query: You cannot own an idea, and thus cannot hold patents, especially to vital drugs  An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over something like a drug formula is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their asset. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. This should apply all the more with vital drugs that are fundamentally for the public good by improving health.  1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.

positive: disease health general house would allow production generic drugs Ideas can be owned, to a certain extent. The creative effort involved in the production of a drug formula is every bit as great as the building of a new chair or other tangible asset. Nothing special separates them and law must reflect that. It is a fundamental violation of property rights to steal from drug companies the rights they own to drugs by allowing the production of generic knock-offs.

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Genes are intellectual property thus patentable  The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in nature, isolated it, and found a way to make something useful with it.The genome research of companies satisfies these criteria, so why should it be any different? The genome companies have invested resources to create intellectual property (patents), which refers to “creations of the mind.” Under US law includes intellectual property inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, designs, and trade secrets. The law states, that any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent.” In biomedicine the patentable inventions include materials, such as new drugs or new cell lines, and methods for deriving or growing them, such as extraction or cloning techniques.1  1. Merz J., Mildred K., What are gene patents and Why are people worried about them ?, Community Genetics 2005

negative: The major corporations, which seem to exercise the opposition so greatly, are also major employers and major investors. In addition to which counterfeiting is a much greater threat to small corporations that are dependent on one good idea and lack the financial muscle to protect that idea, for example Ifttt, an internet startup was cloned by a Chinese company, Linggan, while it was still in beta. [i] The people that have something to fear from this agreement are those with no ideas seeking to skim a profit off the energy and effort of others [ii] .  Importantly protecting intellectual property rights can also encourage innovation, by ensuring that start-ups keep creating new ideas and are sure they can profit from them. We need to ensure that there are sufficient incentives for entrepreneurs, of which intellectual property is one important component.  [i] Sam, ‘Speedy Chinese Clone Copies Startup Still in Beta’, TechinAsia, 23 August 2011.  [ii] A list of supporters

negative: disease health general house would allow production generic drugs When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another  Patent regimes cause firms to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same or very similar drugs, though only the first to do so may profit from it due to the winner-takes-all patent system. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. These races can thus lead to efforts by firms to steal research from one another, thus resulting in further wastes of resources in engaging and attempting to prevent corporate espionage. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing patents. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded, for example, in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of patent-generated inefficiency 1. The inefficiency does not end with production, however, as firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return 2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to patent piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. Clearly, in the absence of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. This is shown by the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs for treating AIDS where the introduction of generic drugs forced the price of the branded drugs down from $10439 to $931 in September/October 2000 3.  1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation. Available: 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property". Available: 3 Avert.org, "AIDS, Drug Prices and Generic Drugs",

negative: There is no significant slowing down of the spread of information in the long run, since intellectual property generally only lasts for a short time, meaning owners have an incentive to make the most of it while they can. Besides, any small slowing down of the spread of ideas and innovations is a small price to pay for the recognition of a person's fundamental right to the product of his effort. Furthermore, licensing arrangements are becoming more and more refined to allow for the quick transfer of rights in order to meet societal demands for products. Licensing law has also begun to extend to products that producers may not wish to produce, such as medication for sick Africans, and is helping to force firms that refuse to act upon their patents to license the right to those that will.

negative: Government, like everyone else, should be able to profit from its work, that profit benefits its citizens rather than harming them  We generally accept the principle that people who create something deserve to benefit from that act of creation as they should own that work. [1] This is a principle that can be applied as easily to government, whether through works they are funding or works they are directly engaged in, as to anyone else. The owners of the work deserve to have the choice to benefit from their own endeavours through having copyright over that work. Sometimes this will mean the copyright will remain with the person who was paid to do the work but most of the time this will mean government ownership. Public funding does not change this fundamental ownership and the quixotic bargain state funding in exchange for mandatory creative commons licensing is a perversion of that ownership.  The Texas Emerging Technology Fund is an example of the use of state funding in the private sector to produce socially useful technologies without thieving the ownership of new technologies from their creators. [2] Moreover states clearly benefit from being able to use any profit from their funding. It would clearly be in taxpayers interest if the state is able to make a profit out of the investments that taxpayers funding creates as this would mean taxes could be lower.  [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.   [2] Office of the Governor. ‘Texas Emerging Technology Fund’. 2012,

negative: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic output  Profit is as much a factor in artists’ decision to produce work, if not more so, than the primordial urge to create. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is certainly diminished. Within a strong copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the final product of their labours will be theirs to enjoy. [1] Without copyright protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually building an installation art piece rather than doing more hours at their job, will not opt to create. If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would most certainly be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to adapt existing works to markets. Art thrives by being new and original. Copyright protections shield against artistic laziness and drive the creative urges of the artistically inclined to ever more interesting fields.  [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.

negative: Costs of monitoring intellectual property rights by states and companies outweigh the benefits, and is often ineffective:  The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for intellectual property right infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain. The United States government, for example, projects costs of investigating intellectual property claims will cost $429 million between 2009 and 20131. Firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to intellectual property piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. This is because in many cases intellectual property rights are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned in recent years. Only a tiny handful of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it does little to stop it. Intellectual property, in many cases, simply does not work in practice; firms should move with the times and recognize they need to innovate in ways that will compensate.  1 Legal Alert. 2009. "PRO-IP Act Promises Increased Focus on IP Rights and Expanded Counterfeiting Remedies". Sutherland.  2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property".

negative: It may be costly and sometimes ineffective to police property rights, but that does not make them less of a right. Efficiency and Justice are not the same thing. If firms feel they can benefit from fighting infringers of their intellectual property rights, it is their right to do so. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. For the state the costs accrued by efforts to enforce intellectual property are repaid many fold by the fact that businesses feel safer to invest in them due to the perceived protections the state promises.

negative: economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Each man has a right to private property  The right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an "own" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own1/2.  1 Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.

