query: The government has a right to make decisions in the best interest of the people  Man is a social being. Therefore people live in communities where decisions that affect the many, are taken by representatives of the many. Thus, a social contract exists between the people and their government. [1] In exchange for part of their autonomy and freedom, the government ensures that policies are made in the best interest of people, even if this might come at the expense of short-term interests for some individuals. This is a typical example of this kind of case. The trend is emptying the countryside, stopping the production of agricultural goods and hollowing the amenities provided by the cities. Even if each individual has a personal incentive to move to the cities, the harm to the cities is greater than their accumulated individual gains. It is in these cases that the state must act to protect its people and ensure long term benefits.  [1] D'Agostino, Fred, Gaus, Gerald and Thrasher, John, "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

positive: economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should The government has a right to make some decisions on behalf of the people, but not any decision. Once the state acts against one group of people to further the interest of an already privileged group of people it loses this right as the state exists to protect everyone in society not just the majority or a privileged group. This is precisely the case in this motion. People who live in rural areas are already disenfranchised and condemned to terrible conditions, and the proposal only serves those who want their comfortable bourgeois life to be even more comfortable.

negative: The right to internet access as a fundamental right.  Internet access is a “facilitative right”, in that it facilitates access to the exercise of many other rights: like freedom of expression, information, and assembly. It is a “gateway right”. Possessing a right is only as valuable as your capacity to exercise it. A government cannot claim to protect freedom of speech or expression, and freedom of information, if it is taking away from its citizens the tools to access them. And that is exactly what the disruption of internet service does. Internet access needs to be a protected right so that all other rights which flow from it. [1]  The Internet is a tool of communication so it is important not just to individuals but also to communities. The internet becomes an outlet that can help to preserve groups’ culture or language [2] and so as an enabler of this groups’ culture access to the internet may also be seen as a group right – one which would be being infringed when the state cuts off access to large numbers of individuals.  [1] BBC, 2010. “Internet Access is ‘a Fundamental Right’".  [2] Jones, Peter, 2008. "Group Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

negative: The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.  Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others.  A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.  With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say. [1]  So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo.  [1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008,  , accessed 08/14/2011

negative: disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them  Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252). [1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002). [2]  [1] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)  [2] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)

negative: economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should People who move to the cities have chosen to move from their families and dear ones, because they want to create a new and better life for themselves. Armed with great motivation, they enter the cities and are often prepared to undertake work that others do not want to do, hoping to climb the social ladder later on. Interestingly it is often the case that those in slums have a higher rate of employment than those not living in slums. In Uganda for example only 9% of young men are neither in school or employment compared to 16% for those not living in slums. [1] This benefits the development of the city and it is only with this extra workforce that the city can fully develop, thus most big cities have at some point had slums, such as London’s East End in the 19th Century. It might take time, but for the long-term benefits of the cities, rural-urban migration should be promoted. An example of this slow kind of development is the progress that is seen today in Kibera outside of Nairobi where small parts of the shanty-towns are gradually converted into lower middle-class communities.  [1] Mboup, Gora, “Measurement/indicators of youth employment”, Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Creating Urban Youth Employment Solutions for Urban Youth in Africa, June 2004, www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/presentation/urban_mboup.ppt

negative: Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)  42% of the Indian population is under the international poverty line and it is they that contribute the most to imbalanced sex ratio due to economic concerns. [1] Offering a financial incentive for people to produce female children will undermine the autonomy of parents. In order for there to be autonomy, the individual needs to be able to make a rational, unforced decision. When someone is extremely impoverished, as many people are in developing economies like those of China and India, financial incentives are an offer that cannot be refused. Proposition would have you believe that we offer the parents an autonomous choice between having a female child and receiving money or not having the child and not receiving money. Of course they will take the money! Poverty removes the possibility of choice. In this way, poor parents are being forced to have female children to ensure their own survival and the survival of their already existing family.  Why is this problematic? Firstly, we believe choice is intrinsically valuable because the freedom to make choices is recognition of our fundamental humanity and individuality. If we cannot determine our own futures we are slaves. We value choice so much that we sometimes allow it when it risks causing wider social problems. For example, we allow people to smoke or eat unhealthily even though this may cost the health system a lot of money.  Secondly, people have the most empirical information about themselves and are therefore able to make the best choices for themselves. For example, a family may know that they do not have the space in their home or the time to raise another child. They may know that a boy will be better able to support the family financially later on because he will be more likely to get a job and in some cases this may even override the financial benefits offered by government. These are all important considerations that only individual families are able to take into account. A government is unable to know each family’s individual situation and therefore is not well suited to make this decision in place of the family.  [1] Poverty in India.” Wikipedia.

