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

positive: healthcare deny organs non donors In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense We should preserve the person with greater quality of life  We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2]  Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.  [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48.  [3] ibid

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another  In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Self-preservation is our primary moral duty  Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.

negative: healthcare deny organs non donors A Practical Solution  There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.

negative: Compulsory vaccination violates the individuals’ right to bodily integrity  In most countries and declarations, one of the most basic human rights is the one to bodily integrity. It sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your body without consent.  The NHS (National Health Service) explains: “You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death. If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected.”  This comes from the principle, that if a person has the capacity to consent to treatment and is making an informed decision (based on pros and cons of the treatment), the decision must be respected. The NHS explains further on: “If you have enough capacity and make a voluntary and informed decision to refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected. This applies even if your decision would result in your death, or the death of your unborn child.” [1]  In the case of vaccination this principle should be also applied. Even though we recognize that children are not able to fully comprehend the consequences a refusal would have, the parents should be there to decide on behalf of children over such decisions. The state has no right to stick a needle into a child just because they see fit doing so. It might be contested that in case of life endangering illnesses, the state should override the individuals’ rights. But rejection of vaccinations is not life endangering. So it is the judgment of the individual that is important and should not under any case be violated, just because someone might get an illness that in today’s modern world is easily curable.  [1] National Health Service (NHS), Do I have a right to refuse treatment ?,  , accessed 29/05/2011

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.  Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied.  Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1]  [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs.  [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,

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: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Greater awareness will increase donations  There is a clear need around the world for more donors of organs. In the UK there are about 4000 transplants a year but there are always more waiting, in November 2012 there were 7593 people waiting so on average each will be waiting for almost two years. [1] In Germany there are over 12,000 waiting but only 2777 donations in 2012. [2] The sacrifice of individual relatives who willingly choose death to save their loved ones therefore brings the need for donations into focus. The media are likely to present heart-breaking stories about loving people who made the ultimate sacrifice. As a consequence, more people will be aware of the issue and wish to fill in donor cards so that they might be able to minimise the number of voluntary donations in the event of their death. Thus there will be more naturally donated organs available and more lives will be saved.  [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,   [2] Lütticke, Marcus, “Germany lags behind in organ donations”, Deutsche Welle, 4 January 2013,

negative: Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify  Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix.  Allowing people the opportunity to claim that “God’s on our side” can be used to justify anything, especially when He appears to be fighting on both sides.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.

negative: government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious That the state is secular does not diminish the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN charter, that all states have signed up to, and considered by many to be a basic human right.1 Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn't a religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom? Surely equality in society is most accurately presented through allowing each individual, including their religious beliefs and modes of expression, to practice their religious traditions without hindrance.  1 'Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief', 1981 Resolution of the UN Charter , accessed on 23rd July 2011

negative: To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights.  Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life  It is not fair to ask of a parent to live with the guilt of having been able to save their child and not doing so. Believing that they are guilty of their child’s death can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which in turn is a major cause of suicides. [1]  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

negative: faith religion general house believes belief god irrational This is an inaccurate caricature of the relationship between science and religion. In fact most of the great scientists of history, such as Descartes, Newton and Einstein, have been religious believers, and the more we learn about the physical world (e.g. the fine balance between the fundamental forces of the universe, necessary for organic life to develop) the more it seems that it has been designed to produce human life by an intelligent God. The fact that there is a physical side to reality does not, in any case, mean that there cannot also be a spiritual dimension. Nor does the fact that the mind and brain are closely correlated mean that they are the same thing.

negative: This harm can be avoided very easily. Avoiding these laws becoming completely inoperable would actually be quite simple. People who observe nothing but the potentially illegal parts of the religion would not be considered part of that religion, particularly if they only began identifying as part of that religion once this legislation was passed.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:  Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense.  [1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.   [2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

