query: It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing  Even experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others. [1]  There are also consequences that continue long past the child has stopped performing; former child actors often have the problem as young adults as feeling as having already ‘peaked’ and find themselves without a sense of drive or ambition or a coherent adult identity, consequentially they often suffer from substance abuse and addiction  [1] Lipsett, ‘Stress driving pupils to suicide, says union’

positive: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Children will always feel pressure in certain areas of their lives, whether with exams or school plays. It may be true that pressure is greater for child performers, but children who perform at a professional level are generally more skilled, and so they are often better at dealing with this pressure. At the very least, they gain enough experience at a young age, that they learn the skills needed to succeed, even in high-pressure situations. Given the pressures all children face, [1] surely it is ethical to allow children into a world where they can learn how to deal with these stresses and protect themselves against possible future problems.  [1] Etchingham, ‘Are we putting our kids under too much pressure?’

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon  Child performers are exposed to a much higher level of responsibility than their peers, without the maturity to deal with it. They may be exposed to sex, drugs, or alcohol, in a context too far removed from a normal life that they don’t learn adequate coping mechanisms. It is no surprise that many child performers “burn out” by the time they reach adulthood, often experiencing problems long before, as in the case of actress Drew Barrymore, who entered rehab at the age of 13. [1] Children should not be encouraged to enter into these adult worlds of acting, modeling, dancing, etc. Michael Jackson attributed his obsession with children and childhood as a consequence of having missed out on a childhood himself.  [1] Barrymore, Little Girl Lost

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Cases like Drew Barrymore’s are rare, and many young performers have happy and successful careers. All young people are likely to be exposed to adult experiences at some point in their childhood, and it should be left to parents and teachers to educate children of the dangers of alcohol, drugs, etc., no matter what activities the child takes part in outside of school or the home. For many of the areas that involve child performers, there are also laws in place to ensure children are not exposed to age-inappropriate situations. For example, in North America and other countries laws exist to ensure children in the entertainment industry are not “put at risk physically (no dangerous stunts),” “exposed to morally compromising situations,” or ever allowed to “be nude or partially nude,” or “be engaged in overt sexual acts”. [1]  [1] Moore, ‘Protecting Child Stars: Laws and Regulations’

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers The added risk for most child athletes and performers is very low, and there is professional help in place for them to manage it.  Children who compete professionally in sporting events are only exposed to real risk in very rare, extreme situations. Some elements of risk exist in all aspects of life: children who are allowed to play on rollerblades are slightly more at risk of injury than those who are not; children who live in cities are at more risk of traffic accidents than those who live in the countryside, who are at more risk of falling out of trees, etc. Adults and children alike make decisions in which they take risks in the name of the greater benefits. For children who play a sport professionally, the physical training they receive can build strength and muscle and increase fitness levels, which provide the child with improved health and protection from injury in future. If child performers were banned, there would be no way of making sure that any children who still ended up in the business (i.e., illegally) had access to the support staff (e.g., physiotherapists, nutritionists) currently available. [1]  When it comes to the possibility of eating disorders in child performers, professionals also exist for the prevention thereof. For example, in New York the Child Performer Advisory Board to Prevent Eating Disorders (Labor Law Section 154) exists to educate and provide information for child performers and their guardians. [2]  [1] Canadian Athletic Therapists Association, ‘Athletic Therapy’  [2] New York Department of Labor, ‘Child Performer Advisory Board’

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers performers are at risk of exploitation  Children are generally considered to be too young to make important decisions for themselves, and so decision-making falls to parents, teachers, etc. For child performers, there are additional decision-makers: their agents. Since agents benefit financially from the child’s getting a role or doing well in a sporting event, there is a definite risk of exploitation. Exploitation can also come from parents, as in the famous case of American television child stars Jackie Coogan and Gary Coleman, who both sued their parents for spending the money they had earned as children [1] [2] or of Macaulay Culkin, who blocked his parents from having access to his earnings.  [1] AP, ‘The Kid’ To Get $126,000 For His Share’  [2] The Deseret News, ‘Former Child Star Wins $1.3 Million Judgment’

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at  Many child performers would undoubtedly protest if their right to perform were taken away from them, and justly so. This can be seen in quotes from the likes of Roddy McDowall, who said in an interview in 1963 that he “had a particularly wonderful time” as a child actor, [1] and would presumably have been quite upset had a ban been enforced in his lifetime. It is beyond the rights of the government to make illegal an opportunity that allows those talented on the stage, in front of a camera, on the pitch, etc. (who might well not be so strong in other, e.g., academic, areas) to make a living from doing what they do best.  Some child performers have also proved to be extremely business savvy – the ‘Olsen Twins’ have built a massive industry off of their Disney stardom.  [1] BBC News. ‘Actor McDowall dies aged 7 0