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: Current international law does still matter, each time a state takes such action without consent other states object, they are simply not powerful enough to prevent it but this does prevent any norm being created by the aggressor.  If however international law does no longer matter then any war is legal, or rather at least not illegal. This potentially means going back to a situation where any state has a sovereign right to engage in conflict for almost anything it sees as an infringement of its sovereignty. The best we might hope for would be that states could agree that while war might be legal it has to be under the conditions of launching a just war under jus ad bellum. There are six requirements:  just cause – defence of oneself, allies, or innocents or punishment for wrongdoing  right intention – no ulterior motives beyond the stated cause  Proper authority and public declaration – must be open and done publically  Last resort – have expended all peaceful alternatives  Proportionality – must create more good than evil so that the action is worth the costs  Probability of success – there must be some likelihood of making a difference and concluding the conflict quickly. [1]  In most cases military action would not meet all of these requirements.  [1] Orend, Brian, "War", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition),   Also see the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes there can be such a thing as a just war ’

negative: High Speed Rail will not be a successful long term business investment.  The issue with high speed rail is that it is a case of a government providing what is essentially a private good. The market that will use high speed rail will be people who wish to commute between cities quickly, generally rich businesspeople. As such, the market for such a product is incredibly niche. Further, the price of high speed rail will still be higher than plane and the journey times between most cities that aren’t very close together already will still be longer. As such, it seems that there is an incredibly small market for such a product. The reason a market for this product does not exist already is that no private company could ever make a profit from the product owing to the low demand among consumers for it. [1]  Therefore, the only way to make the product work would be to ensure that the product is significantly cheaper than the competition. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be through large subsidies for train use, meaning that high speed rail would continue to make a net loss for the U.S. government for years to come.  Further, any benefit in terms of jobs created for people in local communities will be incredibly low, for example with automatic barriers very few staff are needed at stations. Instead for the same amount of money, the government could easily implement policies which placed solar panels in every home, allowing them to generate and export their own power. Whilst this wouldn’t create jobs, it would increase income for people in the area and would likely help the environment to a significantly greater extent. [2]  [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009   [2] “High-Speed Rail and the Case Against Private Infrastructure.” The Atlantic. 16/07/2010

negative: The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens  There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.  In a democracy the people elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time, are well equipped to make a better and more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. Therefore one of the principles is, that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. That is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking or limit with different means the usage of tobacco - an activity which kills millions of people each year.  Precedent is that if a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned or very harshly regulated.  1 Cancer Action Network, Help Fight Tobacco and Save Lives, 2 Ash.Research report, Tobacco: Global trends, August 2007,

negative: Many of the worries raised about who might be charged under such laws are irrelevant, judges and juries will be able to tell when someone is a journalist or intelligence official who does not have any criminal intent. Others who are visiting these extremist sites based upon ideology and yet are never going to engage in terrorist attacks themselves may well still provide financial or other support to those who do commit more violent acts. [1] A primary aim of the law is “to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests” [2] something that this does by through preventing more major crimes by prosecuting for a minor crime. We should also remember that the punishment need not be disproportionate as it could simply mean restricting the guilty party’s internet access rather than prison.  [1] Kroenig, Matthew and Pavel, Barry, ‘How to Deter Terrorism’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2, Spring 2012, pp.21-36, p.24.  [2] Duff, Antony, "Theories of Criminal Law", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

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

negative: economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should Poor, uneducated people are lured into cities  The cause of rural-urban migration in developing nations and the main reason why it becomes problematic is that people who move to the cities are not making informed decisions. They are led to believe that the cities contain opportunities that they cannot find where they live, and there are no mechanisms such as efficient media or adequate education to eradicate this misconception. [1] Myths can be easily propagated by a single successful migrant returning home to visit that then attracts many others to try their luck without any knowledge of the possible costs. [2] This is exacerbated by unscrupulous organisations that prey on their desperation to take all their money to organise their move to the city. Some of those who are trafficked find themselves brought to the city and exploited through forced labour, begging, or even prostitution. [3] Many of those who move to cities find themselves in a worse situation but have lost any moving power they originally had and are thus trapped.  [1] Zhan, Shaohua. “What Determines Migrant Workers' Life Chances in Contemporary China? Hukou, Social Exclusion, and the Market.” 243, 2011, Vol. 37.  [2] Waibel, Hermann, and Schmidt, Erich, “Urban-rural relations”, in Feeding Asian Cities: Food Production and Processing Issues, FAO, November 2000,   [3] “UNIAP Vietnam”, United Nations Inter Agency Project on Human Trafficking, accessed March 2013,

negative: Mandatory health insurance is not analogous to car insurance. Car insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.  States do not require non-drivers, including passengers in cars with potentially bad drivers, to buy auto insurance liability policies -- even though such a requirement undoubtedly would lower the auto insurance premiums for those who do drive. The auto insurance requirement is linked to driving and to the possibility that bad driving may cause injuries to others, including passengers in the driver's car, not to those who benefit from roads generally.(2) The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself. And the auto insurance mandate is a quid pro quo for having the state issuing a privilege: in this case a driver’s license.(6)  Regarding the claim that Medicare tax provides a justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate, it is worth noting that the architects of Medicare harboured grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States government. However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits, although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out”, other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.(6)

negative: Rights should be gained progressively  Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 16 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 16 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. The more difficult and complex the choices involved in that right and the greater the impact the later a right should be given. Because voting is so important, involves complex decision making, and can potentially have a large impact, it should be one of the last rights to be gained. It then makes sense that it voting should be granted at the time we consider adulthood to be beginning, which was agreed in the declaration of the rights of the child is 18. [1]  [1] Archard, David William, ‘Children's Rights’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

negative: Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict  Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]  Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.  [1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)  [2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011

negative: Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest  A focus of a leader who is looking toward the next election is on getting votes. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by leaders, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are concerned with being re-elected. A leader has an incentive to put tough decisions off if he can retain power by doing so. When constrained by term limits, leaders must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform. [1] Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places leaders in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behaviour, it is curtailed by term limits, as leaders in their final term will not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again.  Furthermore, leaders who develop strong party structures can influence the choice of their successor, ensuring that they have a legacy. In this way term limits encourage the development of party-based systems, rather than personality based systems of government.  [1] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available:

