query: Collective bargaining is not a right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2  Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011

positive: mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.  Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1  Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.  1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

negative: mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1  Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2  1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011,   2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u.

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: 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: The value placed upon the right to free expression reflects its ability to enable the articulation of new, compelling and beneficial ideas, alongside damaging forms of speech. In liberal democratic societies, the potential inherent in free speech has always preserved it against limitation by legislation and- to a great extent- by social norms. A natural (as opposed to legal) person who makes statements that are openly offensive, or are inaccurate or misleading may also be able to articulate profound and useful ideas and observations. This is also true for certain groups formed by association – such as political parties.  However, corporations as they are popularly understood- as business entities- are constrained by law only to act in a certain way. In the United States, the individuals responsible for deciding on the actions of a corporation do so on the explicit understanding that they owe a particular duty to the individuals who make up that corporation. This legal duty takes the form of an obligation to run the business to maximise the value of the shares [1] in the business that each of its constituent investors holds. This duty has done a lot to promote investment in new businesses and to keep the reputation of established firms intact. It ensures that confidence in corporations is not undermined by speculation that they might be pursuing the wrong goals and it allows incompetent directors to be removed from their positions before they can harm investors' interests. However, this law also makes it necessary to limit the other rights that corporate persons might have access to.  The Unitarian commentator Tom Stites puts the situation bluntly. “Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders... Fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit... corporations are by their nature immoral...” [2] In other words, the boards of directors of large corporations, in most circumstances will only be able to pursue a profit motive.  The type of personhood that money-making corporations utilise under American law is a personhood that comes complete with a very specific personality and set of goals. A corporate person that is formed by a collective of shareholders, each of whom have invested in the assets held by this individual, will be bound to engage profit motivated behaviour when it acts [3] . Executives and employees of the corporation, will find their jobs at risk if they choose to forgo profit-led behaviour in favour of directing a corporation to take actions informed by different social and economic principles.  An individual's right to free speech cannot not be abrogated in a broad fashion by a liberal government, in part because he is, to borrow an archaic phrase, “the captain of his own soul” – an individual with free will, able to be influenced by argument and to develop new ideas and perspectives upon the subject of his speech. A profit making corporation, however, is obliged to follow a single set of behavioural imperatives. If it is not attempting to maximise its profits, it will seek to protect the value of its interests and the efficiency of its operations. Where it is able to speak freely, a corporation will always use its right to expression for predictable ends. It is easy to envision scenarios in which corporate bodies will use the right to free speech to spread false or inaccurate information or to distort open debate if there was profit to be gained or protected.  Human behaviour is diverse and the ideas that we express can be altered by reason and the influence of argument. Through legal measures that were intended to protect shareholders investment in profit-making corporations, corporate behaviour has become limited, closed minded and immune to persuasive debate.  [1] Mills v Mills (1938) CLR 150  [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004