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports  In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age. [1]  [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers It is entirely possible for child performers to achieve high grades. For example, Jodie Foster graduated magna cum laude from Yale University, despite having been a child star. [1] Child performers who spend a lot of hours on-set will also have access to a certified teacher who acts as their personal tutor during that time. [2]  In addition, as long as the child performer obtains a sufficient understanding of the core academic curriculum, it doesn’t matter if they are more interested in their chosen career area than in formal education, especially if they plan on continuing on that career path into adulthood.  [1] Yale Office of Public Affairs & Communications, ‘Yale Alumni Go to the Oscars’  [2] On Location Education, ‘Teacher Requirements’

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require Side proposition are attempting to make an argument in favour of reforming the ICC’s prosecution guidelines, but are doing so in terms of the culturally relative definition of adulthood. In other words, side proposition are trying to discuss war, realpolitik and international justice using the language of social anthropology. This approach is flawed.  Arguments about the appropriate age to allow a child to hunt, to leave school or to marry pale beside the life-and-death significance of participation in warfare. A child does not become an adult by acting like a soldier, and those who recruit children into military organisations do not necessarily view them as adults. Indeed, children are seen as easy targets for recruitment, due to their emotional immaturity, their gullibility and deference to those who wield authority.  Children may join armed groups out of necessity, and in the interests of survival, but this does not mean that those armed groups should accept child volunteers, or should escape criminal liability when they do so. Although the west is now a safe and prosperous place to live, the categories of war crime that the ICC prosecutes were created in response to the depravity and ruthlessness of conflicts that liberal-democracies experienced directly.  The developed, liberal democratic world is not blind to the sense of necessity that drives children to take up arms. However, it understands only too well that child soldiers are unnecessary. Children do not autonomously organise into armed militias – they are recruited by states and groups with defined political and military objectives. Such groups should be aware that there is no value or necessity underlying the use of children in combat, and should be made legally accountable when they flaunt this norm.

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers With the number of child performers on the increase, [1] parents are becoming more aware of what to expect from their child’s agent, and thus less likely to unwittingly allow exploitation. Additionally, laws exist to prevent parents from spending their child’s wages; for example, the “Coogan Law” dictates that parents in California must open a trust account for their child in which 15% of that child’s earnings must be put aside. [2]  [1] Sand, ‘Child performers working in the entertainment industry around the world’.  [2] Screen Actors Guild, ‘Coogan Law’

negative: We must protect the vulnerable in society.  Even without resorting to a moralistic view of the criminal law (i.e. that its function is to stem moral disintegration and to uphold the ‘shared morality’ of society), there is adequate justification for age of consent laws. Society has a vital interest in ensuring that its naturally weaker members are protected from harm, and doing so is precisely the function of the persuasive and coercive powers of the criminal law. It is therefore legitimate for the law to aim to prevent sexual harm to children by criminalising sex with them. Indeed, age of consent sex laws are not the only laws dependent on age. In many countries it is also an offence, for example, to sell tobacco to children, or to employ children below a certain age in the entertainment industry, whether or not the child ‘consents’. Society must recognise the reality that the apparent expression of ‘consent’ by a child is often different from consent expressed an adult. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not always true that saying ‘yes’ is a true expression of human autonomy.  The argument that these laws may cause injustice to someone who truly thought his partner was above the legal age is also a poor one – many countries already provide a defence for such situations

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Being a performer limits a child’s formal education  Spending so much time either performing or training limits the amount of formal education the child can receive. For example, in the UK and other countries, child performers are only required to be educated for three hours each day. [1]  Additionally, the focus on the specialised skill of the child (e.g., acting, dancing, etc.) may detract from their family’s or their own interest in formal education.  [1] The Children’s Legal Centre, ‘What are the hours that a child performer may work?’

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection.  While being a child performer is legal, these children’s working circumstances are under the protection of the law and monitored by government departments such as the Inland Revenue, Health and Safety, etc. Were child performers to be banned, it is certain that some children would still perform, but would not be thus protected. This has already happened in certain professional sports where athletes can benefit by lying about their age. For example, it is easier for Latin American baseball players to sign with U.S. Major League teams if the teams think they are young. As a result, countless players have lied about their age, including a number of high-profile cases, such as Miguel Tejada who was named Most Valuable Player in 2002. [1] Many of these young players, however, have been less successful. There are too many unfortunate examples of players who came to the United States at a young age and, under the increased pressure, fell victim to serious drug problems, often resulting in overdose and death. [2] [3] A ban would not prevent children from performing; it would actually further expose them to whatever risks may be involved.  [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.”  [2] Zirin, “Can’t Knock the Hassle: Chavez Challenges Baseball.”  [3] Helfgott, “The international game.”

negative: If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Banning child performers could be successful for professional child performers in regulated industries but it would be much more difficult to prevent child performers on a small scale. It will also be very difficult to get a balance between allowing children to develop in their chosen profession or sport while preventing them from actually engaging in any performance that displays that talent.

