query: Protections offered in a court must be absolute in order for the court to be just.  A just adversarial court system is premised on absolutes: that the defence has certain absolute rights which check it against government corruption, and which ensure fair trials even at the expense of conviction. Indeed, it is for this reason that we say it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man. The protections in place that ensure fair trials must always be upheld, or else the guarantee of fairness no longer exists. If the government can sometimes remove this right, even in clearly delineated circumstances, then the right is no longer absolute, and the presumption in favour of the defence is far weaker, undermining the justness of the entire system.

positive: eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Trial by jury is not necessary to uphold principles of justice. As stated in response to Opp Argument 1, there are plenty of other checks in favour of the defence. We do not agree that removing trial by jury erodes at this principle: trial by jury may be important, but a judge can still presume innocence, treat evidence fairly etc. If juries are not necessary to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty, then removing them in specific circumstances should not undermine the integrity and justness of the court. Again, we often do not have trial by jury in the case of petty offences, suggesting that this right is not regarded as absolute.

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: Juries will know this is a retrial – because evidence will have to be ‘read’ from the first trial where witnesses have died, because notes from ‘last time’ will be available to advocates and the accused, because the legal procedure of the last trial will be subject to discussion in this one. If a jury knows a case has been brought again, there will be a presumption that the accused is guilty because a higher court has already decided that the new evidence makes the acquitted defendant now look guilty after all, and so granted a retrial. The presumption of innocence will no longer exist. And unless the system is going to be overwhelmed with retrials like this, in which case it would be unworkable, then second trial capacity can only (and rightly) be directed towards ‘exceptional’ cases. Such cases are well known - like that of the murder of Stephen Lawrence 1. How could individuals face trial again on the same charges, when in the glare of media attention it has been declared they should have been convicted at the first trial? How could they possibly expect a fair trial?  1. Akwagyiram, A. (2008, April 22). The legacy of Stephen Lawrence. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

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: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world.  While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International.  While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US.

negative: The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial  All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent counsel, the judge's duty to appropriately direct the jury, etc. will all continue to apply and prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring. Nor is the system likely to be overwhelmed with retrials. Much of the current push for the end of the double jeopardy rule comes from the widespread use of DNA testing, which has allowed many old cases to be revisited with compelling new evidence of guilt or innocence. Mark Weston, for example, was convicted at a re-trial after specks of the victim's blood were found on Weston's shoes, justifying the re-opening of the case1. After a few years, the impact of DNA testing on solving similar cold cases will be expended and there will be very few retrials. 1 Bate, S. (2010, December 13). 'Loner' convicted of murder in double jeopardy re-trial. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from The Guardian:

negative: Detainees have the right to trial in US courts:  Prisoners have been detained at Guantanamo for long periods without clear charges being filed and without trial. This is a violation of the international legal principle of habeas corpus. One of the primary problems is that, without clear charges and a presentation of evidence against a suspect, the suspect cannot contest the charges and prove their own innocence. And, as a matter of fact, numerous detainees have been found innocent, but only after excessively long periods without being charged or brought before a court. [1]  Many Guantanamo detainees may have never committed terrorist acts or fought against US forces in Afghanistan at all; they were simply turned over by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords for bounties of up to $25,000. For almost seven years they have been held without a fair hearing or opportunity to demonstrate those facts. Courts who reviewed the cases of 23 detainees to see if there was reasonable evidence for their continued detention found no credible basis for detaining 22 of them. [2] Other detainees were captured in places where, at the time of their arrest, there was no armed conflict involving US forces. The case of the six men of Algerian origin detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and well-documented example. [3]  Therefore the only way to resolve these issues is to try all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in US courts, and release any against whom charges cannot be brought. Former US Secretary of Defense Colin Powell has endorsed this reasoning, arguing that "I would get rid of Guantanamo and the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law[...]It's a more equitable way, and more understandable in constitutional terms," [4] US courts are fully capable of dealing with terrorist trials, as shown by the fact that they have rendered 145 convictions in terror-related cases in the past. [5] Convictions in US courts would probably be seen internationally as having more legitimacy than those obtained through the current system of military tribunals, which is often viewed as rigged against the defendants. [6] Only by allowing full due process in American courts can the rights of the detainees be uaranteed and their guilt or innocence truly established.  [1] New York Times Opinion. "The President's Prison". New York Times. March 25, 2007.   [2] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.   [3] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.  [4] Reuters. "Colin Powell says Guantanamo should be closed". Reuters. 10 June 2007.   [5] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.   [6] Wilner, Thomas J. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street Journal. 22 December 2008.