negative: The proposition side have resurrected an old legal mechanism that was of limited use in order to defend an inaccurate and polarising interpretation of corporate rights.  The proposition argues that the actions and behaviour of profit making business corporations will always be guided by the profit motive and that, for this reason, corporations will never be able to contribute to the accommodations and compromises that free speech is used to foster. In plainer terms, side proposition see corporations as being inherently deceptive and untrustworthy.  The proposition side have failed to consider that it is possible for corporations to function within free markets, and to participate fully in capitalist democracies, without being bound to a single minded pursuit of profit.  Corporations have now recognised that the growth and maintenance of profits in the long term can often best be served by under-emphasising profit in the short term. Corporations have become increasingly conscious of the effects that their activities have on the societies that they operate in. Ostensibly profitable actions that undermine the cohesiveness of communities, make enemies of politicians or, ultimately, create less stable market conditions will not contribute to the long-term health of the corporation. Indeed, long term planning and long term impact is more important to corporations as they exist in perpetuity. Unlike natural persons, corporations will never die.  The profit motive is no longer the primary driving force behind corporate activity. There is little need for the state to take drastic steps to curtail corporations’ freedoms , because the behavioural imperative that the proposition side objects to is no longer the central priority of businesses operating in liberal democracies.  Another way to address this problem is to adopt the perspective of NPR columnist Bradley Smith. Smith correctly observes that states, including the USA, may grant rights to individuals and that those rights may be exercised under certain circumstances that the state prescribes. An individual can, for example, exercise a right to receive income support, or can obtain a right to drive a car by passing a driving test. Similarly, corporate persons have been granted a certain body of rights by the state [1] . The individuals that band together as a corporation have the right to limit their liability for the corporations losses; to have the corporation treated as a single person and to benefit (in the US at least) from similar rights to due process and freedom from discrimination.  Simply because a corporation is granted certain rights by the state that improve the efficiency of its operations and the financial position of its members, this does not mean that it should lose its right to speak freely.  In a liberal democracy, rights are not traded, hedged and swapped by states and citizens. Nor do constitutional rights exist in a hierarchy. Rights are incommensurate, because they can be applied in a wide variety of ways to defend a wide variety of causes. The right to speech are persuasion must always remain flexible because different audiences and different groups respond to different arguments. There is nothing dishonest in a company choosing the most persuasive manner of speech that it can find in order to defend its own interests.  [1] “Corporations are people, too”. National Public Radio online, 10 September 2009.

negative: The long term benefits of Eurobonds  The European Union should not only focus on the present but also try to find a permanent solution in resolving and preventing economic crisis. The solution that is implemented right now through the European Stability Mechanism is a temporary one and has no power in preventing further crisis. First of all, the failure of the European Union to agree on banks bailout is a good example. [1] As economic affairs commissioner Olli Rehn admitted the bailout negotiations have been "a long and difficult process" [2] because of the many institutions and ministers that have a say in making the decision. More than that, it sometimes takes weeks and even months until Germany and other leaders in the union can convince national parliaments to give money in order for us to be able to help those in need.  Issuing bonds as a union of countries will provide more control to the ECB that will be able to approve or deny a loan – one option would be that after a certain limit countries would have to borrow on their own. [3] This will prevent countries from borrowing and spending irrationally like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy did in the past. The unsustainable economic approach can be easily seen in the fact that public sector wages in Greece rose 50% between 1999 and 2007 - far faster than in most other Eurozone countries. [4] Clearly Greece could make the choice to go separately to the market to fund this kind of spending but it would be unlikely to do so.  [1] Spiegel, Peter, ‘EU fails to agree on bank bailout rules’, The Financial Times, 22 June 2013,   [2] Fox, Benjamin, ‘Ministers finalise €10 billion Cyprus bailout’, euobserver.com, 13 April 2013,   [3] Plumer, Brad, ‘Can “Eurobonds” fix Europe?’, The Washington Post, 29 May 2012,   [4] BBC News, ‘Eurozone crisis explained’, 27 November 2012,

negative: Animals are equal to human beings.  It is true that animals and human beings are different. It is also true that men are different from women and children from adults. Equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are unable to have an abortion. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe all human beings have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support animal rights.  Equality does not mean that beings all deserve the exact same treatment. It means rather that we consider equally the equal interests of animals and humans. If we deem amount A to be the maximum amount of suffering a person be allowed to endure, then that should apply equally to an animal, though humans and animals may suffer different amounts under different circumstances.  The principle of equality advocates equal consideration, so it still allows for different treatment and different rights. Equality is a prescriptive rather than a descriptive concept. What’s important is that beings should ONLY be treated differently where there is a morally relevant difference between them. For example, we can justifiably deny dogs the right to vote because there is a relevant difference in intelligence between dogs and humans. However, there is no justification for battery-farming chickens who have a capacity to suffer. There is evidence that they experience fear, pain and discomfort. Although chickens may be less intelligent and unable to speak , these differences are not morally relevant to whether or not they should be placed in these conditions.  We ought to consider animals equally to the way we consider humans. If we were to do so we would give animals rights. We ought therefore to give animals rights.