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers In a lot of films, television shows, and stage productions, it is possible to have young adult actors playing child roles. For example, in the popular American television show The O.C., the main characters were played by young adults ranging from 18 to 29 years of age but all portraying teenagers. [1] Sports needn’t suffer either: the minimum age of competition for gymnastics has already been raised, [2] [3] and others can surely follow their example without suffering from it. If professional leagues are not allowed to roster athletes below the age of 18, for example, children will compete in amateur and educational leagues where the pressure and commitment is lower, but where they can still train for the professional arena.  [1] IMDB, ‘The O.C.’  [2] Hanley, ‘Gymnastics – Minimum age will soon rise to 16.’  [3] The Telegraph, London 2012 Olympics: artistic gymnastics guide

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require It is not sufficient to observe that there exist groups that use brutality to recruit and control child soldiers. As accounts of conflicts in South Sudan and Myanmar show, politically motivated recruitment of children is less common than children volunteering through necessity.  Side opposition should not overlook the fact that there are few constructive alternatives available to children in such situations. Educational institutions are often the first forms of state support to be withdrawn when war breaks out. Many children are orphaned as a result of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Taking flight as a refugee may postpone a child’s exposure to conflict, but is rarely useful in escaping it.  Proposition have already established that child soldiers do not originate exclusively within state-based bodies or organised opposition groups seeking control of a state. They are just as likely to be the products of necessity or non-western conceptions of adulthood. The status quo is blind to this distinction, failing to recognise that military involvement is entirely consistent with other norms of adulthood in certain non-western cultures. Further, taking up arms as part of an organised, coherent force is often preferable to remaining a vulnerable, untrained civilian.  Finally, it should be noted that very few opposition-side speakers are likely to argue that individuals, including children, do not have a right to defend themselves against aggression. However, a right to self-defence can be rendered meaningless if weak individuals are not permitted to combine their strength and resources to defend themselves. For ICC prosecutors this would likely be seen as the first step to forming a militia. For a physically weak fourteen year old, it is simply a survival strategy.

negative: w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong  If this is simply a matter of performing a procedure with no apparent benefit to the patient – in most cases a young child – then it does rather raise the question of “Why”. If the procedure were, say, cutting off a toe or an earlobe then all involved would require a clear and compelling case for such a practice. There are grown adults that think that cutting off a finger is the next stage up from getting a tattoo or a piercing [i] . At best most people would consider such a practice odd, at worst unstable. However, these are grown adults who have made the decision to mutilate their bodies for themselves and as a statement they feel appropriate.  Consider society’s reaction if the fingers of unwilling adults were forcibly removed. What about unwilling children? What about the fingers of babies fresh out of the womb? The only sane response to such an action would be condemnation – and probably an arrest. The logic of this argument does not change if “finger” is replaced with “foreskin”.  Research undertaken by the World Health Organization found that the overwhelming determining factor in the decision as to whether a boy should be circumcised was whether the father had been [ii] .  Although the report suggest a correlation with a reduction in the possibility in the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa it also comments, “If correctly planned, increased provision of accessible, safe adult male circumcision services could also increase opportunities to educate  men in areas of high HIV prevalence about a variety of sexual and reproductive health topics, including hygiene, sexuality, gender relations and the need for ongoing combination prevention strategies to further decrease risk of HIV acquisition and transmission.”  Out with this area the rate of adult male circumcision is very low, suggesting that when the individual is of an age to give consent, they chose not to. Performing an act on a child that would not be consented to by an adult except in extremis would seem a fairly reasonable definition of child abuse.  [i] Shannon. “De-Fingered: Finger Amputations in BME News/Publishers’ Ring”. BME News. 11 March 2008.  [ii] “Male Circumcision: Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability”. World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Council on HIV AIDS. 2007.

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Just as the state creates laws to protect child performers it could ban child performers  Child performers are currently protected by laws about all sorts of things from the minimum amount of education they may get to their pay and how many hours they can work. Many of these laws would be much more difficult to enforce than a blanket ban. It would be simple to enforce as child performers would in most cases be easy to spot – as they are performing for the public. The government could then bring charges against those who are employing the child and fine them.

