query: Meritocracy is the only fair system by which society should be ordered  Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their merit is one that is unjust to those not in the group that is “preferred” and therefore benefitted by it.  Meritocracy is the only fair system to run a society on. Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their skill and effort is one that is unjust. The use of any criteria other than merit to select or benefit an individual is the definition of discrimination itself. Simply putting the word “positive” in front of it does not make it a beneficial or just system. For every act of “positive” discrimination enacted, an act of “negative” discrimination occurs against the individual that was denied a position or achievement they earned on their own merit for the person that received the “positive” end of the discrimination.  Affirmative action is simply reversing the discrimination in society so injustice is enacted in the opposite direction. This is not a just system of distribution; it’s simply unjust against a different group. The only truly fair system to use is one that has no criteria other than merit to determine who receives what.

positive: ucation secondary university philosophy religion minorities house believes use This issue is not whether or not meritocracy is good, but rather if society is meritocratic without intervention by the public or private sector. The system is not meritocratic without affirmative action; with the endemic psychological and tangible disadvantages as discussed in proposition points two and three, people of previously discriminated groups do not get judged on their own merit. They do not receive the same basic opportunities and they are given no inspiration to strive to achieve the things that would indicate their merit because they believe it to be impossible for someone of their group.  Meritocracy only works when everyone is entering a fight from the same playing field, which does not currently happen. Affirmative action adjusts this to a meritocratic system by adjusting for the fact that individuals of previously discriminated groups will not have the same indicators of merit such as academic achievements due to a lack of opportunity as opposed to lack of merit. Moreover, it will afford these individuals these missed opportunities to level the playing field in the long-run, allowing true meritocracy to exist [1] .  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.

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

negative: ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby The IRB did not take action against the previous system of quotas: why would they be likely to take action against a new system?  Also, there is a clear difference between the sort of racial discrimination that occurred in the sport during the apartheid era, and affirmative action policies. Positive discrimination does not prevent anyone from having a chance at playing; it simply gives those who are less fortunate a leg up.

negative: Unjust  There is an argument to be made that this form of punishment of parents is simply unjust. The legal basis of punishment is based on the principle that a sane individual is fully responsible for his or her actions. One can always point to dysfunctional families or other influences that may have had an effect on an individual’s actions, but the level of influence is impossible to quantify. Therefore, any level of punishment that is meted out to external sources cannot be matched proportionally to actions taken by these outside parties, thereby abrogating the principle of proportional punishment. As a result, any just system of punishment is bound by this constraint, and shifting responsibility to external sources is not consistent with our principles.  This argument functions best in the criminal justice context, but applies in the school context as well. Schools that adopt this policy must examine the ethical underpinnings of the policy, and if the policy itself is immoral, then regardless of its efficacy (which is disputed in the first argument and later on) the policy should not be adopted.

negative: We would allow discriminated women to reach their full potential  Women who are constantly threatened by their husbands or who are in societies where they are considered to represent less than a man will most certainly lack ambition to achieve their full potential – or even if they do have the ambition will be restrained from fulfilling it. When you live under a system that considers you inferior to the other gender and denies you opportunities on the basis of gender – sometimes including education the individual is clearly never going to have a chance to make their life worthwhile for its own sake. They won’t be able to take up jobs that will have an impact on the world, they won’t control their own economic circumstances as their husband is the only breadwinner, and they will be denied the opportunity to express their ideas and views. By giving them asylum in a place where women and men are treated equally, we give them the opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do before. Besides the security that they will gain, they will be able to go to school or get a job more easily than in their native country. There is no reason for which we don’t want these women to be a part of our European cultural identity. It is shameful to give this opportunity only to your citizens when women from countries that discriminate against them might be able to contribute so much more than they are able to under their circumstances in their native country.

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

negative: All-women shortlists were declared legal in 2001 after a debate, and there has not been an issue about its legality since then1. Judges have ruled that quotas and other forms of positive discrimination are not in breach of any human rights or democratic law, and thus should be used. Positive discrimination compensates women for the many years that they were excluded and placed in the political wilderness. There is an unavoidable discrimination at work in the electoral systems worldwide, and if another type of discrimination is temporarily necessarily to combat it then it must be used. A true 'meritocracy' only works when candidates are starting from equal positions. Dame Ann Begg MP has said that positive discrimination is absolutely crucial for ensuring the best candidates apply: "If under-represented groups are not encouraged to apply, you cannot get the best person for the job. Women, for example, are less likely to put themselves forward as MPs"2. Nobody is saying that positive discrimination is without its problems, but in this circumstance the end must justify the means.  1 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001  2 'Positive discrimination crucial for democracy, says disabled MP' by Alev Sen, The Beaver, 15th March 2011

negative: ucation secondary university philosophy religion minorities house believes use Affirmative action creates bad workplaces for all minorities  Affirmative action creates a negative workplaces for all minorities whose group receives affirmative action support.  The existence of affirmative action creates a de-facto assumption that anyone of that particular minority must have gotten where they are not on their own merit, but simply because they are that particular minority. This causes people to resent the minority group for getting for “free” what people feel they had to work hard for. This furthers the perception of the minority as being inferior, and removes their capacity to be treated as an equal in the workplace and prove themselves.  This assumption is not only harmful to those minorities who did receive assistance from affirmative action, but also anyone of that minority group regardless of if they were hired using affirmative action because there is simply an assumption that they are less qualified and there because of the policy because the policy exists.  Therefore, affirmative action creates an assumption that minorities in the workplace are less qualified and inherently inferior to the other workers due to the affirmative action policy causing resentment and deepening inequality, not helping eradicate it.

negative: niversity philosophy political philosophy minorities house would use positive Overcomes prejudice  Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1] [2] Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist.  [1] Bertrand, M. “Racial Bias in Hiring”. Spring 2003.   [2] BBC News Magazine. “Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?” August 27, 2011.

negative: Of course all drugs can be abused but introducing one into the system full in the knowledge that it will be abused is an entirely different matter. On the basis of the balance of probabilities, the moment any government says that cannabis is safe to use and, more than that, beneficial to health then every pothead in that jurisdiction has an excuse.  The only way the War on Drugs can work is if prohibition is applied universally. We expect doctors to work within the law and the government, along with medical governing bodies, has a role in determining what it is appropriate to prescribe and what is not [i] .  There are no situations where society simply stands back and leaves it to individual clinicians to act without guidance. They act within a framework that gives primacy to clinical need but does not ignore the wider social implications. Society regulates when a doctor can rules that someone is incapable of work or needs surgery at the expense of the state. In this particular regard, governments feel that society is best served by not adding cannabis to the pharmaceutical melting pot.  [i] Comment. “Kent Doctor Richard Scott Warned Over Faith Discussion”. BBC. 23 May 2011.

