query: It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights  Autocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III),   [2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171,   [3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar,  p.54

positive: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance. [1]  [1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011,

negative: Palestinians have a right to return under international law  Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [1] This right clearly applies to the Palestinians, as shown by UN General Assembly Resolution 194: “The General Assembly, Having considered further the situation in Palestine ... Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." [2] This resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms: "the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return." Israel itself accepted Resolution 194 when it was allowed to join the UN on the condition that it accepted this resolution. [3]  Israel's own laws recognise the importance of the 'right of return' to a people in general through the fact that Jews are allowed to emigrate to Israel under Israel's Law of Return, even if their immediate ancestors have not lived in the area in recent years. [4] The fact that, conversely, Palestinian people who grew up in the area and whose immediate ancestors had lived there for many generations are forbidden from returning is thus a huge injustice even from Israel's own legal perspective. Moreover, this right of return applies not just to Palestinians as a group but also individually to all Palestinian refugees themselves. On March 15, 2000, a group of 100 prominent Palestinians from around the world expressed their opinion that the right of return is individual, rather than collective, and that it cannot therefore be reduced or forfeited by any representation on behalf of the Palestinians in any agreement or treaty. They argued that the right to property 'cannot be extinguished by new sovereignty or occupation and does not have a statute of limitation.' [5] Therefore the Palestinian right of return has a clear basis in international law, including in Israel's own law, and so it should be recognised.  [1] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [2] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.   [3] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition.   [4] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [5] Al-Ahram Weekly. "Affirmation of the Palestinian Right of Return". Al-Ahram Weekly Online. 9 - 15 March 2000.

negative: No real 'right of return' exists in international law  Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not guarantee a right of return because the clause "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" was meant to guarantee the right to leave.  According to its legislative history, Article 13 was aimed at governments which imprisoned certain subgroups of their own nationals by preventing them from moving beyond their national borders. According to its sponsor, the mention of a "right to return" was included to assure that "the right to leave a country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the assurance of the right to return. [1] Moreover, Article 13 only guarantees a specific right to return "to his own country". [2] But, the Palestinians who were displaced were never citizens or legal residents of Israel. Therefore, they can have no right of return to Israel. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, furthermore, does not specify a 'right', but rather says refugees "should" be allowed to return. [3] Hence Israel is under no obligation to recognise a 'right', but rather merely to accept that Palestinians have some claim to return or to compensation for not being able to return. This is distinct from a total and inalienable 'right' to do so, regardless of the consequences for Israel. Also, there is no formal mechanism in international law to demand repatriation of refugees and their descendants in general or Palestinians specifically. No international legislation, binding UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this. This is demonstrated by international precedent, especially by the case of the 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, with property losses of $1 billion. [4] Since these refugees were neither compensated nor allowed return—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders or international legal authorities—the international community has accepted this migration of Jews as fait accompli, and thereby set legal precedent in the region against a right of return for Palestinians also.  Finally, most of the inhabitants of the Palestinian refugee camps abroad were not actually alive in either 1948 or 1967, and there is no reason to believe that their descendants automatically inherit any 'right of return' which their ancestors may have held. Therefore Israel should not recognise the Palestinian 'right of return' as no such right really exists under international law.  [1] Dinstein, Yoram. "Israel Yearbook on Human Rights". Volume 16; Volume 1986  [2] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [3] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.   [4] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008.

negative: Healthcare has been recognised as a right  The two crucial dimensions of the topic of introducing universal health care are morality and the affordability.  Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” [1]  Analyzing the text, we see that medical care, in so far, as it provides adequate health and well-being is considered a human right by the international community. In addition, it also states, that this right extends also to periods of unemployment, sickness, disability, and so forth.  Despite this, why should we consider health care a human right? Because health is an essential prerequisite for a functional individual – one that is capable of free expression for instance – and a functional society – one capable of holding elections, not hampered by communicable diseases, to point to just one example.  Universal health care provided by the state to all its citizens is the only form of health care that can provide what is outlined in the Declaration.  In the US the only conditions truly universally covered are medical emergencies. [2] But life without the immediate danger of death hardly constitutes an adequate standard of health and well-being. Additionally, programs such as Medicaid and Medicare do the same, yet again, only for certain parts of the population, not really providing the necessary care for the entire society.  Further, the current system of health care actively removes health insurance from the unemployed, since most (61%) of Americans are insured through their employers – thus not respecting the provision that demands care also in the case of unemployment. [3]  But does insurance equal health care? In a word: yes. Given the incredible cost of modern and sophisticated medical care – a colonoscopy can cost more than 3000 dollars – in practice, those who are not insured are also not treated. [4]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, published 12/10/1948,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [2] Barrett, M., The US Universal Health Care System-Emergency Rooms, published 3/2/2009,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [3] Smith, D., U.S. healthcare law seen aiding employer coverage, published 6/21/2011,  , accessed 9/17/2011  [4] Mantone, J., Even With Insurance, Hospital Stay Can Cost a Million, published 11/29/2007,  , accessed 9/17/2011