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

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

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

negative: Freedom of religious observance  Most cultures respect the right of adults to practice the religious observances of their choosing and to raise their children within that tradition. The prohibition of blood transfusion is a part of the observances of JWs and is worthy of the respect that might be expected of other religiously motivated decisions.  There are other religious observances that have medical implications, for example the rejection of certain vaccines, but society accepts that it is appropriate for parents to inculcate their children with the values in the practical outworking of their faith [i] .  The refusal to accept blood products may seem reckless to outsiders but there is no suggestion that parents take their decision lightly; it would be difficult to conceive of how they would do so. What then is the alternative? Allowing the state to sanction which religions are acceptable or which practices of those religions? Such an act would strike not only at the freedom of religious practice but at the very principle of freedom of conscience more generally. If the state can challenge these views because it does not like the consequences, then why not social or political opinions? This is the first step on a road to tyranny.  [i] Jennifer Steinhauer. New York Times. Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines. 21 March 2008.

negative: It is not the case that this is a policy with no harms other than to the person with a terminal illness (see opposition arguments).  Second, it seems unreasonable to suggest people are making a free and informed choice in this instance: no-one has sufficient information for taking the drug to represent anything but a gamble; this is why there is a need for tests.

negative: Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict  While there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J. Grimm and Roger Finke show that from 2000 to 2007 of 143 countries with populations over 2 million 123 countries (86%) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced because of religious persecution. With more than 10,000 affected in 25 countries. [1] This is because countries with higher levels of government favouritism of religion have a much higher level of social hostilities. [2] It is notable that the propensity for civil war is very high where there is very little religious freedom, for example Afghanistan or Mali, and similarly terrorist groups predominantly come from the same countries. [3] While conflict in other countries may not be considered a problem for other countries in practice when a country falls into civil war, as Libya did in 2011 and Syria in 2012, they become the major foreign policy issues requiring reaction even from powers that are distant from the conflict.  [1] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom.  [2] ‘Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion’, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20 September 2012,    [3] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom

negative: The division between the personal and social spheres  The law is a cumbersome tool to use in matters that relate to family life; this can be seen in the reluctance to legislate too much in this area. In those areas that require massive social interaction and agreement, such as education, there is a need for legislation but even that frequently proves to be controversial and many parents take the opportunity to opt out. This is particularly true in the moral, ethical and religious education of children as it is recognised, both implicitly and explicitly that this is a matter for the family.  How then is this different? That there are repercussions to the decisions individuals make regarding their religious beliefs is beyond question but we still leave them free to make them – the pacifist may go to prison but cannot be compelled to fight.  The same principle applies here; decisions based on deep religious conviction are a matter for the individual or, in this case, their family. The views of the family are respected in the choice of whether to prolong the life of someone in a permanent vegetative state, regardless of medical opinion about the individual case. Many consider PVS to be “more dead than dead”. [i] Despite this religious views on the matter, which often compare ‘pulling the plug’ to assisting suicide, are given a level of respect that cannot be justified by the available medical evidence. Although inverted, approaching the issue of the relationship between faith and death from the opposite angle – keeping the dead ‘alive’ rather than allowing the living to die – the same level of respect for the beliefs involved would seem to apply.  [i] Tune, Lee, “Vegetative State Seen as More Dead than the Dead, UMD Study Finds”, University of Maryland, 22 August 2011,