negative: Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve  In a 'representative' democracy it is vital that every part of the population be accurately and proportionately represented. The present lack of female voices in parliaments across the world symbolises the continuing patriarchal societal bias. Women are over half of the population, yet less than 20% of the House of Commons is made up of women. As of 2011, there are only 72 women (constituting 16.6% of all Representatives) serving in the House of Representatives in the US. In order to truly have a representative government, numbers must be increased to fairly mirror numbers in society. All women shortlists and other artificial means are a quick and effective way of doing this. Even David Cameron, a traditional opponent to positive discrimination for women, when asked whether a meritocracy was more desirable, said "It doesn't work"; "we tried that for years and the rate of change was too slow. If you just open the door and say 'you're welcome, come in,' and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it's not very welcoming"1.Indeed, a recent report by the Hansard Society2 said that the numbers of women in UK Parliament could fall unless positive action is taken3. Sarah Childs, launching the report, said that "unless all parties use equality guarantees, such as all-women shortlists, it is most unlikely that they will select women in vacant seats" 3. Compulsion is necessary to begin to achieve parity of representation4. The Labour party used all-women shortlists in the 1990's and many well-known female MPs were elected this way. Positive action is vital for reasons of justice and fairness.  1 'David Cameron: I will impose all-women shortlists' by Rosa Prince, The Telegraph, 18th February 2010  2 The Hansard Society  3 'All-women shortlists a must, says report' by Oliver King, The Guardian, 15th November 2005  4 'Call for all-women shortlists' by David Bentley, The Independent, 11th January 2010

negative: Positive discrimination for women is discrimination  Merely glossing 'positive' discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The Labour Party's policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as it disadvantages potential male candidates1. The law may have been changed, but the principle of the objection remains and all-women shortlists are only legal until 20152which demonstrates a level of uncertainty and reservation about its true legality. Equality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. MPs should be the best on offer, and the one chosen freely by constituents, otherwise this is not democracy. All-Women shortlists seem to, in some ways, detract from the purpose of having elections if candidate lists are restricted.  1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia  2 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001

negative: Modern society discriminates itself against the principles of individuals choosing self-determination and parental rights when it comes to the opposite case. There are high double standards when for example a couple chooses that their child should be deaf, just as they are.  This was the case with Tomato Lichy and his partner Paula, who wanted IVF in order to produce a child that was deaf- just as they are. The “embryo bill in 2008 (UK)” passed with a clause that exactly prohibits such actions as the deaf couple in limits of their right to self-determination and parenting requested.  Clause 14/4/9 states that, "Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality." (1)  Specifically this means that in cases of embryos the law makes parents choose the healthy embryo over the embryo of their decision. It is unjust to appeal towards the rights of self-determination and parental rights if they are not applicable to all parents and if the distinction is made based on arbitrary definitions of valuable physical characteristics.  1 Dominic Lawson, Of course a deaf couple wants a deaf child, 03/11/2008,  , accessed 05/23/2011

negative: This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty  Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice.  No nation has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The moral viewpoints of a nation and its peoples are not what can be considered ‘just cause.’ It is a religious and moral viewpoint to believe that homosexuality should be prosecuted and it is the obligation of any individual living in a state to abide by the laws of the state that they live in. It is not within the rights of other countries to decide if the domestic laws of another country are in line with their views nor is it legitimate for them to violate sovereignty on this basis.  If an individual wishes to break the laws of their society on moral grounds, they have knowingly and intentionally violated the law. Just as people who think any other law unjust and thus breaks it, the LGBT community is in no way less culpable for the breach of law nor is any state any more justified in allowing them to evade punishment.

negative: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard  Every victim deserves to have the perpetrator of their suffering answer for their misdeeds. It is unjust that certain offenders would avoid retribution, and certain victims would be denied their day in court, simply because of a factor external to the commission of the crime. Even if the crime is not external to the criminal’s political role, the foundation of a free and fair justice system is that all individuals are treated alike, regardless of perceived importance. Hence, a wealthy philanthropist will not be spared from prosecution simply because they are a pillar of the community. Politicians should receive no greater reprieve.

negative: As explained in counterargument two, the rationale behind this form of discrimination is nonnegotiable and absolutist due to its religious/moral nature. Consensus-building will not happen in the near future on this issue and even if the potentiality of social acceptance of the LGBT community was in the not-so-distant future, this does not offer any protection to those in danger now, nor remove our obligation to their protection from discrimination and unjust punishment.

negative: ucation secondary university philosophy religion minorities house believes use Affirmative action perpetuates prejudice  Affirmative action causes prejudice against minorities in society.  The existence of affirmative action creates a de-facto assumption that anyone of that particular minority must have gotten where they are not on their own merit, but simply because they are that particular minority. This causes people to resent the minority group for getting for “free” what people feel they had to work hard for. People feel as though that minority is getting a “free-ride” and are inherently less worthy of what they achieve.  This is damaging on a societal level because minorities who receive affirmative action are assumed to be less qualified and less valuable than others in society simply because many of them are aided by affirmative action policies. This not only creates damaging stereotypes, but also causes resentment and backlash from others in society who view affirmative action as simply unfair.  This is best demonstrated by the backlash in America in the mid-1990s over the existence of affirmative action policies [1] .  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Taxation need not be proportional to be fair; individuals earning significantly higher income than others have benefited from many societal factors that allowed them to accumulate wealth in peace and safety. Such people thus owe a greater burden to the state for the greater benefits the opportunities it bestowed upon them allowed. A just system of taxation should reflect this, and a progressive system does so by levying from people in accordance with their wealth that without the state could not have existed. A study of 54 nations shows that the public preserve flattening the tax adds to the risk of wellbeing and thus prefer progressive tax as a way in order to for a better over quality of life. [1]  [1] Hyde, Lucy, ‘A More Progressive Tax System Makes People Happier’, Association for Psychological Science, 6 September 2011,

negative: Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech  Hate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished more harshly. Why is this so? Because we are punishing an idea. All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being.  To add more punishment to a crime because it represents a particular kind of hate (an idea) is to unfairly distinguish between different violent acts and trivialize those violent acts that do not appear to be motivated by prejudice hate. This is unjust because the idea itself does not cause harm, and is in fact legal in most cases (with the exception of direct incitement to violence), as racist or prejudiced statements and ideas are not illegal in most western liberal democracies.  We allow extreme and prejudiced ideas to be legal because we recognise the value of free speech and open discourse in debating and discussing ideas, so as to best allow for progress in human thought. Hate crime enhancements constitute an attack on this as they make an individual liable for harsher punishments for his actions if he holds certain views, and thus the law unfairly discriminates against these particular viewpoints and not against others, and so hate crime enhancements are unjust.

negative: Banning Playoffs Offer Greater Fairness  The BCS system unfairly discriminates against 45 of the 120 teams that participate in college football. Given that some of these teams participate in non-BCS leagues they can perform incredibly well and still not get into the BCS. Further, the BCS system is flawed beyond this given that both Boise State and Utah were deemed unsuitable for the competition despite the fact that they went undefeated in the seasons before their rejection. The winner of the BCS is meant to be the best collegiate football team in the country. However, if undefeated teams are unable to compete it makes the system incredibly unfair, and reduces the legitimacy of the BCS title itself, undermining the value of the competition overall.  Finally, as noted football analyst Michael Shull notes, due to flaws in the computer algorithms used to allocated BCS places, some teams that do well for a single season as an outlier or due to a positive change for the team do not get into the cup. This potentially means that the same teams consistently get into the cup and gain $17 million in revenue regardless of whether they win or lose. As such this system ensures that those who do get selected just get richer and better and thus become more likely to be picked by the computer system in the future. [1]  [1] Shull, Michael. “BCS No More: Football Needs Playoffs to eliminate the BS.” College Sports Fans.

