query: The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.

positive: onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every negative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.

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

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

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

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

negative: The strategic interests of Russia and the west will not always conflict. In the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world, the political presumptions that require a substantial reliance on nuclear forces do not exist, and, in fact, cannot exist. 9/11 showed that national interests can change. The terrorist attacks instantly moved terrorism to the top of the US security agenda involving recognition of it as a global and military problem. [1] Russia and the United States now must jointly face a host of wider problems, from environmental degradation to the growth of ethnic violence, and the challenges to nation-states posed by globalization. Global problems are not decreasing, but, quite the opposite, there are new ones looming on the horizon; this will forge a long-term close economic, scientific and political relationship between Russia and the United States. The National Security Strategy of September 2002 recognised that closer relations are built on common national interests; They [Russian policy makers] understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas. [2]  [1] Iver B. Neumann, ‘Russia as a Great Power’, in Jakob Hedenskog et al (eds.) Russia as a Great Power Dimensions of Security under Putin, (Routledge, London, 2005), pp.13-28, p.18  [2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America September 2002,  pp.26-27. Accessed 20/4/11

negative: defence science science general house supports development missile defence The political consequences of the system make the world less safe  Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states.

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons  The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.

negative: Further expansion of NATO will antagonise Russia  Russia considers NATO expansion to be very antagonistic towards it. Continued NATO expansion would only serve to manufacture the expansionist demon that NATO fears. The election of the ultranationalist Duma in 1996, the choice of the hardliner Yvegeny Primakov as foreign minister, and the failure of the reformist party ‘Russia’s Choice’ under Yegor Gaidar even to clear the 5% hurdle for Duma membership was in whole or in part, due to the Russian sense of isolation from Western Europe. President Putin has also made a lot out of his opposition to NATO expansion which he has opposed since he was first elected President. [1] This sense is dramatically emboldened by such provocative actions as threatening to station NATO troops on its borders. The Russian people are unlikely to consider that the forward deployment is not directed against them, as is shown by Russia’s worries about and threats in response to National Missile Defense which is not aimed at them, [2] but instead is only designed to maintain internal stability in the neighbouring republics. By inflaming Russian nationalism, NATO expansion is obstructs democratic development for Russia and undermines the security of its neighbouring republics.  [1] BBC News, ‘Putin warns against Nato expansion’, 26 January 2001,   [2] Quetteville, Harry de, and Pierce, Andrew, ‘Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal’, The Telegraph, 17 January 2012,

negative: NATO destabilizes peaceful relations with Russia  There are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Iran or North Korea, which, according to Russia, would never fly over these countries in any attack. Russia concludes that the missile defence system therefore must be directed at them. The second issue is NATO’s plans to expand with Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia has traditionally regarded as part of their ‘sphere of influence’. As Russian president Medvedev stated in 2008: “No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.” [1]  [1] BBC News. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion. 2008

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons  The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another. [1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles. [2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use.  [1] Jervis, Robert. 2001. “Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era”. Foreign Affairs.  [2] Mearsheimer, John. 1993. “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”. Foreign Affairs.

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them  There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defence, but also for that of intimidating their neighbours. [1] Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons, nor should they ever be facilitated in their acquisition. For example, Iran has endeavoured for years on a clandestine nuclear weapons program that, were it recognized as a legitimate pursuit, could be increased in scale and completed with greater speed. The result of such an achievement could well destabilize the Middle East and would represent a major threat to the existence of a number of states within the region, particularly Israel. Furthermore, the risk of nuclear weapons, or at least weapons-grade material, falling into the hands of dissidents and terrorists increases substantially when there are more of them and larger numbers of countries possess them. Additionally, many countries in the developing world lack the capacity to safely secure weapons if they owned them, due to lack of technology, national instability, and government corruption. [2] Recognizing the rights of these countries to hold nuclear weapons vastly increases the risk of their loss or misuse.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).  [2] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its Just because others will sell if the EU does not is not a reason to lift the arms ban. The EU’s weaponry is often more advanced than those produced by Russia and may be originally built to fight alongside the US so potentially be more damaging US security. It is also not always true that China can simply go and get high tech arms elsewhere. Under US pressure Israel said that it would allow U.S. officials to review weapons transactions so making it much less likely to transfer the most high tech weapons. [1] Russia is also unwilling to sell high tech weapons to China both because it fears their impact on the balance of power in North East Asia where China could potentially be a future threat to the Russian Far East and because China has often copied Russian technology and improved upon it resulting in lost business in the long term. [2 ]  [1] Wilson, Scott, ‘Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure’, 2005.   [2] Weitz, Richard, ‘Why China Snubs Russia Arms’, 2010.

