more unsavoury methods to achieve their aims  If it is the aim of an undemocratic regime to use advanced surveillance technology to gather intelligence on, and ultimately crush, dissent it will find other means of doing so. Their calculus of survival is not changed, only their available methods. Their first port of call will be the more advanced non-democracies that might be able to supply comparable surveillance equipment. China’s military and surveillance technology is fast catching up to that of the West, and makes an appealing alternative source for equipment. [1] The only difference is that the Chinese have no compunction at all about how the technology is used, meaning worse outcomes for pro-democracy groups who run afoul of them. When this strategy fails regimes can turn to the tried and tested models of past decades, using physical force and other less technological modes of coercion to cow dissent. Again, this form of repression is quite effective, but it is also much more painful to those on the receiving end. Given the options, democracies supplying surveillance technology may be the best option for dissidents in undemocratic countries.  [1] Walton, G. “China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People’s Republic of China”. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. 2001.

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: 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: Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be "actors" in policy making  Young intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be "actors" and not "spectators" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.

negative: business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best In addition to the moral concerns, it is not proven that dictatorships are sustainable in the long term. There will always be groups seeking a democratic government, which could lead to revolution.  There is a particular issue with handovers of power in dictatorships, especially those with personality cults – for example the transition to democracy after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, or the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia in to ethnic conflict following the death of Tito. Many authoritarian regimes require a lot of upkeep in terms of propaganda which counterbalances the cost of elections [1] .  An election may be costly but it is also a good indicator of the performance of a government, providing a mechanism of monitoring the performance of the “social contract”. Democratic governments are accountable to their people at the ballot box, which gives those in power an incentive to perform well. If the government is not performing well they will be thrown out. In an authoritarian country if the government performs badly the people have no way to remove them and so change policies to ones that work.  Dictatorships have a different problem with political stability and that is on a smaller scale; it is difficult to know if an investment is safe because the government is arbitrary not bound by the rule of law. The results of this may not be the sweeping changes in economic policy found in democracies but can be more significant locally such as demands for high payments to operate, confiscation, or preferential treatment for competitors.  [1] Marquand, Robert, ‘N. Korea escalates ‘cult of Kim’ to counter West’s influence’, The Christian Science Monitor, 3 January 2007

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

negative: The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media  When the lives of politicians are fair game, they necessarily become a major target for journalists. Salacious gossip sells much better than more complicated stories about policy, so they are given pride of place. The result is the media wasting time and resources on pursuing stories that are ultimately generally useless in divining policy and progress in a society. The media is society’s watchdog, and its duty is to protect the people from untruths in policy and to shield them from wicked decisions. Focusing on the personal lives does nothing to serve the actual material interests of the people. Thus when the media reports on the private lives of politicians over the more meaty issues of the day, it abrogates its most fundamental duty to its citizens. The best example of this occurring is certainly the Lewinski affair in America. While it was deeply unfortunate that the president would use his power to solicit the sexual favours of an intern, the near maniacal fixation with which the media attended the story served to halt the process of government for many months. Bill Clinton spent much of his time and energy obfuscating and apologising for his private life, while the Congress dithered over who could be the most righteous in their opposition to the president. [1] The result was one of the most farcical standstills in the history of American governance. Absent the media reporting on this story and delving into the lives of those involved, America might well have been able to focus on the things that mattered.  [1] Gitlin, T. “The Clinton-Lewinsky Obsession: How the Press Made a Scandal of Itself”. The Washington Monthly. December 1998,

