query: The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.  It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen.

positive: political philosophy house believes civil liberties should be sacrificed The issue would indeed by easy to solve if what the proposition spoke of was the whole story. Unfortunately, the legal measures put in place will always be open to abuse and so, as all power corrupts – and as absolute power corrupts absolutely – the more and more power we give to the authorities the more and more abuse and corruption we will witness. We have seen what happens with big, powerful governments; this is a historical rule, without exception.

negative: Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security  Many who are pro guns argue that it would be illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them. Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved in an arms race with criminals to have the biggest guns; just look at the British police force where there is little gun crime and few shootings of police officers it is not felt that there is the need to have police armed with more than a taser or even truncheon. [1] Put simply a ban on assault weapons can help reverse the arms race between police and criminals.  Civil liberties would also be enhanced as law enforcement agencies would not need to devote so many resources into monitoring assault weapons purchases and those who have done the purchasing. Instead they would be able to simply target all assault weapons purchases as needing immediate attention. [2]  Finally we must remember that this ban enhances the highest liberty at all; life. Today as Justice Breyer says “gun possession presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives” than not having a gun. [3]  [1] Keating, Ruth, ‘This House would arm the police’, Peter Squires ed., Debatabase, 2011,   [2] Matthews, Jake, ‘For Lives and Liberty: Banning Assault Weapons in America’, Harvard University Institute of Politics, 2012,   [3] Masters, Brian, ‘America’s deadly obsession with guns’, The Telegraph, 16 December 2012,

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

negative: The image of the European Union, even on human rights, does not result from how they treat the foreign citizens of some distant country but more on how they treat their own citizens. As with any nation or union of countries the EU’s primary responsibility is to fulfill its duties towards its own citizens. More than that, the social balance and economic stability are much more important factors in the European Union’s image abroad than how the union is treating women in faraway countries. So if we decide to talk about image, granting asylum will not improve nor damage the unions. On the other hand, its duty is to protect the European citizens and many things can still be done in this direction. There is no reason in wanting to help people abroad when you can do so much for your own.

negative: To not promote the truth of events is contrary to the duty, and to the right of free speech, of a responsible media  The media has two jobs; first, it has a duty to report on what people care about, and second, it has a duty to report on things that seriously influence society. Muzzling the media’s ability to disseminate information by preventing reporting on violent crimes can only do harm to society. The media has a fundamental duty to report on anything that may influence the lives of the citizens it reaches. This is particularly true of the state-run media, which is meant to be free of political influence and is not as dependent upon ad revenues and thus not as prone to sensationalist reporting. Beyond its duty to inform, the media, like all bodies and individuals in society have a right to freedom of speech. This must extend to the right to report on things that are ugly and that frighten people. It is better that people be informed of the truth by a free media and be terrified than to leave people without knowledge of the real seriousness of criminality. Fundamentally, the right to freedom of speech and of expression must be protected. If the media should give way on the issue of violent crimes it loses all credibility as a genuine font of truth. [1] To protect the basic rights of citizens, the right of the media to report on violent crimes must be upheld.  [1] PUCL Bulletin. “Freedom of the Press”. People’s Union for Civil Liberties. July 1982.

negative: First elections are not just a retrospective vote on how the government did, it is also about what political parties want to do. Yes a few elction promises get dropped but the vast majority stick to their promises because they know that not doing so will result in them losing the next election. It is simply not true that representative democracy is oppressive. If people aren’t happy with the way the government is using its power they can vote for a candidate who promises to undo what the previous government has done, or they can even enter politics themselves. The people can always take back powers that they don’t want the government to have by forming and supporting a party or a lobby specifically for that purpose. The reason why this hasn’t happened yet is that most people are happy with the representative system and do not feel like their liberty is being violated.

negative: Sanctions make clear where a country stands.  Sanctions send a strong message to the people of a country that the Western world is on their side and will not just remain compliant by dealing with an oppressive regime as if it has done nothing wrong. Part of what encourages peoples to stand up for their civil liberties is a feeling of support against their regime from outside actors. True reform needs to come from pressure within and outside of the state as it did in South Africa. The only way to incentivize internal pressure is by expressing support for civilian movements. In the case of the repressive government in Myanmar, the lifting of sanctions would be viewed as a betrayal by the Myanmarese and would reverse any progress that sanctions have helped to achieve. The leader of the opposition movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, in Myanmar has called for a continuation of sanctions, and in an act of support the US has complied1. Therefore sanctions can be an important signal of support to a country's people, which makes them more likely to stand up to their government and create the necessary internal pressure for reform. 1 Colvin, Jake and Cox, Simon (2007), "Are Economic Sanctions Good Foreign Policy?", Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 10, 2011].

negative: The right to privacy counterbalances the state's obligation to ban sadomasochistic sex  y the proposition, those who want to engage in violent sexual activities will do so, irrespective of laws to the contrary. Without undermining core liberal concepts of privacy and freedom of association, the state will be unable to regulate private sexual interaction. This being the case, when is violent activity most likely to be detected and prosecuted under the status quo? When such acts become too visible, too public or too risky. When the bonds of trust and consent that (as the proposition has agreed) are so vital to a sadomasochistic relationship break down.  Liberal principles of privacy and autonomy allow individuals to engage in consensual activities that may fall outside established boundaries of social acceptance. In this way individual liberty is satisfied, while the risk of others being exposed to harmful externalities is limited. In the words of the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore, “the law can only ever be a piecemeal intervention in the life of society” [i] .  The prosecution of a large and organized community of sadomasochistic homosexual men in the English criminal case of R v Brown was in part motivated by the distribution of video footage of their activities [ii] . Doubts were also raised at trial as to whether or not some of the relationships within the group were entirely free of coercion. Their activities had become too public, and the bond of consent between the sadistic and masochistic partners too attenuated for the group to remain concealed.  Individuals break the law, in minor and significant ways, all the time. Due to the legal protection of private life, due to an absence of coercion, due to a consensual relationship between a “perpetrator” and a “victim”, such breaches go entirely undetected. The general right to privacy balances out the obligation placed on the state to ensure that individuals who encounter abuse and exploitation within sadomasochistic relationships can be protected.  The protection afforded by privacy incentivizes individuals engaged in S&M activities to ensure that they follow the highest standards of safety and caution. Arguably, where “victims” have consented to being injured, but have then been forced to seek medical treatment due to their partner’s incompetence or lack of restraint, complaints to the police by doctors and nurses have helped to identify and halt reckless, negligent or dangerous sadomasochistic behavior.  Correctly and safely conducted, a sadomasochistic relationship need never enter the public domain, and need never be at risk of prosecution. However, without the existence of legal sanctions the state will have no power to intervene in high-risk or coercive S&M partnerships.  [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006  [ii] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31