negative: europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its China will simply get similar products elsewhere  In a global marketplace, if EU states don't sell China arms, others will. Russia and Israel [1] already sell China much high-tech military material, between 2001 and 2010 Russia sold over $16billion of arms to China. [2] As Israel is a key American ally, US criticism of Europe over lifting this ban is particularly unfair. It is in Europe's economic interest to gain part of the huge Chinese market and so safeguard European jobs. And if European arms industries cannot find export markets, their production for domestic military forces is simply not enough to support the cost of research and development, [3] so our indigenous arms sector may collapse.  [1] BBC News, ‘US ‘anger’ at Israel weapons sale’, 2004.   [2] Ottens, Nick, ‘Russian Arms Sales to China Drying Up’, 2010.   [3] Ashbourne, Alex, ‘Opening the US Defence Market’, 2011, p1.

negative: It is an invasion without Security Council sanction  The legality of Russia’s invasion of Crimea is simple “Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine violates international law.” [1] The UN Charter is unambiguous “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. [2] Russia has both threatened the use of force by its parliament authorising the President to use force on Ukrainian territory [3] and actually done so by sending troops into Crimea. The only legal way for the UN Charter’s prohibition on force to be avoided is through a Security Council mandate. Which Russia does not have. [4]  [1] Posner, Eric, ‘Russia’s Military intervention in Ukraine: International Law implications’, ericposner.com, 1 March 2014  [2] United Nations, ‘Article 2’, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945  [3] RT, 1/3/2014  [4] Deeks, Ashley, ‘Russian Forces in Ukraine: A Sketch of the International Law Issues’, Lawfare, 2 March 2014

negative: [Iran specific] Others, particularly Israel, would act if the United States did not  A failure of the United States to act would motivate Israel to do so. [1] Israel is under much more pressure to act as it would be the most affected by Iran going nuclear. The result would be catastrophic, as Iran would be able to portray itself as a victim of Israeli aggression, leading to a massive outpouring of pro-Iranian and anti-American sentiment in the middle east and central asia. It could easily spark a regional war across the middle east as Iranian proxies strike back against Israel and U.S. forces around the region. [2]  The US would get all the harms of direct intervention with none of the benefits, and efforts to fight Hezbollah and Hamas, both within Palestine and elsewhere, would be undermined by their newfound sympathy in the region and the need of Arab governments to pander to it.  [1] Ravid, Barak, ‘Report: U.S. preparing for an Israeli strike on Iran’, Haaretz.com, 14 January 2012,   [2] Benhorin, Yitzhak, ‘Attack on Iran would ignite regional conflict’, ynetnews.com, 3 November 2011,

negative: Even if both agree that fighting terrorism is in both their interests this is not a reason for cooperation when views about how to tackle the problem divide. While both have used military force in their attempts to defeat terrorism both have criticised the other’s force as being excessive. The United States continued to be critical of the situation in Chechnya where 45000 civilians were killed and 200000 made refugees. [1] September 11th was a gift to Putin as it transformed perceptions of the situation in Chechnya. [2] Chechnya was effectively legitimised by September 11th as it was similar to what the United States would fight in Afghanistan. [3] However the western media continued to be sceptical about terrorism in Russia for example that Chechen militants were the bombers of the apartment blocks, rather than it being rogue elements of the Russian security services, or even originated from the Kremlin. [4] Moreover the two diverged over the need to invade Iraq to fight terrorism; Russia opposed the invasion in the Security Council. In short Russia and the United States cooperate in Afghanistan but this does not translate into wider cooperation against terrorism. Terrorism is also no longer the number one foreign policy priority of the United States which is ‘pivoting’ to Asia and away from the Middle East. [5]  [1] Kramer, Guerrilla, pp.210, 214.  [2] Claire Bigg, Five Years After 9/11: The Kremlin's War On Terror, Radio Free Europe, 2006,   [3] Oksana Antonenko, ‘Putin’s Gamble’, Survival, Vol.43, no.4, (Winter, 2001-02), pp.49-60, p.51  [4] World: Europe, Russia's bombs: Who is to blame? BBC News, September 30, 1999,   [5] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011,

negative: Shared experience of terrorism  A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans. [1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism the Russian government was keen to cooperate in any counter terrorist effort there may be. Russian officials such as Sergey Ordzhonikidze spoke of the grief they shared with the American people “The hearts of Russians who know first-hand what terrorism is like are also filled with grief for all those who fell victim to terrorism in other parts of the planet.” [2] President Putin himself agreed with this immediately after the 9/11 attacks “[Russia is] deeply shocked by the reports of the tragic events that occurred today in the United States. The barbaric terrorist attacks against innocent people evoked the anger and indignation of the Russian people.” [3] Both the terrorists who had been attacking Russia and the 9/11 attackers were motivated by an extremist version of Islam, this gives both Russia and the United States a mutual interest in combating this terrorism wherever it may be occurring. This continues to give both Russia and the United States an interest in solving the problems that create terrorism such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and keeping the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. That both understand the other’s motivations makes this link much stronger.  [1] Mark Kramer, Guerrilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency and Terrorism in the North Caucuses: The Military Dimension of the Russia-Chechen conflict, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No.2, (March, 2005), pp.209-290, p.212  [2] Statement by Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on agenda item 166 of the 56 session of the UN General Assembly: Measures to eliminate international terrorism New York, October 1, 2001  [3] Russian President Vladimir Putin telegram of condolence to US President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001,  accessed 20/4/11

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states.