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

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgian rule in South Ossetia is historically illegitimate and oppressive  Modern Georgia never really controlled S. Ossetia. South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia shortly after Georgia gained independence from the disintegrating USSR in 1991. South Ossetia has maintained de facto independence ever since. [1] Georgia, therefore, cannot really claim to have had sustained, legitimate sovereign control over South Ossetia in modern times. Even the USSR recognised S. Ossetia as distinct from Georgia, with the Kremlin stating in 1920 that “we consider that Ossetia should have the power it prefers. Georgian intrusion into affairs of Ossetia would be an unjustified intervention into foreign internal affairs”. [2] S. Ossetia was an autonomous region within the USSR. It was not considered part of the same region that is now Georgia, and thus during its years under the USSR, S. Ossetia built up a significant degree of autonomy and independence in its internal functioning. Therefore, Georgia's only real claim to South Ossetia must extend back nearly a century, before the time of the Soviet Union.  This significantly weakens Georgia's claim over South Ossetia, but moreover Georgia's historical claim on South Ossetia is quite weak even in isolation. This is because S. Ossetia has its own distinct language and history to that of Georgia. Ossetian or Ossetic is a member of the Northeastern Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. About 500,000 people speak Ossetian in Ossetia. [3] , [4] That Ossetia has this distinct language is an important fact in favour of its status as a nation-state and in favor of its independence. Georgia, however, has been accused of committing genocide against the South Ossetians in 1920, 1993, and 2008, with tens of thousands of S. Ossetians dying over the course of these conflicts. [5] The Georgian government has also attempted to suppress S. Ossetian culture and identity, for example banning the use of the Ossetian language in official documents and abolishing S. Ossetian autonomy within Georgia. [6] Georgian rule in S. Ossetia is therefore both ahistorical, due to S. Ossetia's long and recognised history of independence and cultural and linguistic distinctness, and illegitimate, as the Georgian government has waged war upon the very lives and identity of the S. Ossetian people.  [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [2] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007.   [3] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [4] Omniglot. “Ossetian”. Omniglot.   [5] Portyakova, Natalya and Sysoyev, Gennady. “Measuring South Ossetia by Kosovo”. Kommersant. 15 November 2006.   [6] Makarkin, Alexei. “How is South Ossetia different from Kosovo?”. RIA Novosti. 9 March 2006.

negative: We should treat animals well  It is important to treat animals as kindly as we can. Not causing harm to others is among the basic human rights. Although these rights cannot be said to apply directly to animals, we should extend them a certain respect as living, sentient beings, and as a minimum we should avoid causing them unnecessary harm. [1] Moreover, taking animal welfare seriously will accustom us to considering the effects of our actions in other contexts, and help us be generally sensitive to cruelty.  Inflicting unnecessary harm on animals is therefore a bad thing. Many governments already have many policies aimed at preventing this. For example, in 2004 the UK passed a law banning hunting with dogs on the grounds that it is cruel. [2] The Council of Europe and through it the European Union already requires stunning, with an exception for religious practices. [3] Removing this exception is the best course for animal welfare.  Killing animals for food may not be philosophically wrong – after all, many species do the same. But if we are going to do so, we should cause as little harm as possible in the process, and this requires using humane slaughter methods.  [1] ‘Why Animal Rights?’, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2013,   [2] ‘Hunting and the law’, Gov.uk, 4 April 2013,   [3] The Member States of the Council of Europe, ‘European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter’, Strasbourg, 10.V.1979,

negative: Ushered in the liberation of Libya.  The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did.  Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation.  After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3].  [1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012  [2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org  [3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013

negative: A Palestinian right of return would destroy the 'Jewish State' in Israel  If all or a large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants were to implement a 'right of return', it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. This amounts to abolishing the Jewish people's right to self-determination, which they hold under the 1993 Vienna Declaration. [1] It would also mean eradicating Israel as a Jewish state, which was the intention behind its foundation. The majority of Israelis find a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable, pointing to this worry that as they become a minority Israel as a Jewish state would be undermined. [2]  Re-enforcing the need for the existence of a Jewish state (as a safe haven for persecuted Jews) is the presence in Israel of 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, to whom the Arab states which expelled them are not willing to offer any 'right of return' of their own. [3] An open letter to the Palestinian leadership published in 2001 by Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and other Israeli intellectuals and peace activists dramatically demonstrated the agreement even among the 'peace camp' in Israel that a total right of return for Palestinians can never be acceptable to the Israeli people: “We shall never be able to agree”, they wrote, “to the return of the refugees to within the borders of Israel. The meaning of such a return would be the elimination of the state of Israel.” Yossi Sarid, chairman of the Meretz Party, stated baldly that “Israel can survive without sovereignty over Temple Mount, but it cannot survive with the right of return. If the Palestinians insist on it, there will be no (peace) agreement.” [4] Thus asking Israel to recognise the Palestinian right of return is tantamount to asking Israel to accept its own destruction as a state, and is thus totally unacceptable.  There are further reasons that recognising the Palestinian right of return would be fundamentally harmful to Israel's welfare, and thus an invalid action. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that rights can be limited by law solely for securing 'due recognition and respect for the rights of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society.' Article 30 states that nothing in the declaration may be interpreted as permitting any state, group, or person to engage in activity aimed at the destruction of any rights or freedoms guaranteed. The 'rights' and 'general welfare' of Israel's Jewish citizens would be endangered if millions of Palestinians who were openly hostile to Israel's existence became a majority. Article 3 of the declaration further states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations". [5] The Palestinian right of return would result in the loss of Israeli sovereignty and its replacement with an Arab-majority state, and the dismantling of Israeli society in favour of an Arab-Muslim dominated society, resulting in the destruction of a UN member state: a violation of the United Nations Charter. For this reason, a Palestinian right of return is invalidated.  A right of return would also result in a flood of Palestinians stating their 'right of return' as justification for entering Israel at any time and in unlimited numbers and laying claim to old homes. This creates an unworkable legal nightmare, clouded by historical ambiguities. Such an extended legal nightmare would last for decades, and hurt the reconciliation process. [i-[1]  There are many things that Israel can and has offered to Palestinian refugees: compensation, assistance in resettlement, and return for an extremely limited number of refugees based solely on family reunification or humanitarian considerations. But an unlimited right of return for all refugees and their descendants simply goes too far. This is largely because it is purely unworkable to allow millions of Palestinians to return back to a territory that is already overcrowded. [i-[2] [6] For all these reasons, recognising the Palestinian right of return would destroy Israel as a 'Jewish state' and fundamentally harm the welfare of its current legal inhabitants by infringing on their rights, and so Israel should not pursue this recognition.  [1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [2] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [3] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008.   [4] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [5] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [6] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.