negative: tax house supports progressive tax rate Individuals’ property and income are an index of deserving achievement, and of value contributed in the market place to society  A progressive taxation system essentially assumes that the property rights of the poor are more sacred than those of the wealthy. Somehow the wealthy have a less proportionate ownership right than do the less well-off simply by dint of their greater wealth. [1] This is the height of injustice. An individual’s income is a measure of his overarching societal worth, by reflecting his ability to produce goods and services people find socially desirable and to signify his level of competence and desirability by his employer. The state should not punish people for this greater social worth by taxing them disproportionally to others. When it does so it expects people to work for the sake of others to an extent that is not fair, effectively consigning them to a kind of forced labor, by which parts of the wealth they work to acquire is appropriated by the state to a degree beyond which it is willing to do to others. [2] Such a regime is manifestly unjust.  [1] Seligman, Edwin. “Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice”. Publications of the American Economic Association 9(1): 7-222. 1894.  [2] Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. 1974.

negative: ucation secondary university philosophy religion minorities house believes use Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination  Affirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination.  Discrimination in the past not only leaves a feeling of rejection by one’s community, but also a legacy of disadvantage and perpetual poverty. Discrimination is not only psychologically damaging, but tangibly. The denial of opportunities for education and employment in the past has left families in situations where they are stuck in a poverty trap and cannot afford to achieve the basic opportunities that others can as they are stuck in a cycle of poverty [1] .  A good example of this can be seen in the example of Brazil, where poverty is much more wide-spread in African communities who were previously used as slaves [2] .  There is no equality of opportunity in cases of past discrimination. Affirmative action helps level the playing field for selection by assisting those who are held back from a continual historical denial of opportunity and providing them the equality of opportunity everyone deserves.  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.  [2] Telles, Edward. "Discrimination and Affirmative Action in Brazil." PBS Wide Angle. N.p., 01 Jun 2009. Web. 23 Aug 2011. <  .

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

negative: bate living difference international middle east house believes news This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out.  Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue.

negative: The EU’s reputation can only benefit from a strong policy on women’s rights  There is a moral obligation for such a powerful and diverse group of nations to protect not only their own citizens but also people in desperate need all around the world. All the countries in the EU have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and therefore stand behind its principles. As the world biggest economic power the EU is fully capable of doing so. The Union is wealthy enough that it can take in the extra migrants that would occur as a result of taking in women from countries where they face discriminatory legislation.  The European Union’s international image is not based on its military might but upon its economy and on being upstanding in its promotion of a human rights agenda. Granting asylum to women that live under discriminatory legal system reinforces this image of being concerned for human rights. The European Union has signed up to the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by which signatories “agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women” while the convention is calling for the elimination of discrimination internally it is fully in the spirit of the convention to undertake actions that encourage others to fulfill the Convention. By being willing to grant asylum to women from countries that have not lived up to the standards of the convention – which includes “To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women” – the European Union will put pressure on these regimes, helping to highlight their unequal systems.  ‘Article 2’, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN Women, 1979,

negative: teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission The objectivity of SATs does not matter to individual students, many of whom are discriminated against by the tests. Subjective factors can be comparative if students’ backgrounds are taken into account. By contrast, the SAT, by its very use and existence, legitimizes its results as an “objective” measure of ability and capacity, which in turn legitimizes schools in discriminating against the vast majority of poor students who do worse on the exam, even if it helps a few out on an individual level. It would be much better to offer preferences in admission to poorer students than to legitimize discrimination.  Subjective criteria can also be successful in determining how successful someone will be in university. In a 1972 study by psychologist Jonathan R. Warre it was found that “Motivation was the quality most frequently cited by over 3400 college teachers” when asked what it takes to succeed in college. [1] Motivation cannot be objectively measured.  [1] Elert, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 1992

negative: This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community  Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy.  One of the most powerful weapons in the international community’s arsenal is the soft power of condemnation. One of the most important things the international community can do is use its weight and influence to advocate protection of vulnerable peoples and promote moral and social causes. The West with its immense wealth and importance in international institutions such as the United Nations have a lot of power when it comes to influencing discriminatory policies in other nations. Granting asylum to people on the basis of sexual orientation sends a clear message to the international community that it is not okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the West not only strongly disapproves of this behaviour, but that, more importantly, they will take active steps to counter-act your discriminatory policies. This has immense impact on pressuring governments to change their policies.  What is important to note here is that there is a gradual normative consensus that is manufactured under this system. Through the use of soft power, the policies of nations are slowly but surely moderated and a global consensus is created. Not only can this policy influence current state behaviour, but that the influence and change that creates becomes part of a larger global move towards universal acceptance of the norm and the diffusion of that idea throughout all strata of society.  This is important in two ways:  Creating a discourse centred on a universal consensus against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore making discourse be dominated by agreement with this principle and thus creating a dialogue that creates an accepting atmosphere through disseminating the norm of acceptance throughout the international community and global society.  This is important is forging international legal protections for the rights of the LGBT community. International law arrives from a consensus of opinion around a particular issue and its need to be legislated on. Making sexual orientation grounds for asylum creates the framework that explicitly states that legislative international protection is necessary for these groups. This policy therefore begins that process in and of itself. However, more importantly, the reduction of opposition and trend of nations removing discriminatory laws against sexual orientation consolidates this statement of legislative need and furthers the cause for international protection.  Making sexual orientation a category for asylum not only saves lives, but also sends a strong and influential message that helps craft policy in nations who use discrimination as a tool of oppression against the LGBT community. This begins the foundations of global consensus on equality for all sexual orientations and a lasting solution to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

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

negative: It is no more just that an individual's family benefit from a monopoly over an idea, than the individual who created it. There remains no inherent right to an idea. As for the sale of patents and licenses, firms will waste precious resources in fighting amongst each other for monopoly control over intellectual property, and will even buy the rights to products with no intention of using them, planning simply to prevent any competitors from doing so. The most efficient system is to have ideas be public and accessible and usable by everyone. When they are, more innovation will occur.

