title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
The state provides functions which are utterly essential. Anarchist groups are very naive in believing that we could survive without states, states provide a countless functions that would not exist otherwise. Things like the fire service would be very hard to organise as a community, it is likely that that very few p... | |
Violence is not intrinsic to Anarchy Whilst there are many violent anarchists there is nothing about anarchy that means that violence need be a part of it. Many anarchists identify themselves as Anarchist-Pacifists and are against any and all violence. | |
Ignoring the law some of the time undermines the state. The opposition believe that this legislation goes much further than showing solidarity between the government and religion, and is actually the government showing submission to religion. This legislation sets religion as a higher authority than the government and,... | |
Relationship between state and religious population People who are caused distress and have their religious freedom limited by their government are likely to feel disillusioned with and sidelined by their government. They will wonder why other religious groups can follow all the teachings of their faith while the gove... | |
Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it. In terms of internationa... | |
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... | |
Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to sto... | |
Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1] The opposition believes that this good will be so barely perc... | |
Relationship between state and organised religion. Currently, the state and organised religion are often seen as diametrically opposed. [1] For example the state often worries about the threat of religious extremists. This causes a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as ... | |
Delegitimises religious Currently, bombings and attacks in the name of religion are a big problem. These are mostly caused by people feeling that their religion is being discriminated against. [1] For example Dr Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that "There's a place for finding what would be a construct... | |
This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is all... | |
This is a weak slippery slope argument. The proposition does not accept that this legislation puts religion above the law. Religious people and movements do not see the potential to practise their religion to its fullest degree as a way to get one over on the state but a right that they deserve as a human being. This ... | |
Makes the affected laws effectively inoperable in their totality. If people wish to carry knives in public or smoke marijuana, the rational thing for them to do under this legislation is to falsely claim to be Sikh or Rastafarian respectively so that they are not subject to these laws. This logic applies to all laws a... | |
Causes divisions in society. One of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class... | |
Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law. This legislation essentially indicates that anything to do with religion is not subject to the same laws as everyone else and removes the state from his position as ultimate authority over its subjects. The limits will be very difficult to draw – there are some t... | |
This harm can be avoided very easily. Avoiding these laws becoming completely inoperable would actually be quite simple. People who observe nothing but the potentially illegal parts of the religion would not be considered part of that religion, particularly if they only began identifying as part of that religion once t... | |
Term-limiting legislators insults the intelligence of the electorate. Individuals can make prudent decisions about who to vote for, and it so happens that that decision is often to keep incumbents in power. If the reason for such high reelection rates is due to an uneducated or disaffected electorate, then the problem ... | |
Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas: Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen... | |
People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their c... | |
Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature: It is gravely unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path for citizens of democratic states. It is far better that participation in government be brief. To end politics as a lifetime sin... | |
If people wish to pursue a career in politics, then it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with career politicians so long as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents. While there should be no bar to people seeking to enter politics on a temporary basis, ... | |
A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the leg... | |
The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage: Power is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands ... | |
The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time: A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by... | |
Legislators may gain skill in maneuvering in the legislative arena with time, but they also gain a propensity for power grabbing and self-advancement. Politicians of long standing use their knowledge of the working of the legislature as much for the lobbyists and interest groups, who they prefer to work with rather tha... | |
Term limits promote greater choice in candidates and protect democracy1. While people may not be able to vote for a legislator again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party's candidate. Limiting individual... | |
The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits: With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the p... | |
Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions: Term limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term lim... | |
Experienced legislators who understand the workings of the legislative system are needed for their expertise and wisdom: The process of drafting legislation and shepherding it through the legislature often requires a delicate and practiced hand, especially when the issue under discussion is of a controversial nature. ... | |
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance: Term limits are flagrantly undemocratic. If a legislator is popular and desired by the people to continue to represent them, then it should be their choice to reelect him. The ... | |