negative: A one way street  Religion is at the heart of people’s identities and is based upon belief rather than reason so it is not surprising that religious groups sometimes take offence both quickly and easily. While political ideologies, or in certain scientific theories, may be believed as feverently religion by some with these beliefs come an acceptance that there are contrary opinions and a need to reason to persuade. This leaves open the possibility that they can be persuaded through reason that they are wrong. The stakes involved are very different, an eternity in Hell versus losing the next election. A political believer can afford to be malleable in a way a religious believer cant.  Increasingly religious groups offense seems to lead to threats of, or actual, violence [i] , the concerted apologies of elected representatives around the world and a total loss of any sense of proportion. If something is offensive to Christians or Muslims then, apparently, other considerations have to take a back seat. Whether it’s Christian homophobia in the Deep South or Islamic Xenophobia in the Middle East, offensiveness is a line that cannot be crossed.  Or, at least, it cannot be crossed in one direction.  For a group of creeds that are so quick to take offence, those religious groups that are the first to call foul seem happy enough to dole it out in the other direction. Even the basic tenets of the major faiths, say the eternal reality of Hell for non-believers [ii] , could be seen as offensive by those judged worth of being tortured for all eternity simply for getting on with their lives.  The very predicate of extreme faith – that everybody else lacks a moral compass and is going to suffer tortures for eternity as a result – is fairly offensive – and palpably untrue [iii] - by any standard. Once the discussion moves on to specifics, the insults become more pointed; perverts, fornicators, sinners and murderers (homosexuals, unmarried couples, divorcees and anyone involved with abortion, respectively). Their wrath isn’t limited to individuals, entire nations can be written off as corrupt and evil and damned to an eternity of suffering in the blink of an eye and for little apparent reason. In fact no reason, per se, at all.  If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule. Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction, so that could be the first set of offensive comments to go, closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith.  Any other position would be too inconsistent to be worth much consideration.  [i] Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide. Vexen Crabtree. 31 August 2009.  [ii] Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Paragraphs 1033 – 1037.  [iii] The Daily Telegraph. Atheists ‘just as ethical as churchgoers’. 9 February 2010.

negative: Although we want to protect freedom of religion, it is not as fundamental as other rights. When two rights clash, we have to decide which should take precedence – for example, your freedom of action is limited by my right not to be punched in the face. Further, we will normally resolve clashes so as to first stop physical harm, followed by emotional or other harm. Freedom of religion, though important, comes further down the list.  In this case, the more “fundamental” of the rights in play is the right of the animal to be protected from unnecessary pain. It is more closely linked to reducing suffering, which an appropriate goal for society. So in this particular case, we should put the animals first.

negative: The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible  We have good reasons to value keeping people alive: it allows people the opportunity to enjoy their time on Earth and effect changes to everyone’s benefit, even if that simply means being around for our loved ones. Most people would even go so far as to say that, by virtue of being conscious creatures, human beings deserve to live. That is to say, they have a right not to suffer an untimely death. This is the reason that we normally abhor killing: it cuts short human life. However, in this thought experiment, the inescapable reality is that someone’s right to life will be violated. Either the one or the five will die, and all the horrible results attached to the cessation of a human life will inevitably befall one of the groups. In light of this fact, our moral obligation is to reduce the number of people whose right to life is violated and maximize the number for whom that right is actualized. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and that is to kill the one and save the five.

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.  Nature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the "motor" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design.  [1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press.

negative: healthcare deny organs non donors Organ donors are more deserving of organs  Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.

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

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide  It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1]  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).


query: Reparations demonstrate a true concern for the developing world.  Even alongside the colonial justifications for providing reparations, there are also many other strong reasons why former colonial powers should grant reparations. Former colonial powers tend to be economically developed, like America, Britain and France. The developed world should recognise the dire poverty and social challenges fed by the developing world today. Giving aid as an act of charity can sometimes be seen as derogatory [1] , and is even rejected by the potential recipients [2] [3] [4] . However, reparations allows a transfer of wealth between these countries in a way which is sensitive to the history between them, and which also demonstrates a desire to improve their relationship. It allows aid to be given to the developing world in a means which is dignified but not spurious.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

positive: africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations Disguising the purely economic balance illustrated here as a demonstration of heartfelt regret undermines the principles outlined by previous proposition arguments. This is, in fact, a hollow gesture – one that is disguised as a reparation to overcome a country’s right (though we may not agree with it) to reject the aid which is offered to them. The rejection of aid is a demonstrative action in itself; it sends a message that the recipient country does not wish to associate themselves with the donor country. By trying to use reparations as a loophole, this concept simultaneously criticised the recipient country’s right to choose whether they receive aid or not, and undermines the value of reparations elsewhere as a genuine gesture.

