query: Religious belief is completely irrational  There is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t.

positive: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational There is good evidence that God exists and there are good arguments for accepting religious beliefs. The fact that we live in a beautiful, orderly universe in which human beings exist and have special moral and spiritual awareness points clearly to the existence of a divine Creator behind the universe. Billions of people have had religious experiences of one sort or another - all of them revealing the existence of divine reality - the only good explanation of this fact is that the divine reality is really there.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational All beliefs rely upon some form of presupposition as their grounding. The null hypothesis presupposes a natural world – but belief in God presupposes a supernatural world. It is unfair therefore to apply the null hypothesis to religious faith.  Moreover, belief in God is a different to belief in an object in the physical world that we would expect to be physically verifiable. [1]  [1] Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers’ WIRED Magazine. November 2006.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:  Many people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason. [1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being. [2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation.  [1] Drange, Theodore. 1998. "Nonbelief as Support for Atheism". Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy.  [2] Schellenberg, John. 2005. "The Hiddenness Argument Revisited". Religious Studies 41.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge  Religions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force. Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong.  Whatever small amount of psychological comfort religious belief may give, the evils it is responsible for in the social and political worlds easily outweigh it.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational Most suffering and pain can be accounted for by the free will that humans exercise; God made us free and we use that freedom for evil as well as for good. As for illness and disease, it is hard for us to know the mind of God, but it may be that these trials are a necessary part of a world in which free and spiritual human beings can evolve and develop.

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

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational Religion may have been the occasion for various social and political wrongs, but it is not the cause. You can be quite sure that if you took away all the world’s religions people would still identify themselves with national and political groups and go to war over territory, political conflict etc. Equally elitism and bigotry are, sadly, parts of human nature with or without religion. In fact religious belief, when taken seriously and sincerely, is a force for good in the world, promoting humility, morality, wisdom, equality, and social justice. Social justice is at the heart of the Christian gospel.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational The Null Hypothesis  With regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption.  The proposition need also be falsifiable, that is to say, there must be some potential fact that could be proven in order to disprove it. God is unfalsifiable because there is nothing.

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

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational This argument is an attempt to shoehorn God into one of the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the Universe and should be treated as such – it doesn’t really give reasons why one should believe in God, it throws up conjecture and asks ‘why not’?  If everything needs a prime cause, what is the prime cause of God? If God can be an exception, why can't the universe be one especially since it is more rational with accordance to Occam's Razor - that the simplest hypothosis is most likely to be correct. This point is merely a substitution of one problem by another.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational The rareness of Life  Life requires an extremely fine set of conditions in order to exist. The right distance from the Sun, a magnetic field to deflect solar radiation, the right atmospheric composition and conditions etc. These conditions are extremely rare; indeed only on Earth have we observed that they are just right for life to have evolved. [1] This is so unlikely that it leads to the conclusion that God must have intervened.  [1] McAlpine, Kate, ‘Extraterrestrial life could be extremely rare’, physicsworld.com, 1 August 2011,