negative: Offshore outsourcing is consistent with existing labour distribution patterns.  Offshore outsourcing lowers the cost of goods and services. There is no real need for all of the goods and services that are consumed within a highly developed economy to be produced in that economy. The sale price of a particular form of good or service is determined by a wide range of factors, including the pay demands made by the workers assembling the good or providing the service. Seeking out a labour force willing to accept lower wages and work longer hours enables a business to reduce the price and increase the overall supply of the products it offers [i] .  As more expensive and elaborate goods become available to more people- due to reductions in price- living standards throughout an economy will rise. Concurrently, increased demand for goods produced abroad will lead to increased business for offshore firms that take on outsourced work, leading to more money flowing into developing economies. Standards of living will also increases in these economies – albeit at a lower rate than in the import economy.  Offshore outsourcing does nothing more than reflect labour distribution patterns that already exist in domestic economies [ii] . Different types of activity will be carried out in centralised urban areas- where land and operating costs may be higher- than in the countryside or peripheral, industrialised districts. Certain regions of a state, by dint of geography or earlier investment decisions, may produce a concentration of certain type of worker, service or skillset. Competition within these areas will drive labour costs down – but a downward trend in service and production costs will usually lead to an upward trend in demand. This interrelationship has successfully fostered developed within all of the worlds’ largest economies, without creating unmanageable regional inequalities and without undermining workers’ rights.  Greater social mobility and education attainment within developed economies reduces the availability of the types of skilled and semi-skilled manufacturing-oriented labour that drove first-world economies during the twentieth century. First world nations now compete in knowledge-led economies, seeking to provide research new technologies and provide novel services to consumers in other highly developed nations. The residual power of collective bargaining mechanisms such as unions, coupled with expectations of high pay and highly refined working conditions mean the relative competitiveness of first-world manufacturing industries has dropped. Even if a state were to give preferential treatment to domestic manufacturers and low-level service providers, it would still run the risk of being out-competed by its counterparts in the developing world.  Better standards of education, growing personal wealth and the frequent use of credit to purchase assets have created a collective action problem in first world states that practice off shoring. While, in the long-term, the number of highly skilled workers within domestic economies will grow, in the short term, a significant number of older manual and clerical workers may become unemployable as a result of more intense overseas competition. However, side proposition argues that this constitutes a marginal and bearable cost in term of the wider benefits to quality of life that outsourcing achieves.  Further, the potential costs of assisting excluded domestic workers to re-enter the job market will be covered by increased taxation and excise revenues resulting from more frequent trade with offshore outsourcing firms.  [i] “Idea. Offshoring.” The Economist, 28 October 2009.   [ii] “The once great offshoring debate.” Real Clear Politics, 16 May 2007.

negative: The SIM card tax is actually under-ambitious for potential change to be maximised. Nevertheless, the tax initiates a step in the right direction. Firstly, it will ensure reductions are made in tax avoidance. Secondly, the model shows the potential role the private-sector can play in tax collection. Decentralisation, and shifting responsibility, to independent providers means valuable resources can be collected outside of the criticised TRA structure. For example, the Association of Tanzania Employers may be granted greater involvement in enhancing corporate tax collection. Estimations suggest corporate tax exemptions resulted in annual revenue losses of 4% between 2011-2012 (Gaddis, 2013).  The SIM card tax indicates domestic resources can be mobilised by engaging in public-private partnerships. For progressive tax systems, Tanzania needs to utilise private actors.