negative: africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations There is already a precedent for paying reparations to such states.  In the past, dominating global powers have paid reparations and compensation for historical wrongs. For example, Germany pays an annual amount of money to Israel to recognise wrongs committed against Jews during the Holocaust, and to recognise the theft of Jewish property at this time [1] . These reparations have helped Israeli infrastructure enormously, providing ‘railways and telephones, dock installations and irrigation plants, whole areas of industry and agriculture’ [2] and contributing to Israeli economic security. Japan also paid reparations to Korea after World War II as the Koreans were ‘deprived of their nation and their identity’ [4] . Britain has paid compensation to the New Zealand Maoris for the damage done during colonial times and the seizure of their land [5] , and Iraq pays compensation to Kuwait for damage done during the invasion and occupation of 1990-91 [6] . There is little reason why other nations should not be paid for the grievances caused to them by domination countries. There is support for the notion that colonial powers should pay for free universal education in Africa [7] ; this would be an entirely appropriate and desirable measure.  [1] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014,   [2] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014,   [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [6] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [7] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

negative: africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations What happened during the colonial era was morally wrong.  The entire basis for colonisation was predicated on an innate ‘understanding’ and judgment of one superior culture and race [1] . This ethnocentric approach idolised western traditions while simultaneously undermining the traditions of the countries which were colonised. For example, during the colonisation of America, colonists imposed a Westernised school system on Native American children. This denied their right to wear traditional clothing [2] or to speak their native language [3] , and the children were often subject to physical and sexual abuse and forced labour [4] . The cause of this was simply ignorance of culture differences on behalf of the colonists, which was idyllically labelled and disguised as ‘The White Man’s Burden’ [5] . Colonial powers undermined the social and property rights [6] of the colonies, using military force to rule if civilians should rebel against colonisation in countries such as India [7] . After Indian fighters rebelled against British colonial force in the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58 [8] , the British struck back with terrible force, and forced the rebels to ‘lick up part of the blood’ from the floors of the houses [9] . The actions which occurred during colonisation are considered completely inappropriate and undesirable behaviour in a modern world, and in terms of indigenous rights to culture and to property, as well as human rights more generally. Reparations would be a meaningful act of apology for the wrongs which were committed during the past.  [1] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [6] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [7] Accessed from  on 11/09/11.  [8] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [9] Accessed from  on 11/09/11

negative: Many countries – including America [1] and Britain [2] - already use biometric chips in passports to reinforce proof of identity when crossing national borders. If this data does not work in this case, especially since security has increased hugely since 9/11 [3] , there is no evidence to support the idea that it would suddenly be improved if this chip was in an identity card instead of an official national passport. Moreover, the biometric information on these cards has already been proved faulty. Experts have demonstrated that they could copy the biometric information provided on identity cards ‘in minutes’ [4] . Identity cards are unnecessary and will not help to prevent the crimes mentioned.  [1] The Economist. ‘Have chip, will travel.’ Published 17/07/2009. Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accesssed from  on 10/09/11  [4] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published 06/08/2008. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

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

negative: Identity cards improve public safety  Identity cards could prove a key instrument to combat crime, terrorism and fraud. Given that terrorists have used fake passports to cross borders in the past [1] , a sophisticated identity card, possibly containing specific biometric information which cannot be easily faked, could be crucial in preventing terrorist acts in the future. In cases where the police were suspicious, they could rapidly check the identities of many people near a crime scene, which would make their investigation much swifter and more effective. The CBI also believes that ‘the creation of a single source of identity data’ [2] in the form of biometric identity cards would also decrease identity fraud. Given that identity fraud currently costs the UK £2.7 billion per year [3] , Canada over 10 million Canadian dollars per year [4] , and in America identity fraud relating to credit cards alone costs around $8.6 billion per year [5] , this is obviously a serious problem under the status quo. These crimes would be much more difficult if biometric data was required for financial transactions and other activities such as leaving or entering a country; identity cards are the best way forwards. The value of ID cards in combating terrorism and crime is much reduced if not everyone has them as the guilty would be less likely to want to get such cards unless they could somehow fake them.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.  In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases [1] [2] . Given that both physical [3] and psychological [4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals [5] . Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens [6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this.  [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009,  on 16/09/11  [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010,  on 16/09/11  [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008,  09/09/11