negative: Military recruitment in schools is illegal  Recruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A set of rules that the USA signed up to in 2002 forbids the recruitment of children under the age of 181. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union has found that US military recruiters target children as young as 11, visiting their classrooms and making unfair promises to them2. Though the military would argue that its school visits do not constitute recruitment, if recruitment of those under 18 is wrong, then advertising to those under 18 should similarly be considered wrong. In order to live up to its pledge in 2002, the USA should stop trying to recruit in schools. 1 United Nations General Assembly . (2000, May 25). Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: 2 American Civil Liberties Union. (2008, May 13). Military recruitment practices violate international standards, says ACLU. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from American Civil Liberties Union:

negative: The military can only be held to account if there is transparency  States have militaries to protect themselves creating a paradox that “The very institution created to protect the polity is given sufficient power to become a threat to the polity.” [1] The Military is a powerful institution even in a stable democracy like Israel, it needs to be held to account because it is the institution within a state that has most capability to use force if it wishes. An unaccountable military is a military that is much more likely to engage in coups and other anti-democratic actions. Israel is an unusual case in the west in that it has allowed the boundaries separating government, military and society to become blurred leading to worries of military influence on policy. [2] None the less most of the time we can trust the government to hold the military to account however the only sure guarantee is for everyone to have access to all information that have a very low risk of resulting in lives lost; designs of weapon systems, current deployments or planning for current and future missions.  This transparency should of course be from the top down with the military giving out this information freely as the military is in a position to know what information is still current and may result in lives being lost. However if the military refuses to be transparent on crimes committed then there is a need for individuals to provide that transparency themselves. Cases like Anat Kamm’s which punish attempts by soldiers to call their superiors to account are therefore damaging as it shows that the officers will not be brought to justice but the leaker will be punished. [3] This actively encourages the military to believe it is above the law and is not accountable to the people.  [1] Peter Feaver quoted in Norton, Augustus Richard, and Alfoneh, Ali, ‘The Study of Civil-Military Relations and Civil-Society in the Middle East and North Africa’, in Carsten Jensen (ed.), Developments in Civil-Military relations in the Middle East, pp.7-28, p.7  [2] Weinraub, Alan, ‘The evolution of istaeli civil-military relations: domestic enablers and the quest for security’, Naval Postgraduate College, December 2009.  [3] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.

negative: healthcare deny organs non donors The right to access healthcare is absolute  Healthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death. The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}. While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated. What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent. The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t. To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government.

negative: Trans fats are uniquely unhealthy  One of the purposes of government is identify possible threats to health and protect the people from these threats. The fact that some government regulations seem 'silly' or misplaced, or cannot easily be understood by lay-people is not a compelling argument for having no regulations at all, or for not having regulations in the case of trans fat. The commentators who denounce the 'nanny state' do not indicate what, if any, regulations or styles of regulation they approve of. Do they think there should be no inspections of restaurants by health inspectors? No regulation at all of food or drug safety by the Food and Drug Administration? Some commentators think that people should be encouraged to study the dangers of trans fats and make their own judgements about what to eat. But people have limited time to do research on such matters. It makes sense to delegate the research to a central authority, so that instead of 300 million people trying to learn about trans fats and every other lurking menace, a handful of experts can make recommendations based on the likely responses and desires of the average, informed citizen.  Non-specialists’ capacity to absorb information on complex chemical and biological subjects is quite limited. The majority of us are reliant on the research of others for most of what we know.(5) The opinion of the experts on the dangers of trans fats is conclusive: trans fats are unsafe.  The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers all uses of trans fats to be 'generally regarded as safe.' This allows the use of trans fats in whatever way food producers desire. ’Safe’ for the FDA means 'a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use', which no longer applies to trans fats. This 'generally regarded as safe' status should be revoked which in turn would greatly restrict its use in food.  The other option would be to allow local jurisdictions to regulate trans fats, but this would be more costly and lead to a patchwork of regulations.(1) The most effective method of controlling the use of trans-fats is through centralised, nationally applicable policy making. The poor and young are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects of trans fats; at the very least, the threat posed to these groups justifies the use of informed regulation. Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health said in 2010: "There are great differences in the amount of trans-fats consumed by different people and we are particularly concerned about young people and those with little disposable income who eat a lot of this type of food. This is a major health inequalities issue.”(6)  The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harms that they are not best placed to understand or avoid themselves, and so a ban on trans fats would not only save lives but would also be legitimate under the government's role to protect when citizens cannot reasonably protect themselves.

negative: The free market is morally superior because it operates on liberty  Liberty is one of the highest values human beings strive for. Liberty means that individuals ‘own’ themselves: individuals only decide for themselves what to do with their minds and bodies during their lifetime. Private property is an extension of this, because private property comes about by undertaking an activity with one’s own body or mind: when I pluck apples from a wild apple tree, they become my property through me using my own body to do the plucking. Similarly, free exchange is an extension of this, because it only comes about if both parties perceive the exchange to be beneficial to them: I will only sell the apples I plucked if I get more value in exchange than the value that continued possession of the apples gives me.  Free markets are the only system of allocating goods and wealth in society that relies on these basic notions of liberty to operate. If someone becomes rich in a free market, then that came about through free exchange: this person has provided so many goods and services of value to other people, that they gave him or her great wealth in return.  Compare this to the government redistributing wealth: that would require the government appropriating part of someone’s income via taxes. That income is private property. Appropriating private property, not voluntary exchange, amounts to theft, which means that taxes are a form of theft and therefore a significant harm to individual liberty. Free markets don’t harm liberty like this, which is why they are morally superior.