negative: europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty Democracy itself is the delegating of decision making to elected officials and this is exactly what has taken place in the government's decision to not hold referendums but pass changes through national parliaments. Referenda undermines democracy by negating the representative government and parliamentary sovereignty, they have been chosen as the representatives of the people, by the people, and therefore have the right to make informed decisions on their behalf about what to do in the nation's best interests. If there are longer term issues with a government's decision then they can be made accountable at the next general election.

negative: The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum  The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.  Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 [1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” [2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” [3] This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures [4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:  1) The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person  2) That this threat was persecutory in nature  What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.  We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda [5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato [6] . In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered [7] . It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.  The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.  [1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.  [6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.  [7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

negative: The 1948 UN General Resolution 194 specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." [1]  [1] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor. [1] Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles. [2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] 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: europe middle east politics house supports admission turkey eu Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State,   [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders,   [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012,

negative: Limiting the rights of corporate persons would harm a wide range of organisations and limit the freedom of natural persons.  Public speech and exchanges of ideas lie at the root of political and social decision making in liberal democracies. Without a guarantee that expression will remain free and protected from government interference, the other rights discussed in the first amendment to the United States constitution would become impossible to exercise. The discussion and pursuit of religious ideas would be obstructed. The ability to challenge the actions and decisions of an incumbent government would be put at risk too [1] . Even the reporting of verifiably true information about the affairs of the state and its citizens- freedom of the press- would become hazardous without the toleration for inaccuracies and the concept of public interest that principled freedom of speech gives rise to.  In order for a right to be meaningful, however, it must be possible to exercise that right effectively. A right to free movement would be meaningless if the government that guaranteed it was unable to keep its citizens safe within their communities. Similarly, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. Isolated oratory and passing on news by word-of-mouth are not effective ways of handling information.  Corporate entities have emerged as the most effective method of pooling individual resources in order to take full advantage of the benefits and freedoms of free speech and dialogue [2] . As the columnist George Will observes, in the USA “newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations- and most religious institutions- are corporate entities.” [3] The proposition side advocates depriving these bodies of many of their rights, simply because they benefit from a legal fiction that- itself- is designed to make co-operation and resources sharing among like-minded individuals- natural persons- more effective.  The difficulties presented by corporate campaigning would allow the state to restrain the publication of almost any coherent, publicly distributed form of speech that was critical of politicians or their parties. The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has noted that Jim McGovern's People's Rights Amendment, which most closely resembles the proposition's mechanism, would give legislators fiat to restrict the content of newspapers by defining it as “corporate” speech that did not benefit from the same set of rights as the expressed opinions of natural persons. This is a wider application of the rule that brought Citizens United and the BCRA before the supreme court [4] . As set out in the introductory case study, the BCRA allowed the Federal Election Commission to claim that a movie (produced by a right-wing PAC) critical of democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton represented a misuse of private funds that could potentially give an unfair advantage to Clinton's opponents.  Under the sections of the BCRA that were struck down in 2012, and under the new laws that proposition wish to create, it would be possible for legislative bodies and the judiciary to target any and all forms of political communication produced by corporate entities without having to consider the objectives of those communications. In plainer terms, the state's power to ban and censor free speech would not be limited to statements made to lobby an electorate or to campaign in favour of a particular politician or policy.  Citizens who wished to avoid being caught up in this law would be obliged to share resources via archaic legal structures such as partnerships and co-operative agreements. Assemblies of citizens could be exposed to a great deal of financial risk in such a situation. Each member of a partnership would be forced to bear the debts and legal liabilities of the entire partnership. In addition, agreements concluded by the partnership would require the consent of every partner. This is a minor inconvenience when a partnership consists of two or three people, but it would be an impossible demand to fulfil for an organisation such as the communications giant ComCast, which has a share volume of 10.5 million (as of May 2012).  [1] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [2] “Infant and corporate rights”. The Economist, 07 May 2012.   [3] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [4] “The ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ and the media”. Volokh, E. The Volokh Conspiracy, 26 April 2012.