negative: A minimalist state enables a fairer and more competitive economy.  Romney believes the best way to improve society is not to spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on inefficient government programs, but rather to tax citizens less and allow free-market innovation to improve the quality of life in America. Low taxes are necessary to stimulate innovation and the growth of business because people and businesses are self-interested; they will only invest when they believe they will get the profits from their investment and lowering taxes mean that they will get more of the profit from their investment.[1] At the same time government is a poor manager of the economy because small numbers of people cannot calculate all the effects of central planning and the impact it will have on individuals choices, essentially the market is simply too complex for the government to master so the best option is to reduce government interference as much as possible.[2] For this reason, Romney’s policy preference of lower taxes is coupled with a proposal to cut spending on a wide range of social programs.  Romney also outright rejects the idea of “redistribution” of wealth [3], believing it is unfair to those who have worked hard to build businesses and establish their own well-being. The protection of private property is central to the American political system, and taking from one group of citizens to give to another violates the right of private property. [4] In addition to being unfair, it is impractical, as it creates a disincentive for business people to further increase their wealth by working and investing in businesses that would grow the economy and create more jobs.[5]  [1] Thurow, Lester C., “Profits”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty,   [2] "Friedrich August Hayek." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2nd ed., 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty.   [3] Becker, Kyle: “Mitt Romney: We believe in free markets and free people, not wealth “redistribution””, Independent Journal Review, September 19 2012,   [4] Dorn, James A.: “Ending Tax Socialism” September 16 1996,  , accessed 8/10/2012  [5] Li, Wenli & Satre, Pierre-Daniel: “Growth Effects of Progressive Taxes”, US Federal Reserve, November 2001,

negative: asia global house would re engage myanmar This argument is not a defence of the government in Myanmar. Making it a question of who is pointing fingers itself politicizes a principled stance against an undoubtedly unjust system. The US and the EU have been consistent in their criticism of the military-controlled government and in their principled support for pro-democracy activists in Myanmar. This is in line with their stated positions on human rights and democracy across the world – with political allies or enemies - and in accordance with international treaties that they are signatories to. They have long voiced concerns over human rights violations in China and India, for instance. Only because their moral position may not have been as influential in relation to certain countries, or that it has been diplomatically unfeasible to take stronger positions in certain circumstances due to global power relations, it does not mean they should not take such a position in the case of Myanmar as well.1  1 Schmahmann, David, The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar) Vanderbilt journal of transnational law. March 1997, vol 30, no 2.

negative: Recognition when credit is due  The past few years have seen African governments, and heads of state, reluctant to leave office; driving political coups; and leading violent crimes against humanity. Mugabe, Kabila, and Kenyatta are but a few articulating the years of sustained bad governance. The prize is only awarded when credit is due - if leaders have made a significant positive impact this will be recognised and rewarded. The prize is therefore for absolute gains in governance, not relative to other countries.  As the prize is not always awarded it avoids the pitfall that distributing a financial prize where no change has been made to political institutions would reinforce a system. The state would continue to function on undemocratic governance, and the reward would become a new example of dead money [1] . Instead it encourages improved control over aid and money transferred to African states, it shows that rewards are given based on merit. The Mo Ibrahim prize therefore encourages the good institutions that are necessary for prosperity (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2013).  [1] See further readings: Moyo, 2009.

negative: The problem with this approach is twofold; firstly it means that because of an implicit threat of force the majority have had their rights subordinated to the preferences of a minority. Regardless of the context of how this happens, this kind of precedent is always the first step on the road to tyranny. Secondly it is a recipe for social stagnation; if the state acts to prevent anyone from encountering views that they disagree with or might find disturbing then their view will never change and the state will find itself forever trapped in a paradigm of conflict and stagnation.


query: In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants  Historically, efforts to declare English the official language tend to come up when certain elements in the American body politic become threatened. It became an issue in the First World War, when resentment rose against German immigrants, and the present movement, though nominally not signalling anyone out, is clearly aimed at Hispanics.  This can be inferred from the fact that they are by far the largest non-English linguistic group in the country, and on occasion such views have been let slip, as the leader of one of the largest lobbying groups for a National Language did.[1]  Even if such legislation is not aimed specifically at Hispanics, everyone will assume that it is, and many Hispanics will nevertheless believe that they are the intended targets.  The practical result of this will be the alienation of the Hispanic population as many Hispanics see themselves under attack, which will cause many Hispanics to concentrate together, undermining many of the arguments for assimilation the government has made.  Furthermore, to the extent it stigmatizes Spanish speakers as the ‘other’, it may well encourage bullying against Hispanic students, and discrimination against those who can’t speak English, who are a far larger group than those who chose not to speak it.  [1] ‘English Only Movement FAQ File’, Mass. English Plus,

positive: culture general education education general house would make english official It may well be that some people backing the push to make English the official language have questionable motives, but the movement should be evaluated based on its results.  Right now Hispanics are already stigmatized, whether on one hand as temporary labourers unable to speak English and therefore destined for the worst jobs, or as an invading horde planning to conquer the United States.  For better or worse, the self-segregation of the community reinforces many of these beliefs, while it also prevents their kids from learning English. If this policy helps to break this self-segregation up, and the children of Hispanic Immigrants become as American as the children of German immigrants became in the early 20th century then their opportunities will be greatly increased.

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official Avoids self-segregation  In a time when the US has begun to overcome racial segregation, and legal discrimination in other fields, one of the great challenges it faces is self-segregation.  Linguistic diversity worsens these problems because it inevitably leads to self-segregation. All things being equal, and even if they are not, people like to be around people they can communicate with.  This was not a huge problem in years past when most immigrant groups were small enough to be easily swallowed, and too small to maintain their linguistic unity, but the Hispanic population in the United States has grown at such a rate, that it is possible to get by with Spanish in many major US cities. Restaurants, businesses and services all exist which cater to it, and there is an entire industry of Spanish language television available.  This in turn makes the risk of social balkanization much stronger. While a small minority of people may learn new languages because they want to, the vast majority learn them when they have to – and if individuals can get by without doing so, it’s likely that they will not. Rather than assimilation, you will have a divergence between the linguistic minority and the majority.

negative: This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.  This policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result.  It is no secret that the idea of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses is a very unpopular idea. In New York, for example, 70% of the electorate is against this policy [1] . Looking to California, not only are drivers licenses out of the question, but in 1994 the state passed a bill denying illegals access to welfare, healthcare and education by a 59% margin [2] . Resentment for the community is high and it is undeniable that this policy will be wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans.  The issue with Americans being unhappy with this policy is that they will channel their unhappiness toward all immigrant communities and the Hispanic community more generally. The concept of driver’s licenses especially fuels this hatred because Americans believe that this will allow them to “masquerade” as normal Americans and therefore will assume all Hispanics are these illegals that are masquerading as legal immigrants in their communities. This will only engender more hate and discrimination against these communities.  Therefore, this will seriously harm the Hispanic-American community by fuelling hatred against them in the American majority.  [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.   [2] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.

negative: This idea is rather flawed if you decide to take into consideration the whole aspect of one’s life. This just kicks the communication problem down the road when it needs to be dealt with early rather than essentially discouraging the child from learning the language until they have to get a job.  It is also in many cases likely to be wrong; the child will already have started learning the language of the country in which they are living. Even if the father and the mother are only able to talk their first language, kids go to nursery school or have child minders because their parents have to work. A perfect example would be the one of Mexicans in the United States. Two-thirds of Mexican-origin Hispanics ages 5 and older speak English proficiently. More than that, about nine-in-then native-born Mexicans speak English proficiently. [1] The whole idea of parents not being able to talk the local language might be true for first generation immigrants, but not for others. Even when the grasp of the language is less than perfect school is the obvious place to learn it.  [1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013,

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language  Almost no one in the United States knows English, but then chooses not to use it to make some sort of political statement. The language is far too omnipresent in the economy, culture, and everyday life to make such a choice attractive or even sane.  Nor do people generally choose not to learn English. The advantages and opportunities it opens up, and the stigmas and discrimination facing non-English speakers mean that learning English is one of the first things any immigrant is going to try and do.  In reality therefore we are going to be talking about people who can’t speak English, either because they have not learned it yet, or because they can’t learn it. Perhaps they don’t have the time between working two jobs, or perhaps they find it difficult.  In any case, if this policy is simply symbolic it will stigmatize these people. If it goes further, it will actively make their lives worse, and perhaps make it even harder for them to learn English.