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: The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated  A distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&M [i] . Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk.  Where violent sports events take place without any form of official sanction or oversight, their size makes them easy to detect, and legal principles such as negligence and ineffective consent make them easy to prosecute.  Society permits violent public events such as rugby, while condemning violent private entertainments such as S&M partly because consent, capacity and safety are much easier to determine in a public context.  In short, individuals are allowed to consent to the risks inherent in participating in a rugby match because the state- and society at large- is satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that players’ consent is informed – that the risks they will be exposed to are foreseeable. This level of control and accountability cannot be generally guaranteed within individuals’ private sexual relationships.  Although S&M practices, when properly conducted, do not carry a risk of permanent harm and are not likely to result in non-consensual activity, oversight of participant’s behavior is simply not possible. Sexuality is inherently private and individual sexual acts are closed off from public discussion.  [i] Farrugia, Paul, ‘The Consent Defence in Sport and Sadomasochism’ (1997) Auckland University Law Review, 8 (2), 472

negative: business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth  In order for a society to develop economically, it needs a stable political framework and dictatorships are often less stable. A dictator will have to prioritize the retention of power. As repression is inevitable, a dictator will not necessarily be entirely popular. There will regularly be a doubt about the future and sustainability of a dictatorship. Bearing in mind the messy collapses of some dictatorships, a democracy may be a more stable form of government over the long term [1] .  Only democracies can create a stable legal framework. The rule of law ensures all of society has access to justice and the government acts within the law. Free and fair elections act as a bulwark against social unrest and violence. Economic freedoms and human rights protection also have positive effects on economies. Private property rights, for example, encourage productivity and innovation so that one has control of the fruits of their labour.  It has been argued by Acemolgu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that inclusive political institutions and pluralistic systems that protect individual rights are necessary preconditions for economic development [2] . If these political institutions exist then the economic institutions necessary for growth will be created, as a result economic growth will be more likely.  [1] See for example the work of Huntington, S, P., (1991), The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press,   [2] Acemolgu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books.

negative: Outside powers want oil so support dictatorial regimes who can deliver it.  Oil creates interdependence between the producing states in the Middle East and the consumers in Asia and the West. Although rising prices are good for producers they can also threaten the world economy and create inflation that in turn will damage the producers by reducing demand. [1] The consumers have to listen to Saudi Arabia and the other Arab regimes who provide their oil whereas they often don’t for poor countries in Africa who would otherwise be no different. Oil is the main reason for external interest in Arab regimes some of the strongest alliances in the Middle East are built with oil as their foundations. [2] Saudi Arabia is a US ally due to it being a major supplier while Egypt is an ally due to its vital position controlling a major trade route – the Suez canal. In neither case would any external powers such as the EU nor the U.S. really want a long an unstable transition to a democracy making a strong man a much easier option. This is shown by how the Obama administration has always been behind events, being unwilling to call for democracy in Egypt and President Mubarak to go. Instead the administration made statements such as that by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. [3] Many previous administrations would probably have been even more supportive of Mubarak.  [1] Daniel Yergin, The Prize The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power (New York, N.Y., 1993), p.703.  [2] Eric Watkins, ‘The Unfolding US Policy in the Middle East’, International Affairs, Vol.73, No.1 (Jan., 1997), pp.1-14, p.1  [3] John Barry, Inside the White House’s Egypt scramble, Newsweek, 30/1/2011,

negative: ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism  ISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment. [1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor.  [1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012.

negative: reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained Pluralism and Political Interference  The removal of ‘The Spear’ from the Goodman Gallery and the City Press also hints at a threat to pluralism, especially when one considers the political nature of the campaign to have such images removed.  While Jacob Zuma attempted to have the image banned in a personal capacity, the intensive campaigning by both the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) against both the Goodman Gallery and City Press [1] hints at a dangerously political action taken by those with close access to power over the South African state.  This should be cause to worry. Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa, in place since 1997, protects freedoms such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. [2] The intimidation of Art Galleries and Newspapers threatens the free exchange of ideas that occurs in these areas, as well sending an implicit image by its supports that criticism of the Government cannot be tolerated.  If neither the Gallery nor City Press removed the image of ‘The Spear’ from public view, then a clear message would have been sent that the principles of Free Speech, Free Association and Freedom of Intimidation outlined in the Constitution is to be upheld at all times, regardless of who may take offence at what is being said. It is important in the South African context to protect the right to criticise the government and voice opinions that vary from the ideals of the majority. It is worrying what kind of message is sent by those close to the South African Government that intimidation seems to be the appropriate response to criticism such as this rather than asking why such criticism is there in the first place.  [1] Mthembu, Jackson, ‘ANC calls on all South Africans to boycott buying City Press Newspaper and to join the protest match to the Goodman Gallery’, African National Congress, 24 May 2012,   [2] ‘Constitution of the Republic of South Africa’, Statutes of the Republic of South Africa, 4 February 1997,