negative: This gives people false hope  If these drugs are made available, you risk giving many people false hope in the last days of their lives. People, particularly when in desperate situations, tend to overestimate a treatment’s efficacy.  Given that these treatments are still undergoing the trial process, it is possible that they are ineffective, or have side-effects that outweigh any benefits.  Thus, to allow such drugs and treatments to be handed out during the testing process, there is a great risk of giving people false hope. This is especially the case given the compromised role of the physician in this scenario: ordinarily, if a patient wants an experimental drug, they can have a discussion with their physician that stresses the ‘in trial’ nature of the drug, and thus the uncertainty of it working. Subsequent experiences (the inconveniences of trials; filling in forms and receiving expenses) reinforce the idea that these drugs were experimental, and that the bulk of the benefit from the trial accrues for future patients.  Consequently, in that scenario it is easier for the physician to help the patient to come to terms with the end of life; to deal with this and to realise that any trial drugs give only a slim chance of improvement. In the scenario envisaged by this proposition, experimental drugs can be acquired as easily as licensed ones, and therefore there is no longer that clear distinction for the patient between ‘doing all you can’ in the ordinary sense, (trying every treatment that is known to be effective) and trying ‘one more (experimental) drug’.  Therefore, the patient is less likely to be able to come to terms with their own condition, and therefore less likely to be able to deal with the emotional trauma inflicted not only upon them, but on close family and loved ones.

negative: The criminalisation of sadomasochism infringes on individual liberty  Control of one’s own body is the most fundamental of human rights. No government should be permitted to define how its citizens can express themselves. The distinction between the permissible and the impermissible should be drawn at the line of consent. This is not a novel distinction. Your property cannot be stolen from you if you agree to give it away. You have no legal remedy if your property is damaged by another with your consent, or if you damage it yourself. Why should there be a moral difference when this property is flesh and blood? Paternalism in this instance only protects those who do not want to be protected.  The prohibition of sadomasochism is simply inconsistent with the liberty that governments already permit their citizens to exercise to injure each other and themselves. When people are entitled to risk pain, serious injury, or even death in sporting activity, why should they not also be permitted to suffer some discomfort in consensual sexual activity? The same piercing of flesh which attracts criminal liability in a fetishistic context can be performed legally in a chemist’s shop or tattooist’s parlor. The distinction between the rugby scrum, the bungee tower and the bedroom is an arbitrary one.  Some of the pleasure that is inherent in contact sports is derived from the adrenal thrill of flirting with injury. It is widely known that a significant proportion of individuals find jeopardy and danger as enjoyable as decadence. A sport purged of all risk would be unwatched and unplayed. Comparably, a corpus of law that did not acknowledge or protect the diversity of human sexual experience would needlessly limit individual sexual freedom, and would probably be ignored.

negative: Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:  Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation.

negative: Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public  Everyone benefits from the public spreading of knowledge and information. Universities are central loci of the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of science, technology, history, the arts, and all many and varied forms of intellectual enquiry. When the state opts to fund research and development in the university setting, it becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth from that funding, just as it belongs to the researchers who directly produce it. State funding is given to universities not simply to further the bounds of human discovery for its own sake, but so that those boundaries can be pushed for the benefit of the citizens of the polity. This is because the state is fundamentally a servant of the people, using the people’s money to further the society’s aims, such as better health and a more productive workforce. Ultimately the purpose of the state in all its functions is to provide safety and services so that people can all avail of what they consider to be the good life. In order to serve this obligation to the people, the state ensures that the research it funds is publicly available. By conditioning all of its research funding to universities on their agreeing to make all of their work publicly available the state can effectively serve the people and guarantee that the citizenry gets the full benefit of their money spent on those researches. This obligation of states has been echoed in new laws passed in Australia, Canada, and other countries that now seek to expand public access to state funded research, particularly academic research produced in universities and other dedicated research organizations. [1] The ultimate purpose of the state is to serve the public interest, and it is remiss in that duty when it fails to have the products of its monetary investments serve benefit the public. Universities are the great repositories and breeding grounds of knowledge, and the state must ensure that that knowledge, when it is produced because of the state’s largesse, is available for all to enjoy and benefit from.  [1] Anon. (2006). “Worldwide Momentum for Public Access to Publicly Funded Research” Alliance for Taxpayer Access.

negative: traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their If it is something like a name that can already be considered intellectual property then this broadening is unnecessary, compensation will be made through the courts anyway.  Culture as a whole is something that evolves overtime, it is not something that can be comparable to intellectual property. Culture is not as clear cut and rigid as the cases of intellectual property as it consists of things such as shared values and common knowledge which often has overlaps between different cultures and no true owner. Therefore, cultural appropriation cannot be parallel to stolen intellectual property and they should be handled in different ways.  Reparations for something as arbitrary and subjective as culture is a system very open to exploitation. It may encourage exploitative behaviour with minorities encourages to pursue cases through the courts to gain reparations even when the case is slim. In some instances, designs or ideas may really have been made independently but be pursued due to similarity with a cultural idea.

negative: disease health general house would allow production generic drugs Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products  When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to "invent around" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry.  1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available: 2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. "Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available: 3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, "Patents: Essential, if flawed", Available:

negative: The value placed upon the right to free expression reflects its ability to enable the articulation of new, compelling and beneficial ideas, alongside damaging forms of speech. In liberal democratic societies, the potential inherent in free speech has always preserved it against limitation by legislation and- to a great extent- by social norms. A natural (as opposed to legal) person who makes statements that are openly offensive, or are inaccurate or misleading may also be able to articulate profound and useful ideas and observations. This is also true for certain groups formed by association – such as political parties.  However, corporations as they are popularly understood- as business entities- are constrained by law only to act in a certain way. In the United States, the individuals responsible for deciding on the actions of a corporation do so on the explicit understanding that they owe a particular duty to the individuals who make up that corporation. This legal duty takes the form of an obligation to run the business to maximise the value of the shares [1] in the business that each of its constituent investors holds. This duty has done a lot to promote investment in new businesses and to keep the reputation of established firms intact. It ensures that confidence in corporations is not undermined by speculation that they might be pursuing the wrong goals and it allows incompetent directors to be removed from their positions before they can harm investors' interests. However, this law also makes it necessary to limit the other rights that corporate persons might have access to.  The Unitarian commentator Tom Stites puts the situation bluntly. “Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders... Fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit... corporations are by their nature immoral...” [2] In other words, the boards of directors of large corporations, in most circumstances will only be able to pursue a profit motive.  The type of personhood that money-making corporations utilise under American law is a personhood that comes complete with a very specific personality and set of goals. A corporate person that is formed by a collective of shareholders, each of whom have invested in the assets held by this individual, will be bound to engage profit motivated behaviour when it acts [3] . Executives and employees of the corporation, will find their jobs at risk if they choose to forgo profit-led behaviour in favour of directing a corporation to take actions informed by different social and economic principles.  An individual's right to free speech cannot not be abrogated in a broad fashion by a liberal government, in part because he is, to borrow an archaic phrase, “the captain of his own soul” – an individual with free will, able to be influenced by argument and to develop new ideas and perspectives upon the subject of his speech. A profit making corporation, however, is obliged to follow a single set of behavioural imperatives. If it is not attempting to maximise its profits, it will seek to protect the value of its interests and the efficiency of its operations. Where it is able to speak freely, a corporation will always use its right to expression for predictable ends. It is easy to envision scenarios in which corporate bodies will use the right to free speech to spread false or inaccurate information or to distort open debate if there was profit to be gained or protected.  Human behaviour is diverse and the ideas that we express can be altered by reason and the influence of argument. Through legal measures that were intended to protect shareholders investment in profit-making corporations, corporate behaviour has become limited, closed minded and immune to persuasive debate.  [1] Mills v Mills (1938) CLR 150  [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Simply because someone can feasibly pay more does not mean he should be obligated to do so. Everyone’s property rights should be considered equal; the property rights of the wealthy should not be trodden upon by the state while leaving that of the less well-off alone. Fundamentally, any amount of appropriation of what belongs to an individual for the benefit of others is a kind of theft, and if the state is going to tax people, morally it can only do so if it treats everyone equally, which progressive taxation certainly does not do.

negative: The marketplace of ideas  The truth can only emerge from competition between various ideas in free, transparent discourse. To silence any idea is to remove ideas from the marketplace thus reducing the individual’s ability to use his/her reason and intellect to arrive at a conclusion. [1] Silencing ideas also creates separate marketplaces thereby reducing the legitimacy of both and making it easier for someone espousing hate speech to use censorship as a justification for not engaging their ideas in open debate. When this happens, it becomes more likely that individuals who feel alienated from main stream society will find meaning in the hateful ideas which have also been excluded from the mainstream. This is very similar to the concept of the free market in economics where the freer the market the better off everyone is. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, “Marketplace of Ideas”,  Retrieved 2011-08-23.  [2] Lee, Steven P., ‘Hate Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas’, D. Golash (ed.), Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010,  p.15

negative: Creative commons prevents the incentive of profit  The incentive of profit, rather than a creative productive drive, spurs the creation of new work. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s work, the incentive to invest time and effort in its creation is significantly diminished. When the state is the only body willing to pay for the work and offers support only on these strict terms, there will be less interest in being involved with that work. Within a robust copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the fruits of their efforts will be theirs to reap. [1] If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would be less inclined to do so.  The current copyright system that is built on profit encourages innovation and finding the best use for technology. Even when government has been the source of innovation those innovations have only become widespread when someone is able to make a profit from it; the internet became big when profit making companies began opening it up. If the government wants partnerships with businesses, or universities that are not directly linked to government then it has to accept that those partners can make a profit. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to cannibalize the fecund ground of creative commons works.  [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate The state should promote the efficient distribution of income in order to maximize the utility derived by society from its economic resources  All goods suffer from diminishing marginal utility, and this includes money. The more money someone, the less happy they are made from each successive addition of wealth after a certain point. One might be able to buy a second car or a second house with extra money, but eventually one runs out of things one particularly wants to buy or own. [1] When wealth is unevenly distributed in society, the wealth of society is inefficiently distributed. The aim of the state must be to attempt to maximize the aggregate utility of its citizens insofar as it is able without damaging the economy. With progressive taxation, wealth is effectively reallocated to poorer people, who gain more utility than the wealthy lose in the process. The state has a right to do this not only because it generates a more efficient distribution of income than the market does, but also because income is partly a collective good. [2] Ownership rights to property and the ability to expand them is only possible within the framework of the state; thus the state can make a moral ownership claim to some of the products of the services it provides, and does so most effectively through the mechanism of progressive taxation.  [1] Thune, Kent. “The Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth”. The Financial Philosopher. 2008. Available:   [2] Weisbrod, Burton. Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978.

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

negative: Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products.

negative: Everyone has a right to freedom of expression  No matter how unpalatable their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them. The very core of a free society is the right to express one’s mind freely, without hindrance from the state. When the state presumes to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to its citizens. The government does this by presuming to make value judgments on kinds of speech, and thus empowering itself, and not the people, to be the final arbiter of acceptable speech. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] With free speech the all sides will get to voice their views and those whose opinions have most evidence will win out so there is no need for censorship as the marketplace of ideas will prevent ideas without sufficient evidence from having an impact. Furthermore, the particular speech in question is extremely fringe, and is for that reason a very unusual one to be seeking to silence. Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the Holocaust deniers have to say can easily opt out online.  [1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981,  /19810228.htm

negative: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic The power of the visual  Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ideas. Unlike other methods of conveying ideas, art has a visceral impact that is instant and has a lasting effect.  In a discussion, for example, there are often clues that ideas that might make people feel uncomfortable are about to arise. Thus, people are in a better position to consent to the sorts of challenges controversy within a conversation may pose (similarly, we tend to look more positively on taboo subjects raised within a conversational context than we do when they are, for example, shouted about in the street).  In the case of art, particularly that which is displayed in public spaces (like squares, parks and museums) people are unable to consent in this way, but rather, may be confronted suddenly by something that they find disgusting, because it has forced them to confront something they find horrific or traumatic, in a manner which has a great impact, and that, because of the power of the visual, they find difficult to forget.