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require Removing barriers to demobilisation, disarmament and rehabilitation  It can easily be conceded, without weakening the resolution, that war and combat are horrific, damaging experiences. Over the last seventy years, the international community has attempted to limit the suffering that follows the end of a conflict by giving soldiers and civilians access to medical and psychological care. This is now an accepted part of the practice of post-conflict reconstruction, referred to as Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) [i] .  The effects of chronic war and chronic engagement with war are best addressed by a slow and continuous process of habituation to normal life. Former child soldiers are sent to treatment centres specialising in this type of care in states such as Sierra Leone [ii] .  What is harmful to this process of recovery is the branding of child soldiers as war criminals. The stigma attached to such a conviction would condemn hundreds of former child soldiers to suffering extended beyond the end of armed conflicts.  Sentencing guidelines binding on the ICC state that anyone convicted of war crimes who is younger than eighteen should not be subject to a sentence of life imprisonment. Their treatment, once incarcerated, is required to be oriented toward rehabilitation.  Many child soldiers become officers within the organisations that they join. Alternately, they might find themselves ordered to seek more recruits from their villages and communities. For these children participation in the conflict becomes participation in the crime itself. What began as a choice of necessity during war-time could, under the status quo, damage and stigmatise a child during peace-time [iii] . Even if their sentence emphasises reform and education, a former child soldier is likely to become an uninjured casualty of the war, marked out as complicit in acts of aggression. When labelled as such children will become vulnerable to reprisal attacks and entrenched social exclusion.  Discussing attempts to foster former Colombian child combatants, the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers state that, “The stigmatization of child soldiers, frequently perceived as violent and threatening, meant that families were reluctant to receive former child soldiers. Those leaving the specialized care centres moved either to youth homes or youth protection facilities for those with special protection problems. While efforts continued to strengthen fostering and family-based care, approximately 60 per cent of those entering the DDR program were in institutional care in 2007.” [iv]  Crucially, fear of being targeted by the ICC may lead former child soldiers to avoid disclosing their status to officials running demobilisation programs. They may be deterred from participating in the DDR process [v] .  Moreover, the authority of the ICC is often subject to criticism on the international stage by politicians and jurists linked to both democratic states [vi] and the non-liberal or authoritarian regimes most likely to become involved in conflicts that breach humanitarian law. It cannot assist the claims of the ICC to be a body that represents universal concepts of compassion and justice if it is seen to target children- often barely in their teens- in the course of prosecuting war crimes.  As the Child Soliders 2008 Global Report notes, “Prosecutions should not, by focusing solely on the recruitment and use of child soldiers, exclude other crimes committed against children. Such an approach risks stigmatizing child soldiers and ignores the wider abuses experienced by children in conflict situations. It is on these grounds that some have questioned the exclusive child-soldier focus of the ICC’s charges against Thomas Lubanga. After all, the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC/L), the armed group he led, is widely acknowledged to have committed numerous other serious crimes against children, as well as adults.” [vii]  [i] “Case Studies in War to Peace Transition”, Coletta, N., Kostner, M., Widerhofer, I. The World Bank, 1996  [ii] “Return of Sierra Leone’s Lost Generation”, The Guardian, 02 March 2000,   [iii] “Agony Without End for Liberia’s Child Soldiers”, The Guardian, 12 July 2009,   [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p103,   [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p16,   [vi] “America Attacked for ICC Tactics”, The Guardian, 27 August 2002,   [vii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, pp32-33,

negative: The status of the child  The protection of children is treated differently from how we address the needs of adults. The very fact that their parents’ consent for procedures is required acknowledges that fact. We further accept that when that consent is questionable - when the parents may not be acting in the best interests of the child - that right may be revoked.  In most instances of such revocation, if the parent is an addict or mentally incapable of a particular decision, such a decision can be determined well in advance. However, in this instance, the status of the parent has not previously been an issue. However, the same principles should surely apply. For example, if a parent has been denied access rights to their child by a court, they would have no standing in making any such decision. If their child is a ward of the court, the same would apply. Society has a general duty to at least keep children alive until they reach the age of majority and remove all possible obstacles to that happening. We do not allow parents to give their children the right to pursue other harmful activities or to take unnecessary risks with their safety; the principle of a presumption of protection would also apply here.

negative: Having the age of 30 as the cut-off point is uniquely unfair to performers as this is the age when they are likely to be at the height of their fame and towards the end of their career.  For most professions, getting military service out of the way early in one’s career makes sense. Nobody would suggest that members of other professions should be expected to interrupt it when they are at the height of their profession. In reality for most people this would be when they are in their fifties. For professions like acting and music this tends to be the late twenties and early thirties. Indeed, for pop singers in particular their career is likely to be over when they are 35.  In the light of this setting the age limit where it is is uniquely unfair to performers – just as it is to athletes.  Military service anywhere in the world is considered to be something you undertake before your career, not in the middle of it. Regulations should reflect reality, in this instance that means allowing performers to get on with their careers.

negative: Danger for Abuse  Many children that have consistent behavioural problems at school come from dysfunctional families in which either physical or emotional abuse and neglect is common. This has then resulted in behavior disorders such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder. [1] While it would be nice to believe that parents would respond to the stated incentives in a healthy way, it must be considered that it is just as likely that in some of these households parents would crack down violently (again, either emotionally or physically ) on their children. Such actions by parental role models often lead to a vicious cycle in which the behaviour is then continued at school and in future generations.  It is difficult to say what proportion of households may respond in this fashion, but if even a small proportion of children are actively harmed by this policy, it is a strong argument against its uniform adoption.  [1] ‘Behaviour Problems in Children and Adolescents’, Children’s Mental Health Ontario,

negative: As previously stated upon entering a profession which involves being in the public limelight one should expect to be put under such stresses. If you are publicly known, there will be a demand for information about you and the media is simply obtaining stories which their readership wish to consume. The Diana example was, as the opposition argument expresses, an extraordinary case; one which is extremely rare and from which lessons have been learnt. However there are codes of ethics which all journalists sign up to which contain caveats to ensure that physical and mental harm is kept to a minimum if in existence at all. While on occasion a journalist can fail to live up-to these ethics they are, on the whole, well adhered to and in those instances when not, professional sanctions often take place to minimize such an issue from occurring again.