query: Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies  Even when the government does not intend harm there are still cases where direct harms can occur as a result of surveillance. The most worrying are where the state abuses the information it holds. Abuse of power and of the information held by government is perhaps the main reason why it is difficult to trust in intelligence agencies. In one historical example from the 1950s FBI agents interviewed a Brooklyn liquor importer for repeating a rumor that the FBI Director J Edgar Hoover might be a “queer”. This clearly necessitated a reminder through questioning that Hoover’s “personal conduct is beyond reproach,” leading to the man quickly agreeing that “he thinks Mr. Hoover has done a wonderful job.” [1] Did this have anything to do with national security? No. Was it an abuse of power and surveillance? Yes. So far as we are aware the intelligence agencies don’t do things quite like this anymore but the revelations like PRISM, or the waterboarding a decade ago, show they are still happy to abuse their position from time to time. This is hardly a good way to build trust.  [1] Gage, Beverly, ‘It’s Not About Your Cat Photos’, Slate, 10 June 2013,

positive: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy The circumstances in the cold war were clearly different to today so this kind of abuse of power would be unlikely to happen. More broadly yes there is the potential for abuse in much the same way that there are people in banks who could steal large quantities of other people’s money. That there is a potential opportunity does not mean it is ever used. Abuse can never be totally avoided but if abuse is a concern then whether or not there is a program of surveillance is not the highest concern. Even if there were not wide ranging surveillance problems those in intelligence looking to abuse their position would be able to obtain the information because they have the technology to do so.

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

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications  Clearly much of the time you really do have nothing to worry about when it comes to intelligence agencies having information about you. People are not regularly arrested without just cause and we have little evidence that democratic governments use this information to put pressure on their citizens. There have been no known cases of this happening since the start of the war on terror. [1] When it comes to foreign governments this is even less of a cause for concern; while your own government might be interested in various aspects of your life to help it with the services it provides foreign governments only have one motivation; their own national security. If you are not a threat to that national security the chances of them ever taking any action against you are essentially nonexistent.  [1] Posner, Eric, ‘I Don’t See a Problem Here’, The New York Times Room for Debate, 10 June 2013,

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Loss of Privacy  It is wrong to state that we only have anything to ‘fear’ if we have done something wrong; a great many people want to keep things private where what they have done is morally perfectly right and justifiable. It is perfectly justified for a married couple to want to keep a video of them having sex private – even if it is sent from one partner to the other by email, or for someone to keep his/her sexual orientation secret even if they have told someone about it. [1] If we want such information to be kept private does the state have any business picking that information up from our emails? It may not go any further than the intelligence agency, it is possible no one there will look at it but it is still an invasion of privacy.  [1] Phillipson, Gavin, ‘Q&A: The right to privacy’, BBC Religion, 14 June 2013,

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy The intelligence agencies are not violating any right to privacy if they are not actually looking at the content of any emails, even less so as they in almost all cases won’t even be looking at the metadata. It is not possible for intelligence agencies to be asking the people before engaging in every surveillance policy as even knowing the broad outlines of what the surveillance involves could allow the targets of that surveillance to avoid that surveillance. While individual citizens are not asked this is where the people’s representatives should be trusted, it is ministers and members of parliament that allow surveillance and hold the agencies to account.

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy No one will ever actually look at the information  If the concern is privacy then there really should be little concern at all because there is safety in numbers. The NSA and other intelligence services don’t have the time or motivation to be tracking down all of our foibles. [1] If the intelligence agencies are watching everyone then they clearly do not have the personnel to be watching the actual communications. Instead certain things or patterns will raise alarm bells and a tiny number will be investigated more closely.  [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013,

negative: Reducing trust in the state  In a world where state agencies would have the possibility of tracking everyone’s moves without any person knowing it, we would reach a point in which the population lose their trust in their elected officials. The consequences could then be very damaging to democracy. This phenomenon took place right after the NSA leaks, as the confidence in the US government was near record’s low.(1)  First of all, the population would know that the government is spying and tracking their moves, but they wouldn’t know how much. This general lack of information on this matter will create a lot of scepticism relating this process, and inevitably the population will reach the conclusion that the government is conducting massive phone tapping and spying campaigns as no one is checking on them.  Despite potential official document trying to give certain facts regarding this, due to the previous incidents when the state has been releasing little or misleading information, these will have little influence over the population. As a result, trust in the state will suffer a massive blow.  This is extremely problematic, as you want and need the general population to trust and listen to what the government, and more particularly law enforcement agencies, say in a lot of instances. When promoting non-discrimination, gender equality or increased social welfare contributions for the poor, you need the population to see the state as someone who is on the same side with them and someone who they can trust. Unfortunately, the scepticism with which those beneficial government proposals will be received will drastically reduce their impact and the chances of them being implemented. If I do not trust that the government is looking after my own good, but rather in a lot of instances its interests are mutually exclusive with mine, then I would most probably lose my respect towards authority.  When talking about law enforcement agencies, i.e the police, the NSA, etc., it is clear that we have trusted them to protect us and our rights. When it is those very agencies that are conducting these warrantless spying campaigns, it comes as a direct contradiction with their very purpose and thus the impact and the loss of trust is higher on this level.  Moreover, in the long term, the whole electoral process could suffer a lot from this lack of confidence, as individuals aren’t particularly inclined to go to elections any more if they see that no matter what they do, their rights will still be breached.  As you need the population to trust the government, so that its reforms are being met with positivism and not reluctance, you must not portray the government as an intrusive, harmful and ill-willing element of the society.  (1) Harry J Enten ” Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government”, The Guardian, 13 June 2013