negative: This reduces the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to complete the testing process  Testing new drugs is a very expensive process, in 2000 the average cost was estimated at around 86 million for the large scale phase III tests1 however this is contested and it could be much higher it represents 40% of pharmaceutical companies R&D expenditures, which since a recent estimated the development cost of a drug can be up to $5.8billion (due to including failures) the cost of trials would in some cases then be $2billion,2 which is currently funded by pharmaceutical companies. They fund these tests because it is either impossible, very difficult or very risky to access large markets before testing has been completed (e.g. in the USA companies are only allowed to sell new drugs “off-study”, i.e. during trials, at cost3)  If you allow all terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs, you reduce the incentive for companies to continue testing their products: they will have access to a large market prior to the completion of testing, and will therefore have no incentive to complete trials, which are expensive and risk finding the product ineffective.  1 DiMasi, Joseph A. et al., ‘The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs’, Journal of Health Economics, Vol.22, 2003, pp.151-185, p.162   2 Roy, Avik S. A., ‘Stifling New Cures: The True Cost of Lengthy Clinical Drug Trials’, Project FDA Report, No. 5, April 2012,   3 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22,

negative: A legal transaction is the only way to achieve free exchange of value  Because the artist made the music, it is their property, in this case “intellectual property”. Property means that the owner/artist has the right to ask something from you in exchange for you gaining access to the music. This may be money. It may also be the requirement that you clearly recognize the artist’s moral right to always be mentioned as the creator of that music. This is called the “free exchange of value”, and this is the most fundamental relationship in our free market economy.  Whatever the artist chooses as payment through a legal transaction, it is his/her basic right to ask this of you. The only way to make sure that he/she can actually exercise that right is by making sure you only take music from the artist through a legal transaction, i.e. with their permission. Only then can we be sure that the desired free exchange of value has taken place

negative: Governments have the obligation to protect citizens from harmful substances  Alcohol is a mind altering drug, which can cause individuals to take actions they would have not done otherwise. This does not refer to loosened inhibitions, but also extends to harmful acts against themselves and others.  Democracy is based on the principle that the majority of people are to 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 which they have to use, to get well equipped to make more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. One of the principles in society therefore 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. Alcohol for a long time has been kept because the government trusted the people; they would make responsible decisions regarding alcohol. However, each year, the society loses, on a 30 year based average, more than 75,000 individuals to alcohol related diseases or accidents. [1] Thus the citizens proved not to be responsible; even though they had information available they did not make the choice that would keep them alive.  The government has a duty to protect those irresponsible citizens, because otherwise they will not be able to contribute to society to the extent they could without alcohol. And because the government does not know who is the one that will make a stupid decision that will engender their lives in the long run, for the sake of few individuals’, alcohol has to be banned for all.  Therefore, because the government has been trusted with the duty to make informed decisions instead of the individuals and to protect the individual, it is right to allow them to ban alcohol if they believe it is very harmful.  [1] msnbc.com, Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year, published 06/25/2005,  , accessed 08/13/2011

negative: People need protection against harmful information posted by others  People cannot control information that others post about them, for instance embarrassing photos from parties. Even if the original source came from people themselves, they cannot delete this information if it has been shared by other people on their social media channels. For example, Ghyslain Raza’s video of himself goofing around with a golf stick pretending to be in Star Wars, was uploaded by his classmates without his consent [6]. While the video went viral without Ghyslain being able to delete all of its appearances at different sites, he himself suffered merciless bullying online and in real life [7].  There even are people who exploit people’s inability to delete embarrassing content relating to them online. ‘Revenge porn’, which is uploading private material of sexual nature of ex-partners online in an effort to humiliate them, is especially hard to delete and prosecute [8]. Since embarrassing information can end up online without a person’s consent and is very difficult to delete using current policy measures, the right to be forgotten is the only way to help these people.

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes In the twenty years of a patent’s duration, any prospective research is carried out in fear of recriminations and law-suits from the patent-holder. Laboratories offering patented genetic tests for research studies have been asked to “cease and desist” unless they refer materials to or get a license from the patent holder 1. Where one company has the right of exploitation, they possess a monopoly and inevitably will be able to charge what they like. It is only after countries threatened or actually invoked provisions of the WTO Treaty, for example, that companies offered to decrease the price of their Aids medicines for African countries 2. Those provisions would have permitted the governments to grant compulsory licenses.Further on, gene-patent holders can often control the useof ‘their’ gene; if they have the claim for the test, they can prevent a doctor from testing a patient’s blood for a specific genetic mutation and can stop anyone from doing research to improve a genetic test or to develop a gene therapy based on that gene 3.So any further research is in the mercy of the patent owner. Even if information is public, if it is not possible to use it and build upon it without permission. It is therefore possible for the patent holder simply to horde patents and prevents any research using that patent to the detriment of science, medicine and the patients who could be benefiting.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. BBC News, “Brazil to break AIDS drug patent”,  , accessed 15/9/2011.  3. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011

negative: arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all Upon entering the public arena works of art take on characters of their own, often far different than their original creators did, or could have, imagined. The art is consumed, absorbed, and reimagined and takes on its own identity that the artist cannot claim full ownership over. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. That art does, due to its origination belong more to the people, who should have access, even if the artist, like Beckett has bizarrely rigorous feelings about the work.

negative: The right to free speech and expression must include the expression of ideas through means not shared by the majority, including flag burning  For society to be free and democratic it must have provision for the expression of views contrary to the mainstream, and even directly oppositional to it. This must furthermore extend to the means by which to convey such messages. Public disgust is certainly not justification enough to deny the right to expression. The exercise of a right can only be denied to someone when there is a direct harm to others by exercising that right. In terms of free speech, the words or expressions used by someone must result in actual harms to others, harms that outweigh the inherent harms of denying someone their rights, which is itself a kind of violation. No such harm exists in the case of flag burning1. Some people have an irrational attachment to the symbolic significance of the flag, but it should not be expected by law that everyone share that view. The flag, like all symbols of beliefs and groups, is not inviolable, nor is anyone's piece of mind or health so attached to its wellbeing that the desecration or defacing of it could cause any true harm. Furthermore, the patriotism of individuals watching a flag burning is not affected by it. This view is upheld, for example, by Supreme Court opinion in Texas v. Johnson, when the opinion argued that there could be no better response to a flag burning by someone opposed to such an action than waving their own flag or saluting and paying respect to the burning flag2. People can thus show their opposition peacefully without infringing the right of a protestor to burn a flag. Banning flag desecration on account of a sense of moral disgust, or of the threat to public order caused by angry counter-protestors, is the prohibition of an otherwise lawful act for the reason that others will commit crimes in response. Clearly, these are not justification for banning flag burning.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