negative: The amounts sovereign wealth funds invest in the poorest countries is tiny compared to their overall portfolio. In 2008 the head of the World Bank Robert Zollick was attempting to persuade sovereign wealth funds to invest just 1% of their assets in Africa. [1] Investment by SWFs in Africa is not all good. Sovereign wealth funds are guilty of bad behaviour in the developing world. Some government-backed firms from China and the Arab world (not all of the SWFs) have provided capital to maintain some of Africa’s worst rulers in power, in exchange for the opportunity to gain access to the natural resources of their misruled states. Sudan for example has sold 400,000 hectares to the United Arab Emirates. [2] This has allowed dictators to ignore the conditions (e.g. for political freedoms and economic reforms) attached to funding offered by western aid donors and international institutions such as the World Bank. It also contrasts sharply with the behaviour of western companies, who are led to act more responsibly by pressures from their own governments, investors and media.  [1] Stilwell Amy, and Chopra, Geetanjali S., ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds Should Invest in Africa, Zoellick Says’, 2008.   [2] The Economist, ‘Buying farmland abroad, Outsourcing’s third wave’, 2009.

negative: Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures  The power structures that command peoples’ lives are often difficult to identify. While there are usually multiple candidates to choose from at election time, in many polities they all tend to come out from small-based elite. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, serve as the incubators of power in the United Kingdom. They hold vastly disproportionate sway in composition of Parliament and other political posts, and tend to dominate the front benches of all the parties. What media scrutiny, particularly with the advent of new media, has served to be is a massive check on entrenched elites. They challenge them in their lofty offices and strike at their very hearts when they behave in ways inappropriate or hypocritical. [1] This scrutiny is often one of the only pure democratic powers available to ordinary people, even in a liberal democracy.  [1] Thompson, J. 2011. “Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life”. Theory Culture Society 28(4): 49-70.

negative: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers  North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms.  It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2]  [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,   [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,

negative: olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko Boycotting Euro 2012 will highlight Ukraine’s backsliding on human rights  European leaders must take a stand on human rights in their own back yard if they are to be taken seriously on the issue anywhere in the world. There are numerous human rights abuses in Ukraine; migrants "risk abusive treatment and arbitrary detention", Roma and people with dark skin in particular face governmental and societal discrimination and some xenophobic attacks and may be prosecuted for acting in self defense. [1] Amnesty International has highlighted abuse of power by the police “numerous cases in Euro 2012 host cities in which police have tortured people in an attempt to extort money, extract a confession, or simply because of the victims’ sexuality or ethnic origin”. [2] If Europe turns a blind eye to these kinds of abuses in neighbouring states without even a minor diplomatic snub it will not have the moral authority to confront worse abuses elsewhere in the world. States that are abusing their own citizens would shrug off criticism believing that European states will not back their criticism up with any action.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] ‘Ukraine: Euro 2012 jeopardised by criminal police force – New Amnesty report’, Amnesty.org.uk, 2 May 2012 .