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases When people take the time and effort to visit the law courts and watch a case, it is a formal, regulated atmosphere. If this were televised, it would become closer to ‘entertainment’ than to fair, legal proceedings. It becomes a human interest story rather than a legitimate court case, where the focus is on moral retribution rather than fair application of the law. Given that high-profile cases can go on for weeks, or even months, even if you were to broadcast every step of the court case it is likely that viewers would only tune in for the climax of the trial. This means that they would miss important (but perhaps comparatively boring) steps which led to that conclusion; it obscures the whole picture of the trial.

negative: The Ukrainian justice system is broken  Justice for Yanukovych should be international simply because it would be a much better guarantor of a fair trial. The Ukrainian justice system is unfortunately corrupt, and at the behest of prosecutors; it has an amazing conviction rate of 99.8%. This is because judges are they are only appointed for five years then the government confirms tenure if it believes they have been voting the right way. Yulia Tymoshenko, an opponent of Yanukovych, was imprisoned for making a deal with President Putin to ensure gas supplies – something that was a humanitarian necessity to ensure Russia did not freeze Ukraine into submission. [1]  [1] Robertson, Geoffrey, ‘Yulia Tymoshenko's trial was a travesty of justice’, The Guardian, 23 February 2014,

negative: The Geneva Conventions provide the only fair, impartial and strong mechanism for protecting the human rights of detainees in the war on terror. Applying the Geneva Conventions would allow the Red Cross to inspect prisons where detainees are held (Anonymous, 2002). Breaches of the Geneva Conventions also give rise to State Responsibility, as seen in the USA and Israeli courts’ supervision of the treatment of terrorists and terror suspects. Individuals can also be held criminally responsible for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, for example the Charles Taylor trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the trial of Radovan Karadzic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Dworkin, 2003). The Geneva Conventions are therefore a useful way of ensuring that states respect human rights, rather than simply promising to treat detainees well as a matter of policy.

negative: Corporates that attempt to address social issues damage political discourse.  Corporate personhood is a challenging concept for liberal democracies. On the one hand, the legal fiction that underlies personhood enables groups of citizens to quickly and efficiently join forces to make collective grievances heard and to use weight of numbers to match the influence of wealthier individuals. However, corporations, particularly in the business context, can also be large and unaccountable organisations.  This proposition must address two issues. First, whether acts of free expression engaged in by corporations generally should benefit from the same protection as acts of expression engaged in by individuals. Second, whether there should be more scrutiny of the membership and objectives of corporations – or whether corporations should receive rights conditional on their activities.  If we follow the reasoning in the Citizens United case, which radically changed the interpretation of corporate speech rights in American law, it is clear that acts of corporate speech should benefit from a high standard of protection. Corporations can take the form of churches, trades unions or political campaigning groups [1] . The fiction of personhood allows these organisations to operate more freely, ignoring many of the bureaucratic burdens associated with partnership organisations. It also allows citizens to found non-profit making groups, such as PACs, without the risk of being made liable for the debts that those groups generate.  Profit-led corporations may be used to publish examples of free expression, without necessarily wishing to influence or misuse the ideas expressed. The publishers of political science textbooks, of annotated editions of Kapital and of Capitalism and Freedom are still profit-led businesses. In short, 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. For this reason, where a corporation is permitted to engage in free expression, the contents of its acts of expression should not be subject to restrictions that differ radically from those applied to individual acts of expression.  But what about the second issue? Natural persons are allowed- as a general rule- a broad right to free expression. This right is subject to certain caveats, but there is always a presumption that expression should be free and subject to as few limitations as possible. Should corporations benefit from the same presumption? No. The proposition side suggests that corporations’ access to constitutional free speech rights should depend on their goals, objectives and membership.  Corporations, unlike natural persons, are inflexible in their motives and influences. Free speech is preferable to conflict because it acts as a conduit for compromise, but before compromise can take place it must be possible for the participants and audience in a discussion or an exchange of views to be influenced by their opponents’ arguments. Profit-led corporations owe a very specific duty to their shareholders- the individual who support and constitute the corporation. Under the corporate-laws of almost all liberal democracies, business corporations must act in their interests, and this invariably means generating profit and increasing the value of the equity that each shareholder has in the business [2] . Because this duty is a legal one, and failure to uphold it can be cause to remove corporate decision makers (directors and executives) from their jobs and even to bring them to trial.  This behavioural imperative is absolute. Were a business corporation to announce that it would no longer operate with profit as its core priority, it would collapse [3] . Even if this process might not be inevitable in the real world, it still informs corporate culture to a significant degree. Natural persons are flexible and pragmatic; at the very least they have the potential to be so. Profit-led corporations are not. Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.  [1] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US  [2] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004  [3] “Kay needs to replace ‘shareholder value’ with ‘corporate value’.” Professor Simon Deakin. Financial times, 20 March 2012.

negative: crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous If anything, this is an argument to prevent the media from publishing and details of a case or its defendant before the trial has been carried out, or from being more proactive and disqualifying jurors who ‘research’ their case before it comes to court. We should not endorse this kind of behaviour, which jurors know is not allowed, by legitimising it within court and announcing previous convictions. The harm of bias, particularly among those who would go out of their way to read about the personal history of a defendant, could be incredibly dangerous to the principle of a fair trial.