negative: The state should refrain from imposing bans  In Western liberal democracies, we generally consider an individual’s private sphere to be worth protecting. We only give the state license to violate it when something is objectively largely harmful to that person or to society. When something is not very clearly harmful we let people make their own decisions because the state is not infallible in its judgements about what lifestyles are better than others.  Therefore, simply saying that there is a risk that printers will be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning them altogether. If technology makes it easier for people to do what they want, this is a good thing; if people then want to do things that we consider harmful this is a problem in itself. The solution is not to ban an entire means of production in order to stop a minority from producing dangerous things, but to educate people about the risks so they can freely make better decisions. Making it harder for people to do bad things is useless, furthermore, since those that wish to purchase a gun or take drugs can already find ways of doing so without 3D printers. One may even argue that it is better for everybody to have access to a gun, for example, and not only those who are willing to break the law to get one.


query: CAP protects the quality of the food in EU  The role of CAP is to produce food at affordable prices while maintaining its quality. By having policies which favour agriculture in Europe it is easier to control the quality of the food, maintain it and also support the diversity of the food produced in EU. [1] The goods imported from developing countries are often not produced under such scrutiny as are those in EU. In EU the quality standards of production are one of the highest – the hygiene, the amount of additives in products – all these are set and controlled by the EU. The result of it is that European citizens eat healthy food of high quality which is still affordable – mainly due to subsidies and payments obtained via CAP.  [1] European Commission, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy A partnership between Europe and Farmers’, 2012,

positive: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon The standards of quality can and are checked for imports. Only food, produced without potentially harmful agents and in a certain way, can be sold on European market. The fact that food was not produced in EU does not mean that food is of lower quality, or that there are fewer checks to ensure their quality. In a recent years there were many cases when the food produced in EU was not what it should be – horse meat scandal in 2013 [1] or scandals in Poland with rotten meat. [2] The CAP and EU are not enough to ascertain the quality of produced food and therefore it is unreasonable to follow this argument.  [1] Meikle, James, and McDonald, Henry, ‘Cameron tells supermarkets: horsemeat burger scandal unacceptable’, theguardian.com, 16 January 2013,   [2] UPI, ‘Europe’s food scandals multiply’, 8 March 2013,

negative: business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon It is unfair to new members of EU  Not only are the largest recipients of CAP western countries – France, Spain and Germany - also the payments per hectare of arable lands differ significantly between new and old members of EU. The new members of EU with their economies often struggling and more dependent on agriculture (as is the case of Poland, Bulgaria or Romania) need more monetary support compared to their western counterparts to produce food of same quality and be competitive in EU market. However, the payments for hectare of land vary from 500€ in Greece to less than 100 € in Latvia. [1] These different conditions undermine the EU’s ethos of fairness and equality of countries.  [1] EurActive, ‘Eastern EU states call for ‘bolder, speedier’ farm reforms’, 14 July 2011,

negative: economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation Subsidies for farming and agriculture mean cheaper food. If Americans were forced to pay the price of production for the food they consume, poverty rates in the US would be much higher. Conversely, in developing South American countries, which have high levels of poverty and wealth disparity, driving down the price of food would actually be of great benefit to those who live below the poverty line.

negative: First of all while many members of the EU are experiencing low or even negative growth the bailouts don’t actually make Europe poorer as they have so far been loans that will have to be paid out. Even if current members are unwilling or unable to give large subsidies to any members that may join the European Union in the future there will still be large economic benefits to joining. The principles of European integration, such as free competition or free movement of goods and capital, will foster the transition from a post-socialist economy to a free market economy in any new member states. The removal of custom barriers will enable producers to cut production costs, which will result in export increases. In addition, integration into the EU will encourage foreign investment. It will create new jobs and will bring new technologies and experience into East-central European industry and trade. New member states inevitably engage in a catch up phase where grow rapidly. The ten new members who joined the EU in 2004 grew from having an income per capita of 40% of the EU15’s average in 1999 to 52% in 2008 with most of the growth coming after membership where GDP growth was 5.5% from 2004-2008 compared to 3.5 % in 1999-2003. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘Five Years on an enlarged EU – A win win result’ Press Conference, Europa.eu, 19 February 2009,

negative: Food labeling encourages food companies to provide food more in tune with consumer values  Innovation is inevitable. That holds true for food industry as much as any other industry – and the food companies want to share their progress with the consumer to benefit from it. With the impact food labeling has on consumer choices, companies turned the issue on its head, producing food that is more in tune with what the people want and using labels to tell us about it.  An example is PepsiCo’s “Smart Spot” program that is intended to help consumers identify healthier products – products the company developed as a consequence of consumer pressure for healthier drinks that contain less sugar. What is more, the strategy proved very profitable for the company, with the smart spot products sales increasing 13 percent or three times as fast as the rest of the business. [1]  We see that companies were able to adapt to the pressure labeling created with excellent products, in tune with consumer values, and make a profit as well.  [1] Warner, M., Under Pressure, Food Producers Shift to Healthier Products, published 12/16/2005,  , accessed 9/15/2011

negative: The European political union is a tool for promoting democracy  The EU has the ability to demand certain conditions from candidate states before they join. It has explicitly set a democratic standard countries must satisfy to be members. This is a powerful tool that repeatedly has incentivised reform in terms of human rights and democracy. In particular, countries emerging from Former Yugoslavia and Turkey have engaged in structural reform during the last decade as part of the process towards becoming Member States (17). It is also stronger for enabling a common foreign and security policy which encourages cooperation between member states when setting policy ensuring all members work together. The EU, therefore, can be a strong force for democracy. This is good, not only because democracy is intrinsically preferable to non-democratic systems, but also because democracies will be more likely to trade and freer trade produces more economic benefits. If the EU were to be merely a trade bloc, it could not put pressure on its countries to stay democratic and endorse the free market. Thus, both in political and financial terms, the EU’s role as a promoter of democracy should be defended.  (17) Dimitrova, Antoaneta; Pridham, Geoffrey. “International actors and democracy promotion in central and eastern Europe: the integration model and its limits”, Democratization. Volume 11, Issue 5. 1 June 2004.