negative: Banning flag burning effectively bans questioning of what it represents, and thus bans questioning of the widely held values of the United States  When an individual's views are particularly opposed and contrary to those the national flag is customarily considered to embody, there can be no more valuable way of showing opposition. Should views be judged outdated or in error, people must have a way of showing it in a visceral way that will gain attention and spark discourse. Conventional patriotic views deserve to be challenged, if only to be reaffirmed by the public in the ensuing debate. The problem with prohibiting the act of flag burning is that it necessarily sends the message of banning discourse on the subject of what the flag represents1. It makes those values inviolable, but a free society should be able to question and change its values. Banning flag burning thus essentially bans dissent from the prevailing view. Yet banning something on the basis of majority opinion and their easily offended sensibilities is little more than a heckler's charter. If views are banned simply because the majority disagrees with them, it is little more than the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and thus clearly unjust2. The very reason there are checks and balances in the United States government is to prevent such tyranny. This is exactly why the Supreme Court has stood against the laws passed by the federal and state legislatures banning desecration of the flag; they protect the rights of citizens with a minority opinion from the majority seeking them away3. Flag burning is a form of free speech that helps people question what the United States should be. Banning it only serves to corrupt society.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. London: Penguin Classics (1982). 3Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

negative: olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko Europe must not give approval to this regime.  Viktor Yanukovych fairly came to power in 2010 however since then he has set about attacking the country’s fragile democracy. There are numerous cases showing this democratic decline. For example changes to the constitution that occurred after the Orange revolution have been rolled back to give more power to the presidency. [1] Most visibly opponents of the regime such as Yulia Timoshenko have been jailed in politically motivated trials. At the same time there have been attacks on the freedom of the media and Ukraine has fallen down rankings of press freedom in 2010-11 with its score from freedom house falling from 56 to 59 with its ranking falling to 130th. [2]  Ukraine, like its neighbours Russia and Belarus, has become a ‘virtual mafia state’ where the SBU (Ukraine’s successor to the KGB) is all powerful and the elite are unaccountable. [3] It is becoming more and more corrupt as is shown by its fall down the Corruption Perceptions Index from 118th in 2007 to 152nd in 2011. [4] Ukraine is clearly going in the wrong direction and European leaders need to stand up and show that the will not allow this to continue.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Dunham, Jennifer, ‘Press Freedom in 2011: Breakthroughs and Pushback in the Middle East’, Freedom House, 2012, pp.7, 16.  [3] Luzio, Taras, ‘Ukraine, Like Russia, Is Becoming a ‘Virtual Mafia State’’, Atlantic Council, 1 March 2012.  [4] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 , Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 .

negative: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute We have a duty to help the persecuted  The principles which underlie the asylum regime are as valid as ever. Millions still face persecution, death and torture globally because of who they are or because of their convictions. Democratic countries still have a moral obligation to offer protection to these people. We all recognise it as a horrendous failing by the countries who turned away Jewish refugees in the early days of Nazism where both the United States and the UK turned away large numbers or refugees, [1] and only the Dominican Republic was willing to take in large numbers. [2] This should never happen again. Developed nations have both the wealth and security to make them the best destinations for those seeking refuge.  [1] Perl, William R., ‘The Holocaust conspiracy: an international policy of genocide’, 1989, pp.37-51  [2] Museum of Jewish Heritage, ‘”A Community Born in Pain and Nurtured in Love” Jews who were given refuge by Dominican Republic’, 8 January 2008.

negative: Restricting SWFs is protectionism  Restricting the activities of sovereign wealth funds is a form of protectionism, which is itself likely to stimulate further demands for barriers against globalisation. Western countries oppose protectionism when it is from other countries preventing western companies investing so it would be hypocritical to want protectionism against those same countries buying the firms that want so much to invest in emerging markets. [1] It should be remembered that almost 40% of SWF assets are controlled by SWFs from advanced industrialised states. [2] As a result SWF investments abroad contribute to greater economic openness around the world. By exposing emerging economies and authoritarian states to developed world standards of transparency, meritocracy and corporate social responsibility, they will help to spread liberal values and raise standards. They will also give many more nations a stake in international prosperity through trade, encouraging cooperation rather than confrontation in foreign policy, and giving a boost to liberalising trade deals at the WTO. Finally as with all protectionism there is the risk that the SWFs will pull out their wealth and not invest as a result of protectionism resulting in lost jobs or jobs that would otherwise be created going somewhere more hospitable to SWFs. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘The rise of state capitalism’, 2008.   [2] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘BRIC by BRIC: The emergent regime for sovereign wealth funds’, 2008, p.5.   [3] Ibid, p10

