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

positive: local government house would directly elect city mayors An elected mayor would give the appearance of accountability, but at the risk of stifling democratic debate. At present policies are debated by council committees, and then by the full council, which represents a wide spectrum of views and interests; the public and media can usually attend these meetings, so overall proposals have to survive detailed examination. Focusing power in the hands of one person risks policy mistakes, ignores the interests of minorities, and allows for the possibility of corruption, especially if they are in office for four years and cannot be removed by vote of the council. Ken Livingstone, who was Mayor of London for eight years, argues “It’s easy to avoid serious scrutiny – Boris has had six press conferences in four years. When you come to see how the assembly gets to question him once a month that’s not the same as a detailed scrutiny by a council committee.” [1] Greater accountability could instead be achieved by use of citizens’ juries to consider particular local issues, and local referenda on issues such as the level of council tax.  [1] Waterson, James, ‘Ken: Mayor has too much power for one person’, City A.M., 18 April 2012.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Directly elected mayors provide opportunities for populists.  The position of elected mayor is likely to attract populist and maverick candidates, who will seek to capitalise on the unpopularity of party politics with “single issue sloganising, glib promises and headline grabbing” (Ken Walker, Labour leader of Middlesbrough council). [1] A good example is Paul Massey, who has had 25 convictions in the past and yet is running to be Mayor of Salford and could even have a chance of winning. [2] In office such candidates are likely to alienate elected councillors and other crucial local partners, to disappoint voters as their promises run up against the actual limitations of their power, and to neglect many aspects of local government in favour of their own pet issue. This danger is even greater if a far-right candidate were to exploit local concerns about immigration and asylum-seekers to inflame racial tensions. Again Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets is a good example of how this could happen, he has links to a Muslim extremist group, and only needed a mere 23,000 votes, 13% of the electorate because there was such low turnout. [3]  [1] Hetherington, Peter, ‘Vote for US-style mayors exposes deep Labour rifts’, The Guardian, 20 October 2001.  [2] Gilligan, Andrew, ;The town hall dictator taking over near you’, The Telegraph, 22 April 2012.  [3] ibid

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Electing a mayor would not concentrate power too much in the hands of one individual. Although models of local government vary, mayors usually have to pick a cabinet from among the elected councillors and to seek approval for their policies and budget from the whole elected council. A mayor would thus have to persuade and build a consensus in order to govern effectively. This is a more transparent approach to local decision making than the present one, and should therefore be free from the accusations of corruption and nepotism that have been levied at the old system.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Coordinating between a few mayors in a region is considerably easier than between hundreds of councillors. The whole point of devolving power is to let local people have more influence and decide for themselves. Neighbouring areas could eventually have referendums to become part of the area controlled by the mayor if it is seen as being necessary just as they would to get a mayor of their own.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Electing a maverick candidate could do the image of a town or city a great deal of harm rather than good. Cities such as Birmingham have already been highly successful at attracting inward investment under the present system of local government. In any case, the major bureaucratic constraints on investment relate to issues of subsidy and tax-breaks, which are outlawed by the EU, and to national taxation and planning policies, set in Whitehall, none of which will be affected by an elected mayor.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors If the position of Mayor is given powers then it will attract a wide range of candidates, which may include extremists. However these candidates are no more likely to win than they would be in any other election. As with any other election voters are likely to vote for centrist candidates that have strong manifestos and good ideas about how to solve the city’s problems.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Talented individuals with a proven track record are unlikely to seek mayoral office unless local government is given much greater autonomy by central government. With the powers for each city not yet clear many may not be willing to take the risk. The reason for the lack of talent in councils is therefore not because they work as a body rather than one prominent individual but that councils themselves have too little power. Regardless of the system of election, if real power is offered, real leaders will be attracted by the prospect of wielding it and will rise to prominence.

negative: local government house would directly elect city mayors Mayors could split economic regions  The value of a mayor is dependent upon that mayor having a distinct area of control. However often this area is set too small. Cities are the hubs for neighbouring towns and countryside as well as the inner city. This could then end up splitting up economic regions. Birmingham and Coventry are very close to each other but at some point in the future could potentially have different city mayors. There would then be confusion; who runs regional transport policy or the West Midlands police that affects both cities? [1]  [1] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.

negative: First how democratic the governance of the city is does not detract from the right of the city government to restrict the size of soda drinks. The system of government has not been changed in order enact this particular regulation. Second it must be remembered that Mayor Bloomberg himself was elected. He was elected to a third term with 51% of the vote compared to 46% for his Democratic rival. [1] To be elected for a third time in a Democrat stronghold gives him a good deal of electoral legitimacy.  [1] Goldman, Henry, ‘Bloomberg Wins Third NYC Mayor Term Beats Comptroller Thompson’, Bloomberg, 4 November 2009.

negative: On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.  The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)

negative: The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:  With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that "mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors."(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. "Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy". University of Wolongong.

negative: An amnesty is not a reward for breaking the law, and any illegal immigrant who has committed crimes other than entering the country illegally could be excluded. Instead amnesty should be seen as acknowledging those who live and work in a country but are nonetheless ignored. An amnesty would mean the state would get to collect more money in taxes from immigrants and they would be subject to all the requirements that all citizens are expected to abide by. They could also be expected to pay a processing fee to cover town or government expenditure for the amnesty amongst other things. So an amnesty wouldn't be a reward in its entirety as much as an acknowledgment and a way to balance the books. [1] The government would also be free to impose strict restrictions on any amnesty. For example the one proposed by the liberal democrats in 2010 was only to allow those who had been in the UK for ten years, spoke English and wished to work towards earning citizenship. There would also have been a probationary period and some form of voluntary service. [2]  [1] Barney, Katherine, ‘Mayor Wants Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants’, London Evening Standard, 9 March 2009,   [2] Standford, Daniel, ‘Illegal immigration: Is an amnesty the answer’, BBC News, 19 April 2010,

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day  Decisions that affect the national sovereignty of a country should not just be left to elected politicians who have power for a limited time but should be given to the citizens through direct vote. The nature of the Lisbon Treaty changed the relationship between member states and Brussels; it is clearly a constitutional issue and therefore needs to be ratified by all citizens. The Blair Labour Government held referenda on a whole range of constitutional changes, including not only devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but even on whether individual cities should have directly elected mayors

negative: The myth of the greater efficiency in the private sector is one of the enduring fallacies of the politics of the right. Even the slightest glance at those areas where governments routinely outsource capital projects- defense procurement, major infrastructural projects and IT projects- there is astonishing inefficiency and it seems questionable as to how the public sector could be any less efficient.  It is an innate aspect of private companies that they need to make a profit, which is by nature an inefficiency, in that it takes resources out of any system. It is a strange thing that those who most passionately support the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector become meek when it comes to the most important elements of public life- defense of the nation, policing the streets, educating the young. Equally when the astonishing levels of inefficiency and, frequently, incompetence that exist within the private sector come to light in the collapse of companies, be those banks or auto-giants, apparently it becomes fine for state to intervene to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.  It is equally wrong to suggest that the lack of culpability of senior managers has an impact on efficiency: the ultimate senior manager of a public service is a minister- either elected or appointed by someone who is- and is therefore accountable at the ballot box for the services provided. By contrast senior managers, in the shape of boards of directors, in the private sector seem relaxed about paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses even when their companies are running huge losses and shedding jobs: this scarcely suggests a high level of personal responsibility for success or failure.

negative: The job of a government is necessarily long term.  It is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.  Similarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole; [1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum.  This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776) [2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes.  [1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988.   [2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3rd November 1774.

negative: Voice of Europe  The European Parliament is the only pan-European, directly elected institution in the EU. As such, only the European Parliament can authentically ‘speak’ for Europe on any issue. It should consequently be a more privileged institution in the EU decision-making process. As a step in this direction, the Parliament should have equal powers of co-decision with the Council on all legislative matters in the EU. [1]  This would turn the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a body which can affect real change by providing a balance to the Council of Ministers. By having a directly elected body making decisions on a par with the indirectly chosen body, better decisions will be made that will benefit all Europeans at once, turning the council from a body that focuses on implementing European policy instead of the council being a means for sovereign governments to negotiate based on partial considerations of what their electorates want.  This would prevent leaders from being able to come up with deals in their famous all night meetings that the public are opposed to. At the moment European governments can afford to make unpopular decisions in Europe confident that the issue will never be high enough up the electorate’s priorities, which is topped by issues such as unemployment, the economy, inflation, healthcare and crime, [2] so they will not be punished for the decision. The European Parliament which is elected on European issues would prevent be much more responsive to their electorate.  [1] Young European Federalists, ‘Political Platform of JEF-Europe’, XIX. European Congress in Copenhagen 21 October 2007,   [2] TNS Opinion & Social, ‘Public opinion in the European Union’, Eurobarometer 75 Spring 2011, P.21,

negative: Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible  In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote [1] . In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote [2] . Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend [3] . When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations [4] . As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’ [5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home [6] [7] .  [1]  , accessed 22/08/11  [2]  , accessed 22/08/11  [3]  , accessed 22/08/11.  [4]  , accessed 25/08/11  [5]  , accessed 22/08/11  [6] In the USA:  , accessed 22/08/11  [7] In the UK:  , accessed 22/08/11

negative: The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long.

negative: Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives  People should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the "liberty of the ancients" and the "liberty of the moderns". [1]  [1] Constant, B. (1816). The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns. See online at:

negative: The City has the obligation to protect its citizenry  Thomas Jefferson said “the purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness”. [1] As an elected government led by Mayor Bloomberg, the government of New York City is obligated to lead the city in a positive direction. In Bloomberg’s case it was among his campaign promises “To achieve the biggest public health gains in the nation” and given his record with the smoking ban this kind of proposal is the obvious way to achieve such a goal. [2] as the Soda ban is not an infringement upon personal rights but a necessary public health measure. The ban on large sodas does not prohibit the consumption of soda, it simply impedes negative choices for poor nutrition. [3] The City has an obligation to promote healthy living as a form of keeping its citizenry safe and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clearly states ‘Ourmission is to protect and promote the health of all New Yorkers’. [4] “Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’” but Mayor Bloomberg said, “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something.” The mayor continued by including how he viewed his duty: "I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.” [5]  [1] Thomas Jefferson quoted by Hughes, David, ‘Ed Miliband doesn’t seem to know what government is for’, The Telegraph, 17 March 2010.  [2] Paybarah, Azi, ‘Bloomberg Envisions 2013, Thompson Sees Empty Promises’, The New York Observer, 26 October 2009.  [3] Park, Alice, ‘The New York City Soda Ban, and a Brief History of Bloomberg’s Nudges’, Time, 31 May 2012.  [4] ‘About the NYC DOHMH’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  [5] Grynbaum, Michael M., ‘New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks’, The New York Times, 30 May 2012.

negative: Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites  Representative democracy is less legitimate because it empowers unelected elites. Representative democracy is systematically biased against ordinary people, particularly poor people. Unelected elites like wealthy businessmen, trade union leaders, civil servants, party officials and media proprietors are able to bypass the democratic process and exert direct pressure on elected politicians. This happens because decisions are made behind closed doors by individual politicians who can be easily bullied or bought out. This allows elites to effectively wield public power even when they are not elected themselves. If decisions were made more directly by the people there would be less scope for elites to manipulate the process by simply appealing to a politician’s self-interest. Elite influence is a systematic problem because it is self-reinforcing: elites lobby for laws to preserve their own power and disempower the public. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes lobbying for the repeal of regulations preventing him from dominating the media market. [1] Considering that at any past time in the human history the conditions of equality in labour division, education and technological tools were not as favourable as nowadays in terms of allowing citizen political involvement, a more participatory political decision-making must be now taken into account. [2] A clear example is the Iceland's "wiki constitution" (2011). [3] Then, although the classic criticism against direct democracy formulas based on the premise that size creates problrms –referring to the difficulties to shape participatory citizen deliberation in our enormous current nation-states– may still be true, cultural, social and technological conditions for participation have become much more favourable.  [1] Toynbee, P. (8 July 2011). “The game has changed. The emperor has lost his clothes”, The Guardian.   [2] Resnick, P. (1997). Twenty-first Century Democracy. Montreal & Kingston; London; Buffalo: McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 84  [3] Siddique, H. (9 June 2011). “Mob rule: Iceland crowdsources its next constitution”, The Guardian.

negative: There are, of course some costs to having a truly open and accountable government, but an effective right of access would allow much of that information to be made available. After all what the public sector bodies are paying in commercial transactions is of great interest to the public. If public bodies are getting a particularly good rate from suppliers, it might well raise the question of “Why?” For example, are they failing to enforce regulations on a particular supplier in return for a good price. In that instance, their other customers and their competitors would seem to have every right to know.

negative: Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.  As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)

negative: Professional politicians know that they will be held accountable if they pass policies that are ineffective or damaging. This gives them a big incentive to carefully research all the options before making an important decision, and they have the time and the resources to do so (making decisions is their only job). Ordinary citizens do not have a big incentive to get a policy right unless they can directly see how it affects them, and even if they had the inclination to make an informed decision, they will lack the time and resources. Participatory democracy is therefore much more likely to lead to a muddle of contradictory legislation as different groups focus on different legislation without an overarching vision that advances the nation’s interests.

negative: This argument fails to account for the fact that elected governments are even worse at determining what is 'fair' when it comes to tax policy than the arbitrary circumstances described when the government has the option to tax different persons at different rates on the basis of their income. In effect this allows the less wealthy majority to decide what the 'circumstances' of the more wealthy minority mean they 'should' pay in taxes, which may in fact be inaccurate and based more upon a desire to 'punish' the wealthy and appropriate their resources for the majority in an unfair manner. This populist tendency in elected governments is what makes them so bad at deciding 'fairly' based upon 'circumstances', not sectional or class interests, and so why the power to set different tax rates to different people should be taken out of the hands of the government by instituting a flat tax.

negative: The ban is necessary to confront the growing problem of obesity in NYC.  Although rising obesity levels in the city have been a major issue in New York City recently, any measures already enacted have failed to curb the growing numbers of obese New Yorkers. The Bronx has the largest percentage of overweight adults, a staggering 70 percent; the other four boroughs also have seen increases in the past decade. Sixty-two percent of Staten Island adults are overweight; followed by Brooklyn, at 60 percent; Queens, at 57 percent; and Manhattan, at 47 percent, according to city health data. [1] The New York City Department of Health has enacted several programs promoting healthier living such as health fares in low-income areas and the Adopt A Bodega initiative, through which local bodegas or small delis and groceries agree to sell produce from family-owned, local farms, providing healthier foods to New Yorkers for reasonable prices. But the results, or rather lack of them, show that education and access are not enough. [2] As Mayor Bloomberg has argued, the ban will have an effect because it follows the principle that if some people have smaller portions given to them, they will consequently drink less. The Mayor doesn’t hope to prevent all people from drinking soda. In fact he emphasizes that this ban wouldn’t come close to restricting personal freedoms because people would still be free to order however much soda they would like. The customers would simply have to be served multiple containers. [3] This is not going to eradicate excessive sugar-intake, however a study by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, determined that 62% of drinks bought at restaurants were over the size limit and the result would be that the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant [4] .  [1] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.  [2] ’New York City Healthy Bodegas Initiative 2010 Report’, NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and NYC Center for Economic Opportunity.  [3] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012.  [4] Jaslow, Ryan, ‘Research finds NYC soda ban would cut 63 calories per fast food trip: Would that have any impact?’, CBS News, 24 July 2012.

negative: If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’).  In almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)

negative: There is precedent of paternalistic government policies in NYC.  The principle of paternalism, that the state may interfere with another person, against their will, with the motivation of protecting that person from harm, [1] underlines a wide range of policies and laws across the United States, and there is already a precedent for such paternalistic laws particularly within New York City. New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, has enacted regulations on smoking, restaurants’ use of salt and trans fats. Laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, and other potentially harmful drugs are made with the goal to protect citizens. Seatbelt laws and the prohibition of cell phone use while driving all infringe upon a person’s freedom of choice but have been accepted for their inherent positive causation meaning there will be less deaths and injuries in accidents. Paternalistic policies are made to maintain the public’s safety and well-being with the assumption that the government “knows best.” Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces targets the growing problem of obesity in New York City. Although obesity has been a popular topic of discussion in the City, there has been negligible advancement in weight-loss. This growing problem shows that education is not enough to incentivize people to control themselves. Dr. Donald Klein writes, “A fleeting, short-term self that enjoys chocolate, nicotine, or heroin is working his will on an enduring self that pays the cost. Although we may fancy ourself a fully integrated and consistent being, it might make more sense to describe ourself as a bundle of multiple selves, selves that overlap, intermingle, and sometimes conflict”. [2] That more than 50% of New Yorkers are overweight shows the people do not recognize their own long term interests. [3] Mayor Bloomberg’s goal is to limit soda consumption of the population. He has the wellbeing of New Yorkers in mind and he is following a precedent that people need guidance in personal choices.  [1] Dworkin, Gerald, ‘Paternalism’, in Edward N. Zalta e., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010.  [2] Klein, Daniel B., ‘The Moral Consequences of Paternalism’, Ideas on Liberty, May 1994.  [3] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.

negative: The democratic deficit is a myth. National governments have a strong democratic mandate from national elections. Therefore, their decisions are already imbued with considerable democratic legitimacy. National governments also rely on national parliaments to enact their legislation at home. As a result it would be extremely foolish of a government to pursue a course of action in the Council which was opposed by national parliamentarians, or which would be unpopular enough to lead to a future electoral defeat at home. Democracy is protected sufficiently by the Council already; there is thus no need to increase the powers of the European Parliament.  The current crisis is also not a good example as the policies that led to the ultimate undermining of democratic mandates in Eurozone nations were supported by the voters in the respective countries. Had those countries voted for more realistic fiscal policies then there would be no need for the drastic measures required to prevent the Eurozone from collapsing. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, the status quo can and does work, with the Council of Ministers being made up of National Governments elected by the people.

negative: There is no consensus on the assumption that CSOs may function as alternative channels of accountability. This, in fact, would require CSOs to be democratically accountable themselves. Yet, this is not the case. There is no form of direct accountability between Civil Society Organizations and the communities they claim to represent. In other words, no one ‘elects Oxfam’ [1] . Moreover, CSOs are not even representative of the people they are supposed to give voice to. In fact, wealthy and highly educated men are overrepresented in CSOs [2] . It is therefore hard to understand how civil society can guarantee or increase democratic accountability in African countries.  [1] The Economist, 23rd September 2000, p. 129  [2] Talberg and Uhlin (2011) ‘Civil society and global democracy. An assessment’, in Archibugi, Koenig Archibugi and Marchetti, Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

negative: It is undemocratic to have the law pass through the board of health.  While the City has the right to exercise its abilities within the law to protect and aid New Yorkers, it must do so as a democratic body representing its constituents. The soda ban, whether it would actually do anything to curb obesity, is wrong because it isn’t representative of the people. Councilman Dan Halloran spoke at the ‘Million Gulp March’ in protest of the ban: “Mr. Mayor, if you want to make a law, go through your legislature, and make the law. Do not try to backdoor it through an administrative agency that is unaccountable to the people.” [1] Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to pass this ban without the input or approval of the people is undemocratic. The New York City Health Department is an eleven-person committee appointed by the Mayor. [2] Thus, there is a large risk of Mayor Bloomberg exercising his personal will through this branch without any regulation. The proposed soda ban would be a fiat with the rubber stamp of approval from the Board of Health, but no citizen input.  [1] Arkin. James, ‘Councilman Halloran: Bloomberg ‘Missing Boat About Liberty’ With Soda Ban’, The Daily News, 11 July 2012.  [2] ‘Board of Health’, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2012.

negative: It would help distinguish between levels of elections  The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple.

negative: Hold politicians to account  For the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower [1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied). [2] Well elections are your chance to hold them to account by voting for someone else. Elected politicians are there to represent you but if you don’t vote your voice wont be heard and you wont be able to hold your representative to account for what they have done during their time in office. There are increasingly websites which will show you how your MP voted making it simple to find out if they are representing you as you would wish and so making it possible to decide how you will vote on the basis of your representative’s record rather than just their stated intentions at the time of the election.  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘U.S. Congress’ Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections’, Gallup Politics, 24 October 2012  [2] ‘Satisfaction with Members of Parliament 1991-2009’, Ipsos MORI, 4 March 2010 , (NB satisfaction with own MP is always higher)


query: Affirmative action reduces social prejudice  Past discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted.  Past discrimination against particular groups lingers today through the perception of those groups and how they perceive themselves. By using affirmative action, a demonstration effect is created where individuals are previously discriminated groups prove to society and other members of their racial or gender group that they are capable of gaining power and functioning in the same positions of power, responsibility and success as those of other groups in society.  This challenges society’s perception of these groups as the poor people in society and proves to them that the individuals of this race/gender are equally capable and deserving members of society and can and should function in the same positions of society as them.

positive: ucation secondary university philosophy religion minorities house believes use Affirmative action does not reduce societal prejudice, but actually increases it. By creating a situation where individuals receive state help in gaining the jobs and success they have, this simply confirms the prejudice in peoples’ minds that individuals of this group cannot gain anything on their own merit, but rather require external assistance. (Refer to opposition arguments two and three)

negative: Discourages education of minorities  When individuals feel that they will be targeted at a university based on who they are, they are less likely to attend that university either out of fear they will be discriminated against or because they believe that they will not be allowed to express themselves freely without being discriminated against or assaulted. No group should be discouraged from attaining higher education because of immutable personal characteristics. Tertiary education is at the heart of social mobility and self-actualization. Even if no attack ever takes place, because hate speech can create an atmosphere which deters members of society from attending university the state is justified in banning it.

negative: There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women.

negative: ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby In a society where race affects everything, can there ever be such a thing as a legitimate meritocracy? Not everyone will get the same opportunities in life. You cannot pretend factors are not there when they are. Positive discrimination such as racial quotas helps to counter act some of these factors that are weighed heavily against non-whites in playing rugby helping to create a much truer meritocracy.

negative: Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society, not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is unconvincing. Labeling people as criminals at an early age actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream society. This leads to ‘deviance amplification’ where convicts increasingly commit more serious crimes as a result of their contact with law enforcement. [1]  [1] Becker, Howard S., ‘Labeling Theory’, from Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, The Free Press, 1963,  , accessed 20 September 2011

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part When you know terrorists are likely to be members of particular national and ethnic groups, it is simply more practical to focus searches on those groups.  The reality is that all of the major terrorist attacks against Western targets in recent years have been perpetrated by young, Muslim men. It doesn’t require any prejudice at all to realise that they are the most sensible group to check and recheck.  Although it is important to respect people’s rights and liberties regardless of ethnicity or religious belief, a sensible security policy must force police officers and security officials to make decisions based on factual information. Everybody- including most members of the groups identified by profiling- has an interest in not being blown up on an aeroplane. They will, therefore, accept that this is a regrettable necessity. Airport staff can only stop so many people and it makes sense to target groups that terrorists are likely to be part of.

negative: This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is allowed to practise their religion to the fullest extent that they wish to.  The status quo is that some religious groups are allowed to practise their religion to its fullest extent and others are not. The proposition believes that this is far more divisive than this legislation.

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

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part Profiling exacerbates terrorism as it reinforces the perception that Muslims and marginalised ethnic groups face prejudice.  The reality is that if a plane can be held up with a box-cutter, a broken glass bottle from duty free or flammable alcohol from the same source could be just as threatening.  However, increased use of air marshals- armed plainclothes police officers who travel secretly on certain flights- means that even these desperate tactics are likely to be ineffectual.  Institutionalising prejudice and assumption will add legitimacy and grativas to terrorist propaganda that seeks to radicalise curious or confused young people.  Not only is profiling ineffectual, it is likely to exacerbate the situation.

negative: Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field  People have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups [i] .  Required publication, by contrast, presents an even playing field to all parties. Rather than allowing legislators to determine how and to whom – and for what – they should be accountable, a presumption in favour of publication makes them accountable to all. As a result, it is the only truly effective way of ensuring one of the key aims set out in favour of any freedom of information process.  [i] Who Makes FOI Requests? BBC Open Secrets Website. 14 January 2011.

negative: niversity philosophy political philosophy minorities house would use positive There is little or no evidence of bias in universities admissions procedures. Universities admissions departments go to great lengths to ensure fairness, not least because it is in their own self-interest to take only the best applicants, to maintain the intellectual credibility of their institution. Any overt or explicit discrimination would be illegal, and should be guarded against by using a wide range of admissions procedures and interview (where applicable) by more than one academic. Any charge of prejudice would be an argument for ‘colour-blind’ (or school-blind) admissions, in which the background of the applicant is hidden from the admissions officer, so as to prevent any possibility of discrimination, subconscious or otherwise. The presence of positive discrimination would, if anything, raise the incidence of racism and prejudice on university campuses, with lecturers and fellow students resentful of members of the university perceived to have been given a helping hand.

negative: The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity.  Items and sites of cultural heritage are often destroyed for discriminatory and oppressive reasons. The Maoist onslaught on all “old” aspects of Chinese culture is a prime example while the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 is another recent example. These were violent, ideologically driven attacks on the part of the state against segments of that states own society. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban simply because they were not part of the Islamic society they were trying to create. Such explicitly discriminatory attacks are particularly harmful to cultures that are the victims of the attacks for two reasons. Firstly because the cultural property in question has increased cultural, religious or historical value for them, and secondly because such discriminatory acts attack the very identity of people part of that cultural group. The international community has a duty to protect cultural groups (especially minority groups) from discrimination. The international community in the form of the United Nations General Assembly has recognised attacks on religious sites as being discrimination based upon belief.[1] Moreover, the ICTY treated discriminatory attacks against cultural property during the break-up of Yugoslavia, as a crime against humanity. Once again, therefore, international precedent facilitates the prosecution of those responsible of those responsible for the desecration or destruction of cultural property.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief’, 19 December 2006, Resolution 61/161,

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part The use of the term “racism” suggests that assumptions made by screeners are based on prejudice, not fact. Profiling, which takes far more than race into account, has a solid basis in fact. It is entirely sensible to attempt to prevent criminal acts by being particularly cautious in the investigation of those groups and individuals that are most likely to pose a risk to other passengers.  Risking the lives of innocent passengers in the name of political correctness is simply absurd. These are measures that protect the security of thousands of passengers at the cost of minor inconvenience to a few.  Any reasonable traveller- Arab or not- would accept that there is a reason for these actions in the same way that passengers realise that delays caused by security controls and passport checks are an unavoidable nuisance in an era of routine international travel.

negative: Democracy is not just about enabling a tyranny of the majority. It is about enabling everyone have a say in running the country and about protecting the rights of those minority viewpoints. Simply accepting that the majority is always right is the path to populist dictatorship; most people can be bought by promises of better times ahead and attempts to put the blame for any problems on minority groups. Human rights are intrinsic and cannot be determined on what the majority or civil society believes. The simple maxim ‘do unto others what you would have them do to you’ shows why minorities need to be protected. Everyone is a minority in something whether it is because they are a particular ethnic, sexual, language group or the views they hold we would not want to be discriminated on the basis of that aspect of ourselves. Where the majority wants to harm the minority the role of the government is to protect the minority. The bill was introduced to parliament individually by MP David Bahati[1] who spearheaded it through the end not the large Ugandan majority and the government should have stopped it.  [1] The Economist, ‘Uganda’s anti-gay law; Deadly intolerance’, economist.com, 1 March 2014,

negative: ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby Even if action is needed to create racial equality, are quotas the solution? There is no doubt that rugby is a sport where South Africa could be stronger if it was popular in all racial groups, but they are a blunt instrument: the way to pick the best team is to simply pick the best team. Racial equality comes when no one is picked as a result of race whether that is through negative or positive discrimination.

negative: The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose.  It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose.  However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them.  Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t.  The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.

negative: Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.  The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive [1] . Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves [2] . Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public [3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations.  In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned [4] , all of these organisations are “corporate”.  The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.” [5]  The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech  Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy.  Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article [6] , the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights.  [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012.   [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011.   [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.   [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641

negative: punishment house would make fines relative income Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions  Fines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1  Making fines proportionate to income would change that perception. People would then see the law being applied in such a way as to punish all, not just certain sections of society. This will improve perceptions of (and consequently, relations with) the justice and law enforcement systems.  It is important that justice is seen to be done, as well as occurring (sometimes referred to as the Principle of Open Justice), for several reasons. First, we operate a system of government by consent: people’s opinions of the justice system are deemed an important check and balance on the power of the law-makers. Consequently, if they are seen to ‘abuse their power’ by imposing a law seen to be unfair, they have an obligation either to adequately explain and defend the law, or change it.  Second, people’s perceptions of law enforcement in one area spill over into other areas: it is the same police force enforcing all aspects of the law, and so the differences in policy origin are obscured. Consequently, if people deem law-enforcement to be unfair in one regard, they are less likely to trust it in other circumstances.  Third, it is important that the justice system is seen to be impartial, rather than favouring any particular group, because it is only under such circumstances that its designations of acts as ‘crimes’ can be seen as a true reflection of what you ought and ought not to do, rather than just what would be in the interests of a given group.  1 ‘Justice and The Poor’, National Council of Welfare, 10 September 2012,

negative: media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising It is true that individuals do have the right to consume media and have some power over how they perceive and respond to media. However, since the nature of advertising is always planned for public consumption, then ads contribute to existing attitudes inside a person. When slaves in the U.S. were marketed and sold according to the content of advertising, a social system was being perpetrated. When the injustices of slavery were acknowledged both the business and the marketing of slaves ceased to exist. When the greater social good of justice is held over individual choice, social good should prevail. Advertising which demeans the value of certain groups of citizens is not appropriate for the public marketplace. Although Individual choice and freedom of choice are to be valued, public messages by the nature of their public audience, must serve the greater society. Pornography in the public airways is often regulated and banned because it is seen as potentially harmful to women and children of a society. Due to the public nature of advertising then, the greater society has a more important right than that of individuals.

negative: The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down their signs.  On this basis, the security risk presented by this policy is minimal. Moreover, for what security risk might exist, it is very easily mitigated or gotten rid of all together. For example, if identification is needed for access to something that is vulnerable to security threat, it is very easy for the government or relevant officials to say that the only sufficient form of ID is a passport instead of a license, due to the risk people may pose.  The additional harms identified by side opposition are the result of service providers’ discriminatory practices. Federal and state race equality laws prevent businesses and government employees from refusing service to individuals based on their physical characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, official discrimination cannot exist. At best, this will simply be soft discrimination.

negative: media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist The feminist movement cannot afford to alienate itself from society  The term ‘feminism’ is often associated with men-hating and the radical view that women are superior to men as opposed to gender equality. This happens because extreme feminists who uphold such opinions are consistently given greater media coverage by virtue of having the loudest voices and creating headlines that sell. As a result, the feminist movement is currently lacking the support it deserves and even those who take feminist positions often don’t want to call themselves feminists. (Scharff) [1]  It would be a bad move for it to further radicalise itself and attempt to ban something as present in society as pornography. It will never work, and it will merely make women and men more reluctant to espouse feminist ideologies for fear of being associated with a ‘hate group’.  [1] Scharff, Christina, “Myths of man-hating feminists make feminism unpopular”, Economic & Social Research Council, 7 March 2013,

negative: Society cant function when the population is divided  Successful nations are those with a strong unified sense of purpose. They are states where it is allegiance to the state which is put first. Having different identities which are put first undermines the state. This is exactly what strong religious and ethnic identities do. If these sub state identities are put before the national identity then ethnic groups are likely to “other” anyone who is not a part of their group. If they do not consider themselves as being a part of the same polity there is little reason to cooperate, to pay taxes,  It is the failure to build a unifying framework and these conflicts of identity that split nations apart not poverty. The Rwandan genocide did not happen because Rwanda is poor but because it is split between two groups who, at least for that horrific period, looked at themselves as Hutus or Tutsi’s first and Rwandans second. The rebels in Syria show how strong such divisions can be as rebels fight each other as well as Assad’s regime.(1) In Ivory Coast a country that had previously been considered stable burst into civil war in 2011 after elections that went along ethnic lines.(2)  (1) Dettmer, Jamie, “Syrian Rebel Groups Fight Among Themselves”, Voice of America, 19 September 2013   (2) “African viewpoint: Blood and borders” BBC News, 1 February 2011,

negative: If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.  (1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011

negative: Workfare allows people to demonstrate both to themselves and others that a day at work will not always result in failure. This greatly benefits the self-esteem of many, who have become trapped in unemployment because their past experiences (perhaps beginning with unsuccessful schooldays) have lead them to believe that they cannot be useful and successful when doing a day at work. Workfare demonstrates that to be false by allowing them to work in a job where they can see the results of their labour, and not lose out (indeed, gain benefits) as a result.

negative: While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is that many of these poor communities are groups of outsiders. They often discriminated against by the rest of the population, including decision makers from private business. For example in France employers databases often have the abbreviation BBR or NBBR to indicate if someone is white.(SOS Racisme, ‘Discrimination, Présentation’) These communities often find themselves abandoned, and at the mercy of the state. Despite its inefficiencies, the state remains the main organisation capable to reaching out to all different communities, of gathering funds and redistributing them, and of making new investment opportunities in places where the free market would not otherwise have created them. At the risk of some inefficiency, this problem does require solvency, and while ideally things might run otherwise, this is the closest solution to the problem at hand. Governments have also been creative with their subsidies schemes, often getting the private sector involved by providing them with incentives such as tax breaks.

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part It is incredibly unlikely that any randomly selected member of a particular group would be attempting to commit a crime. Racial, ethnic and identity groups are extremely large. Terrorist organisations, even al Qaeda, rarely contain more than a few hundred members. The relative proportion of individuals belonging to any particular identity group who also belongs to a terrorist organisation is likely to be impossibly small.  The impact of the perceptions of the communities involved, however, would be significant, allowing for accusations of racism and persecution.  Statistically, profiling would have very little impact: in 2005, US Airlines carried 745.7 million passengers. [i] Faced with figures like that random stoppages make far more sense.  Although exact figures are not available even if just two or three million fell within the profile group, it would be impossible to search all of them. The use of profiling, however, as a result of the PATRIOT Act, led to, among others, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy being stopped; it does not and cannot work. [ii]  [i] ‘2005 Total Airline System Passenger Traffic Up 4.6 Percent From 2004’, Research and Innovative Transport Administration, 2006,   [ii] ‘Senetor? Terrorist? A Watch List Stops Kennedy at Airport’, Swarns, Rachel L., The New York Times, 20 August 2004,

negative: niversity philosophy political philosophy minorities house would use positive Equality of opportunity  Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated. [1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities. [2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones. [3] [4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded.  [1] Sagar, P. “The truth about Oxbridge admissions: a reply To Dave Osler”. Liberal Conspiracy. May 21, 2010.   [2] Vasagar, J. “Twenty-one Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year”. The Guardian. December, 2010.   [3] Orfield, Gary, et al., 'Losing Our Future; How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis', Urban Institute, 25 February 2004,   [4] Marklein, M.B. “Minority enrollment in college still lagging”. USA TODAY. October, 2006.

negative: Vocational training would not actually improve training in the skills which employers are concerned about. When people complain about a skills gap, there are two kinds of skills they are worried about: technical ones, in subjects like engineering, and general ones, such as the ability to present or to write clearly. This is something which is already done in university; the best way to learn how to present and write is to practice presenting and writing. Picking a subject, such as history, simply acts as a useful focus for this work.  As long as employers can be sufficiently clear about what it is they want graduates to be capable of, we will be able to incorporate this into existing courses – so in fact, even supposedly non-vocational courses will teach the right skills.  Technical careers like engineering and computer science might indeed benefit from the change, but it makes no sense to shape the whole education system around a limited set of jobs.

negative: Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.  The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.  This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

negative: Some people counter this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest that poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. Therefore to tackle the crime of drug use, we do not need to tackle social deprivation, but the drug use itself.  Furthermore the argument that poverty increases the likelihood of racism or racist crime can be refuted if we acknowledge one of the most famous cases of racist crime, apartheid in South Africa. This event is now considered a crime against humanity, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". [1] However, it was also created and maintained by politicians and many of the upper class in a stable and well-off society, thus this hate crime cannot be attributed to social deprivation. Even racist actions that occurred in socially deprived areas at this time or later must be looked at in a wider context and it seems clear that social deprivation alone cannot be blamed.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 November 1973,

negative: media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should They fuel colourism in society  Allowing the use of racial overtones – the perception that a product will bring a person towards a “white ideal” is harmful for several reasons. It could cause communities to generate a form of inferiority complex, and it reinforces the structural difference rather than aiming to minimize it. While it may sound absurd, in the US darker-skinned African Americans (and darker skinned latinos) are less well educated and have lower incomes [1] . Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Brazil, race is seen as an issue of colour and socio-economic background, not ancestry highlighting a much more obvious link between whitening creams and racism [2] .  Is it not the role of the state to reduce that discrimination, not to fuel it? Banning such creams would help prevent such harmful effects by discouraging the notion that people should aim to make themselves lighter skinned.  [1] Hunter, Margaret L., “If you’re light you’re alright: light skin color as social capital for women of color”, Gender and Society, 2002,  , p.35  [2] Telles, Edward, Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Colour in Brazil, 2004, online sample chapter,

negative: Attacking religious practices makes religious groups uncomfortable  Banning religious slaughter will be perceived by religious people as a direct attack on their faith. Historically, religious minorities have been susceptible to persecution, and these groups tend to remain quite sensitive. Often, people seeking to discriminate against a group will jump on the bandwagon of legitimate criticism and turn it into persecution. Religious slaughter has been used in this way in the recent past: a proposed ban in the Netherlands received much support from anti-Muslim groups. [1] This sort of persecution makes minorities less likely to integrate into society and compare values with us, which is exactly what we would like to encourage.  Appearances matter greatly in politics. All too often, the media focuses not on what is actually happening but on how people and politicians are talking about it. When a senior British politician was reported as having called a police officer a “pleb,” the result was outrage over perceived elitism in the government. [2] If a ban on religious slaughter were to be imposed, it is virtually guaranteed that someone or other would make insensitive comments, and this is how the ban would then be reported, as in the example from the Netherlands.  This ban would play into the hands of those seeking to stir hysteria and outrage. Whilst the principle may be correct, the government cannot appear to be siding with such people.  [1] ‘Dutch MPs effectively ban ritual slaughter of animals’, BBC News, 28 June 2011,   [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Andrew Mitchell resigns over police comments row’, BBC News, 20 October 2012,

negative: Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.  Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it.