negative: Banning flag burning effectively bans questioning of what it represents, and thus bans questioning of the widely held values of the United States  When an individual's views are particularly opposed and contrary to those the national flag is customarily considered to embody, there can be no more valuable way of showing opposition. Should views be judged outdated or in error, people must have a way of showing it in a visceral way that will gain attention and spark discourse. Conventional patriotic views deserve to be challenged, if only to be reaffirmed by the public in the ensuing debate. The problem with prohibiting the act of flag burning is that it necessarily sends the message of banning discourse on the subject of what the flag represents1. It makes those values inviolable, but a free society should be able to question and change its values. Banning flag burning thus essentially bans dissent from the prevailing view. Yet banning something on the basis of majority opinion and their easily offended sensibilities is little more than a heckler's charter. If views are banned simply because the majority disagrees with them, it is little more than the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and thus clearly unjust2. The very reason there are checks and balances in the United States government is to prevent such tyranny. This is exactly why the Supreme Court has stood against the laws passed by the federal and state legislatures banning desecration of the flag; they protect the rights of citizens with a minority opinion from the majority seeking them away3. Flag burning is a form of free speech that helps people question what the United States should be. Banning it only serves to corrupt society.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. London: Penguin Classics (1982). 3Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

negative: Freedom from government intrusion  One of the most important pillars on which every single western liberal democracy has been founded is freedom. Allowing the government to be able to track and monitor individuals through mobile or internet connections is against everything we, as a western society, stand for.  First of all, it is undisputable that liberty and freedom are indispensable to our society. Every single individual should and must be the master of his own life, he should have the capacity of controlling how much the government or other individuals know about him, the right to private life being the main argument in this dispute.  Secondly, it is clear that phone and internet tracking potentially allow the government to know almost everything about you. Most phones have a GPS incorporated and a lot can be deduced about ones habits by the photos or updates on his social network profile. One who knows all of another’s travels, can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups, basically about every activity you have in your life. Remember this data is extremely precise, as your cell phone sends your location back to cell phone towers every seven seconds—whether you are using your phone or not—potentially giving the authorities a virtual map of where you are 24/7.  Finally, we, as individuals, created this artificial structure, i.e the state, to protect our human rights, but also to protect us from each other. We admitted that some rights can be taken away if there is serious concern about the security of other people. Therefore, it is absolutely normal to allow the government to track and follow certain individuals who are believed to have taken part in criminal activities, but there is no ground on which you can violate the right to privacy of a law-abiding citizen, especially if we are talking about such an intrusive policy. If we did so, it would come as a direct contradiction with the very purpose the state was created.

negative: Special pleading  Why are religious creeds given special license to block others freedom of expression? We live in a world of laws, supported by evidence on the basis of what can be perceived in the world around us. This applies in the fields of politics, law, science and others. Only when it comes to religion (and, possibly national identity) do we tolerate arguments made on the basis of unproven belief. There is of course a role for fantasy in life but protests as a result of people pointing out that it is fantasy seems to be taking things a little far.  Nobody appears to be suggesting that the film Innocence of Muslims was anything more than a badly made, ill-conceived, puerile bit of adolescent vitriol. By any reasonable scale it pales into insignificance compared with, for example, blowing up embassies or issuing death threats against foreign nationals [i] .  Were politicians to take action to urge the blocking of free speech on the rather more significant reasons for offence of misrepresentation of scientific data, libel, corruption of legal evidence or the, absolutely routine, misrepresentation of a political position, as President Obama did when calling Google, [ii] they would be written off as a lunatic. However, dress the idea up in a cassock and everyone seems to think that there is a meaningful issue to be discussed. There is no definable difference between saying something inaccurate or (in this case) impolitic about Nero, Plato, Sejong, Al’Khwarizmi or any other historical figure than about Christ, Mohammed or Moses other than the fact that the followers of the last three are more likely to resort to violence. Since when did that become a moral argument?  [i] Bermuda Sun. Obama on Religion. 28 September 2012.  [ii] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Conservatives, Democrats and the convenience of denouncing free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012,

negative: All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy  Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. While some people may think their politicians owe them a special duty and thus have to give up certain privileges like privacy, the covenant between citizen and representative cannot be justified on such stringent grounds. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. If this was justification for scrutiny into the private lives of elected officials then why should it not also be justification for intrusion into the private lives of unelected civil servants? Both these groups are doing a job for the public, but undertraining this job does not give the public the authority to intrude into their privacy beyond questions about whether they are qualified for the job. The duty of an elected politician is not so special as to demand an abrogation of his or her ability to enjoy a private life. If a right is to have meaning, it must apply to everyone with a semblance of equality. Making politicians fair game for reporters only serves to undermine the rights all citizens enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.

negative: government house believes governance united states should be split between two Existing checks and balances  Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this.  Firstly, the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution means that the executive is unable to do much without the consent of Congress, meaning that the President would need the support of his/her party in the legislature to do what (s)he wants in government.  Within Congress, the governing party would still face oversight from Departmental Committees that scrutinises its work and unless the governing party can get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators in the Upper House, then a degree of negotiation would be required.  Finally, the nominally non-partisan Supreme Court can strike down laws seen to violate the terms of the Constitution. Together these bodies are able to constrain single-party government to prevent it from abusing its power.

negative: Restrictions benefit the health of third parties  This argument is built on the premise that a ban or higher taxation in practice will lead to less smokers, especially protecting the families of smokers and other non-smoking citizens from potential health risks and premature death.  Smoking also has wider effects, not simply restricted to smokers themselves. So-called 'passive smoking' is becoming an important issue: in a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Especially when it comes to homes and families there is a high likelihood of "passive smoking". Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. Recent research even shows, that according to the Journal Archives of Pediatrics, children living in households of smokers are more prone to mental illness, depression and attention deficit disorder (ADHD)1.  So because restrictions on smoking prevent harm risks to families of smokers and third parties we should highly regulate or ban them.  1 Anits M. Schimizzi, 'Special Editorial: Smoke Signals How Second Hand Smoke Can Impact Your Child's Mental Health, Child-Psych, 10 August 2011, accessed 6 September 2011