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

negative: The scheme does not prevent forgery or identity theft  The entire premise of national security and crime prevention falls when biometric identity cards are in fact incredibly easy to falsify. Microchips have already been forged in a matter of minutes in an experiment to determine their security [1] , and biometric information can be gained remotely by computer through ‘cracking’, ‘sniffing’ and ‘key-logging’ [2] . Moreover, common crimes which would not require any kind of identification to be committed – vehicle theft, burglary, criminal damage, common assault, mugging, rape and anti-social behaviour [3] – would not be combated at all by this measure. Given that hackers have managed to penetrate even the highest-security sites such as the CIA database [4] , there is not only a danger that individual cards would be hacked, but that the greater database of information could be hacked. There is no such thing as an impenetrable security system. We would be far better off using the money which would potentially be funnelled into identity cards to increase computer security and police presence.  [1] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published on 06/08/2008. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] The Telegraph. ‘CIA website hacked by Lulz Security’. Published on 16/06/2011. Accessed from  on 10/09/11

negative: Identity cards can assist in the efficient monitoring of immigration  Illegal immigration is an enormous problem in Western nations. The UK estimates that there are more that one million illegal immigrants living in Britain [1] , likely around 2.2 million [2] . For America, this number could be as high as 11 million [3] . Identity cards would mean that, even if illegal immigrants did succeed in crossing the border, they would most likely be found out because they could not pass routine security checks required on an everyday basis because they would not have been issued an identity card. Given that illegal immigration is frequently linked to international crime such as trafficking [4] , this is clearly a problem which we need to address in a new way.  [1] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] The New York Times. ‘Number of illegal immigrants in US fell, study says.’ Published 01/09/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

negative: Western Money, Western Discretion  When Western States threaten to cut aid, they are referring to their own money. This money should therefore be spent at the discretion of the donating country. In 2012, the USA’s and UK’s budgets for aid were £12.2 billion [1] and £9 billion respectively. The UK’s spending is set to increase to about £11.3 billion by 2014 [2] . This is money which could be spent to ease economic hardships at home, as many newspapers have pointed out [3] , however it is given to other countries to aid them instead. Donating states also spend a great deal of time attempting to convince their citizens that giving aid is a good use of their money. Should they oppose a policy which they see as discriminatory then it is understandable that they should use their discretion when donating aid.  [1] Britain second in world for aid spending Dixon, H. 04/04/12  [2] Aid: how much does the UK spend, why it’s so important and how it works. Provost,C. & Tran,M. 20/03/13  [3] Britain leads the way in foreign aid-unfortunately Clark,R. 19/06/13

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers [1] . Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive [2] , might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection.  [1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers,  on 09/09/11.

negative: economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards Historically the donor of Foreign Aid has always set down pre-requisites  When a donor nation parts with foreign aid for development to a nation, it must always choose who it prefers to give it to as there is a limited pot of money to donate there needs to be a way of allocating it. It is not surprising therefore that countries with shared colonial histories tend to dominate aid flows, thus Britain has historically given most aid to countries that were its colonies; in 1960 Malta and Cyprus received most, while India was the biggest recipient for much of the rest of the 20th Century. [1] Further, often countries offering aid, such as the US, the UK, and the EU, require the pre-requisite of democracy or the start of a democratisation process. Therefore, it is justified to add a pre-requisite for better standards of business and labour as it helps implementation, and principally meets the goals of the developmental aid itself. [2]  [1] Provost, Claire, ‘UK aid: where does it o and how has it changed since 1960?’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 14 April 2011,   [2] Dollar, David and Alesina, Alberto. “Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?” Journal of Economic Growth, Volume 5, No. 1(Mar., 2000).

negative: The scheme would cause inconvenience and public discontent  The more information which is incorporated into identity cards, the greater the problems if they are misplaced or stolen. You would be ‘required to report the theft at a police station’ [1] rather than being able to cancel by phone, because the only way to prove that you are the owner of the card would be to have your biological information – like your fingerprints - scanned [2] . Moreover, if your details were stolen online and used without your knowledge, the ‘illusion of security’ [3] surrounding the cards would make it very difficult to probe that it was not in fact you who was using the card. Jerry Fishenden of Microsoft also pointed out that ‘if core biometric details such as your fingerprints are compromised, it is not going to be possible to provide you with new ones’ [4] . It is also unreasonable to expect someone to carry this card on them at all times, particularly if police or other authorities are able to stop and search on demand. Overall, the introduction of biometric identity card would create enormous problems for the everyday user if the slightest thing went wrong.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [4] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.  Given that the Internet is used as an international [1] and public space [2] , the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’ [3] , demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites.  [1] Babel, ‘Towards communicating on the Internet in any language’,   [2] Papacharissi, Zizi, ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media & Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002,  on 09/09/11  [3] BBC. ‘A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state’. Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from  on