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership The best possible way to tackle the corruption issue, which lets face it is one of the major problems in Russia nowadays, is through a strong leader. Eastern European democratic countries are the pure example that corruption spreads when there is no strong leadership. The corruption in these countries is an obstacle to their economic development. As a matter of fact present president Dmitry Medvedev has launched policies and new projects in order to fight back corruption – “ Fighting corruption has been a top agenda of President Dmitry Medvedev. An Anti-Corruption Council was established by Medvedev in 2008 to oversee the Russia's anti-corruption campaign. The central document guiding the effort is the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, introduced by Medvedev in 2010.” (2) In fact, increasing corruption might prove to be more dangerous than terrorist attacks since it would create powerful drug, oil and weapons cartels as well as human trafficking problems. Therefore a strong leader is necessary to cope with this critical matter.

negative: Russia gets what it wants  There have been many suggested motives for Russia’s sending military forces into Crimea. Providing a lease on Crimea to Russia would provide a solution to most of Russia’s main objectives; the Russians in Crimea are protected, and the Russian hold on its Black Sea base is secure. More importantly the crisis started after the defeat of President Yanukovych and the resulting blow to Russian prestige in what Russia sees as a zero sum game (if one side wins the other automatically loses to the same extent). An invasion or Crimea regained Russian leverage but left Russia with little room to manoeuvre as any climb-down would leave Putin with nothing. [1] A lease gets out of this zero sum problem as both can gain. A lease would enable Russia to make an agreement with the Ukrainian government and recognise that government without having to lose face as any other solution which maintains Ukrainian territorial integrity would.  [1] Crowley, P.J., ‘Crimea: Putin’s mission accomplished’, BBC News, 3 March 2014,

negative: Russia has vowed to veto any such western resolution arguing that "To adopt the resolution would be...direct support for the revolutionary movement… To pressure just one side means drawing [Syria] into a civil war and interference in the internal affairs of the state." [1] Moreover even if such a resolution was to get through the UN Security Council it would have little impact. Sanctions have a poor track record in bringing regimes to the table when they believe they are threatened. Sanctions have not worked against Iran [2] or North Korea, and the sanctions imposed against Libya last year in a similar situation clearly failed as armed intervention was needed. [3]  [1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.  [2] Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, Eskandar, and Sahmi, Muhammad, ‘The Sanctions Aren’t Working’, Foreign Policy.com, 5 July 2012.  [3] Farge, Emma, ‘Special report: In Libyan oil shipment, sanctions prove dumb’, Reuters, 16 May 2011.

negative: Although there has been a huge cost in human life the alternatives may well have been worse Saddam had made quite clear his intention to hand over power to his sons  Without intervention there is little doubt that Saddam or one of his still more murderous sons would be running Iraq. Even though there were no WMDs, it seems reasonable to assume that neither Saddam nor his sons would have ignored Iran’s attempts to secure fissile material and develop a bomb. Iraq had attempted to build a nuclear reactor in the 1970’s but it was destroyed by Israel in 1981 [i] and Iraq and Iran had fought a far for most of the 1980s for political dominance in the Gulf and the Shi’ite, Sunni religious divide. [ii] So we would now be watching an arms race in the Middle East between the two with Israel on a hair trigger.  This wasn’t just about removing one tyrant; the regime had dynastic ambitions, and a failure to act would have created the equivalent of North Korea. However, this particular hermit kingdom would have been sitting on top of the second largest reserves of oil in the world. It would, therefore, have the capacity to create the sort of fear and chaos Kim Jong Il can only dream of.  [i] BBC On This Day, ‘1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor’.  [ii] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983

negative: Russia is no longer a threat  Russia no longer presents a credible threat to Eastern Europe or the existing NATO States which NATO expansion could counterbalance. Russia can no longer offer the conventional military threat of the Cold War. The acceptance of this reality by the US is evidenced by the fact that troop numbers in Europe are much reduced from a peak of 277,000 troops and will be reduced further to 30,000 in the next few years. [1] This is the key question for a military alliance as defence is the key purpose. Expansion should therefore be decided based upon the yardstick of whether the expansion is necessary for the security of NATO members. If there is no credible threat then there is no reason to expand the alliance. At the same time while Russia is no longer a conventional military threat it still has its immense nuclear armament. This will remain a threat no matter how many of Russia’s neighbours join NATO but Russia could feel increasingly obliged to focus on its nuclear arsenal to respond to NATO expansion – something which would create a threat to western Europe.  [1] Shanker, Thom, and Erlanger, Steven, ‘U.S. Faces New Challenge of Fewer Troops in Europe’, The New York Times, 13 January 2012,