negative: It might be worth giving up the British rebate for serious CAP reform, but it is unnecessary. If the CAP were abolished, Britain’s net payments to the EU would automatically be much smaller anyway, so the rebate (66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to the EU and its receipts from it) would also shrink away to insignificance. CAP reform is worth doing for its own sake, and other EU countries will only agree to it once they realise that fact - offering up the rebate will make no difference. In any case, even if the rebate was a useful bargaining chip to be cashed in, there is no chance of individual countries such as France (or Eire, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, etc.) agreeing to changing the CAP at present and any one country could prevent it, so Britain should hold on to the rebate card.

negative: Free trade jeopardizes countries' security.  If a country goes to war with one of its trading partners, it needs to have the capacity to produce all of the necessary tools for war domestically, and not depend on other countries for supplies and parts. Additionally there is fear that disease-causing agents and bioterrorism can enter countries through the trade of poorly inspected food1. For reasons of national security it makes sense to retain the capacity to produce what is necessary to win a war and to protect the domestic population. This is one of the reasons why countries—such as the US1—like to protect their agricultural industry. Free trade is a threat to global security. For countries to stay safe, they need to retain some protectionism in their international trade policy.  1 George W. Bush, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accessed July 15, 2011

negative: The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for  The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union [1] , and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa [2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this” [3] .  This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages.  [1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa,   [2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

negative: Costs more to those who can’t afford to pay  A fat tax will be a tax on poor people. It will hit the poorest, those who can least afford to pay it. It is the poorest who buy the cheapest food because they can’t afford otherwise and who are least likely to have the kitchen equipment necessary to prepare healthy meals. Because it is what they know they will simply end up paying more taxes and having less money to spend on anything else. The result will be attempts to save by eating even worse food, or cutting back on some other necessity such as heating. [19]  The impact of rising food prices and concerns that the result would be turning to worse food is what stopped Romania from introducing such a tax in 2010. [20]

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

negative: economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.  1 Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.

negative: Healthier equivalents of trans fats exist  It is easy and inexpensive to replace trans fats with other, less harmful products without significantly altering the taste of the food. Kraft eliminated trans fats from its Oreo cookies, with little public perception of any change in taste.(1) Similarly, the Wendy's restaurant chain tested a new frying oil in 370 franchises, with customers not noticing a difference in taste. Denmark imposed a national ban on trans fats with which even McDonald's has complied.(1) Replacements for trans fats will get cheaper and cheaper with time, as they are used more frequently and as the companies that produce and distribute them increase their sales volumes and are able to sell them for lower prices.  Since trans fats are not irreplaceable, objections for the sake of consumer freedom are also unconvincing. As with lead added to paint, trans fats are unnecessary additions to products that can cause significant harm. Most people remain ignorant of the presence of trans-fats in their food, and of their effects. In this area the ban on trans fats differs from restrictions placed on the sale of alcohol and tobacco and so the two kinds of bans are not comparable. Not only are trans fats easy to substitute in foodstuffs, without impairing quality or taste, the presence of trans-fats is hard to detect. It is all-but impossible for informed and conscientious consumers to avoid buying and eating trans-fats.  While banning cigarettes and alcohol mean banning an entire product category, banning the ingredient of trans fats means no such thing. Rather, it simply means that readily available replacement ingredients must be used in the preparation of the same foods. And, since these fatty replacements are widespread and cheaply available, food makers and consumers should have little difficulty making the adjustment to making and consuming the same, albeit slightly modified, foods.

negative: Incentives are the best way to produce effective, affordable software  The West has clear reasons to seek to provide the software necessary for anonymity to people involved in uprisings, and it has the means. Western countries are the most advanced technologically and have been the leaders in creating and developing the internet and thus they are best suited to producing and disseminating this technology. Firstly, as they are more advanced in software development, the products they distribute will be much more difficult for the target regimes’ to hack or subvert to their own advantage, or at least significantly more difficult to than were it produced in any other locale. 1 Secondly, the efficient production of software requires special industry clusters. These exist almost exclusively in the West. Silicon Valley, for example is the high tech capital of the world, and were companies there incentivized to produce software for the participants of uprisings it would be a simple matter of efficient distribution, which these firms are best in the world at doing. The need for subsidy is also clear. People involved in uprisings tend not to have huge amounts of disposable income, so to date there has been little market for the production of these sorts of software devices. With a subsidy from Western governments the incentive is created and a top quality product that will save lives and make the uprising more likely to succeed is born.  1 Paul, I. and Zlutnick, D. “Networking Rebellion: Digital Policing and Revolt in the Arab Uprisings”. The Abolitionist. 29 August 2012.

negative: While it is true that trading freely with the EU requires acceptance of many of its rules, neither country has given up control over those areas they consider key policy areas. These are the areas that Norway and Switzerland most important such as agriculture, fishing (highly important for Norway) and foreign affairs. The Swiss in particular have done well out of bilateral deals with the EU – would their concerns in areas such as banking and farming be listened to as carefully once they were inside the club? How much are the concerns of smaller states taken seriously in the EU today?