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official Bilingual education hurts students  Bilingual education segregates students in its system from those outside it. This limits the opportunities for interaction.  This is harmful in a number of ways. For one thing, it limits their interaction with peers who will speak English. While it’s possible they may practice English with their friends in a bilingual school, it seems unlikely, as it would be easier to talk in the existing language.  Furthermore, it also limits the exposure of English-speaking students to immigrants who don’t speak English, allowing negative stereotypes to arise out of ignorance that then can influence governmental policy through the ballot box.  Finally, this segregation may extend to within bilingual schools themselves, since not everyone seeking bilingual education has the same non-English language. The result might well be that students would group socially into groups based on country of origin, and due to simple demographics this would place the Spanish-speaking students at a significant advantage as there are nearly 30 million of them in the country. This polarization in turn could lead to splits between minority language groups that could reduce their overall social capital.

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language  From its very founding, English was the common language of the United States, and full participation in the national life was dependent on the ability to speak it. Theodore Roosevelt himself once noted that "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans ” [1]  Declaring English as the official language will give legal force to this history, and help provide unity to Americans at a time when many come from different backgrounds and hold different political views.  Furthermore, it will help immigrants with the process of assimilation. Rather than simply learning English for pragmatic reasons, the act of learning English will tie immigrants into a political and historical tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson.  [1] Opposing Views, ‘Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society’, 2010,

negative: The simple premise of this argument is wrong. Immigrants are not discriminated by the fact that they don’t know the language. Discrimination is much more often a matter of skin color, religion and social background. Mexicans in the United States, at least American citizens of Mexican origins know very well how to speak English but they are still discriminated by the majority population. This shows in the unemployment statistics. In 2011, while the rate of unemployment for Whites was 7.9%, the jobless rate was 11.5% for Hispanics. [1]  The link between language and low skilled jobs is also open to question. Immigrants are not finding these jobs because they don’t speak the native language but because these are the jobs the natives don’t want. There is a demand for labor that the native population will not fulfill. Less fussy migrants however are more willing. These are also likely to be the jobs that the migrants have done in the past if coming from less developed countries so they have the relevant skillset. On the other hand where the migrant is skilled they will go into a job that suits those skills.  [1] ‘Labour Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity, 2011’, U.S. Bureau of Labor, August 2012,

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official The segregation of students in this case is not a function of their language skills, but of their lack thereof. Simply placing non-English speakers in a normal school will not suddenly make them friends with everyone, especially if they cannot communicate. If there are other speakers of their language, they will likely form a separate social group with those students, speaking their home language among themselves, which will undermine efforts to teach them English. At the same time they will likely do poorly in school as they will struggle to comprehend the content of their classes. [1]  If other ESL students don’t exist, they will likely become socially isolated, with all the negative results this can potentially lead to such as depression or even in extreme cases suicide.  [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009,

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official English is the de facto official language of the United States already and that is not under threat at this time. There is no prospect of it being replaced with Swahili and of children three generations in the future being unable to read the declaration of independence.  As a consequence the major impacts of this move will be symbolic. First of all, it will enshrine and endorse the idea that the true Americans were the first Americans, that the English colonists who arrived on the continent speaking the language already were the only real Americans, and that everyone who arrived later is an American by integration.  Not only is this untrue – the Dutch settled New York [1] – but it also places a stigma on that integration. By tying American identity to the British colony the United States was rather than the ideals the nation was founded on, the government would adopting an exclusive definition that in some ways goes against those ideals, including for instance, the inclusion in the US constitution that anyone born within the territory of the United States would automatically be a citizen.  [1] New Netherlands Project, ‘New Amsterdam’,

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official This policy does not stigmatize people who cannot speak English. It rather affirms the hard work of those who have. There are numerous stories of how proud immigrants have been to take their citizenship test, and by strengthening the idea of identity it makes it more meaningful.  Secondly, if money is redirected from bilingual education to providing individual tutoring, it may well help individuals who have trouble learning English in a class environment. It has never been suggested that the government has no role to play in helping people learn English.

negative: Minorities deserve linguistic rights  Everyone should have the right to communicate in their own mother tongue so enabling them to maintain their roots with their mother country. In a world of change, where people are able to move their residence from a country to another country, protecting minority rights becomes necessary. Some migrations are historically and economically driven, take place over decades, and involve large numbers. For example, an estimated 33.7 million Hispanics of Mexican origin live in the United States, with 11.4 million immigrants born in Mexico, accounting for almost 3.5% of the US population [1] . In Europe, a lot of migration there have been successive waves of migration, as a result of World War II, the end of empires, economic boom and the European Union. To take Germany first there was an influx from lands Germany lost as a result of the war, of Turks to help power the economic miracle meaning that now more that 2.6 million Turks live in Germany [2] , and recently there has been an influx from Eastern and Southern Europe as Germany’s economy has held up in the Economic crisis. Each wave, or group of immigrants, forms a distinct community within their host nation. There is no reason why these groups should be forced to entirely give up their old identity as they embrace a new identity as a part of their host nation. Just as every human has rights so does every immigrant. Part of these rights should be education in the mother tongue. Language is what connects people and makes them able to communicate their feelings, emotions and ideas. A person should be able to communicate and express ideas in its own mother tongue in order to be able to create a connection with their family and the immigrant community that they live in.  [1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013,   [2] The Economist, ‘Two unamalgamated worlds’, 3 April 2008,

negative: If the EU ‘elects’ a single working language, it will be deliberately contributing to the narrow-minded, anglicising of the entire world, despite being a union of diverse cultures with the power to fight it.  A “single working language” implies English, a global language, and already one of the two key EU languages, the other being the lesser understood French. That English could be the default language worries the French where they fear the rise of what the French call anglosnoberrie ; the anglicising of the world at the expense of other languages including French.  The EU would become one more example of English dominating the world at the expense of the many cultures and languages of Europe. This is indeed an extremely hypocritical stance to take, when the EU is a body that seeks to strengthen intercultural activity and give all the cultures within it a voice. This cannot be done when the overwhelming majority- twenty-six- of the languages, ‘voices’, of the Member States are silenced and only one is given a platform on which to speak.