negative: Russia’s near abroad  Russia and the US have a fundamental divergence over the notion of spheres of interest. Russia only accepts any other country playing a role in its near abroad very grudgingly and will attempt to get other great powers out whenever possible. In the aftermath of 9/11 Russia could not prevent American intervention in Central Asia therefore it was sensible to make sure it was co-opted to serve Russia’s own interests, namely to be against international terrorism, rather than being directed against Russia herself. By doing so Russia could preserve her influence in the region. As America was willing to take on the costs of maintaining the security of the region Russia could retrench and cut costs. [1] Yet Russia began to force the US out as soon as was possible, for example forcing the closure of a U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan. [2]  Russia has sometimes seemed to purposefully take the opposite side to the US in Eastern Europe. An example of this occurring was over the possibility of independence for Kosovo almost a decade after the conflict that forced Serbian forces out of the country. According to Charles Kupchan “on the question of Kosovo, direct Russian interests are difficult to discern, and therefore it appears that Russia’s backing of Serbia is part of a more muscular Russian policy, and a desire to stand up to the United States and the EU across the board.” [3]  [1] Lena Jonson, Vladimir Putin and Central Asia The Shaping of Russian Foreign Policy, (I.B. Tauris, London, 2004), pp.172-174  [2] Schwirtz, Michael, ‘Kyrgyzstan Insists U.S. Base to Close’, The New York Times, 11 June 2009,   [3] Bernard Gwertzmann, ‘Interview Kupchan: Russian Opposition to Kosovo Independence ‘Perplexing’, Foreign Affairs, Dec 2007,  accessed 27/4/11

negative: Nuclear weapons are no longer needed  When the United Kingdom first tested Nuclear Weapons in 1952 she was still a great power with a large empire to defend. In the early 1980s when trident was being conceived [1] the UK fought a war with Argentina and the Cold War was perhaps at its deepest following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Country was therefore in an international situation in which nuclear weapons were potentially required to deter the Soviet Union.  A study of the vulnerability of Nuclear Weapons states shows that the UK is the least vulnerable nuclear weapons state because the country is surrounded by allies and is nowhere near any states that may potentially become failed states. [2] The only conclusion from this can be that the UK no longer has any need for nuclear weapons.  [1] Fairhall, David, ‘£5 billion Trident deal is agreed’, The Guardian, 16 July 1980.  [2] Asal, Victor, and Early, Bryan, ‘Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?’, Foreign Policy, 24 May 2012.

negative: The UN proclaiming Palestine an independent state would do no more to advance the cause of peace than the UN proclaiming a Palestinian and a Jewish State in 1948 did. The day after the declaration the Israeli Army would remain, the settlements would still be there, and the Israelis would be determined to prove exactly how little the UN’s actions means to them. As a result it’s likely that military incursions rather than declining would increase. Israel already has a bad reputation, and has long since given up any ambition to be loved by its neighbours in the short-run. On the contrary in some cases it has deliberately fostered a sense of fear, perhaps best illustrated by its non-denial policy regarding its officially non-existent nuclear program , [1] and the Mossad’s efforts to build up a reputation for invincibility as well as the motive for fear of Iranian nuclear weapons. [2]  Bowing to the world community would badly damage Israeli’s deterrence in this respect. The best way of maintaining that fear would be to launch a new series of incursions and settlement expansions in the face of UN protests to demonstrate Israel’s willingness to ignore the UN.  Israel furthermore is unlikely to be threatened by international support for Palestinians. If countries are hostile enough to cut off aid in event of UN recognition, they probably have minimal relations with Israel in the status quo. If anything, the main consequence legally is likely to be for Israel to expel UN agencies and observers which might very well worsen the human rights situation.  [1] Baliga, Sandeep, and Sjöström, Tomas, ‘Strategic Ambiguity and Arms Proliferation’, NorthWestern University,   [2] Roth, Ariel Ilan, ‘The Root of All Fears Why Is Israel So Afraid of Iranian Nukes?’, Foreign Affairs, 24 November 2009,

negative: onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership Russia does not have true democracy  The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the Russian elections as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote. (3)  Furthermore not only there isn’t election freedom, there is not academic freedom either – “The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities” (4)  There are cases of murdered journalists, who were “inconvenient” to the authorities. This also raises the question whether a strong leadership is better for the people.  Basic freedoms are denied to the Russian population. In the 21st century this is simply unjust. Therefore strong leadership creates more wrong than it does good.

negative: Need to protect Russian civilians  It is the people of Crimea who are important and their interests should be considered. Putin told the Federation Council that Russia is responding to a “threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation… and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory”. [1] Russia needs to protect both the Russian citizens who are in Crimea and the ethnic Russians who look to Moscow not Kiev.  The Crimean parliament has agreed to hold a referendum on 25th May on “Autonomous Republic of Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements.” [2] This was put forward to 16th March with two options; Do you support Crimea's reunification with Russia? Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Crimean Republic dated 1992 and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine? [3] The 97% vote for joining Russia and 83% turnout conclusively show that this is the will of the Crimean people. [4]  [1] RT, 1/3/2014  [2] RT, 27/2/2014  [3] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Crimean parliament speeds up referendum, introduces question about joining Russia’, Kyiv Post, 6 March 2014  [4] Hewitt, 17/3/2014