negative: As it is not science creationism should not even be covered by the Tennessee law  As creationism does not fit the definition of "science", it is not even addressed by the law cited in the introduction to this discussion. The act specifically allows to discuss "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories". It is a very false conclusion that because evolution is both scientific and a hypothesis, any other hypothesis must be scientific as well.  Creationism is lacking the key point of anything that could even remotely be called science, namely testability and falsifiability. Evolution posesses this property: There may one day be actual evidence that the theory is incorrect, such as a modern human fossil being found in a layer of soil that dates back aeons. Given enough such incidents, one could reasonably claim that evolution has been disproved and that there must be a better model to approximate reality. This is what commonly happens in the world of science. As a prominent example one may cite our views on atoms: They have been refined from "they are tiny multi-symmetrical grains" to the detailled analysis of sub-atomic particles we see today. This took innumerable steps, and yet we know for sure that our theories will never be accurate enough to describe reality.  However, such a process is impossible with creationism, as it is based on a belief. In theory, it could very well be true - God could have created C14 signatures in such a way that they would appear billions of years old to a modern researcher, and we could never know. This may be applied to each and every other aspect of research on the foundations of our universe. But excactly because we can never know, creationism can never be subjected to scientific analysis, and thus cannot qualify as scientific or science. It can only be subject to belief: You may well chose to believe that the creation happened excactly as described in the bible, as an omnipotent being would surely have the power to defy the laws of physics and just 'make things be'. Thus, in theory, any contradictory evidence such as the C14 signatures may be dismissed based on belief in an omnipotent being, whose non-existance may never be disproved either due to the laws of logic.  For this reason, creation may never be falsified, cannot be called a scientific theory and is not addressed by the law cited above. Hence, its discussion should not be supported by the state.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism It is unreasonable to suggest that God must reveal Himself to humanity, or to make His existence manifestly clear because that would undermine the value of faith. [1] Belief is an important component of all religious teachings because it is what allows the soul to transcend the material world and to commune with the divinity. For the religious, a life without faith is meaningless. Furthermore, if God were to make His desires and commands known, then free will would be undermined. It is necessary to the exercise of individual human agency that God not dictate every command to people. That is why God leaves life, at least on the surface, up to humans.  [1] Maitzen, Stephen. 2006. "Divine Hiddenness and the Demographics of Theism". Religious Studies 42.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:  God, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim. [1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt.  [1] Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Ealing: Transworld Publishers.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational The Prime Mover  The universe follows rules of causality – cause precedes effect. But it cannot be the case that cause and effect regress infinitely into the past – there must be a ‘prime cause’. There is an identifiable point for this – the Universe was formed about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang, before which we cannot detect any chain of causality. What was the prime mover? It had by definition to be a being existing outside of our conception of reality – the natural answer being ‘God’.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational Revealed wisdom  Godly wisdom is not the same as human wisdom and cannot be subject to the same criticism. The nature of humanity means that our ability to understand God’s wisdom is fundamentally limited; and thus arguments based on morality or science are irrelevant – what matters is that God has revealed Himself.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:  It seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side. [1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate.  [1] Borne, Étienne. 1961. Atheism. New York: Hawthorn Books.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The rational position in the absence of positive evidence about God is not agnosticism, but atheism. While there is always a degree of doubt in every statement, this does not mean that negative claims about an entities existence can never be made. One can rationally state that fairies do not exist, even if there is no positive evidence for their non-existence. The very fact that no evidence exists for the existence of fairies, in the same way there is no evidence for the existence of God, is evidence of the negative. Thus, in the evidence of positive evidence for God, the rational default position is atheism.

negative: Causes divisions in society.  One of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens. [1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.  Moreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this.  This will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones.  [1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism:  In a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other. [1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is.  [1] Hume, David. 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (2008).

negative: Quite different claims are made about the origin of the authority of the other thinkers prop mentions. Their authority derives from the contents of their works whereas that of the prophets derives from a supreme being. To question their words is, therefore, to question the power and judgement of the supreme being to establish that authority in the first place. As a result, it is not ‘special pleading’ but an entirely different premise underpinning the ideas that are being profaned. Any attack on that authority starts to undermine the whole religion and its beliefs which is different from secular authors where their works are simply the starting point of a discourse.  It should also not surprise us that politicians act when a religious group is attacked but not as a result misrepresentation of scientific data; religions are large interest groups who may effect a future election. It is the politician’s job to decide whether he needs to take action to placate that group.

negative: We cannot make value judgments as to who should and should not be marked for death or for salvation  Different people’s lives may indeed weigh differently. Some people may go on to cure cancer, while others may become serial killers. However, we do not know who will do what with their future, and it is an act of immense hubris to perform calculations that presume otherwise. We could be killing future a serial-rapist in order to save future a philanthropist who funds Somali famine-relief, but we could just as easily be doing the opposite. We are in a state of incredible ignorance as to what these individuals will choose to do. It truly is to “play god”, and vastly overestimate our ability to judge who will be good for the world and who will be bad.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:  A creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible. [1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position.  [1] Savage, C. 1967. "The Paradox of the Stone". Philosophical Review 76(1).

negative: Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than our own could lead to mass existential crises, putting the existence of human civilization at risk:  Almost every human belief system, religious or secular, is based on an anthropocentric outlook. Humanity is the collective center of its Universe; the cognitively aware being that can interact with physical reality not simply by impulse, but by self-aware, conscious agency. Human belief in itself is based upon its conception of dominion over the physical world. Mankind shapes its own environment; while weaker, slower, and smaller than many other species, the intelligence of Man makes Him the apex predator. Mankind's image of itself is compromised by the existence of other intelligent life, especially more advanced intelligent life. It seems that most religious belief systems could not effectively survive with such knowledge, since the existence of intelligent, advanced extraterrestrials seems to imply the nonexistence of a creator God with any active interest in humanity over any other species1. The realization that we are not the center of the Universe could shake many people to their cores, particularly the religious, many of whom would likely find great difficulty coming to terms with that reality. It would be better that humans not seek out such revelations about the Universe. If intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the Universe, better not to invite it to Earth. The cost to people's beliefs and sense of being is too high. 1 Peters, Ted. 2011. "The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion". Philosophical Transactions of the