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Far from threatening democracy the intelligence agencies are using this information to protect democracy from terrorists who wish to overthrow the whole concept of democratic governance. Intelligence agencies are clearly under civilian control and have several layers of oversight to ensure that this kind of misuse does not take place. In the United States this means there is oversight from Congress and in the UK from Parliament. There is also judicial oversight in the form of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner in the UK [1] and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the US. [2]  [1] ‘Judicial Oversight’, Security Service MI5,   [2] ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’, Federal Judicial Center,

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy There are safeguards to prevent misuse  In democracies there are numerous safeguards and levels of oversight to prevent abuse. In the UK for example there is a “strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight”. Agencies are required “to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary.” The Secretary is given legal advice and comments from civil servants. Once the Secretary has given assent they are “subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner… to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law”. [1]  [1] Hague, William, ‘Prism statement in full’, politics.co.uk, 10 June 2013,

negative: The public can’t decide what they want  Sadly, we reached a point in our desperate quest for perfection where the population, through its mutually exclusive demands, has ended up putting the government between a rock and an anvil. The population then blames the government for not being able to fulfill these demands, when actually we are at fault.  We demand our government protects us from terrorists, criminal organizations and in general people who want to harm us. If it fails to do this job, we blame it and throw dirt at it for being inefficient. But what we see is that although the state has the power to launch a full campaign against wrong-doers through electronic surveillance means, we deny him the possibility of doing that. If, by chance, the government is breaking this law when trying to stop and prevent crimes from happening, like in the example of the NSA, again we launch meaningless offenses and start accusing state agencies for being too intrusive. This fickleness is shown by polling; in 2010 47% of Americans thought that anti-terror programs had not gone far enough to protect the country, three years later that figure had dropped to 35% while those thinking the programs restrict liberties had risen from 32% to 47% with little change in how much was actually being done.(1)  (1) “Few See Adequate Limits on NSA Surveillance Program” July 26, 2013

negative: The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation.  The U.S. is an independent nation, not an international entity. Thus 96% of the world population has no voice in its’ government’s decisions. [1] The US government has authority over its own citizens, and it is justified in engaging in war if its citizens are under direct threat. However, citizens of other nations have no means of expressing their opinion in the US government. If the US government abuses its power, these people have no reliable legal means of recourse. Consequently, the US government has no authority to intervene in their affairs.  [1] “Country Comparison: Population,” The World Fact Book, Central Intelligence Agency.

negative: Changes in behaviour  Surveillance changes the way we make daily decisions—the same way that a rapidly approaching police car in your rear-view mirror may make you feel nervous even when you are driving completely lawfully. The very existence of a mass surveillance system will negatively influence the behaviour and emotions of a significant majority of the population.  First, surveillance affects emotions and mental performance, as it leads to heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety due to the constant feeling that you are being watched.(1)  Secondly, it creates conformity to social norms. “In a series of classic experiments during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch showed that conformity is so powerful that individuals will follow the crowd even when the crowd is obviously wrong. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality.”(2)  This is of extreme importance as first of all, it is the state’s duty to create the most peaceful and harmonious environment in which the individual can reach its full potential (this one clearly not being it) and second if we don’t feel free to do things that are perfectly legal because we think someone might think it suspicious or out of character then it is difficult to say we are really free.  (1) M.J. Smith, P. Carayon, K.J. Sanders, S-Y. Lim, D. LeGrande “Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring”, 1992   (2) Chris Chambers ” NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance”, The Guardian, 26 August 2013

negative: Banning alcohol protects third parties (family members) from harm.  Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of disputes and distress in society. It also contributes to the psychological problems of the alcohol consumer children. While the problem might not be connected to one individual in society, it is important that laws protect those, who might abuse their rights and with this hurt others.  Currently in the US alone, there is an estimated 6.6 million children under 18, which live in households with at least one alcoholic parent. [1] It was never the fault of these children that others started to drink and harm them. According to psychological studies many of the children coming from alcohol abuse families have problems such as low self-esteem, loneliness, guilt, feelings of helplessness, fears of abandonment, and chronic depression. Children of alcoholics in some cases even feel responsible for the problems of the alcoholic and may think they created the problem. [2]  Alcohol is also a great contributor not only to psychological, but also to physical damage. Many times, alcohol is an easy excuse for domestic abusers. The incidence of domestic abuse in households, where there is alcohol abuse is a lot higher and the abusers name the effects of alcohol as their main cause of violence. [3]  With taking away alcohol we take away the fuel of many of the abusers, thus protecting third involved parties.  [1] Alcohol Information, Alcohol Statistics,  , accessed 08/14/2011  [2] Parsons T., Alcoholism and it’s effects on the Family, AllPsych Journal, published 12/14/2003,  , accessed 08/16/2011  [3] University of Minnesota, Alcohol and Domestic Violence,  , accessed 08/17/2011

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: Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence  Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence. They have the capacity and the authority to detect foreign spies in the national jurisdiction, and experience with local surveillance and investigation. Part of the job of domestic intelligence is to maintain a network of informers and agents, and this can be used to find and track foreign intelligence services on a mission – these functions can’t be easily performed by the military or foreign intelligence so an independent domestic intelligence agency is necessary.