negative: The danger for abuse argument from the opposition side is a good counterargument. Moreover, one might analyse the probabilities that this particular incentive will be a tipping point in the case of marginal parents (the ones that are not already fully involved in their children’s discipline for whom this might be the tipping point). Most caring parents will already be quite invested and do the best they can because they care for their child. Those who do lapse likely have some sort of structural familial problems, whether they hold many jobs and work very hard to keep the family going, or are simply bad parents. In these cases, is this likely to be the factor that changes these parents’ behaviours? Unlikely.

negative: That logic might sound impressive – but it’s the same one that fails to control underage drinking, underage smoking, the watching of rated movies by those forbidden to do so, the eating of bad food – and underage sex. It’s the same poor parental logic that has seen a generation of children grow up divorced from the society around them, children who die from drugs overdoses and whose parents say (honestly), ‘I just had no idea.’ It’s time to talk to our young people about what they do – honestly, frankly, without frightening them into dishonesty and deception. To do otherwise perpetuates the cycle of ignorance about youth society, and perpetuates the status quo of being able to do nothing to change it.

negative: Legalization would free up resources that could be devoted to eliminating sex trafficking  Some markets in sex should be blocked. Markets that involve child labor, forced labor or sex, and forced migration and detention, should be stopped and those who organize and profit from such markets should be prosecuted. As with any service, it is critically important that no one is forced to work or to continue working, either through the threat of harm or through fraud and deception. It is also critically important that children are protected from sexual predators, and are excluded from all aspects of sex businesses. Forced labor and child sexual abuse involve violations of basic human rights that all societies are expected to protect.  Voluntary, adult sex work is significantly different from trafficking, and law enforcers need to distinguish market exchanges involving consensual sex among adults from market exchanges involving forced sex among adults or involving minors. By legalizing voluntary, adult sex work, law enforcers and rights protectors could focus their efforts on eliminating markets that involve the sexual abuse of adults or children. Additionally, clients of sex business would have the choice of patronizing legal business, and therefore would be less likely to patronize inadvertently a business that relies on forced or child labor.

negative: Protecting young and vulnerable athletes  Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.

negative: Anyone setting out on such a career is aware of the legal requirement to undertake service in the armed forces. There is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it before they start their career. There are plenty of jobs where it is inconvenient to have to take an extended break. Anything relating to technology or research, for example, where there is a need to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field is fairly unforgiving of such a break and so people build their careers around it, knowing that at some point they will be out of the loop for 24 months or so.  To suggest that it is more important that a pop star is able to keep on recording but that it is for scientist and technicians in the most wired country in the world to keep up with changes in technology is as inconsistent as it is unfair. The case of the performer is clearly weaker it’s simply that they have the status and fame to mean that they can make a big fuss about it and people will notice.  Whatever the vanity of celebrity may suggest it’s just another job and it’s questionable as to how much benefit it actually provides to society at large.  Further pandering to that vanity by suggesting that society can’t cope without a particular singer or actor for two years is ridiculous. There is no shortage of people wanting to do the job.

negative: It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide  Many of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death [1] . She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death.  [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010.

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food, [1] [2] and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer.  [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’  [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’

negative: Many children under the age of 18 both know the consequences of their actions and know that bullying, whether on or offline, is wrong. We cannot simply let these people get away with little punishment simply because they are under 18. If they have a lower mental age then there is already the possibility of the defence pleading diminished responsibility.

negative: Age of consent laws are also arbitrary as children become sexually and emotionally mature at very different rates, so any artificially imposed limit will be too high for many and too low for others.


query: Suicide is a waste of life  Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own.  [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996,

positive: law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence The question whether or not human life is "sacred" should not intrude on the issue of suicide legislation because no clear proof is possible one way or the other. We respect human rights because we value the liberty and autonomy of individuals; we want to be able to make our own decisions and we likewise affirm the right of others to make their own decisions. The free, autonomous decision to take one’s own life should be respected as a legitimate exercise of one’s individual liberty. Human liberty is sacrosanct and should only be limited where clear social harm is caused; suicide affects only the individual and so it should be permitted

negative: ethics life house believes right die Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.  We now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates [i] . In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths.  Let us consider the example of the cancer patient who opts not to put herself through the agony and uncertainty of chemotherapy. In such a circumstance, we accept that a person may accept the certainty of death with grace and reason rather than chasing after a slim probability of living longer but in pain.  All proposition is arguing is that this approach can also apply to other conditions, which may not be terminal in the strict sense of the world but certainly lead to the death of that person in any meaningful sense. The application of medical science to extend a life, long after life is ‘worth living’ or would be possible to live without these interventions cannot be considered a moral good for its own sake. Many find that they are facing the prospect of living out the rest of their days in physical pain or are losing their memory. As a result, some may see ‘going out at the top of their game’ as the better, and more natural, option.  [i] Caleb E Finch. Evolution of Human Lifespan and the Diseases of Aging: Roles of Infection, Inflammation, and Nutrition. Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America. 12 October 2009.