negative: Politicians will simply ignore how we vote  Even if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had not even faced the electorate. Moreover political parties do not seem to feel that they are tied to their own manifestos. In the United States Obama promised to close Guantanamo yet it is still open. [1] In the UK the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto they would not raise tuition fees for UK Universities yet this is exactly what they did when they got into government. [2]  [1] Negrin, Matt, ‘Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises’, ABC News, 3 July 2012, also follow our Securing Liberty blog for updates on Guantanamo Bay and other civil liberties issues:  [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Senior Lib Dems apologise over tuition fees pledge’, BBC News, 20 September 2012

negative: ‘It will come out eventually’  Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history. That does, of course, raise the issue of who writes the final draft. On the basis that historians still argue about the events of centuries and millennia ago, the notion of a final draft may be absurd; however conclusions will be drawn at some point. Politicians trying to hold back historical judgement is a little like trying to hold back the tide, even if the facts are not all available the void will be filled with speculation to explain the gap.  Ultimately information will emerge and will be assessed. The question seems to be when that should take place. Those states that make use of a ‘thirty year rule’ or something similar to protect particular documents such as cabinet minutes do so to allow the free exchange of ideas in the present. [i] Such a length of time seems sufficient to let politicians and civil servants operate without endlessly focussing on their legacies.  However, beyond that trying to control the assessment of history seems to be an exercise in futility. Even the deepest, darkest secrets tend to be extrapolated when they’re not demonstrated. Imprisoning historians and banning things only tends to confirm the view that they were right and there is something damning being hidden. Ultimately, it’s self-defeating.  [i] BBC News, ‘Secret papers face faster release’, 29 January 2009,

negative: If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.  The primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it. Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen.  Knowing that accounts of discussions, records of payments, agreements with commercial bodies or other areas that might be of interest to citizens will be published with no recourse to ‘national security’ or ‘commercial sensitivity’ is likely to prevent abuses before they happen but will certainly ensure that they are discovered after the event [i] .  The publication of documents, in both Washington and London, relating to the build-up to war in Iraq is a prime example of where both governments used every available excuse to cover up the fact that that the advice they had been given showed that either they were misguided or had been deliberately lying [ii] . A presumption of publication would have prevented either of those from determining a matter of vital interest to the peoples of the UK, the US and, of course, Iraq. All three of those groups would have had access to the information were there a presumption of publication.  [i] The Public’s Right To Know. Article 19 Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression.  [ii] Whatreallyhappened.com has an overview of this an example of how politicians were misguided – wilfully or otherwise can be found in: Defector admits to lies that triggered the Iraq War. Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd. The Guardian. 15 February 2011.

negative: political philosophy house believes civil liberties should be sacrificed It impedes economic progress.  Extra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade [1] , make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers. [2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth.  [1] Verrue, Robert, ‘Tighter Security Must Not Slow Down World Trade’, The European institute, Spring 2004,   [2] McCartney, Scott, ‘Aiming to Balance Security and Convenience’, Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2011,  , accessed 9 September 2011

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Trust goes two ways; the people have to trust that on some issues, such as security, the government is doing the right thing to protect them even when it cannot release all relevant information. But even if the military and security services do claim to be completely transparent then how is everyone to know that it really is being as transparent as they say? Unfortunately there are information asymmetry’s between members of the public and the government; the member of the public is unlikely to have the capability to find out if the government if hiding something from them. [1] Other countries too are likely to be suspicious of ‘complete transparency’ and simply believe that this is cover for doing something more nefarious. Trust then cannot only about being transparent in everything.  [1] Stiglitz, Joseph, ‘Transparency in Government’, in Roumeen Islam, The right to tell: the roll of the mass media in economic development, World Bank Publications, 2002, p.28

negative: global house believes united nations has failed The United Nations is no more corrupt than any large organisation, much less national governments, and far more transparent than many comparable institutions.  It is true that the Human Rights Council contains some nations with bad records on civil liberties but it is surely better to engage with such regimes and shame them into slowly improving their human rights standards, than simply excluding them from UN organs and losing any influence over how they treat their citizens.

negative: Decriminalisation will protect practitioners of sadomasochism  The criminalisation of S&M removes legal protection from individuals who suffer an abuse of consent while submitting to sadistic practices. Where a dominant partner ignores safe words or pushes a session too far, the criminal status of S&M may lead to a victim being prosecuted alongside a perpetrator. Alternately, victims may be disincentivised from approaching the police altogether.  Although it is not possible to be prosecuted for being the victim of a crime, individuals who are harmed during sadomasochistic sex many not be able to engage in a rational assessment of their own criminal liability. Even though laws against sadomasochistic acts pin liability only on the sadistic partner, they also serve to criminalize the act itself. Victims of abuses of consent may therefore become wary of informing the police that they have participated in such activity, for fear that they will be publicly stigmatized or subjected to police investigation themselves.  The only time S&M can be problematic is when someone does not listen to their partner when they withdraw their consent and ask for the session to end. Individuals will not stop engaging in S&M simply because the state says so, but victims of over-aggressive partners will lose recourse or protection under the law if they try to approach the police about such an incident. Where an S&M session goes awry, victims of an abuse of consent will have to admit to engaging in a criminal act. In the same way prostitutes have no real protection from assault and rape due to the criminality of their acts, victims of assault and rape in S&M are no longer protected.  The opposition may attempt to claim that there will be a clear distinction between a sadistic “criminal” and a submissive “victim” whenever a complaint is raised. This is not true. Many sadomasochistic relationships are based around fluctuating and interchangeable roles. Both partners may engage in sadistic acts at different times.

negative: The involvement of CSOs promotes good governance practices  Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that ‘good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development’ [1] . It is therefore impossible to ignore the claim that CSOs involvement in political life is crucial to promote good governance practices. Civil Society is able to create additional pressure on the government to ensure good governance, as well as to contribute ideas about what good governance practices should entail in the specific local context, and to ‘bridge the gap between the law and its actual implementation’( Zivanovic, 2007). “Good governance in Africa is ultimately going to come from civil society in the countries themselves”, declared Jendayi Frazer, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs [2] . An article in The Guardian shows how CSO’s can help: ‘In the Ileje district of southern Tanzania, expectant mothers about to give birth had to cross a crocodile-infested river into Malawi because a local medical centre did not have enough money to pay for a midwife.  It took a campaign by civil society organisations and citizens to uncover that there was money available, but that it had somehow been diverted’ [3] . CSOs involvement ultimately permitted the solution of the issue.  [1] Kofi Annan, Partnerships for Global Community: Annual Report on the Work of the Organisation (UN, 1998)  [2] Cannon, H. Brevy, (4 May 2009), ‘Diplomat: Civil Society Is Key To Good Governance in Africa’, UVA Today  [3] Kilonzo, Semkae, (30 September 2013) ‘Tanzania has shown how civil society can contribute to economic justice’, theguardian.com

negative: This would be a very risky course to take; currently there is 51% support for independence and that could as well go up as down when given the opportunity. With both the Spanish and Catalan economies in crisis it is likely that such a referendum would only be bolstered by anger at the government due to the state of the economy. This might therefore be an option for Spain at some point in the future when the economy is back on its feet and so less of an issue but at the moment it would be waving goodbye to Spain as we know it.