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Mayors would be more accountable than a council  Electing mayors would improve accountability in local government. A Mayor would have a bigger mandate, which could be up to 500,000 votes compared to 5,000 for individual councillors making them more directly accountable to the city’s electorate. [1] They are also more visible; 57% of people could name their mayor when they had one compared to only 8% being able to name their council leader and so they are more likely to be held to account for their individual policies. [2] By comparison where there are not mayors an elaborate and confusing series of committees make decisions in most areas, making it easy for individual councillors or parties to dodge responsibility for unpopular decisions or failed policies. Bristol is a good example of this with wobbly coalitions resulting from backroom deals and constantly shifting politics; the council changed hands seven times in the ten years to 2012. [3] Placing this power in the hands of an elected mayor would streamline decision-making and increase accountability. A mayor who failed to improve local services or in other ways implement their campaign promises would have little chance of re-election.  [1] Sims, Sam, ‘Electing mayors for more English cities would increase local democratic accountability and widen political participation. But the government must grant them real power and freedom’, blogs.lse.ac.uk, 7 October 2011.  [2] Gash, Tom, ‘A turning point for England’s big cities’, Institute for Government, 29 March 2012.  [3] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The international system is based on equality and non-interference  Relations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development.  [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945,   [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),   [3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151

negative: Individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage  The ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens’ charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many people’s self worth, and most capitalist-based societies place great store in an individual’s employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment. [1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage. [2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers’ dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.  [1] Dorn, Minimum Wage Socialism, 2010  [2] Butler, Scrap the Minimum Wage, 2010

negative: Reporting generates a constant iteration of fear in the public, and precipitates a ratchet effect toward crime  Constant reporting on violent crime makes people more fearful. This not a deliberate effort on the part of the media to keep people afraid, but rather is a corrosive negative externality; violence sells, so media provides, resulting in the scaring of audiences. The result of the media’s reporting on violent crimes is a constant iteration of fear, which makes people wary of each other, and of the world. [1] Furthermore, such reporting creates a feeling in people of other individuals and groups most often reported as committing crimes as being “other” from themselves. For example, reporting on extensive crimes in inner-city areas in the United States has caused middle class suburbanites to develop wariness toward African-Americans, who are constantly reported in the media as criminals. This is socially destructive in the extreme. The heightened senses of insecurity people feel leads to vigilance in excess. This is bad for people’s rationality. All these problems yield very negative social consequences.  The constant reporting on violence leads to people demanding immediate law enforcement, and politicians quick to oblige, which leads to a ratchet effect, a precipitous increase in punishments for crimes. This results in a severe misallocation of resources; first in terms of irrationally high spending on extra policing, and second in terms of the excessive allocation of resources and authority to the state to solve the problems of crime through force. This is observed, for example, in the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, which was acclaimed in a state of fear after 9/11, and which gave extensive, even draconian powers to the state in the name of security. The media fuels this hysteria. Without its influence, cooler heads can prevail. The end result of all this is a treating of symptoms rather than the cause. Putting more police on the streets, and getting tough on crime fail to address underlying issues, which are often poverty and the social ills arising from it. [2] Citizens and governments should instead face the actual problem instead of choosing flashy option.  [1] Rogers, Tom. “Towards an Analytical Framework on Fear of Crime and its Relationship to Print Media Reportage”. University of Sheffield.   [2] Amy, Douglas J. “More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom”. Government is Good. 2007,

negative: Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events  It is in the interests of communities and countries to attract sponsorship for events on this scale, as with other areas, such as transport, that requires a little sacrifice. Hosting major events, inevitably, requires some degree of inconvenience for those living in the area trying to go about their daily lives. These inconveniences are tolerated because there are wider benefits. In the instance of the Olympics, a core part of the initial bid was the assumption that hosting them would produce long term benefits for the city in the form of tourism [i] and regeneration. [ii] Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen although, given the number of historic venues used for events [iii] , it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that it may be likely.  To ensure these future benefits, there is an understanding that there will be some disruption caused and some inconvenience, allowing sponsors a degree of autonomy is comparable to that inconvenience.  LOCOG argues without the sponsors “investment the Games wouldn’t happen.” [iv] Without the Games the future benefits wouldn’t happen – quite the reverse if they simply fell apart after the bid had been won. The smaller traders who feel aggrieved now are exactly the people who will benefit for years to come as people make use of the new facilities or see London as a tourist destination they would not otherwise have considered. It’s a simple quid pro quo.  [i] Woodman, Peter, ‘London 2012: Olympic boost to retailers and tourism new figures show’, The Independent, 6 August 2012.  [ii] ‘Regeneration and economic growth Olympics legacy’, Communities and Local Government, accessed 9th August 2012  [iii] London Olympics: Some Events Set Amid Historic City Landmarks. LA Times. 27 July 2012.  [iv] London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited, ‘Rule 40 Guidelines’, July 2011, p.6.