negative: Russian and the US have many areas where they can cooperate.  In 2009 President Obama stated “I believe that on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation.” [1] This makes the real question ‘how to cooperate’ rather that whether there should be cooperation. Military transparency, particularly on nuclear weapons is necessary. “Russia and the United States matter to one another, and how well or how poorly we manage our interactions matters to the rest of the world. The two of us control more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, and our leadership can do more than anyone else’s to help secure nuclear material globally and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.” [2] This continued cooperation on nuclear issues in particular has been demonstrated with the signing of the ‘New START’ treaty on 8th April 2010.  There are many other areas where cooperation between the America and Russia is vital as well. As is demonstrated by the geopolitical situation “Russia sits astride Europe, Asia and the broader Middle East – three regions whose future will shape American interests for many years to come. And in an era in which common challenges” so cooperation is necessary for the United States, but also for Russia as it would not want the US acting without its cooperation. According to Undersecretary of State Burns there are also many issues “non-proliferation, climate change, energy security, the struggle against terrorism, and many more – demand common action more than at any other period in human history, the United States and Russia have a lot more to gain by working together than by working apart.” [3]  [1] Barak Obama, Obama’s Speech in Moscow, President addresses New Economic School graduation, 7/7/09,  accessed 20/4/11  [2] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11  [3] William J. Burns, The United States and Russia in a New Era: One Year After "Reset", Remarks to the Center for American Progress, Washington DC, 14th April 2010,  accessed 10/4/11

negative: Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

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

negative: Identity cards confer advantages on their users  The average person is faced with numerous requisitions for identification every day, whether trying to access their own bank account, prove their age or prove their address. The identity card could easily incorporate all of this information to become one convenient for of identification and save the user the hassle of carrying so many documents around with them. Given that ‘the average person now has to remember five passwords, five PIN numbers, two number plates, three security ID numbers and three bank account numbers just to get through everyday life’ [1] , there is evidently a need for a single, concise form of identification. Moreover, it would help them to identify the people they have to interact with. There have been numerous cases of criminals posing as company officials such as gas workers in order to gain access to somebody’s home and steal from them [2] [3] . These identity cards would particularly help vulnerable citizens who are the most at risk of this kind of injustice. For this reason these cards should be compulsory, they would not be much use as identification if not everyone had one that could be checked by anybody.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

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

negative: Money won’t go to where it is needed most.  Aid goes where it is needed, remittances don’t. Development aid is able to be focused on those who need it most, the poorest, those who are unable to grow their own crops etc. Sub-Saharan Africa gets $28bln in ODA or 20.9% of aid [1] whereas only $60bln or 11.5% of remittances goes to Africa. [2] Clearly therefore Africa would be proportionally losing out. It is notable that it is middle income countries that get most remittances, the per capital level of remittances received tends to increase until that country has an income of about $2200 before falling back. [3]  There would be a similar problem with directing aid within nations. Remittances will go to the family of the person who is sending the money regardless of whether they really need this extra money. It is likely that many of the very poorest will be those who do not have family members who have been able to migrate for work and send back money, these people would be left in a much worse position without ODA.  [1] ‘Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession’, OECD  [2] ‘African Migrants Could Save US$4 Billion Annually On Remittance Fees, Finds World Bank’, The World Bank, 28 January 2013  [3] Julca, Alex, ‘Can remittances support development finance in developing countries?’ un.org, 2012, p.11