negative: The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience, including the examples listed. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50 states, but its 80 percent proficiency rate dwarfs Puerto Rico’s. The deeply rooted preference for Spanish makes Puerto Rico’s 1993 elevation of English to “co-official” status practically irrelevant. Authentic “official English” policies increase English learning, but they will not work when English is merely an add-on to a pre-existing official language that is spoken in 95 percent of homes. [1]  [1] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.

negative: English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood  Some have made the argument that Puerto Rico should not be a state because Puerto Ricans do not speak English, and that the US should not have a non-English speaking state. This argument does not hold up for the following reasons: English is already an official language on the island with the same status as Spanish. Puerto Ricans are already citizens of the U.S., and have been since1917. [1] There was no language requirement with the granting of citizenship then, so it makes no sense to ask this question now. In fact, there has never been a language requirement of territories entering the union in American history. English is a required subject in public schools through high school. English is the only language of the Federal Court system and all U.S. government agencies in Puerto Rico and is the common language in banking, commerce, real estate and the tourism industry. Learning English as well as Spanish just makes good sense. English is the international language of business, science, and increasingly, diplomacy. Puerto Rico should do all it can to increase English language capability. But, making it a requirement of statehood would ignore the precedents of Enabling Acts of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona, all of which similarly had issues of large non-English speaking populations and gave or give these other languages some official status in law. [2]  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.  [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official The US has a long tradition of multiple languages  There is a long historical tradition in the United States to which different languages contributed. Most Americans do not have ancestors who arrived from England prior to 1776, and even among the colonists before independence there were Frenchman, Dutch, Swedes, Scots and Irish. [1] The languages of these early immigrants remain, for example Cajun, an offshoot of French remains a de facto official language in Louisiana. [2]  The historical importance of Native American languages or of the immigrants who came in and contributed so much is also ignored. All of these groups are stigmatized and their contributions ignored.  The descendants of most of the groups listed above speak English today, so the issue is not an ease of access one. It is however one of historical justice and giving full recognition to the full-range of contributors to American history.  [1] ‘Ethnic Composition of the Thirteen Colonies, 1750’, teacher’s Brunch,   [2] Melancon, Megan, ‘Cajun English’, PBS,

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official Bilingual Education is expensive and encourages balkanization  One of the goals of the government in providing education is to prepare students for success in the work place, and therefore the government has an obligation to spend its money in the most efficient way possible to accomplish this.  This is relevant because Bilingual education is expensive, requiring the hiring of bilingual teachers, the organization of bilingual classes, and the acquisition of bilingual curriculum materials. [1]  These costs might be justified if they actually helped students. But the reality is that they do not. For one thing, they allow students to get by without learning English. One of the great obstacles to learning a new language is the fact that parents of students may well speak another language at home. If students suddenly use that language at school as well, they will spend the vast majority of their day speaking a language other than English, with the consequence that they may not pick it up at all, and find themselves at a large disadvantage when they attempt to join the workforce.  As a consequence, it seems likely that the money could be better used subsidizing tutoring for students learning English than running an entirely separate and parallel educational system.  [1] Rossell, Christine, ‘Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas’, Texas Public Policy Foundation, September 2009,

negative: The idea that immigrants that are part of large groups are not able to conserve their language and culture without the help of the foreign state is flawed.  First of all, on the broadest level large immigrant groups come from countries with big population and their culture or language is not in danger of any kind. Just to take a couple of examples, Turkey has almost a 76 million population, while Mexico has a population of almost 120 million.  Secondly, there is no clear link between education in the mother tongue and the willingness of the people to conserve their own culture. Those who are educated in the language of the culture in which they are living are just as likely to be interested about their roots and culture as those in their mother tongue.  Thirdly while there may be a link between language and thought does this extend on to culture; are Japanese unable to enjoy and take part in Taiko drumming if they don’t speak the language as well as the language of their host nation? Only in a few areas, like literature is it vital and if someone is interested in the literature of their mother country they will learn the language as a part of that interest.  Finally this assumes that all immigrants should desire to preserve their own culture rather than partake in the culture of the country to which they have migrated. Integration is the best solution. In order to achieve integration for large immigrant groups you need to convince them to be opened towards your national culture and language and not make them learn in their mother tongue.

negative: politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries  It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants.  This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence.  Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%. [1]  [1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015,

negative: While it is undeniable that at the moment English is the most used international language this is not a reason to be complacent. Just because English is currently dominant does not mean it will remain so. In the 18th, 19th and into the 20th Centuries French was the international language and before that Latin was in Europe. It is as likely that the dominance of the English language will decline as that it will continue to increase. Students should be taught other languages to take advantage of changes that may occur within their lifetimes.

negative: If it is true that people cannot easily get jobs in the developed world for lack of language skills then there will surely still be a pressure to learn the language or languages of international discourse. What this policy offers is access by a much wider audience to the various benefits that expanded academic knowledge can offer. It will expand the developing world's knowledge base and not in any way diminish the desire to learn English and other dominant languages. It should be remembered that it is not just academics that use academic papers; students do as well, as do professionals in everyday life. Clearly there cannot be an expectation that everyone learns English to be able to access research. While there may be fewer languages in academic use there is not such a narrowing of language for everyone else.

negative: The EU ought to make English its working language in order to be a more transparent democracy for the rest of the world.  If the EU uses the global language of English as its working language, other governments, parliaments and Unions will be able to understand its activities and methods of operation. 27% of the world’s population speak English. In the EU Member States alone, there are 61, 850,000 native English speakers and 168,000,000 non- native speakers of English. [1] It is a medium that could reach so many people and through which the EU can influence other governments to take similar positive action. So many of the world’s large problems stem from a lack of communication. War is often the result of two sides being unable to communicate and mediate, and so violence is resorted to. It is often described as ‘the only language the enemy understands’ because of a failure to work out differences in a non-violent way. When fighting breaks out, it brings with it all manner of other issues such as famine and trauma. English is a global language and the EU should use this to its advantage. The EU brings democracy and should serve as a great example thereof for the rest of the world. Populations of all other countries need to be able to understand the EU’s activity and the way to operate a democracy as demonstrated by the EU, and the way to achieve this is for the EU to use the global language of English so as to render transparent the running of a democracy, so that it can spread. If the EU can communicate its good ideas successfully, it can influence other organisations, providing them with the antidotes to their own problems.  [1] Wikipedia, List of countries by English-speaking population, en.wikipedia.org

negative: The state has indeed certain obligations towards the immigrant groups both to individuals and if they represent a large part of the population to the group. Once you leave your country, you are no longer under the legislation of the country. You decide to sign a new social contract with the country that you emigrated to and therefore you are under their jurisdiction, obliged to respect their laws. Minority rights are respected in the sense that immigrants are not obliged to use the local language everywhere and at any time. You are still able to use your mother tongue language to talk to your family, your foreign friends and other people from the same country. These are the fundamentals and there are cases where linguistic rights are not respected, where the minority population is forbidden to talk or write in their mother tongue. This was the case if Turkey which forbade Kurds to speak their native language until 1991. [1] While these rights should be respected there is not ‘right’ for the state to provide, or subsidize, education in languages that are not the official language of the state. If large minority groups wish to provide such education that is their prerogative.  [1] Akreyi, Minhaj, ‘19th Century mentality in 21st Century: Kurdish language still banned in Turkey’, Alliance for Kurdish Rights, 12 March 2011,