negative: Humanity bears a moral responsibility to other species  Human moral responsibility to other species: Humans are unique and unprecedented in life on earth in that their intelligence and sentience far surpasses that of any other species ever known to have existed. Humans are not simply forced to kill or ignore other species by instinct alone, as other species are, but rather can make a variety of choices based not only on information but on moral grounds. Thus with our greater power comes a greater responsibility to act in a moral fashion, and not simply to prioritize our own human good over that of other species. The ability of animal species, for example, to feel pain and suffering is something we should consider and try to avoid, as we recognise that pain is bad for ourselves, and thus must be bad for animals as well. Similarly if we believe our own survival is a good thing, we should recognise that the survival of other species is also a moral good, and act accordingly to protect endangered species.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings.  As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs.  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).

negative: Universal human nature  Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.

negative: economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should Freedom of movement is an intrinsic human right  Every human being is born with certain rights. These are protected by various charters and are considered inseparable from the human being. The reason for this is a belief that these rights create the fundamental and necessary conditions to lead a human life. Freedom of movement is one of these and has been recognised as such in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] If a family finds themselves faced with starvation, the only chance they have of survival might be to move to another place where they might live another day. It is inhuman to condemn individuals to death and suffering for the benefit of some nebulous collective theory. While we might pass some of our freedoms to the state, we have a moral right to the freedoms that help us stay alive – in this context freedom of movement is one of those.  [1] General Assembly, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 10 December 1948,

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes Immoral to own a human life  Patenting genes and DNA fragments is immoral because of their significance for human life and welfare. It is immoral to own building blocks of the human life. Commercialization of human genes degrades value of human life. Once we give people the possibility to put an ownership tag on genes (basics of life), there is people who value human life merely based on monetary value. Bidding for the best gene, highest price and making the basics of life the same as buying a car. Andy Miah in his essay on Ethical Issues in Genetics argues: "Evidence of such disaffection has appeared most recently from the emergence of Ron's Angels, a company set up for the auctioning of female eggs and male sperm to infertile couples seeking 'exceptional' children. Whilst numerous companies of this kind now exist, Ron's Angels is interesting not simply for having arranged a standard and reasonable price for such genes; far from it. Rather, as indicated above, eggs and sperm are awarded to the highest bidder."1 Thus making the perception of human life what people believe is "fair to pay" and creating a race to figure out the cheapest ways of buying parts of the human body. 1 10) Miah, A., Patenting Human DNA. In Almond, B. & Parker, M. (2003) Ethical Issues in the New Genetics: Are Genes Us?

negative: Harming animals for entertainment is immoral  If a creature suffers then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. All animals are sentient beings that experience joy, happiness, fear and pain, in the same way that human beings do. As Bentham previously noted, it does not matter that they cannot express this suffering in the same way as humans can (by speaking about it) or reason about their suffering in the same way -the important thing is that they can suffer in the first place. We can have no right whatsoever to make them suffer for our 'enjoyment'. If any torture inflicted to an animal deserves condemnation, bullfights are the worst kind of torture since they are performed solely in the name of entertainment. We must end the animals' torture and stop these shows of brutality and violence. It is too small a step from the intentional infliction of pain on an animal to the torture and killing of human beings.(5)  Bullfights perpetuate the idea that injuring and killing an animal for amusement is acceptable, and that is not an idea which any state with any concern for animals, or for its human citizens, should wish to be prevalent. Part of the 'attraction' of bullfighting for crowds is witnessing death. Advocates of the practice make this into an argument for the practice. But, a desire to see death in front of one's own eye's amounts to bloodlust. Why should humans be accommodated in such a morbid pursuit? Eric Gallego, an animal rights protester, said in 2010: “Bullfighting is a bloody entertainment. We must stop this cruelty because we don’t want to be a barbaric society in Europe.”(6)  This argument applies just as much to any other country in the world: why would we want to encourage people to enjoy pain and suffering, as we have laws which make causing pain and suffering illegal (both for humans and animals) in almost every other context? Bullfighting is therefore immoral, and encourages cruel and immoral behaviour in other areas, and so it should be banned.

negative: disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should Every human being has a right to life  Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death.  [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005,  (accessed 4/6/2011)  [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008,  (accessed 6/6/2011)