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


query: 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.

positive: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify It is usually the task of movie classification organisations such as the MPAA and the British Board of Film Certification to judge whether the content of a film should be cut or altered. In most cases these groups will be politically independent, but may be politically appointed. They will make the decision to cut content based partly on the criteria described above. A movie will only be censored if it contains shocking or offensive images used in a way that suggests that violence is glamorous, entertaining or without consequences.  There is a broad consensus in western liberal democracies on what constitutes a highly shocking or offensive image. For example, in even the most permissive societies, open and public images of sexual intercourse would be considered problematic. Similarly, graphic depictions of violence against vulnerable individuals would be open to wide condemnation. The thing that unifies each of these categories of image is that they can be easily understood and interpreted by the majority of people. Even a casual observer can understand that pornography is pornography. This is part of the reason why some states try to control extreme images – because they are both powerful and emotive, and easy to produce, display and distribute.  However, music and lyrics are different from images. Language contains a degree of abstraction, depth and nuance that only the most unconventional (and non-commercial) film could replicate. This is problematic, because it is much harder for censors and members of the general public to agree on an exact definition of an offensive statement or form of words. Complex legal processes are used to determine whether or not offensive statements are sufficiently offensive to be classed as hate crimes. Even more complex are the legal procedures used to determine when an individual’s reputation has been damaged by allegations published in books or periodicals.  It will be much harder for ratings or certification boards to decide when a particular song is violent or offensive due to the range of meanings and ambiguities that are built into language. For example, the verse  “Got a temper nigga, go ahead, lose your head/ turn your back on me, get clapped and lose your legs/ I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder/ ‘til I bust a clip in your face, pussy, this beef ain’t over,”  can either be seen as a series of boastful threats, delivered directly by the musician, but it could also be reported speech – a lot of hip hop music is based on narratives or performer’s accounts of past events. It could also be intended to invite condemnation of the behaviour of the character that the speaker has assumed. Hip hop artists frequently use alternative personas and “casts” of characters to add depth to the narrative dimension of their tracks.  Under these circumstances, the process of classifying and censoring potentially violent lyrics is likely to become laborious. More important than the expense that this process will entail is the possibility that the chilling effect of a prolonged classification process will cause music publishers to stop promoting hip hop, metal and other genres linked with violent imagery. Lack of funds will curtail innovation and diversity in these genres.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Modern policy making does not rely on the force of law to bring about social change. This is an archaic approach to addressing the harms and deficiencies that might appear in communities.  We can reasonably assume that any ban on violent lyrics will be linked to wider reaching education and information campaigns that attempt to address misogynist attitudes and violent crime. Concerns expressed above that other hip hop genres, and musical innovation in general, might suffer could be adequately countered by offering subsidies and support to non-confrontational forms of hip hop. In this way legal regulation and policy interventions could help the music industry to address the more pernicious aspects of hip hop, while promoting its more innovative side. This reflects the state’s role in promoting and safeguarding free speech, by giving those who do not have access to public forums the means to have their voice heard, while ensuring that the principle of free speech is not abused or used to limit the liberal freedoms of others.  These contentions adequately address the problems that the opposition side links to the distribution of illegal and unregulated content via the internet. The implication that a ban on music containing violent lyric might increase piracy is irrelevant – states will still act to address all forms of piracy, and measures taken against the violation of copyright online will be just as effective against prohibited content.

negative: Danger to students  Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe. [1]  [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Hip hop is a diverse genre. The quote that opened this discussion is taken from a song by the English surrealist rapper Scroobius Pip. His albums cover themes entirely different from those found in “gangsta” rap. Similarly, artists such as MIA, Optimus Rhyme and the Wilcania Mob have used hip hop to discuss the conflict in Sri Lanka, computer games and life as a member of the aboriginal community in Australia. Each of these artists share a single common link. They all cater to a relatively niche market and have encountered little in the way of mainstream success.  Rappers who write lyrics about cynicism and aggression- from Slim Shady to JayZ- have recorded numerous number one tracks and attracted a wide range of industry accolades. In 2006 the founder of Death Row records, a major gangsta rap label, was found to have assets valued at $7 million. It is clear that rap discussing crime and violence is the dominant genre within hip hop. It is clear that there is a significant popular and public appetite for rap of this type.  As the comment opposite notes, there will always be a need for classification boards, as gratuitous or pornographic content will always form a significant part of the media landscape. Moreover, despite efforts to control access to such content, pornography and wilfully violent movies continue to make money. Hip hop appeals to a similar market – individuals seeking to indulge violent fantasies via the safe, sanitised environment of their iPod’s headphones, as discussed above.  There are no nuances of context and meaning to discuss in gangsta rap, only potentially damaging content that, at best, should be regulated and monitored.