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases This turns court cases into entertainment, rather than legitimate legal proceedings.  Several television shows, such as ‘Judge Judy’, assert the style of a legal courtroom [1] . These shows are based on entertainment value from scrutinising the accused and defendant; it would be dangerous to remove a barrier which currently separates genuine legal proceedings from entertainment by televising them. The risk that the public would see them as one and the same is increased by an incident where a man really did believe that the Judge Judy trial was a real trial [2] . The trial of Casey Anthony in Florida, where cameras are allowed, escalated into a media frenzy where legal justice became unimportant in comparison to television ratings [3] . Court cases, then, are at risk of not being taken seriously and used instead for the public to satisfy their curiosity into other peoples’ lives. Televising court cases also immediately undermines some fundamental principles of the justice system, such as rehabilitation. If somebody is convicted of a crime on national television, his or her anonymity or chance of future employment is severely compromised. The rights of the victims, their families, and the defendants should be placed ahead society’s assumed ‘right’ to sensationalist portrayals of the courtroom.  [1]  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 18/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11

negative: Unlimited political contributions undermine fair democratic representation.  Allowing for unlimited political contributions under the protection of the First Amendment distorts one of the most fundamental democratic tenets, the principle of fair representation – “one person, one vote.” [1] The Supreme Court has in the past also recognized this principle to mean more than the right to cast one vote which is counted equally. In Reynolds v Sims the Court held that “full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires… that each citizen has an equally effective voice in the election of members of the state legislature”. [2] Such an “equally effective voice” is undermined by one individual or organization being able to influence the votes of thousands or hundreds of thousands through the deployment of financial resources which the average voter does not possess. This undermines the fair scheme of representation that is fundamental to a veritable democracy.  [1] John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Chapter 12: “Maintaining the Fair Value of Political Liberties”  [2] Reynolds v Sims, U.S. Supreme Court, 1964.

negative: ethics life house believes right die Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.  It is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started.

negative: The United Nations can punish those states who refuse to subject its prisoners of war to the Geneva Conventions  The United Nations, as the institution that formed and maintains the Geneva Conventions and other restrictions on warfare, is able to use its structures to punish states that do not adhere to its protocols. The International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute of 1998, is able to prosecute those specific persons who are charged with war crimes. Such defendants, if convicted, can be ordered to pay the victims. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice is able to bring cases against specific states that are clearly identified as having broken the protocols of war. As such, the United Nations is both legally and institutionally capable of ensuring that the dictates of the Geneva Conventions are upheld, specifically the right of a combatant captured in a conflict zone to be granted prisoner of war status. While this would provide a degree of protection for captured terrorists, it also means that terrorist organizations are subject to standards of conduct in war. Making them subject to the Geneva Conventions would uphold an incentive of restraint which might sometimes influence their conduct.

negative: eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Judges are better at delivering justice than juries are.  Juries are not technically trained in evaluating evidence.1 Additionally, judges are trained to recognize and suppress their own prejudices, evaluate information given to them, recognize prosecutorial strategy etc., better allowing them to make objective decisions. Furthermore, some studies suggest that juries actually work against the innocent; a 1979 study found that "more than 5 per cent of defendants found guilty by juries were considered by professionals to have been convicted in questionable circumstances."2This is hardly surprising given that jurors are ordinary citizens who are forced to sit through what are often dull and protracted trials, and who may have little interest in actually listening to what is being said (Joanne Frail, a juror convicted for contempt of court stated that she 'drew more than she wrote [during the trial]').3 Perhaps we should trust in the expertise of screened and trained justices instead.  1Sir Louis Blum Cooper QC, "A Judge Can Do the Work of 12 Amateurs, and Better  2Baldwin and McConville, "Jury Trials"  3BBC, "Juror Admits Contempt of Court Over Facebook Case"

negative: Most rights have no bearing for animals  The right to dignity would mean nothing to an animal. Animals are incapable of being humiliated and are not harmed by being reduced to human servitude. A dog is not ashamed of its nudity or having to eat out of a bowl and wear a leash. Animals happily copulate and defecate in front of humans and other animals. What exactly an undignified action might be for an animal it is difficult to say.  The right to education, to vote, to fair trial, to be innocent until proven guilty, to privacy, marriage, nationality, religion, property, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, workers rights and shelter all seem impossible to apply to animals.  If we specially tailor rights to animals then how is that different to the status quo where we have certain laws protecting animals?

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases It is unlikely that people will use court cases as a form of entertainment; if the entire case is televised, then a lot of the case will be ‘boring’ discussion of applying law and legal theory [1] , rather than doling out punishment Judge Judy-style. Even if a few people do try to use it as entertainment, the potential benefit to wider society as they can literally see how their legal system works to protect them outweighs the very small number of people who might group court cases and reality television shows together. Furthermore, if somebody is convicted of a serious crime like murder, their chances of rehabilitation are already slim (and convicts often re-offend), whether it is televised or not [2] . Indeed, some would argue that they have forfeited their right to rehabilitation by committing murder in the first place [3] . However, if they were acquitted of a serious crime on television, future employers could be more likely to accept them as they could see exactly how the court progressed and arrived at that conclusion, rather than having it shrouded in mystery which could breed suspicion.  [1] Transcript of a court case:  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11

negative: Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes.  POINT  The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further crimes while in prison. While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them. The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them. 1 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011 2 Davis, Laura. "Crime and Punishment: the view from a convicted criminal." The Independent. May 19, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2001.