negative: economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation The FTAA is bad for industries in developing nations.  This agreement would put farmers and workers in some of the world’s most impoverished nations in direct competition with some of the richest companies in the developed world. FTAA would have small, domestic industries in countries like Bolivia or Haiti compete with massive American corporations, and prevent their governments from aiding them in any way. The disparity of power and resources would be so great in the case of such a collision, that it would mean these small industries could easily be wiped out and never develop to a level where they can sustain a healthy national economy and become competitive against giant multinational corporations. This would be disastrous for development and poverty reduction in South America [1] .  [1] Robinson, Mary. “Free Trade Area of the Americas: Latin America Deserves Better.” New York Times. 18 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/opinion/18iht-edrob_ed3_.html?scp=1&sq=

negative: Foreign aid benefits the United States  While foreign aid is obviously for the benefit of the recipient country that country is not the only one that benefits; U.S. business is often a major beneficiary. It does this in two ways: First they benefit directly through carrying out the contracts for supplying aid, for example Cargill was paid $96million for supplying food aid in 2010-11. [1] Secondly there are also indirect benefits. Through the work of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Obama administration hopes to “develop partnerships with countries committed to enabling the private sector investment that is the basis of sustained economic growth to open new markets for American goods, promote trade overseas, and create jobs here at home”. [2] Essentially, through foreign aid, both the economies of the developing world and the United States come out ahead. Even Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that the 1 percent the United States spends on foreign aid “not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on developing countries – which means it has an impact on our economy”. [3]  [1] Provost, Claire, and Lawrence, Felicity, ‘US food aid programme criticised as ‘corporate welfare’ for grain giants’, guardian.co.uk, 18 July 2012.  [2] ‘What we do’, USAID, 12 September 2012.  [3] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.

negative: Wiretapping is a highly effective method which helps to prevent serious crime and secure convictions for criminals.  Wiretapping helps to make society safer; we have the opportunity to prevent serious crime and to uphold the principle of prosecution in the justice system [1] by catching criminals and convicting them. For example, in the UK in 2003, intercepts led to the seizure of 26 tonnes of drugs and also detected wide-scale fraud and money laundering, resulting in 1680 arrests [2] . Without this evidence, these criminals may have escaped the justice system and remained free in society to commit other crimes. It is nonsensical to reject evidence which clearly implicates this individuals who would otherwise be released without charge. As the threat of terrorism escalates and had already damaged many countries [3] [4] [5] [6] , refusal to use this evidence in court puts the public at serious risk and fails to act in the defence of the country in question. For example, if the Norwegian authorities had kept closer tabs on information passed through eBay, they might well have been able to apprehend Anders Breivik before he committed the massacre on Utoya island [7] . Wiretapping is unique in the variety of information it can provide; it can show locations [8] , times [9] , the relationships between those involved [10] and even record specific details of conspiracies [11] . Accordingly, it can also be used to prove the innocence of somebody who might otherwise be wrongly accused or even wrongly imprisoned [12] [13] . The obvious benefits to this motion demand that intercept evidence and wiretapping should be held as legitimate evidence in court.  [1] Page 65:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3] In the UK:   [4] In Norway:  , accessed 30/08/11  [5] In the USA:  , accessed 30/08/11  [6] In Europe and Belgium:  , accessed 30/08/11  [7]  , accessed 30/08/11  [8]  , accessed 30/08/11  [9]  , accessed 30/08/11  [10]  , accessed 30/08/11  [11]  , accessed 30/08/11  [12]  , accessed 30/08/11  [13]  , accessed 30/08/11

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world.  The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications which render plants less vulnerable from pests lead to less pesticide use, which is better for the environment. Other modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food prices for all. However, This technology really comes into its own in developing countries. Here where water is at a shortage, modifications (which lead crops to needing less water), are of vital importance. The World Health Organization predicts that vitamin A deficiency, with the use of GMOs, could be wiped out rapidly in the modern world. The scientists developed the strain of rice, called “golden rice”, which produces more beta-carotene and this way produces 20 times more vitamins than other strains, creating a cure for childhood blindness in developing countries. [1]  The fact that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will to solve these problems. GM food provides a solution that does not rely on charity from Western governments. As the world population increases and the environment deteriorates further this technology will become not just useful but necessary.  [1] Black R., GM “golden rice” boosts vitamin A, published 03/25/2005,  , accessed 09/02/2011