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: The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for  The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union [1] , and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa [2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this” [3] .  This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages.  [1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa,   [2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011,   [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011,

negative: The minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness  Without a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices. [1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because people’s choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through self-destructive wage competition. [2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.  [1] Waltman, The Politics of the Minimum Wage, 2000  [2] Hillman, Public Finance and Public Policy: Responsibilities and Limitations of Government, 2009

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

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Metadata and data-mining are not new they are simply becoming more frequent, and more accurate as a result of more information. In the past there have been other ways of collecting data; tax records, voter registration, reverse telephone directories. [1] At the same time government and the intelligence agencies are not even those who make most use of this, there are whole private companies devoted to sifting this data. [2] There is little reason why we should particularly worry about this being done by intelligence agencies.  [1] Gomez, David, ‘Hoovered’, Foreign Policy, 11 June 2013,   [2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients ’.

negative: A national primary would disenfranchise large portions of the country, as candidates would be forced to court the support of only the most populous states as they currently do in the general election. At least with the primary system as it stands, candidates have to pay attention to all of the states and all sections within the party.  Staggered primaries create a relationship of interdependence between the nomination campaigns that are run in various states. A poor showing in one state can undermine a candidate’s attempts to make gains in the following state. American political culture is much more fragmentary and heterogonous than European conceptions of the Union might lead us to believe. Each state is sufficiently large that what may seem to be a parochial “local” issue within the context of the entire Union may be of vital importance to a particular state’s voters. The protection and promotion of the politically and cultural plural nature of the states of the Union is a key aspect of the American democratic ideal. It is appropriate, therefore, that blunders in one state’s primary campaign should be open to analysis by the citizens of other states. If a president does not have a commanding understanding of the issues affecting one state, he may be unable to make effective decisions on the rights and affairs of other states.  It is also worth noting that a single national primary would also be likely to disenfranchise those who do not closely and continuously involve themselves in the political process. Staggered primaries lead major national news services to focus on the local-level issues that may affect turnout and voting in individual states. Staggered primaries allows for reflection on these regional issues. Coverage of this type brings local controversies onto the national stage and fosters cohesion and understanding between the constituent states of one of the largest federal republics in the world. However, a one off election would just deliver national totals and even where this is broken down on a state-by-state basis, there will be much less of an understanding of why certain states supported certain candidates. Only political obsessives will are likely to expend time and effort contextualising and understanding this data; the majority of the population will be less informed than under the status quo.

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

negative: The rights of humans are more important than the rights of animals  Animal rights are not generally accepted as universal rights in the same way as human rights are. If we want to have a shared society, it is necessary to grant each other certain rights, such as respecting personal autonomy and property. Because we reciprocate, we are able to work as a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. There are different philosophical theories as to the source of these rights, but the important thing is what they allow us to achieve. It is generally accepted that the right to a religion is one of these rights, as for many people religion is fundamental to their identity – most estimates for the number of religious people in the world are over 80%. [1] In comparison, animal rights are in no way critical to society.  In our debate, freedom of religion is clashing with causing pain to animals. The former, being a human right, should take precedence over the latter, an animal right. Although we would not give blanket consent to all religious practices, this particular practice is one which there is no reason for banning.  [1] ‘Religions’, The World Factbook, 2010 est.,

negative: edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests  There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem.  Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact.  Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis.  [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012,   [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012,

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]

negative: free challenge house believes julian assange journalist The concept of what is a journalist needs to be clarified to deal with the reality of new forms of mass communication. Assange gathers, collates and disseminates information, ergo, he is a journalist.  Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government. [1]  At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder [2] .  [1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005,   [2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011.

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

negative: Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.  The advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.  There is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.  There is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.  Even where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.  Most importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.

negative: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on  Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]  As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option." [3  Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]  Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.  The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]  Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]  Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]  This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.  [1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.   [7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010.   [8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996.

negative: The European Parliament may ‘speak for Europe’ but the Council speaks for the EU’s member states. Privileging the European Parliament at the expense of the Council erodes the intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making. It is important to protect the sovereign powers of the individual member states; this is achieved in the Council, which is comprised of representatives of each national government. This has been particularly the case in the United Kingdom where there have been rows over sovereignty in relatively obscure areas such as prisoners voting rights. [1]  The European Union can only work if national considerations are put above all others. The Council works because the best possible conclusions are reached precisely because compromise between the varying interests is required. Involving the European Parliament would shift the emphasis of the entire EU from being a forum for independent nations to being a decision making body for a large number of states, undermining the sovereignty of domestic parliaments.  [1] Bagehot, ‘Britain’s mounting fury over sovereignty’, The Economist, 10 February 2011,