negative: The Second Amendment  When it comes down to it, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the American constitution. This right applies just as much to teachers as it does to anyone else. Having a right to bear arms means there is always going to the threat that one person can draw and use a weapon against another. The best way to counter-act such a danger is to meet it with equal means, as the culture of arms-bearing in the USA is too entrenched to try methods that involving scaling back gun-usage or enforcing much stricter arms control. Any attempt to do so would likely be struck down by the United States Supreme Court just as it declared the restrictions on handguns that were in place in Washington DC. [1] Therefore the best way to protect the most vulnerable in US society is to deploy the means that are encouraged and protected by the constitution.  [1] Supreme Court of the United States, ‘District of Columbia et al. v. Heller’, 26 June 2008,

negative: The ICC is slow  has resulted in a conviction is against Thomas Lubanga – the trial took eight years from arrest to conviction. [1] The option of trying Yanukovych in the Ukraine with outside help in the process is therefore a better idea. The Council of Europe’s Secretary General has already offered “legal… expertise… by the International Advisory Panel (IAP), which will oversee investigations into recent acts of violence. I expect the IAP to start its work in Ukraine as early as next week.” [2] The OSCE too will help “efforts to establish facts on acts of violence and human rights violations.” [3] Clearly the Ukraine would be in a good position to provide a free and fair trial for its former president that could bring justice much faster than the ICC while also showing justice being done in the right place.  [1] Open Society Foundations Justice Initiative, ‘background’, lubangatrial.org,   [2] Jagland, Thorbjørn, ‘Secretary General Jagland welcomes the Agreement on the Settlement of the Crisis in Ukraine’, coe.int, 21 February 2014,   [3] Burkhalter, 2014,

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Televising court cases undermines the right to privacy for the victim and the defendant’s family  Court proceedings can be extremely stressful for the families of the accused, and publicising them in this way only makes this worse. Again, a good example of this is the Milly Dowler case, when her father’s pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Not only did he then have to try and come to terms with his daughter’s disappearance, but also the knowledge that the media – and his family – now knew intensely personal details about him which were not even relevant to the case, but used to try and condemn him anyway. Meanwhile, although the family members have done nothing wrong, they are forced to listen to critical evidence of another family member which is suddenly now broadcast into peoples’ homes directly from the court. Their public and private lives would be irrevocably transformed by this experience. Secondly, because the defence must try to protect the defendant, these vilifying tactics can also be used against the victim – which could then lead to fewer people being prepared to testify. There is already a problem in society where not all crimes are even reported, sometimes because the victims are afraid of how people will then think of them [2] [3] . The knowledge that the defence will try to expose them as a fraud, or deny that the offence took place – in front of millions of people watching the case on television – suddenly becomes a much bigger obstacle for victims, especially if they are emotionally shaken by their experience [4] , to come forward and help a criminal to be convicted.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11  [4] Support group for women who have been victims of rape; helping them to testify in court  , accessed 19/08/11

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent  The universality of human rights, of the freedom of speech and of due process is all touted as crucial by the world’s democracies. Democratic countries are frequently vocal on the subject of liberty, on the superiority of their system of government that provides for the best protection of human dignity. By offering amnesty to bloggers, the people standing at the forefront of the democratic cause in oppressive regimes, Western countries take a largely low-cost action that provides for the security and safety of some the bravest people in the public arena. The West must stop kowtowing to oppression and make a stand to offer an umbrella of protection to those who need it. That protection is absolutely crucial to the development of more dissent in the blogosphere and on the ground. Only by nurturing dissent can it ever take root and overcome the vast powers of authoritarian government. The promise of protection is hugely powerful because it gives bloggers a safety net to fall back on. Those already active will feel more empowered to speak out against their oppressors, and some currently cowed by fear will have the courage to speak up. The guarantee of amnesty also removes the perceived randomness of such offerings that currently occur, as in the recent case of Cuba in which two bloggers of similar pedigree asked for asylum in the US, but only one received it. [1] Such inconsistency has bred fear in the minds of dissidents. This policy would correct for it and help bolster the cause of justice on all fronts. It is through offering amnesty that democracies can provide the catalyst for the change they avow to be the paramount aim of human civilization.  [1] Fox News Latino. “Cuba: Prominent Blogger-Dissidents Receive Contradictory Results on Visa Petitions”. 31 January 2013.

negative: speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done  "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." [1] Shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong because doing so creates a clear and present danger of harm to others.  Likewise, in the US (and many other countries) there is no protection for ‘false commercial speech’ (i.e. misrepresentation) and the contents of adverts can be regulated in order to ensure that they are truthful and do not deceive consumers. [2] On that basis, restrictions can be placed on how tobacco products may be advertised, and people may be prevented from promoting illegal and fraudulent tax advice.  [1] U.S. Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919,  [2] U.S. Supreme Court, Lorillard Tobacco Co v Reilly, AG of Massachusetts, 533 U.S. 525, 200

negative: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute The rights of refugees are a cornerstone of international law  Signatories of The 1951 Convention on Refugees have a legal responsibility to offer asylum to any foreign national who has a well-founded fear of persecution, for political, religious, ethnic or social reasons, and who is unwilling to return home. Moreover the refugee is protected against forcible return when his life may be threatened, something which is an obligation even for countries which are not parties to the convention bust respect as it is part of international customary law. [1] This treaty is one of the cornerstones of international human rights law, and as such states should uphold it to the letter.  [1] Jastram, Kate, and Achiron, Marilyn, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law’, P.14.