negative: Governments should not allow forums for hate speech to flourish  Denial of the Holocaust is fundamentally hate speech. It is the duty of the government to deny these offensive beliefs a platform of any kind. [1] By blocking these sites, the government denies a certain freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the market place of ideas. Many people, often Jews, but also members of other discriminated against minorities like Roma, suffer directly from the speech, feeling not only offended, but physically threatened by such denials. Holocaust denial however goes beyond hate speech because it is not only offensive but factually wrong. The attempt to rewrite history and to sow lies causes a threat to the truth and an ability to co-opt the participation of gullible individuals to their cause that mere insults and demagoguery could not. It represents a threat to education by undermining the value of facts and evidence. For this reason, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring the sites denying the Holocaust.  [1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.

negative: Allowing Hate Speech Discourages diversity  Members of groups that find themselves the targets of hate speech will be less likely to attend universities where they feel targeted. As a result, those campuses will become less diverse which will decrease the most effective deterrent of hateful ideas: understanding through interaction. Less Muslim, gay, Jewish, etc. students on campus is exactly what those promoting hatred are trying to achieve. Less students of the targeted group makes them easier to target because there are less people speaking out against the hate speech. A downward spiral is created that, if not checked, can drastically reduce campus diversity which is a massive harm to social integration and social harmony. Speech codes or other censorship sends a signal to minorities that they are welcome in the university. [1]  [1] Seaman, Julie, ‘Hate Speech and Identity Politics’, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 36:99,  p.107

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

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.  Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do.  The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech.  [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64.  [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .

negative: Discourages education of minorities  When individuals feel that they will be targeted at a university based on who they are, they are less likely to attend that university either out of fear they will be discriminated against or because they believe that they will not be allowed to express themselves freely without being discriminated against or assaulted. No group should be discouraged from attaining higher education because of immutable personal characteristics. Tertiary education is at the heart of social mobility and self-actualization. Even if no attack ever takes place, because hate speech can create an atmosphere which deters members of society from attending university the state is justified in banning it.

negative: However, while freedom of expression is definitely an important concept to consider, such freedoms can only go so far. When it comes to language that promotes violence then freedom of expression is no longer sufficient reason not to ban something as a physical harm outweighs the right to freedom of expression. Many countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India ban hate speech because it has severely damaging effects injuring people's dignity, feelings and self-respect and potentially promoting violence.1 Similarly, if we accept the arguments in the proposition arguments above, and we believe that this type of music can be harmful, then it seems that perhaps freedom of speech can be over ridden in order to protect those that this music injures (i.e. some women). Furthermore the banning of music which glorifies violence towards women may perhaps overtime lead to people's attitude toward this style of lyrics changing, and therefore any harmful attitude that arise from it may begin to be unacceptable by the majority.  1 Liptak, Adam, ‘Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.’, The New York Times, 11 June 2008

negative: The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights. [1]  [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

negative: As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.  Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.  Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

negative: Freedom of expression, assembly, and information are important rights, but restrictions can be placed on all of them if a greater good, like public safety, is at stake. For example, one cannot use her freedom of expression to incite violence towards others and many countries regard hate speech as a crime. [1] Therefore, if the internet is being used for such abuses of ones rights, the disruption of service, even to a large number of people, can be entirely warranted.  [1] Waldron, Jeremy, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 8 June 2012, p.8.

negative: Hate speech will happen regardless. A significant amount of online hate speech is made through accounts under the real life name of the speaker. It is notable that Facebook has required its users to use their real names since 2011, [1] but has still had significant issues with hate speech long after that. [2] The fact is that an enormous amount of hate speakers see what they are saying as entirely legitimate, and are therefore not afraid of having it connected to their real life identities. The fact is that 'hate speech' is localised and culture-dependent. Since the Internet brings many cultures together, hate speech will happen almost inadvertently.  Additionally, online hate speech is very difficult to prosecute even when connected to real life identities, [3] so this policy is unlikely to be effective at making those who now would be identified see any more consequences than before. In the Korean example the law was simply avoided by resorting to foreign sites. [4] The similar lack of consequences is likely to lead to a similar lack of disincentive to posting that kind of material.  [1] ‘Twitter rife with hate speech, terror activity’. Jewish Journal. URL:   [2] ‘Facebook Admits It Failed On Hate Speech Following #FBrape Twitter Campaign And Advertiser Boycott’. International Business Times. URL:   [3] ‘Racists, Bigots and the Internet’. Anti-Defamation League. URL:   [4] ‘Law on real name use on Internet ruled illegal’, JoonAng Daily,

negative: Reducing hate speech.  Openly racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments made through public forums are much more likely when made anonymously, as people feel they are unlikely to see any consequences for voicing their hateful opinions. [1] This leads firstly to a propagation of these views in others, and a higher likelihood of attacks based on this hate, as seeing a particular view more often makes people feel it is more legitimate. [2] More importantly, it causes people from the targeted groups to feel alienated or unwelcome in particular places due to facets of their identity that are out of their control, and all people have a right not to be discriminated against for reasons such as these.  The proposed policy would enormously reduce the amount of online hate speech posted as people would be too afraid to do it. Although not exactly the same a study of abusive and slanderous posts on Korean forums in the six months following the introduction of their ban on anonymity found that such abusive postings dropped 20%. [3] Additionally it would allow governments to pursue that which is posted under the same laws that all other speech is subject to in their country.  [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL:   [2] ‘John Gorenfield, Moon the Messiah, and the Media Echo Chamber’. Daily Kos. URL:   [3] ‘Real Name Verification Law on the Internet: A Poison or Cure for Privacy?’, Carnegie Melon University,