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international The ICC is a force for good, and the all states should be seen to be standing fully behind it.  The International Criminal Court is a major breakthrough in providing a permanent and durable system that can effectively prosecute and independently try war criminals.  In the past there was no permanent framework for dealing with grave breaches of human rights protection, often allowing states to perform evil acts with impunity. Only for the very worst atrocities were special courts and tribunals set up. It should also act as a deterrent to future violations; it may not reduce conflict but will encourage states to keep a tighter rein on their militaries.  An attempt at a solution to the problem of enforcement of international criminal law is something to be applauded, for the same reason the criminal law on the domestic sphere is – it saves lives, protects human rights and provides civilization to what would otherwise be anarchy.

negative: The arguments regarding the loss of Puerto Rican culture under statehood do not stand up because Puerto Rican identity is strong and will continue to be so. Puerto Rico has been exposed to U.S. mainland cultures for over 100 years, and Puerto Rican culture and heritage has thrived and grown. Puerto Ricans and mainland citizens have moved freely between the island and the mainland with no resulting cultural dilution or weakening of Puerto Rican's strong identity, even with the large migrations of the 1930's, the 1950's and since then. There is no reason to believe this would change under statehood. Puerto Rico has adopted and adapted aspects of U.S. culture, just as we have incorporated much of Puerto Rican culture when exposed to it. Puerto Ricans, while citizens, in much the same way as Texans and others view themselves, are still Puerto Ricans despite the more than 100 years of the deep and strong relationship with the mainland United States. [1]  [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.

negative: Mandatory health insurance is analogous to constitutional mandates  Federal mandates are a cornerstone of the American legal system and the everyday life of every American. As Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Iowa's attorney general Tom Miller, argued in 2010: "We live under mandates every day. Without them, society as we know it would disintegrate. Every criminal law tells us what we cannot do. And sometimes the law tells us what we must do. Congress can require young Americans to register for the draft to serve in the military, for example, or can require us all to pay taxes for programs like Social Security and Medicare. We can- and do- argue about what shape these laws should take, without claiming that our leaders are constitutionally barred from dealing with our most pressing problems."(16)  Car insurance is mandatory, so why not health insurance too? If the government requires that individuals buy car insurance, why should it not also be allowed to require that individuals buy health insurance? Some say that there is no mandate to buy car insurance because if you don't want to buy that car insurance, you simply don't have to drive. Yet, for the majority of families and workers, driving is a necessity and not a choice. So, the mandate on drivers to buy insurance is, therefore, directly analogous to a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance.  Medicare tax also sets an important justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.(12)  It is significant here that there is no fundamental right to go without insurance under the Constitution; no core constitutional rights are violated by the individual mandate. Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive, alongside treatment that they might not be able to consent to (by reason of infirmity), but that doctors and hospitals may be ethically obliged to provide.  The “liberties” that are modified by the individual mandate are purely economic and have none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that are normally used to invoke Constitutional protection.  In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.(11) This means that the healthcare mandate is no different to the many other mandates the federal government imposes on the American people to support the general welfare, and as such should be upheld as constitutional.

negative: addiction healthcare international africa house believes ghanas ban smoking public Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK 1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere.  Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries.  1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every individual's right to political self determination (as explained in Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms.


query: Possibility of being drawn into a long drawn out conflict  Even just providing the rebels with arms risks drawing the powers that supply those arms into the conflict. [1] This is because it gives the intervening power a stake in the conflict. Once weapons have been supplied allowing the Syrian government to reassert control would be a large foreign policy reversal and would damage relations with the Syrian government for years to come.  We need only look at the Vietnam conflict to know that what starts out as a very small commitment can rapidly escalate when the government decides it cannot afford to back down. What starts as just arming the rebels could quickly lead to troops on the ground. Indeed it might require men on the ground right from the start as if we were to be providing heavy weapons the rebels would need training in how to use those weapons if they are to seriously be considered an equaliser.  [1] Byman, Daniel, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

positive: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels The strategic situation in Syria is nothing like that which meant the US felt it could not withdraw from Vietnam. There is no line of 'dominos' that could be knocked over in a row as a result of a victory by the Syrian government. Far from it, some of Syria's neighbours like Jordan may be strengthened by a government victory as it would halt the momentum of protest against rulers in the region. There is also no large scale outside power that would take advantage of Syrian government victory as was the case with the USSR in the Cold War. In this case such a result would mean a return to the status quo, not something the west would desire, but hardly a strategic disaster so cutting losses if the policy does not work would be comparatively easy.

negative: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels We cannot know whether this policy will work until it is tried. The Free Syrian Army has been remarkably successful so far capturing large swathes of the country and taking the fight to the regime in the capital Damascus. [1] With more sophisticated weaponry to naturalise the tanks, warplanes, helicopters of the regime the Free Syrians may well be able to finish the job.  [1] BBC News, ‘Syria: Mapping the insurgency’, 4 December 2012

negative: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels This makes the assumption that the Assad government is considered the legitimate authority within Syria, the Russians accept this, but other countries are less sure. Both the US and UK now recognise the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people [1] which would mean arming them would be legal in the same way that the Russians consider arming Assad to be internationally legal.  [1] Malas, Nour, and Solomon, Jay, ‘U.S. Formally Recognizes Syria’s Main Rebel Group’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 December 2012

negative: Unlikely to make any progress  Weapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.” [1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns. [2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found.  [1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013,   [2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013,