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

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify This argument makes a claim of bias against academics and commentators who portray the audiences that hip hop music is targeted at as vulnerable. Unfortunately, this is a viewpoint that is closer to the truth than the aspirational narrative provided in the opposition side’s case.  Hip hop emerged from environments that were extremely poor and that had been pushed to the margins of society. This situation has persisted until well into this century. The cyclical effects of racism and discrimination continue to be felt in minority communities. Although anti-discrimination laws now protect access to employment and government services, inequalities in cultural capital and high-impact policing have led to the exclusion of large numbers of young men from the social economic opportunities that are made available to middle class society. Under these circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to describe the adolescent inhabitants of impoverished urban communities as vulnerable.  Poverty- either financial or of opportunity- breeds desperation. An individual placed in a situation of urgent need will not have the ability to reason clearly. This is especially true of young people undergoing the difficult transition to adulthood. Adolescence is characterised by a desire to test the boundaries of social norms and parental authority. Therefore, expression that legitimatises and encourages ever more dangerous forms of rebellion should be kept out of the hands of young people. They are unusually susceptible to the behavioural distortions that side opposition goes out of its way to deny.  We limit the content of the media that children and young people can consume all the time, recognising that the process of education and socialisation changes the individual’s relationship to wider society and their ability to which forms of behaviour will best help them to live freely and happily.  Children and teenagers are more impressionable than adults. Similarly, the rate at which individuals mature and develop can vary wildly. We recognise that, for example, exposure to pornography or violent cinema could have serious behaviour consequences for young children. Objections to the restricted availability of pornography are nonsensical, given that they do a great deal to protect children, and present only a minor inconvenience to an adult’s attempts to access such material.  Although we do not place onerous restrictions on the ability of adults to access media of this type, we can be strict in regulating children’s access. This does not constitute a permanent form of censorship, but instead fulfils the broad remit that the state is granted to protect its citizens. Moreover, classification of expression that is geared toward protecting the vulnerable also aids in protecting the primacy and utility of free speech itself. Free expression- as has been restated throughout this exchange- can harm as easily as it liberates. In some instances, the state must temporarily restrict the access of certain classes of people to certain forms of free expression, in order to ensure that free, frank and controversial discussion and expression can take place in society in general.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Hate speech  The enforcement of the laws proposed in this article will be fraught, complex and difficult. However, the difficulty of administering a law is never a good argument for refusing to enforce it.  The censorship of the written word ended in England with the Lady Chatterley and Oz obscenity trials, but this liberalisation of publication standards has not prevented the state from prosecuting hate speech when it appears in print. It is clear that, although we have more latitude than ever to say or write what we want (no matter how objectionable), standards and taboos continue to exist. We can take it that these taboos are especially important and valuable to the running of a stable society, as they have persisted despite the legal and cultural changes that have taken place over the last fifty years.  Hate speech is prosecuted and censored because of its power to intrude into the lives of individuals who have not consented to receive it. As pointed out in Jeremy Waldron’s response [1] to Timothy Garton Ash’s piece [2] on hate speech, hateful comments are not dangerous because they insight gullible individuals to abandon their inhibitions and engage in race riots. Hate speech is harmful because it recreates- cheaply and in front of a very large audience- an atmosphere in which vulnerable minorities are put in fear of becoming the targets of violence and prejudice. Additionally, hate speech harms by defaming groups, by propagating lies and half-truths about practices and beliefs, with the objective of socially isolating those groups.  Gangsta rap does all of these things, yet legal responses to the publication of songs containing such lyrics as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome,” have been timid at best. Even if we maintain our liberal approach to taboo breaking forms of expression, we can still link hip hop to many of the harms that hate speech produces.  Gangsta rap gives the impression that African-American and Latin-American neighbourhoods throughout the USA are violent, lawless places. Even if the pronouncements of rappers such as 50 cent and NWA are overblown or fictitious they enforce social division by vividly discouraging people from entering or interacting with poor minority communities. They damage those communities directly by creating a fear of criminality that serves to limit trust and cohesion among individual community members. Finally, violent hip hop is also defamatory. It propagates an image of minority communities that emphasises violence, poverty and nihilism, whilst loudly proclaiming its authenticity. It is completely irrelevant that these images of minority communities are produced by members of those communities.  It is on this basis, however protracted the process of classification must become, that the content of hip hop songs should be assessed and censored. Liberal democracies are prepared to go to great lengths to adjudicate on speech that could potentially promote racial or religious hatred. The same standards should be applied to hip hop music, because it is capable of producing identical harms.  [1] Waldron, J. “The harm of hate speech”. FreeSpeechDebate, 20 March 2012.  [2] Garton-Ash, T. “Living with difference”. FreeSpeechDebate, 22 January 2012.