negative: The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.  Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy." [1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap.  Indeed, the U.N.’s solution to regulate migration represents a reasonable and thorough approach. It is reasonable because it does not ask too much of states, requiring only that they provide migrants with basic rights. It is thorough because it provides protection for each of the many challenges and injustices facing migrant workers. Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.  [1] Deparle, Jason. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move," New York Times. June 26, 2010.

negative: The European Parliament may ‘speak for Europe’ but the Council speaks for the EU’s member states. Privileging the European Parliament at the expense of the Council erodes the intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making. It is important to protect the sovereign powers of the individual member states; this is achieved in the Council, which is comprised of representatives of each national government. This has been particularly the case in the United Kingdom where there have been rows over sovereignty in relatively obscure areas such as prisoners voting rights. [1]  The European Union can only work if national considerations are put above all others. The Council works because the best possible conclusions are reached precisely because compromise between the varying interests is required. Involving the European Parliament would shift the emphasis of the entire EU from being a forum for independent nations to being a decision making body for a large number of states, undermining the sovereignty of domestic parliaments.  [1] Bagehot, ‘Britain’s mounting fury over sovereignty’, The Economist, 10 February 2011,

negative: The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:  A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.  1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. "Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. "Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement". Time.

negative: Profiling is consistent with individual rights:  Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: "It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag." [1]  Profiling, by making security more effective, would in fact better safeguard everyone’s rights. Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims.” [2]  The state has a duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that its security apparatus is effective and adaptable, even if this means running afoul of political correctness and the rights of those individuals affected. According to Michael Reagan, president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers." [3] As long as there is a net benefit to everyone of increased security, then individual rights are actually better protected, as everyone who travels has a greater chance of not being blown up.  The state should accord a higher priority- when balancing the competing rights claims of citizens- to policies and powers that protect individuals from terrorist attacks than to protecting citizens from the transient feelings of victimisation and isolation that result from profiling. The harm that results from failing to uphold the former is much, much greater than the harm that would attach to the later.  Therefore the state should protect the individual rights of its citizens by ensuring that they are protected first –by instituting security profiling at airports.  [1] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Mayors would raise the profile of the city they represent  Elected mayors would speak on behalf of their communities, raising the profile of their town or city nationally and internationally. This could be particularly valuable when negotiating with businesses, helping to draw valuable investment into their area and overcoming bureaucratic hurdles that typically hinder development. Chambers of commerce in cities that are holding referendums believe a figurehead will provide a focal point for business relations and a single point of contact that champions the city’s interests. [1] In addition, mayors would give local government in general a higher profile after years of increasing centralisation by national government. Acting collectively, and through the change in attitudes their higher media profile would generate, mayors would be able to draw power away from the centre once again and bring it closer to the people.  [1] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.41

negative: business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression Gambling is quite different from buying stocks and shares. With the stock market investors are buying a stake in an actual company. This share may rise or fall in value, but so can a house or artwork. In each case there is a real asset that is likely to hold its value in the long term, which isn’t the case with gambling. Company shares and bonds can even produce a regular income through dividend and interest payments. It is true that some forms of financial speculation are more like gambling – for example the derivatives market or short-selling, where the investor does not actually own the asset being traded. But these are not types of investment that ordinary people have much to do with. They are also the kinds of financial activity most to blame for the financial crisis, which suggests we need more government control, not less.

negative: law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence The right to life means a right to death  When we speak of the right to life it means more than merely the right to be alive, it encompasses the right to self-ownership, the notion that one’s life is one’s own and that you are not beholden to anyone else by the mere fact that you are alive. It follows from this that there can be no duty on anyone to live beyond a point of their own choosing, and there should be no attempt to interfere with suicidal behaviour whether by individuals or by the law. [1]  [1] Chobli, Michael, ‘Suicide’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward n. Zalta (ed.), Fall 2009,