negative: The Taliban are not the only regime in the world to have sheltered terrorists – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea are all viewed by the USA’s State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Indeed, although the Taliban provide shelter for terrorist groups to train, the other states could be seen to go further, by actively initiating and funding terrorism. Moreover, given that Russia and the Central Asian former soviet states have been opposed to the Taliban from the start, and backed the Northern Alliance against it in the Afghan civil war, it is hardly surprising that the Taliban backed their own rebel movements. It could also be asked whether rebels in Chechnya, Kosovo and China should be seen as terrorists or freedom fighters.  The opposition cannot be expecting the proposition to defend the reinstatement of the pseudo-religious-extremist-fundamentalist Taliban regime. We are in fact calling for exactly the opposite: Please the Taliban by negotiating with them on the coalition's terms not theirs and avert the old form of Taliban rule in the region. If the coalition leaves without any talks whatsoever then an extremist Taliban takeover of both Pakistan and Afghanistan is a distinct possibility. If the coalition leaves after buying the Taliban out while imposing conditions imperative to human rights and western values (including respect for other ethnic/religious/ideological groups). Then we have a chance for peace. To claim that aggressively fighting on the ground will end racial conflict when 9 years of fighting have only exacerbated these problems; is rather ignorant. It entails learning nothing at all from history/past-mistakes. If this kind of warfare which the Taliban are much better at; continues the war will be lost. If instead as the wonderful Obama has suggested we resort to peaceful talks this time directly with the Taliban, then we have a chance of winning.

negative: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels Public opinion is not the decider of what is right and wrong in foreign policy; people are rarely in favour of any kind of action in a volatile international situation. Had public opinion been the decider the allies would have rolled over and let Poland be taken in World War II.

negative: The intervention backfired.  NATO’S action increased the conflict’s duration about a six fold and the death toll at least sevenfold, but also increasing human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, and weapon proliferation in Libya and neighbouring countries [1]. The UN security council approved the resolution for protecting civilians in Libya [2] but NATO just did the opposite. Their operation came at the expense of increasing harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately including those in Sirte who posed no threat to civilians as Sirte remained in government hands right to near the end of the conflict and continued to support the rebels offering them weapons, military training, intelligence and troops on ground [1], even when they rejected cease fire offers from the government that would have helped end the crisis and spare civilians.  [1] Alan, Kuperman, ‘Lessons from Libya; How not to intervene’, harvard.edu September 2013  [2] Robert, winnet and Richard Spencer, ‘UN approves no fly zone as British troops prepare for action’, telegraph.co.uk, 17 March 2011

negative: The Gulf states want to solve the root of the refugee crisis; getting rid of Assad  Gulf countries have been trying to fix the problem politically rather than taking in a few refugees, which would be beneficial to most of the Syrians? The vast majority of Syrians would prefer to go home to a Syria with the civil war over and preferably with Assad gone. The gulf starts, are the main powers working to see this happen. While the US has helped arm some rebel groups the funding for this was provided by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have gone further than the west in terms of providing arms. [1]  [1] Mazzetti, Mark and Apuzzo, Matt, ‘U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels’, The New York Times, 23 January 2016,

negative: Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians.  When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any conflict harming civilians [1]. We don’t know what would have happened had Gaddafi regained control of Benghazi, but it is likely there would have been no bloodbath.  [1] RT news, ‘Gaddafi gaining ground in battle, losing on information front’, rt.com, 11 March 2011

negative: Intervention would be legitimate  If Syria uses, or looks as if it is about to use, chemical weapons then this would be a clear escalation that would require action. Syria has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention [1] but it should be considered to be a part of customary international law so binding even on those who have not signed. [2]  The use of chemical weapons would also clearly be an attempt to cause huge numbers of casualties and large scale suffering. In 2005 with the United Nations World Summit the nations of the world signed up to “If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations.” [3] So any intervention would be fully justifiable, and indeed should occur as Syria would be demonstrating that it is “failing to protect its populations” by using chemical weapons on them. There is no doubt that the world has a moral responsibility to prevent atrocities in Syria, these atrocities are already happening, but the world cannot stand by while the Syrian government escalates their scale through the use of chemical weapons.  [1] ‘Non-Member States’, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,   [2] ‘United States of America Practice Relating to Rule 74. Chemical Weapons’, ICRC, 2013,   [3] Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, United Nations, 2012,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated  Conflict needs to be regulated, and something that can start conflicts even more so. Warfare and conflict is currently regulated by the Geneva Conventions that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of the involved actors. [1] Just as importantly there are rules on what weapons can be used through various treaties that ban weapons such as the Land Mine Ban, [2] and on when a state can legally initiate conflict through the UN Charter.  In just the same way when a new area of potential conflict arises that too must be regulated by treaty. The internet and the threat of cyber-conflict is that new area at the moment. While cyber warfare is not currently a large scale threat it is still a form of conflict that could escalate just like any other - the Pentagon has explicitly stated it could respond militarily to a cyber-attack. [3] As a result it is most sensible to draw up the rules and regulations early, to ensure everyone knows the consequences and prevent damage by making sure that states agree not to engage in offence cyber-attacks against each other.  [1] ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols’, ICRC, 29 October 2010,   [2] ‘Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction’, un.org, 18 September 1997,   [3] Brookes, Adam, ‘US Pentagon to treat cyber-attacks as ‘acts of war’’, BBC News, 1 June 2011,

negative: On this point, there are two main reasons why the AU will actually do a poorer job as far as security in concerned.  First of all, there are no assurances that African countries have the necessary expertize or financial capacity of supporting a well trained and always prepared military force. Only one country has a top military, Egypt,(1), and this is largely because African states cannot support big militaries of their own so how would they additionally support an AU force?  On the other side, we have seen the international community engaging successfully in peacekeeping missions, helping local governments defeat rebel groups. There are currently have 15 UN peacekeeping missions(3) in Africa and French troops are helping to stabilise Mali and the CAR(4).  Moreover, the institutional drawbacks that apply to the UNSC unfortunately apply to AU as well. The AU has 53 members and for an intervention to be accepted they would need a two-thirds approval rate. These alleged military interventions might get stuck in the same institutional gridlock as in the status quo. There even are some cases, like Congo, where other states (Rwanda and Uganda) actively supported anti-government Congolese rebel groups(2).  (1) Global Fire Power   (2) “DR Congo's M23 rebels: Rwandan support 'falling'”, BBC, 5 July 2013   (3) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013,   (4) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, 24 January 2013