negative: If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech.  To argue that this is a matter of the infringement of the right to free speech is not only wrong but offensive to those who have had that right genuinely curtailed. A stifling of free speech is about cutting off people’s access to ideas, denying them the right to take those ideas and present them to others. The slow, natural death of Braille does not do that. Fewer than one in ten blind children now learn Braille [i] . Those who wish to continue to use Braille can do so just as those who prefer to write a letter rather than send an email can do so. Both groups however, accept that it is likely to become more expensive and exclude them from the rest of society as others adapt and new technologies become the norm.  The information and ideas are there, they are available in a format that is available, even if it is not the format of absolute preference. The technology is available, many prefer it, those who don’t are free not to use it.  [i] “The Death of Braille” – Appropriate or Ominous? Neatorama.com. 26 February 2010.

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Government legitimacy is defined in its most limited form as the ability to provide security and stability within its jurisdiction. It seems fair to say that international institutions and states with a stake in international order, as most do, will have an interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of failing and failed states, which do not retain the same legitimacy of states that can provide the baseline of security to their people. Furthermore, the openness created by the public recognition of the right to nuclear weapons will allow advanced countries to offer assistance in security and protection of nuclear stockpiles, making it less likely that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists.

negative: americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey has a poor human rights record  Turkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. "Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts." [1]  The Kurdish minority is also enjoying better treatment. “The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed… In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned." [2]  Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under its jurisdiction in the first place. Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.  [1]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004  [2]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

negative: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Criminal defendants don’t get to pick and choose trial dates  Irrespective of who they are, Kenyatta and Ruto are nothing special – they’re just another two criminal defendants.  A person who is on trial murder or any other offence, whoever they are, can’t pick and choose their trial date for their own convenience or for their own business interests – why should these two particular defendants get a special privilege? Silvio Berlusconi was prosecuted by the Italian courts; the slow speed was due to the glacial pace of the Italian legal system rather than him particularly agitating for a special hold-up. The court cases were not done at his convenience.

negative: Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm  We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation of the United Nations, sovereignty is no longer as necessary to protect states, as most wars are not about territorial acquisition. Now it is primarily a barrier to the international community intervening when the state is abusing its own population. A better principle is if governments today are unable or unwilling to perform the duty to protect their people from harm (including state-imposed harm), then their claims to sovereignty lose their moral force and intervention becomes justified [1] . For example, Qaddafi of Libya was likening his citizens to cockroaches and rats, threatening to kill them house-by-house whilst speaking of his intent to indiscriminately attack the population of Benghazi [2] . As such, there was significant concern that violence would have devastating impacts on Libyan civilians. The United Nations, in response, authorized NATO action [3] . Through unleashing state military assets to attack his own population, Qaddafi made it clear that he was not a fit leader. The United Nations, as the representative of the international community, has the responsibility to protect those whose leaders have let them down.  [1] International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”,   [2] BBC News (2011), “Libya Protests: Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit”, BBC News,   [3] Chivers, C.J. (2011), “In Libya’s West, Signs of Growing Frustration With NATO”, New York Times,

negative: computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join It is absolutely regrettable that men use Facebook in order take advantage of certain women, but we must not forget that because of these very situations Facebook and many NGO’s initiated campaigns to prevent these kind of tragedies happening again(1). Such campaigns have informed thousands of women about the dangers of meeting strangers, both the virtual world and in the real one, and how to avoid them. These campaigns both help women avoid the threat in the first place and encourage them to make sure they are protected, for example by carrying pepper spray, so at the end of the day, a significant number of women are now more protected against being rape because of these social networks. Facebook has clearly not increased the incidence of rape as statistics (2) show that the number of rape cases has dropped dramatically since the start of the world wide web.  Cyber bullying is potentially a problem. On this level too, Facebook recognized the possibility of certain teenagers posting harmful or offending information about another party so it took action in order to try and stop this from happening in the future. As Facebook officials are declaring, they will “update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts. We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create “(2). Facebook has an entire department to try to prevent such cyber bullying. Moreover Facebook is comparatively secure from cyber bullying compared to some sites; it is not anonymous and users can unfriend people and prevent people who they don’t know from accessing their profile.  (1) Facebook   (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation   (3) Facebook

negative: crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power  Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state.  In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another.  However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights.  The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

negative: Conserving languages and immigrant community cultures  Being able to learn and teach in our own language will preserve the culture of large immigrant groups as part of another state, this is both good for that community and for the nation. For the community and the individual speaking and learning their own language will give immigrants a sense of belonging. They are part of a community that they know and understand because it speaks the same language even before they come to know the rest of the country. This provides security, belonging, and close contact with relatives. For the community it means keeping their own customs and identity alive, in a few cases this may actually be contributing to conserving a language. For the country as a whole this does not represent a threat as there can be many different levels of identity that all intermix. Instead it provides an opportunity; it diversifies the country. It gains the benefit of a different perspective on problems and new ideas as people who speak different languages think about things in different ways so it is useful for innovation to have many different communities brought up in different languages interacting. [1] It also gains from having another culture add diversity to its own; there are new festivals, concerts, art, and perhaps most commonly encountered a greater diversity of cuisines to be sampled through restaurants.  [1] Bordoditsky, Lera, ‘Lost in Translation’, The Wall St Journal, 23 July 2010,