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy In the UK case this is not all it appears. The Intelligence Services Commissioner is comparatively toothless, and both it and the Interception of Communications Commissioner are immensely understaffed for monitoring all UK intelligence agencies. Some experts such as Professor Peter Sommer have even suggested “I am not sure that ministers or the ISC would know what questions to ask.” [1] Moreover this is trusting that ministers have the best interests of the people at heart, in the case of this conservative government which seems perfectly happy to introduce bills that erode freedoms such as the ‘snoopers charter’ this seems unlikely.  [1] Hopkins, Nick, ‘William Hague on spying scandal: what he said … and what he didn't say’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013,

negative: Internment without trial exacerbates the antagonism of enemies and subsequent risk to civilians.  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:  improve this  To intern without trial, for prolonged periods, the believed enemies of a state is to offer them and their supporters added reason to be antagonistic. In Northern Ireland, “violence soared following the introduction of internment and the British government imposed ‘direct rule’” 1. Moreover, Guantanamo Bay, the central symbol of the growth of executive power in United States’ war on terror, has been described by Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, as ‘a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security’ 2. Armando Spataro, a senior Italian prosecutor, has remarked ‘Muslims around the world are asking why there is so little international opposition to the U.S. policy of internment without trial. The collateral damage of Guantanamo is incalculable’ 3. It appears difficult to argue that the extension of executive power in the war on terror has had any effect on the security of innocent civilians other than increasing their risk of harm.  1 Davis, F. (2004, August) Internment Without Trial: The Lessons from the United States, Northern Ireland and Israel. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from:  2 Rhee, F. (2009, January 22). Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Boston:  3 Greening, K. J. (2007, February 12). 8 Reasons to Close Guantanamo Now. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from In These Times:

negative: Warrants are ineffective  One of the main reasons for scraping the warrant-system is because of its ineffectiveness. This system of checks-and-balances was created in order to prevent the government from over monitoring the population, but unfortunately, lately, they have just become another administrative and bureaucratic step in achieving that surveillance.  If we look at the statistics which revolve around the FISA court, the one which emitted warrants for the NSA, we see that it “has rejected .03 percent of all government surveillance requests”(1). This is absolutely preposterous, as one cannot reasonably assume that no abusive requests were submitted. As a result, even if there was a so-called preventive purpose of warrants, they are far from achieving it.  (1) Erika Eichelberger “FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests” Mon Jun. 10, 2013

negative: privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy  The gathering of personal data that companies undertake is done in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy.  When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Companies, particular online services, collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. In the context of the internet, this means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide since its inception. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from customers is unacceptable. [1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, and even resold to third parties that the customers never consented to giving their data and might well not want to come into possession of their personal details. This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information, most obviously the more places your personal information is the more likely it is to be lost in a data breach with 267million records exposed in 2012. [2] Even when the information is not exposed it may be used in ways that have a real impact on the individual such as determining credit scores. [3] People as a matter of principle should have control over who gets access to their private information. Giving companies that are driven by profit motive to sell on their customers’ data to anyone that might offer a suitable price stands as an absolute theft of personal information and privacy.  [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008.   [2] Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013,   [3] Morris, J., and Lacandera, E., “Why big companies buy, sell your data”, CNN, 23 August 2012,

negative: The policy is counter productive  If your goal is, ultimately, to reduce the amount of coaches using this method, this policy is massively counter-productive. For people to get punished, you need athletes to report abuse, this policy makes that less likely to happen.  The athletes being abused won’t want to report their coaches as the abuse is happening, because that means they and their teammates all lose their chance at and competing in the biggest sporting stages which in turn is likely to reduce their chances of ever achieving glory or getting a big payday from sponsorship. It is already the case that sometimes whistleblowers suffer for calling time. In India Dr Sajib Nandi was first removed from his position as a medical officer and then beaten up as a result of whistleblowing about doping. [1] This policy simply makes the stakes and the risks of whistleblowing much higher.  At least now after they’ve been abused athletes come out and report abuse. Why would an athlete do this under this policy? It damages their stock as they become the one responsible for shaming sport in their country. Also, they’re likely to personally know and have training with people still on national programmes, so they’re not going to want to ruin their friends chances of earning more and competing for the top prizes.  [1] NDTV Correspondent, ‘Dope mess: Whistleblower doctor attacked, Sports Minister assures a meeting’, NDTV Sports, 13 July 2011,