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights  Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

negative: The internet does not need additional rights to those in the real world  The right to be forgotten is premised on the idea that internet requires additional rights beyond those in the real world. Offline there is no right to demand that people do not to talk about or show photos of your embarrassing moments. Provided that there is no privacy breach, once something is out in public, you cannot take it back. There is no rule enabling you to be forgotten in real life, even if things you have done harm you. Why then do rules have to be different for the internet?  In 21st century the internet has become an integral part of our lives and of human communication that it is in fact just another reality for us. We do the same things there as we do in real life – socialise, engage in our hobbies etc. The only difference is that the internet provides us with greater opportunities, such as reaching more people, but that does not change the principle that human interaction online is pretty much the same as offline. If there is no right to be forgotten in real life, there should not be one in the digital one.

negative: Speciesism is wrong  Just as racism is wrongful discrimination against beings of a different race and sexism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different gender, speciesism is wrongful discrimination against a being of a different species. Wrongful discrimination occurs when there is no other reason for the discrimination except the mere fact that the being is of the race, sex, or species that they are. For example, if an employer refuses to employ a black woman over a white woman because she has an inferior qualification this is justified discrimination whereas if he refuses to employ the black woman simply because she is black then this is wrongful discrimination. Human beings are speciesist towards animals because we sacrifice their most important needs for our trivial desires: their life for our enjoyment of a burger.  You might think that we are allowed to have special relationships to people that are similar to us but there is a difference between special relationships and being active cruel and discriminatory. Our evolutionary instinct to protect our own species may not be ethically correct in contemporary society.  Similarly, we ought not to 'put down' animals who are too expensive to care for. We do not allow human beings to kill off their children when they experience financial difficulty because we believe that human beings value their lives. It would be justifiable to kill off something that has no interest in living, such as a plant, but since we believe that animals do have an interest in living it would be speciesist to kill off a puppy simply because it is not human. We know that society believes animals have an interest in living sometimes because there is outcry when baby seals are clubbed or when elephants are poached for their ivory. Yet at other times we are happy to eat animal flesh and wear leather. This is a contradictory stance. We ought to be consistent in our views and to condemn speciesists.  Refusing animals rights is speciesist. Speciesism is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to deny animals rights.

negative: aw society family house would allow patenting genes We are happy to put a price on our ideas and knowledge, which are as much building blocks of life as our genes. Each individual already sells his ideas and has a price tag so patenting makes no further devaluation than that which is already there.Even if ownership of another person’s parts is immoral, morality never had a lot to do with gene patenting.Patent agencies allow such immoral things as poisons, explosives, extremely dangerous chemical substances, devices used in nuclear power stations, agro-chemicals, pesticides and many other things which can threaten human life or damage the environment to be patented. This is despite the existence of the public order and morality bar in almost all European countries.1So why make a difference with gene patenting, which does not harm, but may actually benefit a great amount of people.  1. Annabelle Lever , Is It Ethical To Patent Human Genes?, UCL 2008,

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals have a right not to be harmed  The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. [1] Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. [2]  [1] Clark, S., The Nature of the Beast: are animals moral?, (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1982)  [2] Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

negative: We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.  Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside.  Government aid programs from democracies in Western Europe and America are already concerned with promoting human rights including freedom of speech. Australia’s aid program for example has a Human Rights Fund of $6.5 million per year that provides grants to among other things “educate and/or train human rights victims, workers or defenders”. [2] Enabling victims of human rights abuse to get around their government’s censorship is the obvious next step.  The concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’ introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 provided that when governments were unable or unwilling to protect their own citizens then that responsibility devolves to the international community and may ultimately lead to military action for particularly gross violations. This responsibility to react should be “with appropriate measures” [3] and for the breach of the human right of freedom of expression providing a method to enable those whose freedom of expression/speech is being violated to exercise this right is the most appropriate and proportional response.  [1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Article 19’, 1946.  [2] AusAID, ‘Human rights and Australia’s aid program’, Australian Government, 22 February 2012.  [3] Evans, Garath and Mohamed Sahnoun Chair’s, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Center, December 2001, p.XI.

negative: ethics life kill one save many junior To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.

negative: healthcare deny organs non donors The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.