negative: The use of chemical weapons would change the Chinese and Russian positions. Syrian officials have been reported as saying they would not use chemical weapons because “We would not commit suicide” as the support from Russia and China would be lost. [1] While China and Russia do have interests in Syria these interests are nothing like those China has in maintaining the North Korean regime.  [1] Blair, Charles P., ‘Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons’, Foreign Policy, 6 December 2012,

negative: defence house would employ mercenaries PMCs have an interest in conflict.  ncreased reliance on mercenaries is destabilising in the long term. It allows invaders and local governments to feel that they can get away with not providing sufficiently trained or numerous security forces because there are men on the ground. It also means that the most influential actors, large multi-national companies, no longer have to pressure governments so hard to provide security guarantees for everyone because they can buy their own. That leaves those without influence or money high and dry. This then leads to a proliferation of armed forces in the country, some working for the central government, others for local governments and some for private individuals and firms. These PMCs are hired provide security and to help create stability yet that is not where their interests lie. If the country returns to stability they are out of a job so it is in their interest to keep an unstable situation unstable to result in more work. (Wennmann, 2008)

negative: Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons  No intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are [1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes might not be enough, the pentagon thinks it would require 75,000 troops to secure the arsenal in the event of Syria’s collapse. [2] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, admits that even if acting before the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government the United States would not be able to stop their use. "The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure," [3] If widespread chemical weapons use had already occurred then the intervention could hardly be to prevent their use in the first place but to punish their use. Responding to the use of chemical weapons would seem to be pointless; the deaths will have occurred already. Syria may have more chemical weapons in its arsenal still to use but an attack would simply make them more likely to use everything they have.  [1] Stares, Paul B., ‘Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria’, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012,   [2] Alexander, Kris, ‘Syria’s Collapse Could be a Chem Weapon Nightmare’, Wired Danger Room, 16 July 2012,   [3] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013,

negative: africa global law human rights international law house believes Peace more important than Justice  In practice, prosecutions often come at the expense of other forms of reconciliation. For instance before Truth and Reconciliation Commissions can work amnesties have to be given for people to be willing to tell their stories. In order for people to put down weapons, or agree to tell stories, prosecutions must be given up.  This is evident with the conflict is South Sudan; the opposition which had signed the ceasefire agreement to restore stability in the region, breached it and started fighting again when many of its members were indicted for the crimes they had committed [1]. In such case the most important thing is to prevent future atrocities as healing can only start when there is no conflict or atrocities going on.  [1] Deustche Welle, ‘South Sudan: Rebels Strike Oil Centre, Breaching Ceasefire’, allafrica.com, 18 February 2014,

negative: 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: This is in fact a good thing. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer between large and small countries. [1] One of the great problems of history for tiny nations like Georgia or the Baltic states is that they have consistently been at the mercy of Russia. Nuclear weapons will allow them to fight the Russians on an equal level, and therefore deter the Russians from intervening as actively as they have in the past.  In the case of Iran and its neighbours, Iran’s position would actually be weakened if everyone in the region acquired nuclear weapons as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain cannot compete with Iran conventionally, but could compete in a nuclear arms race. Wider uptake of nuclear arms would reduce Iran’s power and influence.  Moreover there is little evidence that this domino effect will happen. North Korea detonated its first nuclear weapon in 2006 but there has been no response from other countries in the region even though South Korea and Japan could have rapidly gone for nuclear breakout. [2]  [1] Buchanan, Patrick J., ‘The Great Equalizer’, The American Conservative,   [2] Berganas, John, ‘The Nuclear Domino Myth’, Foreign Affairs, 31 August 2010,

negative: No reaction will embolden the regime  Not responding to Syrian moves to use chemical weapons will be enabling the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. It has already been reported that some chemical weapons are being made ready for use such as the combining of the two chemical precursors, isopropanol and methylphosphony difluoride, needed to weaponize sarin gas. It means that “Physically, they’ve gotten to the point where the can load it up on a plane and drop it”. [1] If there is no response to this then Syria will be more likely to use weapons.  If there is no response to the limited use of chemical weapons, such as the use of Agent 15 in Homs, then there the regime will be encouraged to think that there will be no response to larger uses of chemical weapons. Syria would slowly escalate to see what it can get away with, an escalation that US officials think could “lead to a mass-casualty event” without the appropriate response. [2]  [1] Shachtman, Noah, and Ackerman, Spencer, ‘Exclusive: U.S. Sees Syria Prepping Chemical Weapons for Possible Attack’, Wired Danger Room, 3 December 2012,   [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013,

negative: The Syrian Civil war is far larger than any of the conflicts where the truth and reconciliation model has been implemented. The divisions in society will not be healable through a system of truth and reconciliation – like other atrocities, such as those in Sierra Leone and the Balkans there will need to be a system of criminal trials.  In addition, a South African style truth and reconciliation commission with an amnesty for perpetrators of human rights violations [1] would grant impunity to perpetrators on other sides who have committed some of the gravest atrocities in the 21st century, from cannibalism [2] to the use of chemical weapons. Letting these people remain free would not promote reconciliation it would simply mean Syrians would believe that justice has not been done.  [1] Simpson, G., ‘A Brief Evaluation of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Some lessons for societies in transition.’, The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation’, October 1998,   [2] Muir, Jim, ‘Outrage as Syrian rebel shown ‘eating soldier’s heart’’, BBC News, 14 May 2013,

negative: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored  Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide; [1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” [2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore.  It is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control.  [1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004,   [2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945,

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Prevents a competitor from building a high tech military  The arms ban is very effective in preventing the Chinese military gaining access to the best modern technologies. A convincing code of conduct has yet to be drawn up, but even if it looks very tight, it has a major flaw. Individual EU member states will be able to judge for themselves whether a proposed arms sale breaks the code. Past experience suggests that when exports are at stake, perhaps with the risk of job losses in an election year, then politicians interpret codes like this very loosely, so for example despite this code UK arms exports may have been used in the conflict against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. [1] This will be made worse by the thought of an EU state that if it refuses a particular military sale to China, then another member state will be more flexible. This means that each individual member will make decisions based upon what is best for it individually and not think of what is best for the Union as a whole – such as providing high tech weapons that bring in export dollars but helps undermine security.  [1] Prince, Rosa, ‘UK arms used against civilians in Sri Lanka and Gaza’, 2009.

negative: global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army A UN standing army would still have the same drawbacks as the current model. Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations, irrespective of whether they have been trained together. In the heat of the battle, troops that have grown up in different cultures, speaking different languages will understandably fall back upon what they know. Cultural instincts cannot be retaught or unlearned in a military barracks; they will prove an obstacle to operational effectiveness. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from a particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force? A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to provide it with quality arms and armour. In that case, the UN standing army becomes both another rival in the global balance of power and may drive opposition to the institution itself and its long fight to garner respect.