negative: The use of English does not mean Anglo-snobbery; that is a prejudice against Anglophones. The two EU official languages are English and French. If the EU were to adopt a single WORKING language, in all likelihood it would be English, but this is not to be seen as Westminster snobbery. English is not directly synonymous with Britain. It is also the official language of the former British colonies such as America, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and is, to a large extent, a global language. Britain itself is a very Eurosceptic nation, and so the use of its official language cannot logically be taken as British rule over the EU. However, all the more Europhile countries should not feel unfairly treated in using this language to communicate; if all these pro-EU countries communicate through English i.e. a global language that is not their own, they are less likely to show any extreme bias toward their own country and culture. Embracing English, a foreign method of communication, means that in the EU debating chamber, a Member State’s arguments will not be contaminated by the connotations held within their mother tongue, and the ideas cemented within that culture. As explained by Laurence Venuti in The Translation Studies Reader, “deficiency of the receiving code has to do with…such things as individuality…and geographical origin of the speakers”. [1] Eradicating individuality reduces bias and deficiency of expression.  [1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.344

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official Even within the United States people speak English differently  Even within the United States people speak many different dialects. From Boston to New York to the rural South, accents and diversity within the English language express the exact same types of historical, cultural, and even political traditions that those pushing English find so horrifying if made in another language.  It would be hard to set a standard for what is English, and ignore the fact that Americans have long used linguistic differences as a sign of identity. It therefore makes no sense to try to paper over these linguistic differences by imposing English as an official language; rather the diversity of languages and dialects should be celebrated.

negative: The language barrier and Puerto Rican identity  Puerto Rico should not become an American state because linguistic and cultural differences continue to divide the other 50 states and Puerto Rico. This would mean that Puerto Rico would either fit incongruously into the union, or it would lose its distinct cultural identity. Historically the US administrations of Puerto Rico have pursued 'Americanization' campaigns there, focusing especially around imposing the use of the English language and casting aside 'old values'. This policy was deeply resented and strongly resisted by most Puerto Ricans, and it failed. Thus, after 91 years of intimate association, Puerto Rico remains a separate cultural nationality. [1] [2]  Furthermore in terms of national identity, Puerto Rico joining the US would result in it losing the semi-independent (or at least distinct) identity which it currently has in the eyes of much of the world. To name but two examples, Puerto would no longer have its own representative in the Miss Universe Pageant (which Puerto Rico has actually won on three occasions) and they would not be recognized as an individual nation in the Olympic games, as it currently is. These international representations would be curbed under statehood, as Puerto Rico would be required to participate in the same manner as the other 50 states, and to compete to represent the United States collectively, and not Puerto Rico individually, in these international events. [3]  Changing language policies would also undermine Puerto Rican culture: the territories that became Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (who all had large and historically rooted non-English-speaking populations) were all admitted to the union by congressional enabling acts that required that “schools shall always be conducted in English” in order to ensure assimilation. [4] This would likely also be the case with Puerto Rico, and could undermine the access of future generations of Puerto Ricans to their Hispanic heritage and culture, subsuming it within the overpowering tide of English-speaking American culture. Thus the Puerto Rican people are highly independent and have immense pride in their district and rich Latin culture and Spanish language, and they should not be deprived of that culture, which statehood would arguably contribute towards.  [1] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011.  [2] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.  [3] Essortment. “Puerto Rican Statehood, the An overview of the pros and cons”. Essortment.com.  [4] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.

negative: The premise that states that second generation immigrants lack incentive to learn the local language is flawed. Although they might choose to learn in their mother tongue, they will still have a big incentive to learn the local language. Learning the language of the country in which they live will provide to them more opportunities and better integration. Those who find they don’t know the language will take courses to learn the language of the country in which they reside. Most certainly, their friends will not only be from their own community so they will feel obliged to talk German, or English or French. The example of Papua simply shows this is the case; promoting a national language is not incompatible with learning in another language.

negative: Actively promoting mother-tongue education for immigrants that are part of a large group will create a segregated society in which people are not able to communicate and relate one to another. Integration will be harder to achieve in these conditions - the state may gain some goodwill from the concession but it is unlikely to last. The difficulty in communicating with the state, even for everyday tasks such a doctor’s appointment, will surely sour relations more. Different languages create a segregated society in which foreigners are not able to integrate.  Secondly, diplomacy and trade matters have no connection with the way immigrants are treated on a minor issue like this. Those immigrants who want to trade and promote links between their old home and their new one will continue to do so regardless.

negative: Britain is the country of Euroscepticism, and its official language is English. For English to be the medium, the mouthpiece for the EU communications is wholly wrong.  English, the language which would likely be selected as the single European language, is also the language of Euroscepticism, as perfectly demonstrated by the British press. Anderson and Weymouth explain in Insulting the public?: The British Press and the European Union, ”Even those aspects of Euroscepticism which are perceived to be founded on less mythical stuff, such as the economic arguments against the single currency, get a better coverage than any arguments in favour.” [1] Right-wing tabloids publish very anti-Europe articles, scapegoating the German Parliament, the Bundestag, for what they see as the depletion of Britain’s say in her own politics, and using vocabulary with WW2 undertones. Even The Times, the UK paper of record, has voiced highly anti-Europe sentiments. It is through such articles and press coverage as this that the derogatory term Europrat has been coined.  For English, the language of Euroscepticism, to be the official and single working language of the EU is unthinkable; it is ironic at best and ridiculous at worst.  [1] Anderson, P.J, and Antony Weymouth. Insulting the Public? The British Press and the European Union. London: Longman, 1999.

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official Bilingual education is exactly that – bilingual. Students do not simply abandon the English language – they intensively study it. The only bilingual classes are provided in other fields such as math and science - subjects critical for future employment to ensure they do not fall top far behind.  On the contrary, while immersion may teach English better, there is a lot of evidence that it tends to increase drop-out rates substantially, [1] indicating that for a number of students it is in fact less effective since it is hard to learn anything in school if you don’t attend.  Even those who don’t drop out tend to fall substantially behind, hurting their educational efforts, and undermining their position in the workplace. A mathematician or scientist does not need perfect English – they do need good grades in other courses.  [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009,

negative: Separation would create animosity towards immigrants and non-Christians.  Currently, we already see problems in the UK with extremist groups blaming immigrants and non-Christian religious groups for pretty much everything from unemployment among whites to a lack of patriotism. Completely separating the church and the state could be seen as a move made due to political correctness and/or to try not to offend immigrants or those from non-Christian religious backgrounds.  This would be providing ammunition to extremist groups, as well as inspiring people who do not share these views to sympathise with them. This would be extremely harmful to the groups who are perceived as responsible for this change. [1]  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.