negative: A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must  A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon [1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy. [2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy. [3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform.  [1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008,   [2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic & International Studies,   [3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf

negative: Rights should be gained progressively  Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 16 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 16 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. The more difficult and complex the choices involved in that right and the greater the impact the later a right should be given. Because voting is so important, involves complex decision making, and can potentially have a large impact, it should be one of the last rights to be gained. It then makes sense that it voting should be granted at the time we consider adulthood to be beginning, which was agreed in the declaration of the rights of the child is 18. [1]  [1] Archard, David William, ‘Children's Rights’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

negative: Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field  People have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups [i] .  Required publication, by contrast, presents an even playing field to all parties. Rather than allowing legislators to determine how and to whom – and for what – they should be accountable, a presumption in favour of publication makes them accountable to all. As a result, it is the only truly effective way of ensuring one of the key aims set out in favour of any freedom of information process.  [i] Who Makes FOI Requests? BBC Open Secrets Website. 14 January 2011.

negative: An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.  Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents’ decisions.  Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability to make an informed decision. [1]  Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2]  The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.” [3]  As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.  [1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008,  , accessed 05/25/2011  [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  , accessed 05/28/2011  [3] Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization,  , accessed 05/29/2011

negative: A great deal of health care and prevention of diseases is information and an informed decision. The United Kingdom does not have a system of compulsory health care, but disease outbreaks are still prevented due to the voluntary uptake of immunizations. The pediatrician Miriam Fine-Goulden explains: “The risk of contracting these infections is only so low at present because the voluntary uptake of immunizations has been high enough (in most cases) to reduce the chance of contact with those organisms through the process of herd immunity.” [1]  Also it can be argued that measles, mumps and rubella (one of the diseases vaccine against) are far from harmful. They are relatively minor illnesses [2] . Measles causes a rash and high fever. Mumps causes swollen glands, headache and fever. Rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed.  Just because medical advance has been made in vaccinations it does not mean that we have to be immunized against every little disease known to man. Bearing in mind the cost of such jabs on the heavily burdened NHS, surely it would be better to not make the MMR jab compulsory. This way we keep parents happy and the NHS budget can be stretched further.  Researches also show that alternative approaches towards diseases such as better nutrition, homeopathy, etc. give very positive results. Healthier populations would not need vaccines to fight a disease. High profits that are now reserved only for the pharmaceutical industry would be spread to other areas of the economy, such as agriculture and the service sector, and more people would gain.  [1] Miriam Fine-Goulden: Should childhood vaccinations be compulsory in the UK ?, University College London,  , accessed 05/29/2011  [2] BBC News, Should the MMR vaccine be compulsory, 03/02/2002,  , accessed 05/29/2011