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

negative: National security takes precedence.  Internet access is not a fundamental right as recognized by any major human rights convention, if it can be called a right at all. [1] Even if we accept that people should have a right to internet access, in times of war or civil unrest the government should be able to abridge lesser rights for the sake of something that is critical to the survival of the state, like national security. After all, in a war zone few rights survive or can be upheld at all. Preventing such an outcome at the expense of the temporary curtailment of some lesser rights is entirely justified. Under current law, in most states, only the most fundamental of rights, like the right to life, prohibition against torture, slavery, and the right to a fair trial are regarded as inalienable [2] .  [1] For more see the debatabase debate on internet access as a human right.  [2] Article 15 of the European Convention on Human rights: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”

negative: p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Google’s business is inseparable from basic human rights  The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a UN conference, affirmed that access to information is a basic human right, a corollary to the freedom of opinion and expression as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] It is a right because access to information is often basic to human life; to how to live in society, to work and to educate ourselves. China ratified the Universal Declaration back in 1948 when it was accepted by the UN’s General Assembly, and was a party to the WSIS 2003 conference. This means that, if China is to be a responsible member of the international community, we can expect them to uphold the principles they publicly declare.  Google’s mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. Note that this mission happens to coincide with the basic human right of access to information. This is why Google’s choice to interfere with China’s domestic politics isn’t just ‘big business interfering with a state’s sovereign politics’ – it’s a case of a big business whose business model happens to be providing a basic human right the sovereign state should have, by its own accord, provided a long time ago.  [1] World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium’, December 12, 2003. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011

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: People have a right to freedom of religion.  Freedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” [1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life.  Under the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights.  The government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation.  [1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18

negative: ethics life house believes right die Obviously nobody is going to compel doctors or others in the medical profession to undertake a procedure of which they do not approve. Indeed doctors are routinely required to give independent advice - so that a patient is aware of the available options - without being required to perform a procedure themselves. The same is true with relatives or friends. There are many issues in life, where we may disagree with someone’s decision but we respect their right to make that decision just as they respect ours to check that they have considered all the implications. In the case of the doctors this is simple professionalism, in the case of loved ones, respect.

negative: animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Survival of the fittest  It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org

negative: That there is a right to freedom of speech does not mean that we have an obligation to make sure that everyone around the world has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is indeed a human right in the universal declaration of human rights however this is something that it is obligated for governments to uphold for their own people rather than for other countries to enforce. If governments are infringing on the freedoms of their people the correct way to counter this is through international diplomacy rather than seeking to undermine that state.  The responsibility to protect, itself controversial, was only ever meant to apply to the very worst human rights violations - such as the genocide in Rwanda. If there are massacres of civilians and all other options have failed then there may be a need to intervene to prevent more killing. However violations of freedom of speech are not something that is time dependent. Diplomacy may often take a long time but can eventually work, as is being shown in Burma's opening up

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1]  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

negative: Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information  This argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights  a) Self-determination  Some proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the "screening" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy "life".  b) Parental rights  Currently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all.  Experts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA. With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1).  Mainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be.  1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998,  , accessed 05/23/2011

negative: There is no reason why the rights we grant animals need be the same rights that we grant human beings. There may be laws that protect animals but these will be taken more seriously as rights because of the status we give to rights. Furthermore there are several rights that do apply to animals: the right to life, freedom of movement and the right not to be subjected to torture.

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: pregnancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.

negative: A screening culture may lead to the value of human life becoming distorted  Genetic engineering treats embryos like commodities: “if the product isn’t sufficiently equipped, doesn’t produce the desired results – we will not launch it”. Even if we weren't considering embryos to be "human life", it is inappropriate to treat them as commodities with an "option to purchase". This cheapens at least the potential life-forms these embryos can become.  Views of doctors and also future parents regarding the value of their unborn children’s lives are changing.  In a survey taken in New England (USA), there was a substantial majority in favor of genetic screening for a wide range of disorders. About 11 per cent of the couples have also admitted to wanting to abort a child that was genetically predisposed to obesity. A condition with which it is possible to live a good lifestyle (1).  With allowing more and more genetic screening and abortions / manipulations based on genes we are making life more of a commodity.  1.Jim Leffel, Genetic Technology, Engeneering Life: Human Rights in a Postmodern Age,  , accessed 05/23/2011

negative: Humanity owes a moral responsibility to future generations  Human moral responsibility to future generations: Species extinction is an irrevocable occurrence. Outside of the film 'Jurassic Park', extinct species cannot be summoned back from the grave once human action has put them there. This means that when a current generation makes the decision not to protect an endangered species and thus allows human action to drive it to extinction, this denies future generations the ability to make up their own minds about the pros and cons of the survival of that endangered species, especially considering that they might want that species to exist for the aforementioned scientific, medical, aesthetic or moral reasons. For example, there is a great modern-day interest in the dodo species of bird which was hunted to extinction in Mauritius in the 17th Century. [1] The opinion of many in the modern world today is one of regret at the bird's extinction and that it should have been protected, but a lack of consideration of the wishes of future generations in the 17th Century has meant that the humans of the 21st Century are denied the ability to decide on the value of this species themselves. Because we place a moral value on the ability of humans to make decisions (as we consider it to be a good thing when we ourselves have this ability) we should recognise that the possibly differing opinions of future generations should constrain our choices somewhat, and we should protect endangered species so that future generations can decide for themselves regarding their value.  [1] BBC News “Dodo skeleton find in Mauritius”. BBC News. 24 June 2006.

negative: Women have a right to choose  Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.