negative: Limiting the rights of corporate persons would harm a wide range of organisations and limit the freedom of natural persons.  Public speech and exchanges of ideas lie at the root of political and social decision making in liberal democracies. Without a guarantee that expression will remain free and protected from government interference, the other rights discussed in the first amendment to the United States constitution would become impossible to exercise. The discussion and pursuit of religious ideas would be obstructed. The ability to challenge the actions and decisions of an incumbent government would be put at risk too [1] . Even the reporting of verifiably true information about the affairs of the state and its citizens- freedom of the press- would become hazardous without the toleration for inaccuracies and the concept of public interest that principled freedom of speech gives rise to.  In order for a right to be meaningful, however, it must be possible to exercise that right effectively. A right to free movement would be meaningless if the government that guaranteed it was unable to keep its citizens safe within their communities. Similarly, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. Isolated oratory and passing on news by word-of-mouth are not effective ways of handling information.  Corporate entities have emerged as the most effective method of pooling individual resources in order to take full advantage of the benefits and freedoms of free speech and dialogue [2] . As the columnist George Will observes, in the USA “newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations- and most religious institutions- are corporate entities.” [3] The proposition side advocates depriving these bodies of many of their rights, simply because they benefit from a legal fiction that- itself- is designed to make co-operation and resources sharing among like-minded individuals- natural persons- more effective.  The difficulties presented by corporate campaigning would allow the state to restrain the publication of almost any coherent, publicly distributed form of speech that was critical of politicians or their parties. The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has noted that Jim McGovern's People's Rights Amendment, which most closely resembles the proposition's mechanism, would give legislators fiat to restrict the content of newspapers by defining it as “corporate” speech that did not benefit from the same set of rights as the expressed opinions of natural persons. This is a wider application of the rule that brought Citizens United and the BCRA before the supreme court [4] . As set out in the introductory case study, the BCRA allowed the Federal Election Commission to claim that a movie (produced by a right-wing PAC) critical of democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton represented a misuse of private funds that could potentially give an unfair advantage to Clinton's opponents.  Under the sections of the BCRA that were struck down in 2012, and under the new laws that proposition wish to create, it would be possible for legislative bodies and the judiciary to target any and all forms of political communication produced by corporate entities without having to consider the objectives of those communications. In plainer terms, the state's power to ban and censor free speech would not be limited to statements made to lobby an electorate or to campaign in favour of a particular politician or policy.  Citizens who wished to avoid being caught up in this law would be obliged to share resources via archaic legal structures such as partnerships and co-operative agreements. Assemblies of citizens could be exposed to a great deal of financial risk in such a situation. Each member of a partnership would be forced to bear the debts and legal liabilities of the entire partnership. In addition, agreements concluded by the partnership would require the consent of every partner. This is a minor inconvenience when a partnership consists of two or three people, but it would be an impossible demand to fulfil for an organisation such as the communications giant ComCast, which has a share volume of 10.5 million (as of May 2012).  [1] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [2] “Infant and corporate rights”. The Economist, 07 May 2012.   [3] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [4] “The ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ and the media”. Volokh, E. The Volokh Conspiracy, 26 April 2012.

negative: Liberty  Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place.  We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1)  The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want.  (1) Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011,

negative: An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.  Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents’ decisions.  Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability to make an informed decision. [1]  Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2]  The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.” [3]  As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.  [1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008,  , accessed 05/25/2011  [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  , accessed 05/28/2011  [3] Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization,  , accessed 05/29/2011

negative: Gambling effects every person in the same way, everyone have the free will to decide to gamble and each may win or lose despite of their wealth or position in society, thus gambling cannot affect poor people to a greater extent. Gambling is only regressive because more poor people choose to gamble.  Gambling does also have good effects on all member of society- Gambling is often used to raise money for the state or good causes. Many governments tax gambling. Some even run their own lotteries. Charities use prize draws to raise funds. Because people will gamble anyway, the best that governments can do is to pass rules to make it safe and try to get some social good out of it. If the government uses the revenue to help people on lower-incomes, it is not necessarily true that taxes on gambling are regressive and target the poor.


query: It places excessive moral burden on solicitors  With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone.

positive: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately  In exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications. [1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 [2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances.  [1] Rule 4: Confidentiality and disclosure, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/05/11  [2] The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, legislation.gov.uk, No2157, 2007,

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished It is a breach of a fundamental rule of an attorney's professional conduct rules to lie to the courts. In England and Wales the risk of Attorney's lying has been catered for by the Rule 11.01 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. This rule makes it a serious breach of the conduct rules to lie to or knowingly deceive the courts; as witness statements and police interviews are presented in courts as evidence these are also included. [1] This means that a solicitor is not allowed to put forward or allow to be put forward any information to be adduced to the court which is incorrect. The consequences for a solicitor are high – they are liable to have their professional license revoked. Given the high consequences, a solicitor would not be willing to risk it and will therefore not be willing to lie for their client to the court.  [1] Rule 11: Litigation and advocacy, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/5/11

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished All this shows is that our 'adversarial system' is flawed. Rather than each party trying to pull the wool over the courts eyes and only see their version of the facts surely the system of justice would operate better if each attorney had the duty to the court in finding the truth. Perhaps it is for this reason that mediation is often seen as the better way to solve disputes. In mediation, the parties are each trying to reach an out of court settlement that balances both of their needs. Justice would be achieved more easily in this mediation setting if the client-attorney privilege did not apply. Solicitors then would truly be looking to advance justice, not the clients best interests. Justice is supposed to be unbiased in this regard.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case  An attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”. [1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice.  [1] Rule 1: Core duties, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/05/11