negative: Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote [2] . Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises [3] . Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA [4] and Europe [5] . It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11

negative: science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems.  GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial. [1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying. [2]  Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool. [3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology.  [1] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005, www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf , p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011

negative: Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11

negative: Many illegal immigrants already take steps to avoid official identification. For example, they frequently take jobs which pay cash-in-hand [1] so that they do not have to set up and authorise a bank account, or have a social security number. There is not reason why this would not continue. Moreover, this measure simply provides more fuel for injustice. These is already a problem of police officers targeting minority groups for ‘stop-and-search- checks [2] ; under this motion, this injustice would be amplified under the guise of checking for illegal immigrants. This measure is contradictory to the notion of democracy.  [1] BBC. ‘The British illegal immigrants’. Published 02/02/2005. Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] BBC. ‘Police stop and search powers ‘target minorities’. Published 15/03/2010. Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

negative: economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should Rural life is miserable and has higher mortality rates than cities  This planet does not find worse living standards anywhere than in the rural areas of developing countries. These are the areas where famine, child mortality and diseases (such as AIDS) plague the people. [1] China’s Hukou system has condemned millions of people to premature death by locking them in areas that never will develop. [2] While the cities enjoy the benefits of 12% growth, the villages are as poor and deprived as ever. [3] It is a poorly concealed policy aimed at maintaining a gaping social cleavage and allowing the rich to remain rich.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.  [2] Dikötter, Frank. Mao's Great Famine. London : Walker & Company, 2010. 0802777686.  [3] Wang, Fei-Ling. “Organising through Division and Exclusion: China's Hukou System". 2005.

negative: If anything, this is a reason to introduce better police training, not to abandon the concept of identity cards altogether. An unfortunate fact is that immigrants, who often come from poor backgrounds or have low levels of education, are more statistically likely to be involved in crime [1] . This ‘disproportionate’ [2] level of crime among immigrants provides a reason for the seemingly disproportionate targeting of minority groups by police authorities.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

negative: No countries economic interests exactly match yet that does not lead to conflict. The European Union and United States have had several trade wars, for example over the EU giving preferential treatment for Caribbean producers of Bananas, [1] but are still close partners in NATO. The reset is having an effect in bringing Russia and the US closer together economically, Vice President Biden argues that trade between the two countries has a long way to grow and economic interests will get closer. “One way to realize the potential of that relationship is to bring Russia more fully into the international trading system. That is why we strongly support Russia’s effort to join the World Trade Organization.” [2] This would reduce and help manage any economic conflicts between both powers meaning that they will not get in the way of good relations.  [1] Business:The Economy WTO approves banana sanctions, BBC News, 19/4/99,  accessed 6/5/11  [2] Joseph R. Biden Jr., ‘The Next Steps in the U.S.-Russia Reset’, The New York Times, 13/3/11,  accessed 6/5/11

negative: Intercepted evidence could be incredibly useful for both prosecution and defence cases in many trials.  Intercept evidence offers the opportunity to speed up court trials and stop wasting time and money by providing information which could lead to a faster, more accurate verdict. Other western democracies who use wire-tap evidence believe that is has or will help to achieve criminal convictions [1] [2] [3] , which demonstrates popular support for it as an effective and swift method of justice. Given that the UK has allowed wire-tapping in some specific cases [4] , it seems to be that it is not the principle of intercept evidence itself which is viewed as unacceptable by these countries, but perhaps a need to set up a formalised system of the conditions when and where intercept evidence can be used. David Bickford, the former chief legal adviser to MI5, has stated ‘I know we have lost cases as a result of not using such evidence’ [5] and other experts have called for the wide use of intercept evidence in court [6] . Allowing the use of intercept evidence in the first place may well ensure that wire-taps are better carried out in a standardised, regulated manner  [1] In Sweden:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2] Widely in the USA:  , accessed 30/08/11  [3] In Australia:  , accessed 30/08/11  [4]  , accessed 30/08/11  [5]  , accessed 30/08/11  [6]  , accessed 30/08/11