negative: This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community  Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy.  One of the most powerful weapons in the international community’s arsenal is the soft power of condemnation. One of the most important things the international community can do is use its weight and influence to advocate protection of vulnerable peoples and promote moral and social causes. The West with its immense wealth and importance in international institutions such as the United Nations have a lot of power when it comes to influencing discriminatory policies in other nations. Granting asylum to people on the basis of sexual orientation sends a clear message to the international community that it is not okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the West not only strongly disapproves of this behaviour, but that, more importantly, they will take active steps to counter-act your discriminatory policies. This has immense impact on pressuring governments to change their policies.  What is important to note here is that there is a gradual normative consensus that is manufactured under this system. Through the use of soft power, the policies of nations are slowly but surely moderated and a global consensus is created. Not only can this policy influence current state behaviour, but that the influence and change that creates becomes part of a larger global move towards universal acceptance of the norm and the diffusion of that idea throughout all strata of society.  This is important in two ways:  Creating a discourse centred on a universal consensus against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore making discourse be dominated by agreement with this principle and thus creating a dialogue that creates an accepting atmosphere through disseminating the norm of acceptance throughout the international community and global society.  This is important is forging international legal protections for the rights of the LGBT community. International law arrives from a consensus of opinion around a particular issue and its need to be legislated on. Making sexual orientation grounds for asylum creates the framework that explicitly states that legislative international protection is necessary for these groups. This policy therefore begins that process in and of itself. However, more importantly, the reduction of opposition and trend of nations removing discriminatory laws against sexual orientation consolidates this statement of legislative need and furthers the cause for international protection.  Making sexual orientation a category for asylum not only saves lives, but also sends a strong and influential message that helps craft policy in nations who use discrimination as a tool of oppression against the LGBT community. This begins the foundations of global consensus on equality for all sexual orientations and a lasting solution to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

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

negative: y free speech debate free know house believes western universities A bargaining chip  In much the same way that material investment in countries can be used as a bargaining chip to secure improvements in areas of legislation, so cultural investment can be used to secure rights associated with related fields of endeavour. Free speech is merely the most obvious. It is reasonable for a western university to insist that its graduates will need to have access to the fruits of a free press and democratic speculation of experts and the wider public [i] .  The cases of the lecturer, Chia Thye Poh who is arguably the world’s longest serving prisoner of conscience or the political opposition leader, Vincent Cheng who was barred from addressing a talk organised the History Society of NUS at the national library [ii] both give examples of how Singaporean government actions impact directly on university life and academic freedoms. In the light of this, it seems the height of reasonableness for Western universities to say that they will only operate in areas that offer the same academic freedoms they would expect in their home country. If the Singaporean government wants that benefits that Yale graduates can bring, they should be prepared to accept such a change.  [i] Stateuniversity.Com. western Europe – Educational roots, reform in the twentieth century, contemporary reform trends, future challenges.  [ii] Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar, The Online Citizen, 28 May 2010

negative: An amnesty will not solve this problem either; all it will do is move poor people from one country to another. Those granted an amnesty might be slightly higher paid than they would be if they had stayed at home but without skills they will remain at the bottom of the pile while having to adapt to a new nation. Instead what is needed is economic growth in the poorer countries that are the origin of the migrants. This is something the rich world can encourage through numerous different methods. For example the USA allowed Mexico to join the North American Free Trade Agreement and so the US is Mexico's biggest export partner with 80% of Mexican exports being to America. Secondly rich countries can provide investment and the skills necessary to develop industries in these developing countries. For example Mexico has "structural inefficiencies" in its farming industry, [1] something which the United States as the world's most efficient agricultural producer could help with.  [1] Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, ‘Background Note: Mexico’, U.S. Department of State, 16 November 2011,

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