negative: It is not possible to meaningfully consent to sadomasochistic sex  Meaningful consent requires both that the person is informed and of age when consenting, but also requires the ability to withdraw consent at any point in time. Sadomasochism does not afford this crucial requisite of consent to the individual, and therefore no individual can legitimately and fully consent to the act.  Safe words are ludicrously impractical. Their utility is dependent upon their actually being agreed and committed to memory in advance and their declaration being heeded by the individuals who are under the influence of intense sexual desire. The passive ‘victim’ might be subject to the physical constraints, characteristic of bondage, that make speech or even flight impossible. It might be difficult to distinguish between an injunction to cease and an exclamation of pain, which presumably is a relatively regular occurrence.  Even where a number of individuals are able to demonstrate that their sadomasochistic encounters are conducted on a safe, regulated and consensual basis, it is not possible to give a concurrent guarantee that S&M is generally safe and cannot be used to perpetrate rape or abuse. The existence of a group of individuals able to interact safely in a sadomasochistic context does not mean that S&M does not present a risk to the wider population, nor that ordinary individuals are not excessively vulnerable to harm when engaged in S&M activities.

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Clearly if no one ever actually looked at any information provided by surveillance then there would be no point in conducting it. Even if it were true that no one looks at any of the data being watched is still an intrusion that affects behaviour. It will affect decisions that are perfectly lawful because there will always be the slight worry that someone who you don’t want to have that information because they will think differently of you will obtain it. When the information is out of your hands you can no longer be certain who will obtain it. [1] Since people have been arrested for the information that has been conducted, clearly sometimes the information is checked and used.  [1] Moore, Mica, and Stein, Bennett, ‘The Chilling Effects of License-Plate Location Tracking’, American Civil Liberties Union, 23 July 2013,

negative: Closing Guantanamo would harm US national security:  The current operations of Guantanamo Bay are aiding the War on Terror, and closing the facility would harm the US' security situation. Putting an important section of a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda in prison obviously stops the coordination and the indoctrination of younger members. This makes it harder for terrorist groups to operate effectively. The presumption is that during that time the USA will have gathered adequate intelligence and information upon which to destroy the group and the war on terror is that little bit nearer to ending. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that, intelligence-wise, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable [in the war on terror." [1]  Moreover, if released many Guantanamo detainees will likely return to terrorism. [5] Many of those that have been already released from Guantanamo done just that. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. One former detainee went on to become the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, for example. [2] The Bush administration detained these enemy combatants because of their high likelihood to commit future crimes or their past history. The most dangerous detainees include the perpetrators of 9/11, the American embassy bombings of 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000, and the Bali bombings of 2002. [6]  Finally, trying detainees in US courts presents a catch-22: in some cases, the evidence required to build a case for trial would compromise the same intelligence sources that make information-gathering possible [4] . During the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “blind sheik”) and members of his terror cell for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered. [3] Therefore the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should not be closed as this would harm the War on Terror and US national security.  [1] Reuters. “Don't close Guantanamo until terror war ends: Cheney”. Reuters. 15 December 2008.   [2] Worth, Robert F. “Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief”. New York Times. 22 January 2009.   [3] The Washington Times Editorial. “Obama and Gitmo”. The Washington Times. 12 November 2008.   [4] The Chicago Tribune. "Beyond Guantanamo." The Chicago Tribune. 22 January 2009.   [5] Cornyn, John. "Sen. Cornyn: Closing Guantanamo Could Make America Less Safe." Texas Insider. 23 January 2009.   [6] Joscelyn, Thomas. "Clear and Present Danger." The Weekly Standard. 1 December 2008.

negative: w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now  Where there compelling evidence from medical science that a process that predates it had some proven harm then there might be good reason to restrict it but that evidence simply isn’t there. What is known is that circumcisions have been performed for millennia without causing widespread difficulties. In addition, historically, the procedure has been performed in circumstances far less safe than the confines of a modern, well-equipped hospital where it usually takes place now, and to no apparent ill effect.  Even using the term ‘abuse’ to describe such a practice shows a lack of respect for those people who are genuinely victims of abuse.

negative: Certainly parents should help their children to make most of their time with the computer and their phone. However, monitoring children in order to do so is lazy, or more precisely a form of ‘remote-control parenting’. Parents abuse of their children’s inherent right to privacy and feel that they have satisfactorily fulfilled their parental role when instead they are just lazy and unwilling to talk to their child personally about being a responsible netizen. [1] How are children to develop a healthy relationship to sharing information and privacy protection if they are constantly being surveilled by their own parents? More effective parents would instead choose to personally and positively teach their children about time management.  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

negative: Afghan history shows failings of foreign invasion, so this campaign is also doomed to failure.  No state has ever been able to impose alien political institutions on the Afghani people, whether by force or by flattery. The Russians tried and so did the British, but neither was successful. In fact, the greatest massacre of British soldiers happened in Afghanistan in 1842. The British then awarded these tribesmen with fancy titles and the Khyber pass was thereafter protected by Pakistani and Afghan tribes (the ancestors of the Mujahadeen & then the Taliban). The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was thus never manned by British soldiers. More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon made it alive to Jalalabad. [1] The Russians threw bombs, tanks, landmines and napalm at the Afghan guerrilla army, the Mujahadeen. They killed around half a million people, injured many more but they still faced dismal defeat in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Therefore before the situation spirals out of control, the British and the Americans should commence a power sharing deal with the Taliban. [2] The opposition may argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Nine insurgents are very capable of fibbing about the Pakistani intelligence. There is no way that funds siphoned off from any clandestine secret intelligence agency can realistically be traced to it. Word of mouth, especially when the mouth belongs to the enemy is rarely credible. Therefore negotiating with the Taliban directly feels ineffective. They might argue that talks solely with Pakistani-Afghan government representatives is a rather more feasible and less dangerous means of achieving the coalition's desired end. However, such talks frequented have borne little fruit. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban if any progression towards peace is to be made. The coalition's ancestors were wise.  [1] Robert McNamara, «Britain's Disastrous Retreat from Kabul»,   [2] «Obama Will Vow Troops Leaving by July 2011», CBSNEWS, December 1, 2009 9:35 PM, Updated 3:44 p.m. ET,