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.  If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1.  1 Traub, James. "Stepping In", Foreign Policy

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

negative: The international community cant be relied upon  It is clear that Africa cannot rely on the international community to solve its conflicts. In order to be more independent, what the African Union needs is a standing army, which can intervene whenever there is a crisis.  First of all, when looking at statistics, having dipped in the 1990s the number of conflicts is growing once more, the most recent events of Mali and the Algeria serving as a perfect example(1). “following a year (2010) that signalled hope for a more peaceful development, the number of conflicts increased by nearly 20 percent “(4). This has served to demonstrate Africa’s need for a force to engage in peace keeping and peace making.  Despite the growing need for peacekeeping forces, there is reason to believe that the help coming from the international community will be insufficient. The dysfunctional structure of the UNSC, the body which approves all major international interventions. Russia and China, two countries which have a non interventionist approach on foreign policy, have veto power in this body; which means a lot of possible interventions get vetoed. The examples of Syria and Sudan prove the inability of the international community to intervene in crisis situations(2) (3).  (1) “Jihad in the Sahara”, The Economist, Jan 17th 2013,   (2) ‘Genocide in Darfur’, United Human Rights Council, 2013,   (3) Reuters, “Syria Death Toll Tops 115,000, Group Says”, Huffington Post , 1 October 2013,   (4) ‘The number of armed conflicts increased strongly in 2011’, Uppsala Universitet, 13 July 2013,  =

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new 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.

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The nuclear peace theory only holds when all nuclear-armed states behave rationally. This cannot be guaranteed, as rogue states exist whose leaders may not be so rational, and whose governments may not be capable of checking the power of individual, erratic tyrants. Also, international conflicts might well be exacerbated in the event that terrorists or other dissidents acquire nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, leading to greater fear that nuclear weapons will be used. A better situation is one in which nuclear weapons are reduced and ultimately eliminated, rather than increased in number. Furthermore, MAD can break down in some cases, when weapon delivery systems are improved. For example, Pakistan’s military has developed miniaturized nuclear warheads for use against tanks and other hard targets on the Indian border, that will leave little nuclear fallout and thus be more likely to be employed in the event of a border skirmish. This development could well cause escalation in future conflict. [1] In addition to the risk of such smaller weapons is the risk of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, as some countries with nuclear weapons might lack second-strike capability. Clearly, possession of nuclear weapons will not guarantee peace, and if war does occur, it will be far more ghastly than any conventional war.  [1] The Economist. 2011. “The World’s Most Dangerous Border”. The Economist.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression As foreign states are not the legitimate representative of the people it is not legitimate for them to set themselves up as the arbiter for those whom it believes are being deprived of rights. These states that are meddling in the affairs of others cannot know the full consequences of their actions; circumventing censorship could end up simply undermining a stable state without enabling anything to replace it. This is just as the Arab Spring has undermined the Syrian government but has only resulted in a conflict not the creation of a stable democracy. Countries that undermined the Syrian government cannot say that their contribution has been positive when there have been 70,000 killed [1] as a result of the collapse of the state.  [1] Nichols, Michelle, “Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief”, Reuters, 12 February 2013,

negative: It should first be pointed out that all conflicts are unique, products of the political and social settings in which they arise. Geopolitics and foreign policy are not as dependent on precedent as most debaters would like to think.  The main objective of the USA and the UK behind the power sharing deal in Africa is to extract the resources of the African continent. The proposition is basically trying to deceive us with this point. The power sharing deals made by the USA (collaborating with the UK, at times) are all for their own selfish interests. Be it in Africa or Iraq, USA has applied its own vested interest in most cases. Africa is very rich in resources. The US saw all of these and then shared power with the nation just to earn some benefit in utilizing the resources. Furthermore, the United States went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, a greater concern to the USA than that of searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) [1] and taking Saddam Hussein out of power.  The power sharing in Afghanistan and Pakistan would not only to exploit the oil resources but also have a watchful eye towards China, India and Russia.  [1] Aryn Baker, «Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban» , The Time Magazine, July 29, 20,

negative: It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.  If we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.  This leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?  [1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011

negative: eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written in the age of horse and musket, where a private citizen could gain access to the same (or even better) weaponry that the state did.  Unless the opposition want to remove all barriers on gun ownership completely, no armed citizenry can seriously compete with a modern military armed with tanks, drones and precision weaponry. Popular resistance movements rely upon creating an unaffordable political cost to maintaining the occupation (e.g. The US was eventually forced from Vietnam, despite winning virtually every major battle of the war), but this assumes that the occupying power is vulnerable to that kind of pressure. An undemocratic invader or a domestic tyranny will happily slaughter dissidents with impunity (see the pre-intervention stages of the Libyan civil-war and the 2011 Syrian uprising).

negative: The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens.  In a nuclear world, it is impossible to dismiss another nation’s instability as “their problem.” If a government with nuclear weapons collapses, irrational actors (such as ideological terrorist groups) may attain control of such weapons. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy all of humanity- even in the case of a limited conflict. Alexis Madrigal of Wired Science explains, “Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country’s megacities […] Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.” [1] Thus it is impossible for the US to turn a blind eye to conflicts and instability in other regions. Furthermore, the stakes of nuclear fallout are so high that very few chances can be taken. Even if the chance of a conflict ending in nuclear war is very small, the damages that would occur are so great that even small chances cannot be taken. Thus the US military is justified in intervening in international conflicts because such intervention can be decisively linked to the welfare of its citizens.  [1] Madrigal.