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations  Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death.  In addition there are situations where the client’s interest may indeed be hurt but where this should be outweighed by some other very important public interest. In other words perhaps there should be ‘necessity’ or ‘public interest’ or ‘in the interests of justice’ balancing exceptions to the privilege. This would be the case when public safety is at risk, for example if the client holds some very vital information but is not willing to disclose it to anyone other than his lawyer. In such cases the courts should weigh up and balance the client’s interests against society’s and make the decision accordingly rather than rigidly sticking to attorney-client privilege.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished It is very unusual to have a case where it would be certain that disclosure would in no way affect the client. Clients want confidentiality for a wide variety of reasons, not only for reasons connected to personal criminal liability. Even if these confidences are not any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, they may nonetheless be matters that the client, for one reason or another, would not wish divulged. Abolishing the privilege not only violates a person’s right to privacy, but a person who knows that his communications may be later revealed (even after his death, or even with ‘use immunity’) may well decide that it is better not to go to a lawyer in the first place – in other words, leading to an access to justice problem. This becomes even more of a problem if the privilege may be overridden when it is in the public interest as the client is not going to know when this may be considered to be the case. Better to keep the information to him/herself rather than opening the possibility that it may be used ‘in the public interest’

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance  One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent [1] . In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated.  [1] In-house counsel on the rise, New Law Journal, 28 April 2010,  accessed 18/05/11

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients  If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished The circumstances under which Note 9 allows such a break in the rule of client-attorney privilege is for the HM Revenue and other bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. It is rather archaic that a principle such as that of attorney-client privilege is loosened only for bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. This does not show that attorney-Client privilege is necessary but that it is not. If the Government is willing to do away with it for their monetary benefit, why can we not do away with it in the interest of justice for society? There should be a system that encourages the adversarial system, and attorney/client privilege but yet allows a variety of circumstances to override this principle, such as public interest and public security. These principles are often used to justify potential Human Rights breaches, so we should also be able to use them to justify the breach of attorney/client privilege.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished It blocks a significant amount of evidence  A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished If it were the case that legal advice were not privileged people would not tell their attorneys the full truth and therefore such evidence would not exist anyway. The removal of Attorney-Client Privilege would only remove such evidence from the forum. This would lead to a further distorted system whereby Attorneys are arguing upon the false representations made to them by their clients. This provides even less evidence of truth than a system which includes Attorney-Client Privilege.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished It supports the principle that everyone is entitled to a defence  In criminal, civil or commercial matters, it is important that everyone has equal access to the law. This ensures a fair and just system. In order to facilitate this principle, even those in the wrong need to know that what they say to their legal representative will not be used against them at a later date. It is this principle that provides equality in the court room and therefore the principle of client attorney privilege needs to be maintained.

negative: law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished This does not mean that client-attorney privilege should be done away with altogether. When it comes to European law and their investigations under the Treaty of Lisbon for uncompetitive practices, they do not count in house lawyer communications as privileged [1]  [1] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited C-550/07  accessed 18/05/11

negative: It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours’, employers’, former-partners’ or other citizens who maythose who work for public bodies.  The right to access allows people to see information that affects them personally or where there is reasonable suspicion of harm or nefarious practices. It doesn’t allow them to invade the privacy of other citizens who just happen to work for public bodies or have some other association [i] .  Unless there is reason to suspect corruption, why should law-abiding citizens who sell goods and services to public bodies have the full details of their negotiations made public for their other buyers, who may have got a worse deal, to see? Why should the memo sent by an otherwise competent official on a bad day be made available for her neighbours to read over? A presumption in favour of publication would ensure that all of these things, and others, would be made a reality with the force of law behind them.  This would place additional burdens on government in terms of recruitment and negotiations with private firms – not to mention negotiations with other governments with less transparent systems. Let’s assume for the moment that the British government introduced a system, it is quite easy imagine a sense of “For God’s sake don’t tell the British” spreading around the capitals of the world fairly quickly.  [i] Section 40 0(A) od the FOIA. See also Freedom of Information Act Environmental Information Regulations. When Should Salaries be Disclosed? Information Commissioner’s Office.

negative: There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

negative: This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty  Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice.  No nation has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The moral viewpoints of a nation and its peoples are not what can be considered ‘just cause.’ It is a religious and moral viewpoint to believe that homosexuality should be prosecuted and it is the obligation of any individual living in a state to abide by the laws of the state that they live in. It is not within the rights of other countries to decide if the domestic laws of another country are in line with their views nor is it legitimate for them to violate sovereignty on this basis.  If an individual wishes to break the laws of their society on moral grounds, they have knowingly and intentionally violated the law. Just as people who think any other law unjust and thus breaks it, the LGBT community is in no way less culpable for the breach of law nor is any state any more justified in allowing them to evade punishment.

negative: Moral sex requires more than informed consent, and society should uphold moral values  Moral sex requires treating others not merely as a means to our own ends, but as beings with ends of their own. This means that we are morally required to consider the needs of our sexual partners and not only our own selfish desires. In market sexual transactions, the client merely pursues the satisfaction of his own desires, and therefore treats the service provider as a means to his own ends.  Because prostitution inevitably involves the instrumental and immoral treatment of others, toleration of prostitution involves the toleration of immoral behaviour. Society should uphold moral values by banning prostitution.

negative: ethics life house believes right die There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.  By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden.  [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 .

negative: The law would act as a deterrent against attempts to conceal a smoking habit to procure healthcare  There are realistic ways a policy of denying healthcare access to smokers could be carried out. Insurance companies already ask lots of health-related questions, often including whether their client is a smoker, when assessing life insurance premiums. In these cases, you are required to give details of your lifestyle by law. Of course, some people do not, however this is to be expected since no law is one hundred per cent effective. Sanctions exist to discourage dishonest behaviour. A similar model could be put in place requiring a declaration of smoker status to the health authority. Indeed, many doctors already enquire about their patients' smoking statuses on an informal basis. It is also particularly hard to lie about being a smoker for two reasons. First, other people inevitably see you smoking. This means an abundance of witnesses in the case of a dispute, and thus a disincentive to lie. Second, people require doctors to undertake detailed examinations for treatment purposes, thereby allowing them to see obvious outward signs of smoking: tar deposits, tar in cough, yellowed fingernails, etc.

negative: The State Does Not Have the Authority To Limit Citizens in This Way  The state places rules upon its citizens for the overall betterment of society. However, whenever possible the state also affords citizens liberty.  This is the case because the state sees that when people are free to do what they want they are able to make better decisions for themselves and further are able to interact with the state better. They do this because they feel that the state is allowing them to make their own decisions and as such the state is showing its trust in its citizens. This bond of trust between the state and the citizens as well as the state giving the citizens their own responsibilities means that citizens respect the state for the fact that it does not limit them.  To examine this from a point of view that does not rely on moral consequentialism and a utility based principle, it is possible to say that the state should afford people liberty and freedom because the starting point of any rational moral calculus should be the admission that an individual is the best judge of what is in his own interest. To not give people choice is ultimately an idea that dehumanises people. As such, the only time where freedoms should truly be restricted is when allowing the freedom results in a greater level of dehumanisation among the people. So for example, we prevent murder because allowing people to kill one another results in allowing some people to entirely remove other people’s ability to choose on purpose.

negative: The option given to the police and victim to not disclose the information undermines the principled claim in Proposition Argument Two that people should be free to determine the importance of the information on their own; this denies them that freedom in some cases. Given cases where there is a risk of vigilantism are the ones which excite the most public feeling, these cases may be the ones which people feel are most important to know about.

negative: The state has a duty to maximise freedoms.  All states in some way limit individual freedoms, by requiring them to follow laws and enforcing these laws with the coercive power of the state. However, such limits can be justified in so far as they advance others freedoms; limiting Person A's freedom to kill enhances Person B's freedom to live. States therefore derive their legitimacy to deny freedoms from their advancement of overall freedom. This policy enhances the freedom of people to defend themselves and their family by providing them with information about offenders (see Argument Three), and allows them to determine for themselves the importance of that information1.  1 law.jrank.org, 'Sex Offences

negative: You will rarely get the chance to interact with those intelligent individuals, either in Law School, where most of your time will be spent in the library, or at a Law Firm, where any discussions will detract from your ability to bill hours. The legal business model effectively incentivizes long-hours, with most of it going to research. You will rarely if ever see a courtroom, unless you work as a public defender and even there you will spend most of your time on research.

negative: We expect people to want to use the right to be forgotten mostly when the information on the web is actually hurting them. That means that, in the most common scenario, people would face negative consequences before they can use the right, otherwise why bother one-self with engaging the legal system? However a lack of responsibility is not a charge that can be levied at everyone, often they just could not foresee the consequences. Being responsible is premised on the idea that you know the results of your actions. When you do not and cannot know them – because maybe that photo will be a problem in 10 years – no amount of thinking about an issue is going to make it better.

negative: Of course people need to be held to account and in some cases the publication of the private affairs of public figures can be justified. However, on the whole, most reporting into the private lives of public figures is simply gossip which the public has no need to know and is holding no-one to account. Instead it is often simply being used to sell media products. There are hundreds of examples which could be cited of such intrusion, often involving actors/actresses and models which offer no real justification at all as to why they were printed. Printing stories about celebrities on holiday for example is not holding them to account or benefiting society in an actively positive way.  This can also extend to those in more traditional power roles. Is it in the public interest to know all the details about the private lives of politicians and CEOs if what is being reported does not have a direct effect on their role? For example Max Mosley, the now ex-president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a group which not only represents the interests of motoring organizations but is also the governing body for Formula One, was exposed in 2008 by the now defunct News of the World newspaper as being involved in a sadomasochistic sex act which involved several female prostitutes. The reporting of this was unnecessary as the event did not have a direct effect on his running of the FIA and was therefore not in the public interest. Mosley took the case to the UK High Court claiming infringement of his private life and the court found in his favor. [1]  [1] BBC (2008) Mosley Wins Court Case Over Orgy. [online] [accessed 14th July 2011]

negative: It is not possible to meaningfully consent to sadomasochistic sex  Meaningful consent requires both that the person is informed and of age when consenting, but also requires the ability to withdraw consent at any point in time. Sadomasochism does not afford this crucial requisite of consent to the individual, and therefore no individual can legitimately and fully consent to the act.  Safe words are ludicrously impractical. Their utility is dependent upon their actually being agreed and committed to memory in advance and their declaration being heeded by the individuals who are under the influence of intense sexual desire. The passive ‘victim’ might be subject to the physical constraints, characteristic of bondage, that make speech or even flight impossible. It might be difficult to distinguish between an injunction to cease and an exclamation of pain, which presumably is a relatively regular occurrence.  Even where a number of individuals are able to demonstrate that their sadomasochistic encounters are conducted on a safe, regulated and consensual basis, it is not possible to give a concurrent guarantee that S&M is generally safe and cannot be used to perpetrate rape or abuse. The existence of a group of individuals able to interact safely in a sadomasochistic context does not mean that S&M does not present a risk to the wider population, nor that ordinary individuals are not excessively vulnerable to harm when engaged in S&M activities.

negative: disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused  The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.' [1]  [1] Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk  (accessed on 4/6/2011)

negative: It should first be observed that accidents and inadvertent harm can befall S&M practitioners irrespective of the level of caution that they exercise. It is unacceptable to require responsible adults to run the risk of prosecution whenever they engage in a consensual act of sexual expression.  Further, relationships, even sadomasochistic relationships, can break down and become acrimonious. There is a risk that an embittered partner who formerly consented to prohibited S&M activity might try to use that fact to blackmail or persecute his or her ex-lover.  The opposition state that the freedom to dissent from laws regulating one’s private conduct begins to break down when the number of people engaging in a “private” activity grows. Why should the freedom to engage in a particular sexual activity imply a trade off against the freedom to choose how many people we engage in that activity with? Interacting with multiple sexual partners is not, in itself, illegal in the majority of western liberal states, but it does not exclude other sexual fetishes, such as S&M. The opposition is disguising a further limitation on sexual freedom- the freedom to engage in group S&M- as a concession to liberalism.  Finally, the awareness that a particular activity is proscribed can affect an individual’s ability to enjoy that activity. The pleasure inherent in free expression of sexual identity is compromised by the knowledge that discovery will lead to prosecution and stigmatization. As numerous accounts by those involved in the LGBT liberation movement have demonstrated, knowing that one’s sexuality is seen as something immoral and socially destructive is inhibiting and upsetting, even in private contexts.

negative: The sort of information being used in this advertising is legitimate for firms to utilize  The information trail left online through cookies etc. is a public statement, put into the public sphere. Provided the individual's identity is not revealed the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy. [1] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. Furthermore, this sort of targeted advertising, while focusing on general demographics and programmes, does succeed in hitting its mark most of the time. Thus there is a value in having the programming, and it is absent stereotype. All of this advertising is simply the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients and to cater for their needs and should not be considered any differently to adverts being placed as a result of working out what programs are watched by what demographic. TV is also moving towards targeting ads to individuals through information such as household income and purchasing history, this is information that is not private and online usage should be considered the same way. [2] Advertising is difficult business, given media saturation, and it is only right that this system exist to better serve the customers, given it is the natural outgrowth of past efforts.  [1] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 9 March 2008.   [2] Deloitte, “Targeted television advertisements miss the point”, 2012,

negative: A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions  One of the major problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to now is that it has been localized between the Israelis and Palestinians, with outside involvement limited to putting pressure on one side or the other at various times.  The result is that negotiations have become a zero-sum game where concessions from one side have to be extracted from the other. Allowing the Israelis to keep settlements means that the Palestinians must give up land. Allowing a “Right of return” to Palestinians is seen is something Israel alone must carry the burden of, when the vast majority live in other Arab states that perhaps should play a part in any sort of compensation scheme.  Consequently, negotiations have been far more brutal than they otherwise might have been. UN Recognition or at least a debate about it would move the forum of the discussion away from bilateral talks, and into the international sphere. The UN, by acknowledging responsibility for mishandling things on the Palestinian side in 1948, would in effect pave the way to help solve issues like the right of return and the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab states that cannot be resolved satisfactorily on a bilateral basis.

negative: Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy  Sexual autonomy means being able to control when, where, and with whom one has sexual relations. It also means that, at any moment, one may withdraw from a sexual relationship or encounter.  Spouses, lovers, and also strangers have the right to sexual autonomy. If an adult chooses to engage in sex with other adults who offer material benefits, her right to sexual autonomy is respected as long as she has control over when, where, and with which clients she has sexual relations, and as long as she is mentally competent and is allowed to terminate the agreement at any time.  If markets in sex were to become legal, the rights of providers (and clients) to sexual autonomy would need to be respected. This means that sex workers would maintain the right to refuse service to any customer, and to discontinue service or employment at any time and for any reason. Like other workers, sexual service providers would have the right to a safe and healthy work place. Workers who are drug dependent, or otherwise incompetent or highly vulnerable in the work place, would need to be provided treatment and time off work until they were capable of protecting themselves and others.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism There is no strict dichotomy in theology. It is perfectly reasonable for someone unsure of whether God exists to take up a position of agnosticism, refusing to emphatically accept the existence of God or to deny it. Atheism is a positive claim insofar as it is a statement about the nonexistence of God. The burden of proof is thus not so clearly on the shoulders of theism alone. Rather, they are rival claims that each side must be supported by positive evidence.