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

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

negative: International relations specialists have long concluded that for a successful political amalgamation to take place, the people of the various regional components of that amalgamation must have a great deal in common. The history of nation-states demonstrates, for example, that a common language is a strong unifying force. But there must be other strong commonalities aside from language. There cannot be extreme differences in economic conditions among the regions, or extreme differences in political beliefs and ideologies, or extreme differences in cultural attitudes and social mores. When we look at the world of nations today, we cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of extreme differences in all of these areas. Aside from economics and political ideologies, the most obvious factors are the multiplicity of languages and religions. We are forced to conclude that a successful political amalgamation among such a wide assortment of dramatically diverse nations is virtually impossible.

negative: Europe is only an umbrella identity; the diverse elements that form it must not be ignored. European identity is comprised of many elements, these being the many different countries within the continent. These different countries assert their individual identities through culture, people, traditions and languages. These must be acknowledged so that the EU is aware of the identities of the very Member States that comprise it. Keeping languages alive in the face of language death is a very emotive issue. Such response to one’s own language is what makes us human. To deny people affection for their own language is to dehumanise them. In the whole, if the EU tried to strengthen its identity by choosing one language, it would harm its true identity, as a group of diverse states, joined together.

negative: There is much less need to learn foreign languages for countries where English is the first language.  For those from countries where English is not the first language English is an obvious language to study, it is a language which is useful all over the world, not just in countries where English is the native language because so many people speak it as a second language. There is not the same obvious second language for native English speakers. It is undeniable that English is increasingly a global language; it is the language of technology and global communication. English is likely to be used in a conversation between for example a German Scientist and an Italian Politician. [1] It is therefore being realistic for English speakers to believe that any other language they learn will have less utility than their own.  [1] English Online Learners, ‘English the Global Language’, British Council,

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

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

negative: It is more practical to work through one language that all Member States understand in order to ensure the effectiveness of communication.  Multilingualism could lead to several breakdowns in communication, which only give rise to further problems. This is especially likely between French and English where there are many ‘false friends’. For example ‘actuellement’ in French translates into English as ‘currently’, not ‘actually’. Using only one working language will eradicate confusion and reduce the number of errors. This is especially important in the realm of international politics, where small errors can breed long-term consequences.

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

negative: Learning languages promotes understanding of other cultures  To refuse to learn foreign languages is narrow-minded, ignorant and blinkered. Language is a means not only of asserting identity but, more importantly of “heritage culture maintenance”. To refuse to learn a foreign language is to disallow anyone’s culture apart from one’s own to be upheld. When this happens, “the dominant groups force ethnic groups into particular… niches”. [1] This is particularly likely to be a problem in multicultural societies or indeed any society that is not homogeneous. By refusing to learn foreign languages, one refuses to recognise that other cultures even exist.  For this reason learning a foreign language helps to tackle xenophobia. Negative stereotyping is sadly still prevalent in the modern world. “American students in Maine view persons speaking standard French as shorter, less leaderlike (sic), less thoughtful, less intelligent, less honest, less self-confident, less dependable, less generous, less kind, less ambitious, less stable and with less character than English Speakers”. [2] Such stereotypes lead to prejudices, xenophobia and, in extreme cases, hate crime. Learning foreign languages is a good way to combat such prejudices, because the students learn about the foreign culture for themselves, meet and converse with its people, and have a first-hand introduction to a foreign people. This will leave them more open minded towards other cultures so less likely to be xenophobic towards other cultures whose language they have not learnt. As Reynolds explains, “discounting stereotypes involves denying cultural differences” [3] such as the ability to communicate through the same language.  [1] Reynolds, Allan G., Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning, Lawrence Newbury Publishers, New Jersey, 1990, p.10  [2] Gardner, R.C., Lambert, W.E, Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning, Newbury House Publishers, Massachusetts, 1972, p.99  [3] Reynolds, Allan G., Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and Second Language Learning, Lawrence Newbury Publishers, New Jersey, 1990, p.5

negative: Learning its target language is not fundamental to embracing any foreign culture. Many people can be very open to foreign cultures without learning their language(s). Indeed it may be necessary for most to keep the two separate. [1] No one can learn every foreign language and many would not have the time to learn more than a few but that should not prevent learning about and enjoying that culture, its music, its art and even in many cases through translation its literature.  If a student is forced to learn a language against his/her will, then the negative stereotype of the target culture will only be strengthened, fuelled by ill feeling and negative experiences. In the words of Albert Einstein, “It is easier to split an atom than break a prejudice” and realistically language learning will not help combat this sad truth.  [1] Erlbaum, ‘Understanding Second Language Difficulties, 1996, p.140