negative: Leaving would take back power to control the economy  Voting to leave would take back the power over the British economy that the European Union currently has and give it back to the sovereign British Parliament. EU common fisheries and agriculture (CAP) policies control how many fish we can catch and what is commercially farmable. If the UK were to leave the British government would be once more able to shape an industrial policy; for example under EU rules it did not have the power to save Port Talbot as it is not allowed to provide subsidies to support the failing plant. [1]  [1] Rankin, Jennifer, ‘EU sets tone as it cracks down on subsidies for struggling steelworks’, theguardian.com, 20 January 2016,

negative: tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax It hits the most vulnerable part of society hardest  The practical consequence of an additional tax on what the government considers fatty unhealthy food will disproportionately affect the poorest part of the population, who often turn to such food due to economic constraints.  These were the concerns that stopped the Romanian government from introducing a fat tax in 2010. Experts there argued, that the countries people keep turning to junk food simply because they are poor and cannot afford the more expensive fresh produce. What such a fat tax would do is eliminate a very important source of calories from the society’s economic reach and replace the current diet with an even more nutritionally unbalanced one. Even the WHO described such policies as “regressive from an equity perspective.” [1]  Clearly, the government should be focusing its efforts on making healthy fresh produce more accessible and not on making food in general, regardless if it’s considered healthy or not, less accessible for the most vulnerable in our society.  [1] Stracansky, P., 'Fat Tax' May Hurt Poor, published 8/8/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011

negative: EU expansion is good for current members economically.  The current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP. [1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros. [2]  Admitting new members is also necessary over the long term in order to counter the aging that is occurring in Europe. Every member of the European Union has an aging population and a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative. [3] This means that Europe needs more young workers; these can be gained either through immigration from the rest of the world or through admitting more vibrant economies into the European Union. Turkey is a good example of the kind of country the EU needs to allow to join; its economy is growing rapidly, even faster than China’s in the first half of 2011, [4] and the median age of the population is still only 25. [5]  [1] ‘Good to know about EU Enlargement’, European Commission – Directorate General for Enlargement, March 2009,   [2] David Lidington, ‘European Union Enlargement: Tulips, Trade and Growth’, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 9 March 2011,   [3] Megan McArdle, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,   [4] Ergin Hava, ‘Robust private sector fives Turkey fastest H1 growth worldwide’, Todays Zaman, 12 September 2011,   [5] Euromonitor International, ‘Turkey’s Population Young and Rapidly Expanding’, 24 January 2012,

negative: The EU is responsible for its own citizens and not for those that live in other countries or regions. Its burden is to protect human rights for European citizens and not for the entire world. At the moment, because of the economic crisis and austerity measures imposed, all the EU attention should be focused on delivering basic human rights (in terms of basic necessities such as food, shelter and employment) for people in Greece, Spain, Italy and other countries in distress. The burden lies here because the government of a country serves the people of that country and as a union each country accepts some of the burden for others in that union. Others that are outwith that union are not giving any direct benefits for the European Union and therefore should they not be our focus. Any more egregious violations of human rights in these countries would already be sufficient cause for granting asylum without a further offer presented to women who are discriminated against.  Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, ‘The European union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon’, Human Rights Law Review, Vol.11, No.4, 2011,

negative: Therefore, there is no empirical evidence that proves that poverty is reduced. If countries removed all agricultural subsidies domestic production would decrease and world food prices would increase. Poor countries that import food will suffer from increased food prices due to trade liberalization. 45 of the least-developed countries on earth imported more food than they exported in 1999, so there are many countries that could be severely harmed by increasing food prices1.  1 Panagariya, Arvind (2003), "Think Again: International Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,

negative: Food labeling is an important form of consumer protection  It is a basic right for us as consumers to know what it is we eat.  Today more and more foods that we buy are processed [1] , they include many harmful additives, causing conditions such as hyperactivity in children [2] , or are advertised as health food, but are in reality loaded with sugar or salt [3] .  It is therefore necessary for consumers to be made aware of all their food contains in order to make safe and healthy choices for themselves and their families.  [1] Parvez, S., Processed food exports rise 41pc, published 3/26/2009,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [2] Rosenthal, E., Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds, published 9/6/2007,  , accessed 9/15/2011  [3] Smellie, A., That 'healthy' bowl of granola has more sugar than coke... and more fat than fries: Busting the diet food myths, published 5/21/2011,  , accessed 9/15/2011

negative: A carbon tax would be more likely to pass on problems to consumers. With the tax being as clear as it is, firms could quite easily appeal to the public and claim that it is the government that is causing them to change prices. Given the inelastic nature of the markets for energy and food, if a number of core companies were to take this action at the same time, then it could simply lead to the government taxing people more for the mistakes and harm that firms cause.  Whilst the public bear some measure of responsibility by consuming the firms’ products, the majority of the cost should be borne by the firm. This is especially true in energy markets where it is impossible for consumers to simply avoid using energy altogether. Moreover, businesses are in a better position to control and improve the efficiency of their operations than their customers are.  Given that a cap and trade system results in a lower loss for firms it is less likely to be passed on to the people instead.

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making.  The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner (ranging from the Arctic region to nuclear safety and enlargement) 1. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity.  1. European Union External Action, Policies, accessed 1/8/11

negative: europe house believes federal europe A federal Europe will benefit the citizens of its member states  A federal Europe would build upon the success of the EU and its predecessors in taming the nationalism that caused so much conflict in the twentieth century. The EU is drawing nearer to realising the vision of its founders for an “ever-closer union”. Despite the EU’s relative success in this regard, while national governments still exist they will regard policy-making within Europe as a competitive business, abusing vetoes and damaging the potential prosperity of all of Europe’s citizens. Such is the case with Britain's veto over the carbon tax, which the EU wants to implement - “The British government is "highly likely" to block European Commission proposals for a carbon tax contained in a widely-circulated draft version of the Energy Taxation Directive, EU diplomatic sources said yesterday”. [1]  A federal European state can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further the common good, while accommodating regional differences.  [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Britain set to veto EU carbon tax plans’

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.  The creation of a post of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post showed a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign and defense policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system, in line with the stated goals of the EU. (The 12 stars in a circle is meant to symbolize the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe)1.  1 Europa.eu, 'Symbols',accessed 1/8/11

negative: It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.  As regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.  (9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.  (10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012.