negative: Hate crimes uniquely harm through terror  Hate crimes should be given a more severe penalty because the harm done to the victim and society is greater. Given that the intent of hate crimes is more malicious than simple premeditative murder; it is just to enhance hate crime laws to reflect stronger punishment. Hate crimes don't merely victimize the individual upon whom violence is inflicted, they also victimize a community or minority group that the hate crime was intended to terrorize. This is why hate crimes frequently include highly public acts such as lynchings in town squares, dragging hate crime victims behind cars along streets inhabited by certain communities, and graffiti on significant buildings -they are intended to send a message.  Hate crime-delivered messages limit the freedom of expression and group association of the victim community, thus violating their liberties. For this reason, hate crimes have more victims than other crimes, and subsequently deserver greater punishment. Moreover, as hate crimes are generally perpetrated against minority groups, and because these minority groups are always in a state of social disenfranchisement; it could be argued that hate crime enhancements are the state's way of attempting to arbitrate equality to minorities by compensating them with laws that will better favour their interests, thus forcibly "balancing the scale" of social equity.

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor We already frown upon certain forms of speech [1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.  [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007,  on 09/09/11.

negative: The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech. [i]  Furthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes. There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities. Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group.  [i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006,

negative: As stated, hate speech can have significant harm on certain individuals’ abilities to attend university and engage in campus life. Their rights to education must balanced against any potential harms that may befall someone who has to think twice before saying something hateful about a member of their university community.

negative: e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom As in the offline world, free speech isn’t unlimited  Even in free societies, free speech isn’t always free. Free speech can be demeaning and hurtful to certain people or can even incite hatred and violence. [1] The first reason is why, under internet libel law, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are asked to remove defamatory material and blogs take to moderating their comments more, [2] and the second is why Germany and France have outlawed Holocaust denial and Nazism.  As in the previous arguments, accountable governments are attempting to strike a balance between free speech and where this can harm others. [3] A carefully struck balance between rights in the offline world shouldn’t have to be abolished, just because we’re now in the online world. [4]  [1] Waldron, ‘The harm of hate Speech’, 2012  [2] Alibhai-Brown, ‘Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited’, 2009.  [3] Minister: The UK “emphatically” supports free speech online but there are limits, 2012  [4] Schellekens, “What holds off-line, also holds on-line?”, 2006

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Banning one type of hip hop is not an effective way to intervene in a market that is in danger of dismantling itself.  Governments are not record companies. They are not in a position to make nuanced judgements about the content, meaning and themes of singles and albums. In short, the state cannot be relied on to understand when a musician has produced a work of violent fantasy, or a piece of social commentary with broad appeal.  The state can perform a positive correction for inequalities and failures in the hip hop market by subsidising niche or experimental performers, in the same way that is provides financial support to opera, theatre and the fine arts.  The policy that proposition side seem to be advocating, however, would only do further harm the reputation of hip hop. Once officially censured by the state- which is still seen as a significant moral authority- it is likely that the public profile and popularity of hip hop will be further damaged. The ambivalent position of hip hop in popular culture, as both a commercially successful medium and the subject of wide scale condemnation, is a significant opportunity for the medium, rather than a spectre of its imminent demise. However, larger record companies will be more likely to disengage from hip hop culture if they believe that their businesses affairs might be compromised by intrusive government legislation.

negative: Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.  Asha Jennings began a boycott of misogynistic music in hip-hop, resulting in the 'take back the music' campaign supported by essence magazine. Jennings claims that this type of rap/ hip hop music is 'telling people [black women] are bitches and hos and sluts and not worthy of respect [...] And that's exactly how society is treating us'1. She continues that images of women 'tends to be objectified, degrading, very stripper-like' or as nagging vicious and manipulative money grabbers1. Jennings' worry is that in these videos women are depicted as menial, subservient and purely as the object of men's entertainment. The lyrics that go with these music videos compound these ideas of women as undeserving of male respect e.g. 'wouldn't piss on fire to put you out' (Eminem), 'Then I straight smoked the ho [...] and she thanked me' (NWE) (All lyrics in full are in the scrapbook). These images in themselves are violence towards women, as they dehumanise them. As this becomes a dominant image in society, young people who look up to these rappers mimic their behaviour and believe it is ok to disrespect women,2 as that is what they have been exposed to. This works in the same way for young girls, who cannot relate to the male rappers and so instead mimic the women they talk about, while also following their views on women. This idea that women are not deserving of respect must affect the levels of violence towards women as if you abuse someone you cannot fully respect them. Therefore if music depicting violence (and for this argument, disrespect) towards women was banned, then violence towards women in the real world would be reduced and this must be seen as a good thing.  1 CNN, Hip-Hop Portrayal of Women Protested, 2005  2 Burnham, L. Nightmares of Depravity. Durland 21 June 1995.