negative: This is once again down to the way languages are taught. The quality of teaching needs to be high so that those who struggle more are motivated to overcome this divide. This is also the case with grammar, both learner and teacher need to have patience and be willing to engage. [1] The critical age for learning a language must also be taken into consideration, it is believed by many experts in the field that it is easier for people to learn languages at a very early age, as it greatly improves ones accent and their ability to learn quickly. Thus the gap between those who progress and those who don’t will be greatly reduced if all students had to learn another language starting from an early primary school age.  [1] Gardner, Attitudes and motivation in Second-Language learning, 1972, p.135

negative: It is better to have fewer languages in common use in global academic and economic interrelations  A proliferation of languages in academia will serve to fracture the interrelations of academics, not unify them. As more and more academics and innovators interested in new academic developments find it possible to obtain information wholly in their native languages, then the impetus toward unification in a primary language of academia and commerce will be slowed or entirely thwarted. Through history there have been movements toward this sort of linguistic unity, because it reduces the physical and temporal costs of information exchange; for example scholars throughout Early Modern Europe communicated in Latin. [1] This policy serves only to dampen this movement, which will, even if helpful to people in the short-run, serve to limit the capacity of developing world academics to engage with the developed world. Today English has become the definitive language of both international academic discourse and commerce. In France for example, a country known for its protective stance towards its language, journals have been changing to publishing in English rather than French; the journal Research in Virology changed in 1989 as almost 100% of their articles were submitted in English compared to only 15% in 1973. [2]  The trend towards one language is a positive one, because it has meant more movers and shakers in various countries have all been able to better and more quickly understand one another's desires and actions leading to more profitable and peaceful outcomes generally. [3] Also important is the fact that while academics and other interested parties in the developing world may be able to grapple with academic work more effectively once translated for them, they now have a greater disadvantage due to the enervating effects this translation produces. Without the positive impetus to learn the major language or languages of international discourse, developing world academics will never be able to get posts and lectureships at institutions in the developed world, or to take part in joint research in real time. The convergence of language ultimately serves to promote common understanding, which means people from the developing world can more effectively move between their home country and others. It also helps build a common lexicon of terms that will be more robust for international use, as opposed to translations, which are often imperfect due to divergences of linguistic concepts and thus susceptible to mistake.  [1] Koenigsberger, H. G., Mosse, George L., and Bowler, G. Q., Europe in the Sixteenth Century, London, 2nd Edn, 1989, p.377  [2] Garfield, Eugene, ‘The English Language: The Lingua Franca Of International Science’, The Ceisntist, 15 May 1989,   [3] Bakopoulos, D. ‘English as Universal Academic Language: Good or Bad?’. The University Record, 1997, Available:

negative: Language acquisition is no less vital than competence in mathematics and english  A high number of students failing to succeed in languages is not a valid reason to make the subject optional. This mentality opens the gate to making English and math options, simply to eradicate the effort of improving pass rates. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reports that in the UK “A quarter of secondary pupils (aged 11 and over) fail to reach their potential in math(s) and a quarter are making insufficient progress in English”. [1] Still, optional English and math is unthinkable; these are core subjects- languages should also be considered as such. Those who want to transfer students energies from foreign languages to English are ignoring the possibility that learning a foreign language may actually be useful for learning the first language. [2] Students failing in core subjects must be helped to improve, not have the subject eradicated.  [1] BBC News, ‘Third of England pupils fail to reach maths potential’, 9 June 2011,   [2] Leons, Eve, Herbert, Christie and Gobbo, Ken. 2009. “Students with Learning Disabilities and AD/HD in the Foreign Language Classroom” Foreign Language Annals 42(1): 42-54.

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

negative: Allowing students to study what they want or what they consider themselves to be good at would be a mistake. The point of education before university is to provide a good broad grounding that provides all the necessary life skills. This has to include harder subjects that would not be the first choice of the students. In the UK it has been suggested that the high pass rate for soft subjects like Media Studies of 98% has helped cause a decline in foreign language learning at A-level (16-18 years old). [1] Scientific research has shown how a second language can aid us past school years, for example the American Association for the advancement of science’s latest research shows the symptoms of alzheimer’s to occur later on in life in those who are bilingual in comparison to those who speak one language. The ability to speak more than one language enables people to communicate better and for longer. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Media Studies. Discuss’, 18 August 2005,   [2] Wheeler, David L., ‘Being Bilingual: Beneficial Workout for the Brain’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 February 2011,

negative: Poetry should not be seen as something that one studies after learning English but should, instead, be seen as a way to help students grasp the English language. Many aspects of English are improved through the study of poetry. Learning poetry involves repetitive reading and an exploration of vowels and syllables. Students also explore a variety of sentence structures and are given the opportunity to explore the creativity and flexibility available in language. Furthermore, by reading poetry students can improve their reading ability and public speaking skills.

negative: The status quo is impractical, because we expect MEPs to be multilingual in order to be effective.  It is highly demanding to request all MEPs to be multilingual and translation and interpreting time takes time out of the meetings when vital issues could and should be discussed and addressed and in which problems should be solved. They have been elected on the strength of their political abilities, not their language skills. If we require all MEPs to be multilingual, we are actually excluding many politicians who could be very skilled, but don’t speak enough languages for the EU.