negative: culture general education education general house would make english official England today owes much to Roman settlers, and for nearly four centuries it was governed by a French speaking nobility – yet this is not a reason for Britain to have either French or Latin as official languages.  The fact is that we can recognize that all Americans today speak English, while also recognizing that their parents, grandparents, and great-grand-parents may not have. In fact that is exactly what making English the official language will recognize, the role English has played in bringing people together and creating a national identity by making these people Americans.

negative: The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is an impossible task to start with, so if this policy is adopted and fails in its execution, this will lead to a greater loss of trust in the government. If immigration policies focus more on the integration of illegal immigrants, this will have a more beneficial effect than criminalizing them. Marking illegal immigrants as criminals that have to leave the country as soon as possible will actually incite more conflict between migrants and populists.


query: The New START treaty sets a bad approach for a changing world  New START reduces US deterrence in world that is arming, not disarming. The United States has relied on deterrence for sixty years and as a result has prevented war between the great powers. A US drawdown, especially as other new powers are arming, will undermine deterrence. This will then encourage rivals to try to catch the United States while the reductions show that the United States is in decline. [1]  While proponents of reducing nuclear weapons, or reaching global zero, argue that possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states is the incentive behind proliferation, this is not true. The US has consistently taken leadership in the reduction of nuclear arms through treaties but this has so far had no effect in encouraging other nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals and indeed new powers have joined the club. Reducing nuclear arms through New START will therefore not encourage others to stop pursuing nukes. The U.S. should not be taking steps towards disarmament without all nuclear weapons states, including those not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, also being involved. [2]  New START also fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack. The treaty fails to recognize that deterrence is no longer simply between the U.S. and Russia and that the whole policy should no longer be based on just against strategic attacks on the United States or very close allies. Instead it is much more critical to deal with nuclear policy towards ‘rogue’ states and rising powers. [3]  Finally, the US should not set a precedent that it will sacrifice its own interests to bribe Russia over issues like Iran. As the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) argues: “we are told that the real purpose of New START is to create a stronger U.S.-Russia bond in a broader international effort to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a justification is wrong. Iran's nuclear ambitions are no secret; neither are Russia’s past efforts in aiding that program. We seriously question whether Russia is serious about stopping Iran, with or without New START. There is no reason why the United States should be required to sacrifice its own defense capabilities to inspire Russia to a greater degree of diplomatic fortitude. If Russia is indeed concerned with a nuclear-armed Iran to its immediate south, it should need no extra incentive to take the action necessary to stop it." [4] If the U.S. bribes Russia over Iran China might expect to get similar treatment over North Korea. New START puts the US in a disadvantaged position in a changing world, and consequently should not be supported.  [1] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Ibid.  [4] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.

positive: onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1]  If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.

negative: Russian and US economic interests conflict  Good economic relations are possible only as long as long as The USA believes that Russia is genuinely trying hard to bring its economy into line with the Western world. Both Putin and Medvedev have emphasised that the country’s economic interests will always determine Russian foreign policy. Most particularly foreign policy has been driven by oil and natural gas. This has involved a conflict with the United States over the construction of pipelines. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) gas pipelines are specifically built to diversify European energy supplies away from dependence on Russia but were only built due to unequivocal US support. [1] Building these pipelines is directly against Russian interests. Russian economic interests include, amongst other things, close trade links with autocratic regimes, particularly in the former USSR, and exporting weapons and nuclear technology to China and Iran. In the example of Iran Russian economic interests have meant that Russia has blocked US efforts to get sanctions. [2] An area of particular conflict with the US is the Russian building of an $800million nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Similarly Russia sold Iran $1.7 billion of arms between 2002 and 2005 including anti-aircraft systems so making any potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States much more dangerous. [3] Thus, close economic cooperation between two states whose economies are driven by very different goals is improbable.  [1] ‘Pipeline politics? Russia and the EU’s battle for energy’, EurActive.com, 20/8/09,  accessed 6/5/11  [2] Tony Karon, ‘Iran Diplomacy: Why Russia and China Won’t Play Ball’, Time, 22/3/06,  accessed 6/5/11  [3] Mark N. Katz, ‘Russian-Iranian Relations: Functional Dysfunction’, Mideast Monitor, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2009,  accessed 6/5/11

negative: Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2]  On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presidential Chief of staff, suggested in 2008 that Iran is a friend of all peoples including Israelis. [3]  Furthermore, Iran needs Israel to provide a bogeyman they can use to divide their anti-Iranian governments from their anti-Israeli people. Anti-Israel sentiment has allowed Iran to push anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world to the backburner, something that would disappear along with Israel if Iran were to act on these ideas.  [1] Bronner, Ethan, ‘Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?’, The New York Times, 11 June 2006,   [2] BBC News, ‘Iran leader Khamenei brands US ‘nuclear criminal’, 17 April 2010,   [3] Cohen, Dudi, ‘Iranian VP: We are friends of the nation in Israel’, ynetnews.com, 19 July 2008,

negative: The West needs to deal with Russia  Western countries should seek to compromise with Russia, as they need its cooperation in a whole range of areas. Global efforts against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security and organised crime will all fail without Russian participation. Russia’s veto power on the United Nations Security Council also means that alienating Moscow could frustrate international efforts to bring security and freedom to states such as Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Iraq. In particular the west needs Russian help in Syria; the UNSC has only been able to get humanitarian resolutions on the country when Russia has been cooperative. [1] And NATO depends on Russian goodwill to allow supplies into Afghanistan via the safer northern route, [2] cooperation that is likely to be withdrawn if Georgia and Ukraine remain candidates for membership.  [1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014,   [2] Cullison, Alan, ‘Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes’, The Telegraph, 28 November 2011,

negative: Russian and US strategic interests conflict  Contradictions between Russian and U.S. interests will always exist. The United States is not Russia's ally, and it can be confidently predicted that it never will be. While politically the two countries sometimes temporarily need each other to face global challenges, as long as it does not harm them politically or economically, militarily they will remain positioned as strategic enemies. NATO is a good example of this. While the United States believes NATO brings peace and stability Russia feels directly threatened by NATO expansion into states that were once a part of the Soviet Union such as the Baltic states or the possibility of expansion to Ukraine or Georgia. [1] There have even been suggestions that Russia’s 2008 conflict with Georgia was to prevent Georgia proceeding down the path to NATO membership with US encouragement. A view partially substantiated by President Putin himself “it has become absolutely clear that the desire of Georgian authorities to join NATO is motivated not by their ambition to form part of a global security system and contribute to the strengthening of international peace. Tbilisi's NATO bid is determined by other considerations, namely an attempt to embroil other nations in its bloody undertakings… from a legal point of view, Russia's actions in South Ossetia are totally legitimate.” [2] As a result America's relations with Russia will never resemble its relations with France or Great Britain. U.S. strategic nuclear planning will always envisage a potential Russian nuclear attack on targets on American territory. Likewise, Russian planners will not rule out an American attack on Russian targets.  [1] Neuger, James G., and Alison, Sebastian, ‘Putin Says NATO Expansion Is Direct Threat to Russia (Update 2)’, Bloomberg, 4 April 2008,   [2] President Putting quoted in ‘South Ossetia – The Stakes’, globalsecurity.org,  accessed 27/4/11