negative: It is absolutely clear that there exists a need for a system to keep the government in check. We can’t just stand and do nothing, while hoping for the best. There are two reasons why it is justified to keep the warrants.  It is cases like this that shift opinion and force Government to reverse course. As a result everyone, including FISA and other courts will be much more careful, even with no new laws when scrutinising warrants as nobody is willing to risk another scandal happening.  Secondly, this is an argument for tightening up the warrant system not against warrants themselves. It there is such a problem, let’s make warrants harder to obtain with more scrutiny before they are granted, along with more punitive punishments for abuse, more controls and a higher number of inspections. If so few warrants are being rejected there clearly needs to be more done to prevent the government from abusing its powers.

negative: Every country engages in spying against other countries and so are not surprised by the revelations. These countries leaders are obliged to sound like they are outraged but in practice they will already have known such actions occur – they might be interested to learn the details but little else. Hollande’s own Direction Générale de la Securité Extérieure (DGSC) has been described by Bernard Barbier, its former technical director, as "probably the biggest information centre in Europe after the English". It uses similar methods to the NSA with systematic collection of emails, sms messages, phone records, social media posts which is then all stored for years. [1] President Obama is right to point out “I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders. That's how intelligence services operate.” [2]  [1] Follorou, Jaques, and Johannès, Franck, ‘Exclusive: French intelligence has its own version of PRISM’, Le Monde, 4 July 2013,   [2] Chu, Henry, ‘European leaders angered by U.S. spying reports’, Los Angeles Times, 1 July 2013,

negative: At a first glance this might be true but let’s take a deeper view upon these societies. The example of Saudi Arabia where women are slowly being given the vote is true but this is not much of a gain in a country where the parliament has almost no power. In a culture where it is normal that they require the approval of their husband or father in order to be able to vote or do anything the result is simply another vote for the man. More than that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, basic rights like the right of movement are denied to women who cannot get a driving license. That there is progress in some areas does not mean that there is no reason for a policy of welcoming women asylum seekers. Far from it, such a policy would increase the pressure on these countries to step up their reforms. We should also remember that progress can go into reverse – thus the trend towards more governments that are less secular in the Middle East should be a worrying reminder of why the EU needs to let these women in.  Goss, Crystal, ’10 of the World’s Worst Countries to Live in as a Woman’, Take Part, 20 August 2012,   Shane, Daniel, ‘Saudi in new crackdown on female drivers’, Arabian Business.com, 25 August 2013,

negative: This advertising strategy undermines people’s right to personal privacy  Targeted advertising based on profiles and demographic details is the product of information acquired in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy. When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Yet online services collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. This means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from online behaviour is unacceptable. [1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, Facebook for example keeps all information ever entered to the social network, [2] and even resold to third parties that the internet users might not want to come into possession of their personal details. People should always be given the option of consent to the use of their data by any party, as is the case in many jurisdictions, such as the European Union has done in implementing its 'cookie law'. [3] This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information.  [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008.   [2] Lewis, J., “Facebook faces EU curbs on selling users’ interests to advertisers”, The Telegraph, 26 November 2011,   [3] European Union, “Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council”, Official Journal of the European Union, L 337/11, 18 December 2009,

negative: Having a DNA database should require individual consent  The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. When the citizen releases information to outside agencies he receives a service in return. In being compelled to give a sample of DNA the innocent citizen would receive the scant benefit of being eliminated from a police investigation. Moreover, medical records are already subject to a significant degree of statutory protection from investigation. The use of genetic tests by insurance companies remains highly controversial. There is considerable potential for abuse of information that is so private, the person giving the sample will probably not know its contents and they will certainly not know the possible ways the information may be used1. Finally, there is a subtle yet significant difference in the attitude of government towards the citizen that is conveyed by the creation of a database. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal. 1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News:

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Provides information to competitors  Where there is international competition transparency can be a problem if there is not transparency on both sides as one side is essentially giving its opponent an advantage. This is ultimately why countries keep national security secrets; they are in competition with other nations and the best way to ensure an advantage over those states is to keep capabilities secret. One side having information while the other does not allows the actor that has the information to act differently in response to that knowledge. Keeping things secret can therefore provide an advantage when making a decision, as the one with most information is most likely to react best. [1] Currently there is information asymmetry between the United States and China to the point where some analysts consider that the United States provides more authoritative information on China’s military than China itself does. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.7  [2] Erickson, Andrew S., ‘Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments’, The Diplomat, 8 May 2013

negative: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.  By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry.  [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection)  [Accessed 22 September 2011]