negative: To work through one single global language that is understood by all cultures makes perfect sense; it is a medium through which they can all communicate within the context of EU operations. The EU is not asking the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to address their own people nor their parliament at home through the medium of English. The use of a single working language is just to ensure effectiveness when discussing and debating EU matters between Member States.

negative: Learning a language is a sign of good diplomacy.  The call for students to learn a foreign language not only stems from economic needs but also from the need of improved security and diplomacy, in particular a better understanding of cultures and languages in order to better understand threats to the state and improved foreign services are needed. [1] In many Anglophone countries even in the role of a diplomat there are worrying numbers who do not have the language skills they need, for example in Canada “only 16% of the 180 foreign service officers who were required to have advanced foreign languages skills for their positions, could speak the needed language.” [2] As a 2007 National Academy of sciences report warns us “the pervasive lack of knowledge of foreign languages and cultures threatens the security of the united states as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace and produce an unformed citizenry”. [3] Since the increased security post 9/11 the government accountability office (GAO) have reported that there are a shortage of foreign language expertise within the government and for this reason may undermine national security.  Much of the population of mainland Europe go to great lengths to learn foreign languages, especially the dominant English. English speakers should reciprocate the efforts made by their foreign counterparts; Nicolas Sarkozy for example is aiming to make France into a bilingual nation. [4] Across Europe at least 20% of third-level students claim to be proficient in at least two foreign languages. However, in countries where English is a major language, this is not the case; in Ireland, for example the figure is only 5%. [5] In the United States the situation is similar only 31% of US elementary schools and 24% of public schools teach foreign languages. [6] Expecting foreign countries to communicate through dominant English is a lazy and arrogant attitude to language and should not be permitted. Therefore learning languages up to the age of sixteen should be compulsory.  [1] Kollipara, Puneet, ‘Government still trying to catch up on foreign language capabilities’, The Hill, 12 June 2010,   [2] Raj, Althia, ‘Canadian diplomats don’t have necessary foreign language skills’, Toronto Sun, 3 September 2010,   [3] Mary Ellen O’Connell and Janet L. Norwood ed. ‘International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America's Future’ National Academy of Sciences, 2007,   [4] Agence Bretagne Presse, ‘Nicolas Sarkozy veut faire de la France une nation bilingue’, 12 September 2007,   [5] Irish Independent, ‘Only 5 percent at third-level able to speak two foreign languages’, CareersPortal.ie, 16 June 2011,   [6] Washington Times, ‘Analysis: U.S. must strengthen foreign language education’, 26 December 2008

negative: Again, language is not the only skill that government officials are required to possess in order to ensure that a state is able to adequately protect its citizens and its borders from foreign threats. Those with knowledge and experience working in different states of different cultures can use this to enhance knowledge available to the government or officials. People of different backgrounds are also employed in order to gain insight and for this reason a varied skill set of experiences and knowledge can work together in securing a state.

negative: Migrants need to learn the language to improve job prospects  An immigrant that studies in the local language will be a citizen that is better integrated in the society, respected by the natives and with more economic opportunities. First of all, we have to acknowledge that going to a school for natives will permit the development of personal relations with people that are not from the same community community. Interaction will be possible with everybody in school and in the country. The first step towards becoming friends with someone is by understanding them. This is only possible if they can communicate properly in a single language. Secondly, the native language is necessary for most jobs. Jobs require interaction with natives and ability to discuss and work alongside co-workers. Immigrants are forced most of the time to do low-skilled jobs like working in constructions or agriculture because they are not able to speak the local language, though even in these sectors language skills would be useful. By promoting mother tongue education this problem will exacerbated. Language proficiency for immigrants that are trying to find a job in the United Kingdom increases employment probabilities by 17% to 22% and gives them an earning advantage of 18-20%. [1] Getting a new job is already hard, so why should the state through its education policy wish to damage the chances of immigrants of finding one that requires them to know the language of the country they are in?  [1] Dustmann. Christian, and Fabbri, Francesca, ‘Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK’, The Economic Journal, Vol.113, July 2003, pp.695-717  , p.707

negative: government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada Although it may be true that traditional Quebecois culture is under threat, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Cultures change and evolve to reflect the rich history of a territory and its peoples and the interaction with Anglophonic Canadians is a very important part of that history that should be reflected in Quebecois culture.  Moreover, Quebec is more than able to institute language laws and cultural policy, as they were able to continue the vast majority of the provisions in Bill 101 [1] after it was struck down once they stripped out the parts that explicitly discriminated against English-speaking Canadians and once they enacted the Constitutional not-withstanding clause that the Canadian constitution has in place to help accommodate Provincial diversity such as this. Further to this, Canada is officially a bilingual country, and thus the linguistic and cultural rights of the French are constitutionally protected by the Federal government not only within Quebec but in wider Canadian society. It is simply fallacious to claim that the Canadian government does not recognize or protect the distinct culture and language of French Canadians.  [1] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <  .

negative: Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity.  The reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as severely damaging to British national identity. As a national church the Church of England has been at the heart of the country’s political and cultural life since the sixteenth century, religion helped make Britain the country it is today. [1] A separation would be the country turning its back on this history and its own culture.  [1] MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘How God Made the English’, BBC, 2012