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state.  It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable [1] . There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense.  Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them.  Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent.  [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012.

negative: This again assumes that there is no additional harm attached to the perpetrating of such a crime by an individual who holds these ideas, which there demonstrably is (though the inflicting of terror on one specific community). Moreover hate crimes themselves are a violation of the right to freedom of speech; a person does have the right to express themselves, but not in a way that would prevent others from exercising their own rights.  A hate crime is the ultimate attempt to limit another's freedom of expression. A hate crime is an attempt to silence the very idea that a particular person has the right to exist or to live a particular lifestyle. Therefore, in order to uphold the first amendment, hate crime enhancements are not only just, but are in fact necessary.

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: bate media and good government international africa house believes limited Divisionism in Rwanda did not spark as a result of the controlled media and government propaganda in 1994, there were killings reported in the 1960’s 1970’s and 1980’s[1] even before the media was part of society. This came as a result of long standing grudges and misunderstandings between the Tutsi and Hutu groups in the country.  That the media bears responsibility for spreading hate speech and broadcasting where the other could be killed moreover does not absolve the individuals involved. Each individual had the choice whether they acted on what the media was telling them. In a completely free media there would be some of the same hate speech and it would still be up to the individual to decide whether to follow that message. Far better to ensure that message cannot be aired in the first place.  [1] History world, ‘History of Rwanda’, historyworld.net

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.  Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one.  Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society.  In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.

negative: Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community.  Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech, [1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them.  [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL:

negative: Hate crime enhancements can help emphasize tolerance and inter-community relations  Hate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mould society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Most governments have already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. To simply leave these issues unaddressed would be to make many communities, especially minority communities, feel that their grievances were ignored and that the state allowed discrimination and violence against them. Such feelings would further polarize communities against each other and make racial tensions and further hate crimes more likely.  Therefore hate crime enhancements should be maintained as a way for the state to send a message that it desires tolerance and will not allow crimes based on prejudice to stand un-addressed.

negative: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Freedom of speech is evidently not an absolute right: it is not something that we consider to be inviolable and able to ‘trump’ all other rights. Note, for instance, that many countries have restrictions on freedom of speech preventing hate speech and other transgressions.  We can, therefore, limit freedom of speech in instances where the benefits outweigh the harm: the benefit in this instance being the prevention of harm to individuals as a result of the art.

negative: The First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, does not extend to particularly inflammatory types of speech and expression, which includes flag burning  Freedom of speech and expression is an important right, which is why it is listed first in the Bill of Rights; it is central to a fair and free democracy. However, it has limits. Some forms of speech are contrary to the values of democracy, namely when they infringe upon or violate the ability of others to enact their own rights and freedoms. This is why such things as incitement to hatred, other violence-promoting speech, as well as defamation and perjury are legislated against; they are expressions that infringe the rights of others, by causing fear and increasing risk of harm in case of hate speech, and by harming reputations and the effective administration of justice in terms of defamation and perjury respectively. Rights stop where harm to others begins. In the case of flag burning, as the dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist on the issue says, the act is an extremely visceral one, and is often perceived as a direct attack on the core values of America itself, which many consider to be representative of those values, leading to feelings of anger and violation1. It is an infringement of these offended people's rights when flags are allowed to be burned.  1Goldstein, Robert. 2000. Flag Burning and Free Speech: The Case of Texas v. Johnson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

negative: Hate speech can encourage dialogue and be positive. Allowing hate speech provides an opportunity to combat and change the views of those who are promoting hatred. In the long term this will lead to a reduction in violence through helping air and then solve the underlying causes.  (See Op Argument 1)

negative: Hate crime enhancements cause inter-community tensions  By defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labelling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.(1) These effects spread beyond the hate crimes themselves.  By prosecuting high-profile cases of white hate crimes against blacks, for example, it encourages blacks to see themselves as part of a distinct community different from the white community and whose relations are marked by crimes committed by one against the other. This is especially true when one community seems to perpetrate more hate crime (or at least more convictions thereof are secured) against another community than visa-versa.  An analysis of hate crime date from the USA examining how hate crimes against whites are viewed with respect to hate crimes against blacks has hypothesised that the prevailing view in the minds of the public is that the crime that whites are most likely to commit against blacks is a hate crime, and that it is hard for most Americans to envision a white person committing a crime against a black person for a different reason. The only white people who commit crimes against black people, goes the public belief, are racially prejudiced white extremists, and in contrast the very idea of hate crimes committed against whites is met with scepticism and disbelief.(2)  There have been several high-profile cases in the USA where some individuals have argued actual hate crimes against whites were not treated as such as a consequence of such public disbelief.(3) This can lead to an unjust situation where hate crime enhancements are (or are perceived as being) only applied “against” one community by another, despite hate crimes actually being committed by individuals within both communities against other individuals. Therefore hate crime enhancements are unjust.