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:  If God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled. [1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition.  [1] Tooley, Michael. 2009. “The Problem of Evil”. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available:

negative: The government is not going to suddenly stop listening to the views of religious minorities in the country and will keep listening to the views of the Church of England. It will simply stop the government being prejudicial towards the Church of England compared to any other religion or belief. Currently what we see is the Church of England having privileges that other religious groups do not have. Religious groups and people do not see this as a representation of the involvement of religion in general in the government, they see this as the involvement of the Church of England in the government. The separation of the church and the state, therefore, will actually be inclusive to religious people who do not identify as Church of England. [1]  [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008.

negative: healthcare deny organs non donors People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs  Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.

negative: Regardless of the protestations of some there is no major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at some point in its history and most still are  Although in much of the world the days of the crusades and the inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially. In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and others already persecuted in society.  It should be noted that what tends to be the focus of such persecution is a lack of adherence to an ultra-orthodox position. It is frequently a cover for political or social prejudice. Charges of heresy or apostasy are easy to level and nigh on impossible to disprove.  Even beyond these extremes, demands for religious observance play out in US elections and, inexplicably, the views of religious leaders are sought on areas where they really have no relevant expertise at all, such as advances in medical progress. Those who disagree on matters such as stem cell research or gay rights are, apparently, arguing with the Almighty.

negative: Punishment is irrational, but it is a legitimate desire for a justice system to meter out retribution to those convicted of serious crimes. Punishment does not have to have a beneficial impact on public safety to make it the right thing to do. The desire for victims for retribution is legitimate; they should not have to see a criminal who abused them live a cushy life in prison – at their expense.

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.  Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock.  It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them.  The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others [1] , need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable.  [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010.

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.  Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do.  The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech.  [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64.  [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .

negative: All of the major religions teach respect for others regardless of whether people agree with their lifestyle or beliefs. That’s a huge advance on much of secular thought – quite without the help of religious organisations, prejudice exists within the worlds of business, politics and science. It seems a little unfair to single out one area of life. At least religious organisations are based on the belief that everybody should be treated with respect, which is not a claim that could be made be most political creeds.  In addition there are few social changes that have not involved religious radicals at their foundation. Rightly or wrongly, major religious organisations tend to reflect the views of the societies of which they are a part. It seems unfair to blame the religious organisations for that.  It is also worth distinguishing between nations where one religious belief is wide-spread and almost normative in nature, and those where it is far more of a choice. If women or homosexuals chose to join a church in a pluralist society, presumably they are not expecting to be a priest.

negative: This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? Hindu thought potentially embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART). [1] Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong. That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism and extremism.  [1] Tierney, John, ‘Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion’, The New York Times, 20 November 2007,


query: Blocking social networks denies people the ability to mobilize on genuine social issues  The state may not be the best placed to gauge the legitimacy of riots. Oftentimes riots are the result of massive social pressures, like poverty or limited integration of immigrant communities. When these issues are not properly addressed, or outright ignored by the ruling elites, they boil over. Positive things can come from riots. They can put the issues on the table and bring them screaming into the public consciousness. This is the difference between the Arab Spring that was considered legitimate and the London riots that were not, apart from the initial peaceful protests the riots did not have an agenda to create change. [1] The government suppressing legitimate demonstrations, whether they do it with physical force or internet repression, ultimately serves only to push away the problem, to continue to ignore it. [2] Blocking social networks therefore only seeks to muzzle the expression of outrage that is sometimes entirely justified. The media attention and organizing power of social networks serves to get people engaged, motivated, and visible. The government should not seek to stop that. They should seek to prevent protest and demonstration from spilling into violence. Blocking access to social networks will not aid in that endeavour.  [1] Stylianou, A., “Cyber Regulation and the Riots”, Legal matters, Autumn 2011.   [2] Dugan, L. “Blocking Twitter During Riots a Bad Idea, Study Proves”. Media Bistro. 2011.