negative: Cap and Trade is Less Feasible Than a Carbon Tax  Carbon taxes are useful owing to the transparency behind them. It helps companies working for green causes gain a strong reputation and support among the public because they are seen to be paying for their pollution. A cap and trade system is significantly more difficult to understand and as such this means that there will likely be less public will behind the system and thus a lesser incentive for transparency.  A cap-and-trade system demands that the government determine the emissions baselines for companies, the allocation of carbon credits, and the monitoring and enforcement of all of the above. This is a major administrative burden. A carbon tax would be simpler and require less oversight, and would cost domestic tax payers less.  The complexity of a cap-and-trade system would make it easier for companies to cheat. This is largely because the enforcement of this system would be difficult and open to manipulation by skilled lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms.  Further, Governments have the incentive to establish conditions favourable to the performance of their own national companies. They can do so by, for example, offering more carbon credits than they should to the companies of their country. The EU's emissions trading system is the primary example of this occurring. [1]  [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009

negative: economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation The FTAA is bad for South American Agriculture.  During the FTAA negotiations, the US has consistently refused to eliminate subsidies for American farmers [1] . Because of subsidies, great agricultural surpluses are produced that are then sold on developing markets at prices lower than the cost of production. Farmers in places like Brazil or Argentina, who are much more efficient in their process of production but do not benefit from subsidies, could not compete with these low priced imports, either locally or on the American market. Farmers would soon go out of business.  [1] Marquis, Christopher. “Panama Challenges Miami as Free Trade Headquarters.” New York Times. 11 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/world/panama-challenges-miami-as-free-trade-h...

negative: The free market is the most efficient way to match supply and demand  In a free market, goods are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. The aggregate ‘market price’ is the result of all individual transactions and contains important information for both buyers and sellers. When there is more demand than supply, prices rise (because buyers have to ‘outbid’ each other), making it attractive for new producers to enter the market and thus adding supply. When there is more supply than demand, prices fall, causing some sellers to leave the market since their production costs are higher than the price at which they can sell. Thus, in the long run, markets settle on an ‘equilibrium price’ where demand and supply are exactly equal.  Examples of the free market actually working are all around us: take the supply of the pen and paper used to take notes on. If the price is too high at one store, anyone would move to another store where it’s cheaper. Therefore, sellers have an incentive to provide the best quality at the lowest price. [1]  Central planning can never be as efficient as myriads of individually planning buyers and sellers in reaching this equilibrium. For example, a central planner who sets a price floor will likely create excess supply in that specific market. This has happened in the European Union, where the EU set a price floor on dairy products. The result were the well-known ‘butter mountains’ and ‘milk lakes’.  [1] It is of course slightly more complicated as there are multiple layers of supply and demand. There is a free market in the sale of pen and paper from stores to consumers. The stores themselves are also in a free market when it comes to sourcing the pen and paper from wholesellers or the producers. The producers are then also in a free market to source the materials to make the pens. The price at the retailer therefore has a floor below which someone will make a loss due to the cost of the production.

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense.  Creating a position of EU High Representative is not objectionable in itself. Previously the EU was in the ludicrous situation of having two foreign affairs spokesmen, one from the Council and the other from the Commission. Rivalry and duplication of efforts, staffs and resources results, and so focusing all the EU’s external affairs work around one person makes some sense. What it does not mean is that the High Representative should lead a drive for a stronger common foreign policy position. Only when member states agree (which may not be often) will he or she have a role. In fact, by weakening the foreign affairs role within the Commission, this development may actually limit the pretensions of Brussels to develop its own agenda and dictate foreign policy to the member states.

negative: Nuclear energy is non-renewable source  While nuclear power it is often proclaimed as clean this does not mean it is a renewable resource like wind, wave, or solar power. Nuclear power plants use uranium to produce energy, which, of course, needs to be mined. Currently only 2.3% of uranium used in reactors in EU is mined in the EU [1] . Moreover, the world’s main uranium deposits are located outside the EU. The use of nuclear energy thus undermines energy self-sufficiency of the EU. This may pose a serious threat to the future. Natural (and other) resources are usually used as the first intermediates of diplomatic disputes. When a country wants to exert diplomatic pressure on another country (or bloc of countries like EU), trade bans or embargos are widely used. For example in 2009 Russia stopped gas supply to Ukraine due to trade dispute between their two national gas companies. Therefore, the supply of uranium may be susceptible to diplomatic and trade relations (which are often volatile) and consequently nuclear power may not be reliable. Is it one of the aims of the EU to become less dependent on imported material needed for energy production. [2]  As a non renewable resource we also need to think about the possibility of supplies running out. The concept of ‘peak uranium’ is sometimes overblown but there is only a 230 years supply of uranium at current consumption rates. If the price gets high enough then there are other options for production, including from seawater, but this would clearly mean a big increase in cost and concerns that producers will try to keep cheaper uranium to themselves and export for much higher prices. [3] Thus over longer term the nuclear energy may become far more expensive, or even unavailable due to lack of fuel.  [1] Euratom, ‘Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2012’, European Commission, 2013,   [2] European Commission, ‘Renewable energy’, Europa.eu, 2013,   [3] Fetter, Steve, ‘How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?’, Scientific American, 26 January 2009,

negative: The EU [i] has described this agreement as a balance of the interests of all stakeholders – including customers or other users. Nobody is banned from freely sharing their own ideas, inventions or research; merely from ripping off that of other people. The oppositions need not worry about the articles it mentions as they are targeted not at individuals but at other commercial outfits.  What is described as privatizing data is in fact increasing functionality and ensuring interoperability. Ask anyone who uses an Apple device or have become accustomed to using Microsoft Outlook and they will testify that their products work best when used together with other similar products. By allowing other organisations to copy these services you are only harming consumers.  [i] European Commission, ‘ACTA – Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 4 July 2012.

negative: The global economy is not welcoming to African players  The international trade arena represents anything but a free market. Instead, tariffs, taxes, subsidies, regulations and other restrictions operate to disadvantage some countries. Because of their weaker bargaining and economic power, it is typically developing not developed countries that are on the losing end of this equation. The agricultural protectionism of the EU and USA, in particular, means that developing countries are unable to compete fairly. In the EU, for example, each cow gets over 12 USD every day, which is many times more than what the average Sub-Saharan person lives on 1. Furthermore, Africa has yet to break into the global market for manufactured exports: this is very difficult precisely because of the success of low-income Asia.  1 BBC News. (2008, November 20). Q&A: Common Agricultural Policy. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from BBC News: