query: Utilitarianism is demanding  If we choose to save the five people just because we have the power to do so then we also have to consider all the other lives that are in our power to save. It is in our power to donate all of our excess money to charity to save lives and so we must also do this. Actions like this are worthy of praise but no one would suggest that we have a duty to do them.

positive: ethics life kill one save many junior In the train example there is no one else around and it is only you that can save the five lives. With the charity example there are many other ways in which the lives can be saved; governments can save them or other people can donate money. Therefore the moral duty to act is dramatically reduced.

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior Killing one person is the rational choice  The philosopher John Rawls came up with a thought experiment to discover the right way to organize a society. When people talk about how society should be organized they generally take their own situation and interests into account. Rawls asked us to imagine a situation in which we do not know anything at all about our own lives and then try to organize society? Without knowing anything about our wealth, intelligence, personality, race, gender, religion etc., we would create the fairest society. This is because without knowing who we are we have no idea where we will be in society once it has been organized. So, in order to make sure we have the best chance to be treated fairly we create a society in which all people are treated fairly. The same experiment can be applied to the train problem. If we do not know anything about who we are in the experiment we would chose to kill the one person. This is because there is a greater chance of us being one of the five people and so killing the one person gives us the best chance to survive.

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.  [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)

negative: animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics It is immoral to kill animals  As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food.  Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself.  [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008  [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989

negative: People have a right to know where their information comes from  Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming. [1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them.  [1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013,

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: Warrants are needed to prevent abuse  In the light of the recent NSA events(1) , we must try and see past this curtain of fog the government has put in front of us, trying to make us believe that everything it does, it does for our own good and that in this process the law is being respected to the letter. Unfortunately, if the necessary system of checks-and-balances between the government and the masses or judicial courts is lacking, it will always find ways to abuse its powers and violate our rights. Even with the warrant currently being mandatory when trying to tap one’s phone, we see that Justice Department’s warrantless spying increased 600 percent in decade(2). If the government is currently invading our lives when we have specific laws banning it from doing so, why should we believe that this phenomenon won’t escalate if we scrap those laws?  The government's biggest limitation when actively trying to spy or follow a large group of people was technological; it was difficult - if not impossible - to follow a lot of people for days at a time. But with surveillance tools it’s becoming cheaper and easier, as is proven by the astounding 1.3 million demands for user cell phone data in the last year “seeking text messages, caller locations and other information”(3.) Without the resource limitations that used to discourage the government from tracking you without good reason, the limits on when and how geolocation data can be accessed are unclear. A police department, for example, might not have the resources to follow everyone who lives within a city block for a month, but without clear rules for electronic tracking there is nothing to stop it from requesting every resident's cell phone location history.  Considering these facts, it is clear that, as we live in a time when it would be extremely easy for the government to engage in mass surveillance of the population, we must enforce and harden the current laws for our own protection, rather than abandoning then for good. No matter what, George Orwell’s books should not be perceived as a model for shaping our society.  At the end of the day, without any oversight, it would be extremely easy for the government to abuse this power given to it by electronic surveillance tools, without us ever knowing it. This system is the only thing left that prevents government agencies to violate our rights.  (1) Electronic Frontier Foundation   (2) David Kravets” Justice Department’s Warrantless Spying Increased 600 Percent in Decade”, “Wired” 09.27.12   (3) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable  As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations.

negative: healthcare deny organs non donors People ought to donate their organs anyway  Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.

negative: There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right.

negative: It may be true that we gave the state the burden and the duty to protect us and it is a very high-ranking priority. But this doesn’t justify sacrificing day-to-day freedom just for the state to fulfil its duty a little bit more.  We cannot say that the state can do whatever it wants as long as it does that for the safety of our safety. On that logic, it would be OK for the government to have a bodyguard stand next to us without our consent for every single minute of our lives, as that way, we would be more protected. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2012 and held that police need a warrant to attach at GPS device to a car.(1) One cannot say specifically what the main purpose of the state is, as it’s rather a combination of protecting us and serving us. As it is the population who controls the government and not vice-versa, it must be up to them to decide where to draw the line between security and privacy.  What we see on this level is that by engaging in these sorts of operations, the government is not fulfilling its purpose as there are a lot of harmful effects that the citizens would feel if large scale tapping will take place. Maybe some people don’t mind being spied on, but there is a significant majority of people who do. This constant feeling that you are followed translates into fear, anxiety, restlessness or stress. In turn, these emotions affect your day to day life prohibiting you from enjoying it. So on this level, the state is failing at its purpose to improve the lives of the mass population.  (1) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012

negative: This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them?  We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’.  Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1]  [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior We instinctively know killing is wrong  While sometimes our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong are not accurate they are needed when thinking about morality. If a theory is well argued and thought out but goes against our feelings as to what is right and wrong then we will dismiss it. Most people have the feeling that killing is wrong and so to partake in any action that leads to the death of another is also wrong.

negative: Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty  Representative democracy is oppressive because it takes more power away from the people than is strictly necessary. Whilst a completely direct democracy is impractical, we should nevertheless recognise that there is no reason not to have as much direct democracy as possible. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves”. [1] The key point is that merely holding an election every four years does not fundamentally alter our state of subservience: at election time, we are given a choice of three or four manifesto programmes on an all-or-nothing basis, manifestos which may never be honoured. The only power over our government we as citizens have is the power to punish politicians retrospectively, by voting them out after years of obeying them. It is quite possible to create an authoritarian system that has regular representative elections, even with several competitive candidates and yet still not be giving power to the people, as is shown by Iran. [2] This is wrong. The presumption should always be that the people keep as much power over their own lives and hand as little to their masters as possible because they never get to consent to the powers that rule them. Given that we are born under governments which exist whether we like it or not, it as an offense to our natural liberty and equality that those governments should hold any more power over us than is absolutely necessary. Besides, when the interests of the state are not the interests of the people, we have the government of the few over the rest. [3]  [1] Marcuse, H. (1991). One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press  [2] Gedmin, J. (1 March 2013) “Not All Elections Are Worthy of the Name” Foreign Policy.   [3] Pocock, J.G.A. (1975). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press

negative: Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact  Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).

negative: Freedom of Choice  We live in a free society, and accept that people have the right to do as they please; including exposing themselves to risk, as long as in so doing they do not harm others (Mill’s harm principle).1  To deny people the right to choose to take drugs that are still undergoing testing that, whilst they are risky, may save their lives, is a violation of this principle: in choosing to expose themselves to that risk, no-one else is harmed and indeed in the long run others may be saved as a result of the tests. Further, with the assistance of medical professionals and other support, the decision to take this risk can easily be well-informed and consensual.  1 Wilson, Fred, "John Stuart Mill", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition),

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

negative: We only have indirect duties to animals  Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant argue that we only have indirect duties towards animals. This means that we may not treat animals in such a manner that our actions are in conflict with our duties towards human beings. A human has no duty towards a dog not to kick it but a human has a duty towards the dog's owner not to damage his property. Pigs and cows are not loved by any human being so we cause no harm when we kill and eat them. Though the farmer may have owned the cow before, the beef becomes our possession when we purchase it. Wild animals are not owned by any human being so we may do to them what we wish.  Some people argue that cruelty towards animals can lead to cruelty towards humans but there is no evidence that people who work in slaughterhouses are more violent towards other people. In fact, there seems little connection at all between how people treat animals and humans. A slave driver may adore and pamper his dog but beat and kill his slaves.  If we have no direct duties to animals how can we grant them legal protection in the form of rights? The law should only prevent us harming animals when that clearly harms other people. For example, by killing a dog we infringe another person's human right to property.

negative: There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.  There is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life. 1  ">Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say "realpolitik" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201

negative: Homework wastes teachers time  We are not the only ones who take a lot of time on homework, our teachers do as well. The teacher needs to design the homework, explain it, mark each piece individually, and tell everyone what they got right and wrong. If all this is not done then the homework loses its value as we need to be told individually what our mistakes are to be able to learn from homework. Teachers could as easily use the classwork to find out who knows what they are doing and who are making mistakes and it would save them time.

negative: In an ideal world it would be easy to say that charities should not try to change the religions and cultures of poor people, but given the dire nature of the situation for the poorest people in the world, surely we do not have the luxury to argue over what ideas should or should not be given to these people. Is it not better that they survive as Christians rather than die from hunger and disease? Religion provides the incentive many people need to think about giving money to charity. We must also consider that only a minority of organisations seek to change the people they help in this way – there is a lot of choice out there for people who don't want to impose cultural change [21] so this does not work as an argument against the idea of child sponsorship as a whole.

negative: There is no obligation to try every other option if the other options are unlikely to work. People are unjustly suffering now, and we have an obligation to end that suffering as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Sanctions and asset-freezing are notoriously ineffective on oil-producing countries like Syria. Going through the motions of attempting to pass authorization for these actions through the United Nations Security Council, attempting to get the entire world to comply with the sanctions and then watching these actions not help anything. All this will do is prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.

negative: There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure.

negative: Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society  Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker

negative: business health addiction house would ban smoking public spaces This ban would not be so easy to introduce. A ban on smoking in all public places would not be easily accepted by all. For example, there are groups in England seeking to change the existing ban there so that more places are exempt; the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign wants to change the smoking ban so that large venues can have a designated smoking area which can be avoided by non-smokers1.  1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,

negative: Having children is our duty and responsibility  We cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.  *The Economist Online, 2011,

negative: We agree that speciesism is wrong but we do not think that refusing animals rights is speciesist because there are relevant moral differences between animals and humans. And even if refusing animal rights is speciism, there is nothing wrong with speciesism in the first place. It is natural to value the lives of one's own species more than those of another species because we are programmed that way by evolution. We are expected to care more about our own families than about strangers and similarly to value the lives of our own species more than those of animals. It is only natural and right that if we had to choose between a human baby and a dog being killed we should choose the dog.

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency is a good in and of itself  The most essential commodity within a state is trust. Trust is essential in all sorts of aspect of our lives; we trust that the paper money we have is actually worth more than a scrap of paper, that doctors performing surgery know what they are doing, that we won't be attacked in the street, and that the government is looking after our interests. In order to create that trust there needs to be transparency so that we know that our institutions are trustworthy. It is the ability to check the facts and the accountability that comes with transparency that creates trust. And this in turn is what makes them legitimate. [1]  The need for trust applies just as much to security as any other walk of life. Citizens need to trust that the security services really are keeping them safe, are spending taxpayers’ money wisely, and are acting in a fashion that is a credit to the country. Unfortunately if there is not transparency there is no way of knowing if this is the case and so often the intelligence services have turned out to be an embarrassment. As has been the case with the CIA and it’s the use of torture following 9/11, for which there are still calls for transparency on past actions. [2]  [1] Ankersmit, Laurens, ‘The Irony of the international relations exception in the transparency regulation’, European Law Blog, 20 March 2013  [2] Traub, James, ‘Out With It’, Foreign Policy, 10 May 2013

negative: Community action is a more powerful tool than the state for providing goods.  Forcing people into community action, as the state tries to do, detracts from real community action. People naturally try to help one another out and do what they can for their communities but when the state tries to undertake this action itself it always wastes a huge amount or resources and sends the message that the job is done. In a stateless society people would know that they have a responsibility to care for their fellow man and take all the steps they possibly can to do so. This action will be more direct, enthusiastic and relevant than any taken by the government because those organising it will inevitably be in closer contact and have more of a stake with the problems they are trying to solve.

negative: ethics life house believes right die It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.

negative: Space exploration takes resources away from more worthy causes  High ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot afford; U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman stated in the wake of President Bush's 2004 proposals that money was needed 'right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our education system and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security.'1 Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves new targets. The money spent on probes to distant planets would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement. 1 Pop, V. (2004, January 19). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Space Daily:

negative: We have no absolute moral obligation to everyone in the world. Many individuals are now calling for serious reductions in foreign aid and in foreign interventions in order to help Americans who are also suffering. That suffering is no less worthy of support just because it is not as highly publicized or televised on international news. Times may be difficult in Mexico, but they are difficult in America as well, and a country has an obligation to its citizens first, and then everyone else. It is legitimate and justified to build a fence to protect the American economy.


query: Teacher’s personal life might undermine educational message.  Access to a teacher’s private information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking or smoking [1] ? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a ‘hypocrite’ by her students when a risqué photo of her was found on her facebook page [2] . And even if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such incidents from happening.  [1] Preston, Jennifer. ”Rules to Stop Pupil and Teacher from Getting too Social Online”. The New York Times. 17 December 2011. nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/.../rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html.  [2] Keneally, Megan. ”Pupils at scandal hit school post sexy Facebook shot of principal over hallways.” The Daily Mail. 5 December 2011.

positive: n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social Teachers should always be careful about what they post and how they portray themselves on the internet, whether they are friends with their students or not. Such pictures might surface even if students don’t have direct access to them. An educator should lead by example and someone who is of dubious moral character may not be the best-suited person to teach at a school in the first place.

negative: n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social Even if this were a great educational tool, some kids may not have access to it. Poverty or a parent’s life style choice might leave kids without access to a computer or the internet, preventing them from joining into such online discussions. This might make them feel more isolated from their peers and leave them behind in their work. The classroom is a space where everyone can be equal and have equal access to learning. The internet may not provide equal access and may hinder some students as a result. The use of such resources may also be to the detriment of other more traditional methods. For example the teacher may feel there is less need to explain homework if anyone who has difficulties while doing the homework can simply ask over the internet.

negative: n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social Even assuming the child already knows about the law and therefore that online contact with their teachers is not allowed, which will often not be the case, a child will trust the authority figure closest to him. The teacher can easily convince the child that the rule is not that important or that their relationship is an exception.

negative: Arming teachers would mean safer schools  If school teachers, as people in positions of authority over vulnerable groups, were permitted to carry arms then it would guarantee greater protection for children. Incidents in recent years such as the massacre at Columbine High School have proven that a significant risk exists of school children gaining access to guns and using them against their classmates. The carnage could have been prevented if the teachers present had been able to defend themselves and the children in their care as teachers would be able to act as a first line of defence. [1] Furthermore, having schools as arms-free environments specifically makes them a target, those looking for targets are more likely to choose schools because they are less likely to meet armed resistance. Incidents include a school in Lincoln, Nebraska where a 17-year-old shot his vice-principal before killing himself. Lawmaker Mark Christensen, who had previously been opposed to teachers carrying arms, introduced legislation in January this year after the incident. [2] It illustrates how the potential for harm could be reduced if adults in responsible positions could defend themselves and those in their care.  [1] Hernandez, Selena, ‘Should Teachers Carry Guns On Campus’, CBS 11 News, 21 January 2011,   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Teachers Carrying Guns: Nebraska Senator Mark Christensen Introduces Bill To Keep Schools Safe’, 18 January 2011,

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK).  In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school.  A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules.  [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010  , accessed 09/10/2011

negative: It is unfair to reward extra achievements on top of the base level. To provide societal value from education, the base level of performance in education is already set very high. This means that even teachers who perform at base level are already working very hard to provide the societal value we require. Any difference above that already very high level is likely the result of luck and talent, both on the part of students and teachers themselves. Rewarding fortunate individuals for something they themselves didn't create is unjust and can only make other jealous.  Moreover, many students may enter the school system- at various stages- accompanied by a range of external advantages and disadvantages. A student’s home environment is a major influence on their ability to achieve when in the school environment. Although a teacher’s pastoral role is growing, there is little that they can do to address poor parenting, or to encourage the engaged, stimulating parenting that produces some of the most able pupils.

negative: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship  Random drug tests change the student-teacher relationship from one of trust into one of suspicion, whereby the teachers and the school establishment become a body which many students will perceive as being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The destruction of this trust makes it far harder for teachers to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the consequences of their use to students, and students may be less willing to seek teachers out on this information. This would lead to students relying increasingly on their peers and the internet for information on illegal drugs, and this information is far more likely to be of questionable policy or influenced by notions of drug use as 'cool' or glamorous. Thus schools' anti-drugs message may be harmed by random drug tests.

negative: Why shouldn’t they carry guns if teachers can? Surely in such uncertain situations as Columbine they should also carry the right to protect their classmates? Even if children aren’t legally meant to carry them anyway then what’s to stop moral gray areas from occurring in situations of self-protection for an entire class/school?  Taking this to its natural conclusion, what is to stop teachers’ guns simply falling into the wrong hands? A child could steal a teacher’s gun and use it against a classmate, causing unintentional or intentional fatalities, arming teachers simply makes such events possible rather than protecting against them. [1] The logic of trying to make schools less vulnerable to violent attacks by introducing more firearms is hugely flawed.  [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,

negative: Children should have the freedom not to be misled  Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to get accurate information. The students in school have this right not to be misled by their teachers [1] so teachers should have to concentrate on providing facts and evidence and what has been scientifically proven. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education argues “Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them” because there is no controversy among scientists. [2] The law as it stands may attempt to sound balanced but preventing “discrimination for or against religion or non-religion” [3] opens the door to any theory seeking to explain the evidence no matter how flawed. This would be directly counter to the objective teaching the bill claims to promote. If there is to be objectivity schools must stick to the evidence and what it shows; evolution. The teachers may of course encourage the students to come up with their own interpretations of the evidence but should not be attempting to force their own views upon the students.  [1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012,   [2] Strauss, Valerie, ‘Tennessee back to the future with new anti-evolution law’, Post Local, 11 April 2012,   [3] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,

negative: However it is dressed up, all the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students. The various educational materials (not always clearly marked as coming from the military) and courses on offer are all intended to interest students in a military career. Such methods are dishonest and should not be allowed in schools; Paul McGarr, a teacher in East London, stated that 'only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of war would he welcome them into his school'1. If students are genuinely interested in joining the military, they can go along to a recruitment centre outside school, potentially with their parents, and ask the necessary questions there. 1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News:

negative: Guns in schools might be used in circumstances other than defense.  Having guns in the classroom will more than likely increase the chances of gun related violence in schools. It would increase the chance of gun related accidents; although only a very small chance there would previously have been no chance. It may well also increase the number of shootings; people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot, [1] although there is no way of knowing if the effect would be the same in the classroom as on the street. Finally it is ignoring the possibility that those who are to carry guns for the school children’s protection may at some point turn the gun on their charges. Teaching can be a very frustrating job and the teacher may get very angry with individual students, allowing teachers to carry guns would greatly increase the risk of an unpremeditated shooting against on a schoolchild.  [1] Callaway, Ewen, ‘Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed’, NewScientist, 6 October 2009,

negative: The individual right to privacy must certainly encompass the digital realm as proposition says. It is also undeniable that individual privacy enhances individuality and independence. However, this privacy can and should be regulated lest parents leave children ‘abandoned’ to their rights. [1] “One cannot compare reading a child’s journal to accessing his or her conversations online or through text messages,” says Betsy Landers, the president of the National Parent-Teacher Association of the US and explains, “It’s simply modern involvement.” [2] Thus, Hillary Clinton argues, “children should be granted rights, but in a stage-by-stage manner that accords with and pays attention to their physical and mental development and capacities.” [1] Applying this principle, children should be given digital privacy to an equitable extent and regulated whereby both conditions depend upon the maturity of the child.  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.  [2] Landers, Betty. “It’s Modern Parental Involvement.” New York Times. 28 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.

negative: History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school  Even if no agenda is being consciously or subconsciously pursued, school pupils are presented with oversimplified information in History. This is a result of the limited time available, the limited intellectual capacity of pupils, the limited knowledge of many teachers (who may not be history specialists, especially in primary schools) and the desire for answers that can be labelled as "correct" or "incorrect" in examinations. Much school history teaching is therefore concerned simply with memorising "facts". However, such learning needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of events, lacking definitive answers but providing a narrative to give the 'facts' (often figures) meaning. As schools recognize this is beyond most students, they struggle to make time spent in history lessons conducive; a study in America found that only 20 percent of fourth graders were proficient in history, while that dropped to 12 per cent for high school seniors1. 1 Resmovits, Joy. "U.S. History Test Scores Stagnate As Education Secretary Arne Duncan Seeks 'Plan B'." Huffington Post. June 14, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011).

negative: It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.  For decades now, teachers have been remunerated based on 'seniority'. This means that they don't have an incentive anymore to improve themselves, no matter how motivated they were at the beginning. Why try to improve yourself if you have nothing to gain from it? Adding a financial reward for exceptional performance will motivate teachers to do their utmost to develop the knowledge and talents of their pupils. [1]  [1] Muralidharan and Sundararaman, “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from India”. Podgursky and Springer, “Teacher Performance and Pay” 2007

negative: The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com).  The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003).

negative: ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers Teacher training  Investment is required in teacher training to ensure quality control. Teachers need to be provided with qualifications and effective training both technical and theoretical. Teachers need to be introduced to methods on how to interact with students, provoke student debates, and manage large classes. In-service training and pre-teaching training are key.  Countries such as Uganda and Angola [1] have utilised on the job training for teachers, with positive results for teaching quality. In Uganda initiatives, such as INSSTEP [2] , provided capacity training to teachers and headteachers. 14,000 secondary school teachers participated between 1994-1999, followed by school inspections to monitor capacity. The ‘mobile-caravan’ approach is making it easier, more feasible, and flexible, to provide training [3] .  Additionally, investors and national governments need to provide Model schools, indicating what responsibilities teachers have and enabling knowledge transfer. Model schools can assist in alleviating work pressures for teachers by showing their terms of contract, duties and obligations. Increasingly teachers are expected to fulfil the role of carer, counsellor, and advisers on HIV/AIDs without relevant training.  [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.  [2] In-Service Secondary Teacher Education Project.  [3] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.

negative: Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. In the US racism between students and teachers is still a big issue, as minority groups are consistently placed on slower academic tack and in 38 states “black students are twice as likely as whites to be labelled as mentally retarded” (University of Washington2003).  Thus Private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality.  On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them rather than punishing those schools that do just that. Preventing a minority from having a certain type of education is not the way to help improve the majority’s education. By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can – you do this by raising state schools to the standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.

negative: School uniforms contribute to the sense of school unity  Schools that have a uniform often say that they do so because wearing a uniform helps their students feel a sense of unity and pride in their school (e.g., Sacred Heart Catholic School, 2010)[15]. The headmistress of Fulham Cross School in London, England, has been quoted as saying that introducing a uniform at her school gave students "an incredible sense of pride"; after the introduction of a school uniform, GCSE passes at her school rose from 42 to 53 per cent[16].  This sense of unity is especially important on school trips, where teachers need to be able to tell which children belong to their school, so that no one gets lost.

negative: Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools  Schools are educational establishments that parents trust to protect and educate their children. Teachers and school administrators are those who should be keeping a watchful eye on the students in their care and intervene before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs at school, then that school has failed in its duties. In fact, in cases where suicides occurred, it has often later come to light that a bullying culture was widely tolerated at the school, and that school staff that knew about it did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results [1] . To prosecute the bullies would shift responsibility from the woeful failure of the adults around them, who should have known better and done more than the children in their care.  [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 1”. Slate. July 20. 2010.

negative: Homework does not ensure that students practise what they are taught at school. Teachers often give pupils the end of the exercise they were doing in class to complete at home, it tends to be the harder questions towards the end of the exercise and if a teacher or a tutor is not present to explain or help then it causes the pupil to doubt their ability. To practise what a student has been taught requires the presence of a teacher or tutor who can guide the student if they get something wrong. Homework, done by the student on their own, offers little support and is only a source of stress. If confused, the student may only come to dislike the topic or subject, which will only further reduce their ability to remember what they were taught.

negative: It is impossible to implement.  Students come from very different backgrounds and have very different skill-sets. This makes the attempt to define a measuring system that covers all cases a bureaucratic nightmare. Even if this succeeds, it is still very difficult to define what a 'good performance' is, because a student's individual performance is determined by many other factors than the teacher and also because an individual student's 'performance' is actually a complex set of attitudes, skills and abilities which are in and of themselves hard to operationalize in a standard test. And even if this succeeds, then the questions is how much of a student's performance is attributable to what specific teacher: oftentimes, at least in high school, students will have many different teachers, making it impossible to gauge what teacher was responsible for what test result.  Finally, it should be noted (per the argument included above) that merit based education does not encourage the dissemination and normalisation of best practice. A merit-based pay scheme is likely to collapse when too many of those who work under it meet its criteria for bonus payments, making it too expensive.  Once merit based pay becomes part of the structure of an institution, it will become hard to attract and retain staff if it is removed. Concurrently, performance at the same level will be expected by the public, although an institution may not be able to afford it. For the reasons stated above, good ideas are unlikely to be shared by teaching staff under a merit-based status quo, for fear that they may be giving away a competitive edge over their colleagues.  It might be better to raise standards in education by investing sustainably in improved training for teachers and improved facilities in schools, rather than creating an unsustainable merit-based reward system.

negative: Responsibility for children's moral and sexual upbringing is not the responsibility of schools  This is none of the state’s business. Teaching this subject en masse in a classroom reduces it to biological notions, group embarrassment and crude jokes. Furthermore, children have never needed this from the state: left alone, they learn from their family and surroundings and grow naturally into adults without the state’s involvement. Few things are responsible for parental disaffection with education more than the teaching of sex and sexuality in ways contrary to their wishes.  Parents have a right to determine the moral environment in which their children develop and this is a huge intrusion into that right. That moral environment has been manipulated again and again over the last forty years by a liberal teaching establishment set on undermining traditional values and beliefs. Sex education has been a prime weapon in that social engineering. That tool should be taken away from teachers, who as a body have proven themselves undeserving of it. As for the tedious idea that children somehow need the nanny state to look after their sexuality – who knows children and their needs better than parents? Schools are responsible for so much that is wrong with our children, and by giving them free licence to delve into students’ sexuality, things become so much worse, blurring the line between teacher, adviser, confidante, and sometimes in extremes, between teacher and lover – an abuse of power that bringing sex into the classroom makes so much easier.

negative: Teachers are the single biggest influence on student performance. Even though many factors influence student performance, the teacher is still the most important schooling factor. For example, having an effective versus and ineffective teacher has been shown to be equivalent to a class size reduction of 10-13 students [1] and can make the differences of more than a full year’s learning growth. [2]  [1] Rivkin et al, “Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement”, 2005  [2] Hanushek, “The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality.” 1992

negative: Marking homework reduces the amount of time teachers have to prepare good lessons  Irrespective of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers' time. Australian teachers have complained that 'homework marking can result in four extra hours of work a day and they are rarely rewarded for their effort'.1 This leaves teachers tired and with little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. If the lessons aren't to the standard they should be, the point of homework is lost as the students have little to practise in the first place. The heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the talent pool from which schools can recruit.  1 Speranza, 2011

negative: How could arming teachers be regulated?  If teachers can bear arms, then what’s to stop other people in the school environment in contact with children, such as janitors, from demanding they should too, or even getting hold of them illicitly? Many of them won’t have been certified or checked, and as such there is no guarantee that the system of only allowing teaching staff to carry them could be fully regulated. This is particularly the case if janitors, cafeteria workers or cleaning staff have private gun licences of their own. The result is that children could be in an environment where those not licensed to carry arms around them would have greater opportunities to do so, thereby increasing the threat to children. It would be difficult to monitor which staff are bringing guns into school without a lot of investment in searches and detectors – money that could have paid for professional security. It is thus arguable that the proposition’s mechanism does not stand.

negative: ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers Firstly, encouraging teaching as a employment path does not ensure committed or motivated teachers are gained. Secondly, the problem is advocating ‘universal’ education when the infrastructure does not match. Low teacher ratios per student indicate the need for new buildings, and bigger schools. Facilities need to be improved with space for more classes. Schools need to be designed to enable diverse learning - such as space for IT, games, and public discussions.  The experience of learning is broader, and goes beyond the classroom. Good education is not solely reliant on the teacher, but on what the student is able to engage in and how they can learn to raise new ideas and questions. Investment is therefore required in new schools and universities.

negative: Teachers will attempt to cheat the system  Cheating is inevitable in any bureaucratic system that holds educational institutions accountable- in any way- for the outcomes of the educational processes that they supervise.  Teachers will have an incentive to cheat the system, for example by altering students' test results or giving them easier tests. [1] On a more 'macro' scale, teachers will have an incentive to only want to teach at 'good' schools with 'advantaged' students who have both the will and the ability, because their chances of a good performance there are higher.  [1] Jacob and Levitt, “Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating”, 2003

negative: Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is because teachers do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it. Some teachers believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning new concepts. The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however, and related specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of educational value by helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in how much they are learning.  Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that by the high schools years, there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how well students do at school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in elementary school: 1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance learning, but in order to encourage the development of good study skills and time management;2 2) young children have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on their work.3 Thus, they are more easily distracted from their homework assignments.  1 Strauss, 2006 2 Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsey, 2000 3Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001

negative: Homework puts students off learning  Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very stressful, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will take, or set an unrealistic deadline. Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something new well in class, the homework task is impossible. So children end up paying with their free time for the failings of their teachers. They also suffer punishments if work is done badly or late. After years of bad homework experiences, it is no wonder that many children come to dislike education and switch off, or drop out too early. Teachers in Britain fear that poor children, because they lack the support to do their homework, will be turned off school 1.  1 BBC News, 2008

negative: School uniforms might help improve the feeling of unity within schools, but pride in one's school is dependent on being distinct and different from another school. This can lead increase rivalry between schools (already present from school sports matches). There are many examples of school rivalry (often made worse by the fact that children from different schools are made to wear different uniforms) leading to children being beaten up or worse. For example, in New Zealand, a boy was beaten up by boys from a rival school; he said that the boys told him he should be shot because he went to a different school, which they could see from his uniform[17]. Because of this rivalry, it might be better for students not to wear school uniforms on outings, where they might encounter children from other schools. Schools can use other things to make sure children don't get lost on school trips, like buddy schemes where each child has a buddy, and having plenty of teachers or assistant teachers. 1 TVNZ, 2007. Boy beaten as school rivalry heats up [online] 21 October.

negative: Sex education damages the education system  Sex education damages the education system by confusing the children and by alienating some parents. When children receive mixed signals from home and at school they can suffer real confusion. When parents tell their children that the teacher is wrong about sex, it causes the student to raise his mental defences toward the school thereafter and become less engaged in the process of education. [1] Children will be told by their parents, and will thus come to believe, that the school is promoting a liberal view that is fundamentally contrary to their own. For example, a Muslim girl will find schooling a horrific and alienating experience if she is forced to attend a sex education class that conflicts with her faith as this will be clashing with what she has been taught at home. This will alienate the parents of these children who hold the view that discussion of sex in such a framework is morally repugnant.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998

negative: There is no respect among the population for ASBOS  Newspapers are full of examples of absurd ASBOs. They make an ass of the law and show that the nanny state is overreaching. People trying to kill themselves really aren’t going to be put off by the prospect of breaching their ASBO. [1]  Other examples include a prostitute who was prohibited from carrying condoms in an area that included her drug clinic, a prohibition on mobile soup vans that fed the homeless and a deaf girl who was banned from spitting in public. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Suicide woman banned from river’, 25 February 2005,   [2] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.  Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship [1] , and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation [2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet [3] , alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves [4] .  [1] Foerstel, Herbert N., ‘Banned in the Media’, Publishing Central,  on 09/09/11  [2] CityTVweb.com, ‘Television censorship’, 27 August 2007,  on 09/09/11.  [3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, ‘Thousands of Newspapers Listed by Country & Region’,  on 09/09/11  [4] Boris, Cynthia, ’17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Video’s Once a Day’, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September 2011,  on 09/09/11