positive: access information house would block access social messaging networks Even if their message is worth being spread, rioting and violence is not the way to do it. Using the tactic of riot to further an aim only serves to alienate the public which is brutalized by the violence in the streets. In effect when a protest turns into a riot it delegitimises itself and tarnishes its message. Blocking social networks will not occur when those protests are seeking to spread their message relatively peacefully but will only happen when they have already turned to violence when it becomes a useful tool in the arsenal of the state to forestall the worst violence by denying its ability to be spread rapidly through the internet.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Preventing word from getting out through social media and stopping those who inevitably try to take advantage of the rioting to ferment violence elsewhere is not something the police should be doing. In a free country anyone should be allowed to report on what they are doing and on riots that are occurring. Moreover a shutdown would be ineffective at preventing the news getting out as the traditional media would still be broadcasting. In 270 interviews done by researchers into the riots more than 100 people said they heard about the riots through TV news, more than through social media. [1]  [1] Adegoke, Y., and Ball, J., “Twitter? Facebook? Rioters saw it on TV”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks It is better to monitor riots through the social media rioters are using  It is wrong to suggest that social networks only provide advantages to the rioters in a riot. Many of the networks that can be used are open to the public and even where they are not as with blackberry messenger the police and intelligence services can likely gain access. This means that the police can also benefit from rioters use of social networks. Allowing the rioters to communicate can help the police to track what the rioters are doing and potentially to intercept any plans before they can be put into action. The same logic is used with websites that promote extremist ideologies; it is often better to monitor them for the intelligence they provide. The police already monitor protest groups in this way during demonstrations and even use it to help police impromptu raves so will surely apply it to riots. [1] Yet the social media is useful in other ways, particularly after the rioting it can be used to work out who was involved and to provide evidence against them so making the police much more efficient at catching and charging rioters.  [1] Rawlinson, K., “Activists warned to watch what they say as social media monitoring becomes 'next big thing in law enforcement”, The Independent, 1 October 2012,

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Would stop riots from spreading  The police must try to stop riots from spreading and stop copycat rioting elsewhere. Knowledge of rioting happening elsewhere is often the Oxygen of riots; the riots in Manchester and elsewhere outside of London in 2011 were mostly as a result of media exposure. According to Greater Manchester Police chief Peter Fahy "A certain group of people saw what was happening in London and decided they seemed to be getting away with it. We knew what was absolutely critical was that there needed to be control of London. Because that was just creating more and more copycat violence up here." [1] Cutting off social media would have helped prevent the riots from spreading so ensuring that they remain small and a localised problem.  [1] Pilkington, D., “Rioting in London sparked 'copycat' behaviour”, The Independent, 14 November 2011.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Internet users rely on high visibility for their comments to be significant. When Twitter is shut down, or its replacement, the new sites that pop up must start again in building numbers. [1] Without sufficient numbers on the network they will be able to build up momentum for riots online. The result is a significant blunting of the network’s ability to develop or act in a riot scenario; a site is not useful for directing riots if most of those who would riot or are rioting are not on that network.  [1] Berger, J.M., “#unfollow”, Foreign policy, 20 February 2013.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks There is little evidence that cutting off the internet or mobile phone networks would be effective. Riots occurred before mobile phones and the internet were invented and spread just as worryingly. Cutting off access would be an inconvenience but little more than that. Blaming the technology is not helpful to finding the real solutions to preventing rioting which is engaging with the underlying problems. [1]  [1] Metcalf, J., and Taylor, M., “Technology has always been blamed in times of unrest”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011.

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

negative: The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy.  Media can be one of the most important factors in democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests, violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to those violations 1. Without external sources of information people do not question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users 2. Even when the government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light 3. The internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government transparency.  1. Reporters Without Borders, "Press Freedom Index 2010" 2010,  2. Economy, Elizabeth and Mondschein, Jared, "China: The New Virtual Political System", Council on Foreign Relations 2011  3.  ">Richard Waters. "Web firms aim to benefit from role in uprising" Financial Times, February 13, 2011,

negative: The internet as a threat to public safety.  The internet can be used as a tool to create an imminent threat to the public. If public officials had information that a massive protest is being organized, which could spiral into violence and endanger the safety of the public, it would be irresponsible for the government not to try to prevent such a protest. Governments are entrusted with protecting public safety and security, and not preventing such a treat would constitute a failure in the performance of their duties [1] . An example of this happening was the use first of Facebook and twitter and then of Blackberry messenger to organise and share information on the riots in London in the summer of 2011. [2]  [1] Wyatt, Edward, 2012. “FCC Asks for Guidance on Whether, and When to Cut Off Cellphone Service.” New York Times, 2 March 2012.  [2] Halliday, Josh, 2011. “London riots: how BlackBerry Messenger played a key role”. Guardian.co.uk, 8 August 2011.

negative: Other means can be employed to ensure the safety of the population without disrupting access to the internet, like deploying security forces to make sure protests don’t get out of hand or turn violent. In fact, being able to monitor online activity through social media like Facebook and Twitter might actually aid, rather than hinder law enforcement in ensuring the safety of the public. London’s police force, the Metropolitan Police, in the wake of the riots has are using software to monitor social media to predict where social disorder may take place. [1]  [1] Adams, Lucy, 2012. “Police develop technology to monitor social neworks”. Heraldscotland, 6 August 2012.

negative: Democratic change can come about in a variety of ways. Violent public protests are only one such way, and probably the least desirable one. And now, with access to social media nearly universally available, such protests can be organized faster, on a larger, more dangerous scale than ever before. It encourages opposition movements and leaders in such countries to turn away from incremental, but peaceful changes through political negotiations, and to appeal to mass protests instead, thus endangering the life or their supporters and that of the general public. Governments that respond to violence by cutting off access are not responding with repression but simply trying to reduce the violence. Cutting internet access is a peaceful means of preventing organized violence that potentially saves lives by preventing confrontation between violent groups and riot police.

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

negative: Holocaust deniers will always find ways to organize, be it in smaller pockets of face-to-face contact, clandestine social networking, or untraceable black sites online that governments cannot shut down because they cannot find them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push their proponents further underground and to make them take less public strategies on board. Ultimately, it is a cosmetic, not substantive solution.

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.  Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government [1] , have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham [2] . Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage [3] , which resulted in the destruction of property [4] , physical violence towards others [5] , and even the deaths of three young men [6] . These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands [7] . To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring.  [1] AsiaNews.it, ‘Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam’, 22 June 2010,  09/09/11  [2] BBC News, ‘England Riots’, 8 February 2012,  on 09/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 09/09/11  [4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, ‘UK riots could cost taxpayer £100m’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [5] Allen, Emily, ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’, Mail Online, 11 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [6] Orr, James, ‘Birmingham riots: three men killed ‘protecting homes’’, The Telegraph, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [7] Huffington Post, ‘UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?’, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.

negative: computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join Facebook is good for democracy  Social networks aid our society on multiple levels, one of them being the democratic process. This happens both in autocracies, where the democratic process is basically nonexistent and in western liberal democracies where Facebook acts as a megaphone for the will of the population.  Firstly, when talking about oppressive regimes, Facebook allows the population to organize themselves in massive protests which can, in time, overthrow the government. This is of particular importance as the population cannot organize protests "offline" in the real world, because government forces would quickly find them and stop the protests before they even started. These people need a safe house, where government intervention is minimized, so that they can spread the news and organize the protests. The online environment is the best options. We have seen this happening in the Arab Spring(1), Brazil (2), Turkey(3) as well as for protests in democracies as in Wisconsin(4)  For western liberal democracies too Facebook plays a very important role in aiding the democratic process. Even in a democracy the government often engages in unpopular policies. Unfortunately, as we are talking about countries with tens of millions of people, citizens often feel they can’t make a difference. Luckily, here's where Facebook comes in. It connects all the people who share the same disapproval of government actions, removing the feeling that you can do nothing as there is no one backing you. Millions can come together to voice their opinions. Therefore there is more likely to be dissent. Moreover, the internet allowed individuals to start massive campaigns of online petition gathering, which they will later use as an irrefutable argument to the government showing the desire for change. There are a lot of sites, one of the biggest being Avaaz.org which facilitates this process, which use Facebook as a medium through which the petition is shared and so grows.  (1) Sonya Angelica Diehn “Social media use evolving in Egypt”, DW , 04.07.2013   (2) Caroline Stauffer “Social media spreads and splinters Brazil protests”, Reuters ,June 22, 2013   (3) “Activists in Turkey use social media to organize, evade crackdown As protests continue across Turkey against the government”   (4)Wikipedia

negative: People feel crime is the only way to get their frustrations heard.  Some people, particularly those from deprived social or economic backgrounds may feel that their government is not helping them or listing to/care about their problems. When this happens to a large group of people, they may feel crime is the only way they can have their frustrations heard. One example of this would be the Brixton riots in 1981 (See Appendix). [1] In some states where government criticism is itself against the law, breaking the law is in fact the only way to have your feeling heard. However, this is of particular importance to those from socially deprived back grounds for three reasons, firstly they are often the ones most ignored by their government and secondly they are the ones who would benefit most if society were to change. Finally, for some people from poor social or economic backgrounds, crime is the only outlet they have to vent their anger or frustration as all other options have been blocked for them.  [1] BBC News, ‘Brixton riots: Archive’, 10 April 2011.

negative: Extremist groups will always find ways to organize direct actions, be it via in-person meetings, furtive use of social networking tools, or even by using untraceable black sites online that ISPs cannot block because they cannot see them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push the extremists further underground.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Monitoring a riot does not prevent the damage, destruction, and potentially loss of human riot that the riot causes. Rather than taking a reactive passive approach the police have a duty to try and save lives by making use of every tool they have to limit the size and extent of the rioting.

negative: Citizens often use the internet in ways that detract from democracy.  The idea that the internet promotes democracy also operates under the assumption that the people with internet access will use the tool for ‘good’. Yet, this is also not the case. The internet is the primary medium of coordination for Jihadist groups looking to undermine the few Middle-Eastern states which are in the process of transition to democracy. In April 2007, groups of hackers (allegedly backed by the Russian government) attacked the websites of key politicians, ministries and utilities in Estonia in retaliation for the removal of a Soviet war memorial. Hackers can block access, destroy content, and organize in malicious activity as in the case of terrorism and the Estonian ‘hactivists’ 1. Information can also be misused.In the US, neo-Nazism has always been an issue of contention and use the internet to further promote their viewpoints.For example, UK animal rights activists post information about people they feel to be targets, which can lead to intimidation. The internet can often be hijacked for less-than-ideal purposes and therefore does not directly promote democracy, but can be used by the people to counter reform 2.  Moreover, there are questions over the limits on democratic freedoms due to the ‘corporate colonization’ o f the internet. For a start, a lot of the ‘trusted’ news sites that users frequent for their information simply reproduce the views of Western media corporations. And corporate social network platforms like Facebook claim to provide for democratic interaction while undertaking surveillance of their user information so as to produce profiles to sell advertising, profiles that could also be used by governments.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Double Edged Sword of Digital Tactics. 2010  2. Ibid

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Given the number of people who actually use Facebook [1] and other social networking sites, these occurrences were remarkably small [2] . These riots cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the mindset of the rioters rather than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots to occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile phones to co-ordinate their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not prevent such events, and would anger those who use Facebook to communicate with friends [3] and share photos [4] innocently.  [1] BBC News, ‘Facebook hits 500m user milestone’, 21 July 2010,  09/09/11.  [2] BBC News, ‘UK Riots: Trouble erupts in English cities’, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [3] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic,  on 09/09/11.  [4] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic,  on 09/09/11.

negative: This opposition argument two is not as clear cut as it seems. While it is true that society encourages us to value material goods, and that this encourages crime, it is also clear that this effects those from socially deprived areas much more than those from stable or wealthy backgrounds. In many socially deprived societies, the lack of education and resources invested in the younger generation mean that the poverty cycle continues to define how well these young people will do as adults. The family they are born into is still the biggest predictor of a person’s life trajectory. If social mobility is not a truly viable option for young people from impoverished backgrounds to succeed, they may see crime as the only way to reach the material goods that so commonly are associated with personal achievement. One current example of this is the riots that occurred in major cities throughout the UK in 2011. Perhaps one of the most notable acts of the riots was the looting, particularly as the majority of looting was from high street stores not for necessities or for high end goods, but rather for average things the looters wanted. Zoe Williams explains the riots as such ‘this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it’. [1] Therefore in this case criminality is caused by consumerism as the opposition argument two suggests, but this is compounded by the cyclical nature of social deprivation that looks unlikely to be solved.  [1] Williams, Zoe, ‘The UK riots: the psychology of looting’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011.

negative: Blocking these sites makes it more difficult for extremist groups to coordinate extremist action in the real world  The greatest fear people have about extremist groups is not their rhetoric, but the actions the rhetoric precipitates. Extremists have proven adept at setting up basic websites through which to build communities to organize and coordinate extreme actions. This means in the most limited form the coordinating of extremist demonstrations and rallies, but also violent and terrorist actions. The best example of this is As-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s media arm, which has used an extensive web presence to galvanize supporters and to coordinate terrorist attacks. [1] In using the tools of the mass media extremists have succeeded in bringing supporters to their cause, people who are often geographically diffuse, into a close community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens. If blocking these websites entirely ISPs would pose a significant barrier to these extremist groups organising. Even more damaging to these networks in the long terms would be the drop in recruitment due to a reduction in their reach. ISPs can significantly hamper these organizations from ever embarking on serious violent actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their most effective springboard. The most important effect is in the prevention of radicalization in the first place. Preventing, or at least hampering access to extremist materials serves to keep impressionable, swayable people from experiences that might turn them to extremism. [2]  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.   [2] Silber, M. and Bhatt, A., “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” The New York City Police Department, 2007.  p.83

negative: Circumvention of internet censorship will galvanize more severe, physical repression to compensate its need for security  Oppressive regimes will not be any less oppressive just because Western states seek to undermine their ability to censor the internet. They still rely on fear and force to control and cow the population into submission, and have honed many means of doing so. Technology has aided in doing this, including things like advanced surveillance equipment. But they have always relied heavily on, and have their greatest expertise in, physical repression and the strength of the security services. Even if dissidents are able to access the internet more effectively, the security services will feel it all the more necessary to crack down by more conventional, far less sightly means. At the same time as cutting off the internet in Burma the authorities were engaged in brutal arrests in a crackdown that killed several hundred dissidents, it was this that was more important. [1] Western governments do very little in this policy to actually effect meaningful change, because they do nothing to address the underlying institutions of oppression. Sure the internet is an important tool for organizing protest and opposition to the government, but they will now have to contend with a government with a heightened sense of threat that can only serve to harm them.  [1] AP, ‘UK: Myanmar deaths ‘far greater’ than reported’, CNN, 28 September 2007,

negative: The internet is only a place for coordination and cannot replace real-life action so if people are not willing to take to the streets, then the internet is not going to help—and even without the internet, disgruntled masses can still make their points known, as in the French Revolution1. Egypt shut down internet and phone service during part of the revolution, yet it continued indicating that this movement is not based online2. Therefore the internet is not necessarily the force that propels people towards change. SMS has been a very important part of the organization of these protests, which is entirely separate from the internet3. Close to 5 billion people use cell phones and SMS, therefore the impact of the cell phone cannot be distinguished from the internet so it is inaccurate to say that the internet is contributing to democratization when it is very possibly thanks to mobile phones4.  1. Wikipedia, French Revolution  2. BBC, “Egypt’s opposition pushes demands as protests continue”, 2011  3. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Power of Mobile Phones, 2010  4. Melanson, David, “UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscribers top five billion”, 2011.

negative: Internet censorship is a problem, but it is hardly the biggest one facing people in these countries. Internet access is often limited to only the more affluent segments of most poor countries, and it is thus not the best mode of building grass roots movement for reform. This means it is often not even the best platform for dissent, it is notable that the ‘twitter revolution’ may have had some of the organisation through the internet but it was action on the ground through protests that overthrew Ben Ali. [1] At best Western intervention in this case would simply prompt oppressive regimes to utilize more conventional, often more violent methods of quelling dissent.  [1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘Tunisia’s revolution isn’t a product of Twitter or WikiLeaks. But they do help’, The Guardian, 19 January 2011,

negative: Historical precedent does not apply to the internet. It is very different to media reporting during times of unrest; the internet is not just a means of disseminating information but also for many people their main form of communication; the U.S. government has never tried to ban people from using telephones. There are severe downsides to the censorship of information during times of war or civil unrest, the most notable one being that it is used to hide the real cost and consequences of war from the population which is expected to support it. Conversely, in a world where every mobile phone is now connected to a global network, people all around the world can have access to an unparalleled amount of information from the field. Curtailing such internet access is to their detriment.

negative: Clandestine aid to dissidents will serve to alienate and close off discourse on policy  Reform in oppressive regimes, or ones that have less than stellar democratic and human rights records that might precipitate an uprising, is often slow in coming, and external pressures are generally looked upon with suspicion. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to good use in coaxing governments toward reform. 1 Peaceful evolution toward democracy results in far less bloodshed and instability, and should thus be the priority for Western governments seeking to change the behaviour of states. Militant action invariably begets militant response. And providing a mechanism for armed and violent resistance to better evade the detection of the state could well be considered a militant action.  The only outcome that would arise from this policy is a regime that is far less well disposed to the ideas of the West. This is because those ideas now carry the weight of foreign governments seeking actively to destabilize and abet the overthrow of their regimes, which, unsurprisingly, they consider to be wholly legitimate. A policy of flouting national laws will demand a negative response from the regimes, leading them to take harsh measures, such as curtailing access to the internet at all in times of uprising, which would be a major blow to domestic dissidents who, even with heavy censorship, still rely on the internet to organize and share information. This action would serve simply to further impoverish the people of useful tools for organization and uprising, such as occurred in Russia when the government ejected American NGOs they perceived as trying to undermine the regime. 2  1 Larison, D. 2012. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. Available:   2 Brunwasser, M. “Russia Boots USAID in a Big Blow to Obama’s ‘Reset’ Policy”. September 2012.

negative: To use such websites governments already need to be committed to democracy. Promoting democracy in already-democratic countries is irrelevant. Countries that are not democratic, and seek to maintain autocratic rule will not be impacted by the availability of those resources and harness the internet only for continued repression 1.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010

negative: This policy alienates the oppressive regimes and stifles the change that discourse and positive interaction can bring  When a repressive government sees its power directly attacked by Western democracies, and sees them actively trying to subvert their power by empowering dissidents they consider unlawful criminals, it will naturally react badly. These states will be less willing to engage with the West when it plays such an open hand that effectively declares their government, or at least its policies, illegitimate. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to use in nudging regimes toward reform. [1] Burma (Myanmar) faced sanctions for decades yet it was not western policies aimed at attacking the Burmese state that brought change rather it was engagement by ASEAN that brought about an opening up and rapid improvement in freedoms. [2]  Harsh attack begets rigid defence, so the opposite of the change that is desired. It may not be exciting to make deals with and seek to engender incremental change in regimes, but it is the only way to do so absent bloodshed or other significant human suffering. A policy of flouting national laws will demand a negative response from the regimes, leading them to curtail access to the internet for all. Again Burma is an example; The Burmese government cut off all access to the internet in order to prevent the flow of videos and pictures being sent to the outside world through blogs and social media. [3] Subverting government control just brought about a complete black out. Such actions when they occur a major blow to domestic dissidents who, even with heavy censorship, still rely on the internet to organize and share information. This action would serve simply to further impoverish the people of useful tools and knowledge.  [1] Larison, Daniel, ‘Engagement Is Not Appeasement’, The American Conservative, 17 December 2012,   [2] Riady, John, ‘How Asean Engagement Led to Burma Reform’, The Irrawaddy, 5 June 2012,   [3] Tran, Mark, ‘Internet access cut off in Burma’, guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2007,

negative: Aiding of the agents of chaos will allow the government to discredit the uprisings as being instigated and abetted by the West  The fact that dissidents can be conflated with other rioters gives real power to the government to discredit the uprising. Firstly, they can report the rioting and looting in tandem with the uprising, as they hide behind anonymity, making it difficult to ascertain specific agents and their directives. Secondly, the regime can identify the West as the instigator of the unrest. This is what Iran’s leaders did during the Green Revolution, when it blamed the foreign tools of dissent like Twitter and other social media for aiding in the rebel protests. 1 This two-pronged attack can be used to drive a wedge between the general public and the leaders and primary agents of dissent seeking to build a broad base of support, a necessary prerequisite for an uprising to succeed. While anonymity gives some ability for individual leaders to hide themselves in the crowd, they lose their moral authority and impact when they can be easily construed as cowardly Western-backed agénts provocateur.  1 Flock, E., “Iran Gets Back E-mail Access, But Other Sites Remain Blacked Out Ahead of Protest”. Washington Post. 13 February 2012.

negative: National security takes precedence.  Internet access is not a fundamental right as recognized by any major human rights convention, if it can be called a right at all. [1] Even if we accept that people should have a right to internet access, in times of war or civil unrest the government should be able to abridge lesser rights for the sake of something that is critical to the survival of the state, like national security. After all, in a war zone few rights survive or can be upheld at all. Preventing such an outcome at the expense of the temporary curtailment of some lesser rights is entirely justified. Under current law, in most states, only the most fundamental of rights, like the right to life, prohibition against torture, slavery, and the right to a fair trial are regarded as inalienable [2] .  [1] For more see the debatabase debate on internet access as a human right.  [2] Article 15 of the European Convention on Human rights: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”

negative: This is the truly the argument of rogues. Where a mob seeks to gather to deliver their own brand of very immediate justice would be against the law and should be dealt with as such. For governments to argue such an approach is a complete abdication of responsibility. It is also incredibly naïve to suppose that the niceties of treaties would be observed in the Pashtun Valley or the Gaza strip.

negative: Whether the West thinks it is being clever by hiding behind the intermediary of private companies and acting as if the software they are creating is not for use in destabilizing undemocratic, or perhaps just unfriendly, regimes, that story will not fly on the ground. If the west wants to support uprisings then it is better for it to do so in the open. Without open western support authoritarian regimes will feel they are enabled to crack down on uprisings when they occur. When such crackdowns occur democratic states can either stay silent and so tacitly endorse the regime or condemn it so supporting the uprising.