The dynamics of party primaries are not the same in all jurisdictions, and efforts at promoting moderate and capable candidates can still be made after the institution of term limits. Furthermore, new politicians may in fact be more willing to work on bipartisan projects, as they are not inculcated in the culture of co... | |
A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to c... | |
It is wrong to simply make drones “a default strategy to be used anywhere”. Yes some of the time drones will be the right choice for catching terrorists and other militants but much of the time they won’t be. Instead of spurning institutions like the ISI and Pakistan’s Military we should be relying on them to fight ext... | |
UAVs are the best possible weapon for the job. We need to eliminate terrorists somehow and UAVs are the best possible equipment with which to carry out this mission. All the other options either would result in significantly more casualties or would have other problems that would likely allow terrorists to escape. Fi... | |
This is incorrect; It makes the assumption that UAVs could not be used at all if they were not being used to attack targets. They could still be used in a surveillance role so providing the same amount of time to deliberate before striking in a different fashion, one that is appropriate to the situation. | |
UAVs cause less collateral damage. There are only two things that really matter when targeting terrorists; is the terrorist eliminated, and is collateral damage kept to a minimum? In Pakistan there have been a total of 334 strikes by UAVs between 2004 and June 2012 with the total reported killed at 2496-3202 of which ... | |
Because drones are not on the ground and can’t check the identities of those who are killed there is no way of knowing if they really do cause less civilian casualties; what the proposition calls ‘collateral damage’. We also do not know what damage would be caused by other forms of attack on the same targets. It is how... | |
Today most forms of conflict do not have much risk to western militaries. While the attacks were carried out from high in the sky NATO did not suffer a single loss in combat operations over Kosovo in 1999. [1] Moreover this lack of danger with UAVs is potentially immoral; we no longer have a war in which both sides are... | |
UAVs allow more care and safeguards before shooting. When engaging in covert operations it is essential that the right target is identified so that the correct target is eliminated. This is something that using UAVs allows as they are able to track their target, sometimes for days, before attacking. This means there i... | |
Using UAVs prevents soldiers from being killed. To put it bluntly any military or intelligence service wants to keep its own men safe while carrying out its missions; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are the ultimate capability with which to manage this. No military or civilian personnel are going to be killed if the delivery... | |
This is a conflict situation, a war, pure and simple. While this is a new kind of conflict; when the opponent is a non-state actor states have to be able to strike at these groups that intend to attack them even when they are sheltering in other states. Such attacks should also not include the state where those groups ... | |
Getting special forces or allies on the ground is not always an option. In countries like Somalia and Yemen where there have been conflicts between factions the authorities will not always cooperate and even if they do they may not control the territory where the strike team would need to operate. There will also be ma... | |
The use of drones makes the use of force easier to sanction. Using drones encourages the use of lethal force rather than alternatives. The reason for this is obvious – it is much easier to resort to violence if you know there is no risk to yourself. With the operators thousands of miles away in the United States the o... | |
The use of drones creates a precedent that other states may use. The United States is the first state with a large number of drones and other unmanned military vehicles. It is also the first country to use them. This inevitably means that the US is creating the precedent for how they will be used in future. The United... | |
Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace. The use of drones further blurs the already worryingly indistinct line between a state of war and a state of peace. The drone attacks are taking place in countries where the United States does not have any legal authority. The United States is not officially at... | |
The use of drones means shoot to kill is the only option. Using drones cuts down the options on the ground. A drone can only keep circling or go in for the attack; their only option is to kill a target or let them escape. Using ground forces; either your own, or in this case the Pakistani or Yemeni military, provides ... | |
Any other nation seeking to take a precedent from the use of drones would have to be involved in a conflict against a terrorist organisation that poses a credible, clear, and present danger and not be able to fight those terrorists by other means. The situation in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is in many ways unique in ... | |
It is absolutely not the case that UAVs will mean unnecessary attacks that would not otherwise be made; all the targets are checked by a large number of national security experts and the attacks are signed off by the President himself. The attacks are therefore taken very seriously by the administration. Moreover that ... | |
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 do... | |
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,... | |
In almost every case where hate crimes are committed, the communities involved already perceive themselves as distinct and opposed, mostly because they already believe that their communities have been sundered by structural inequalities and hate-motivated crimes. Simply ignoring hate crimes will not make these communit... | |
Hate crime enhancements unfairly punish equal offences differently Hate crime enhancements are unjust because they respond to two equal results (i.e. assault vs. racial mugging) with different punishments. We need to judge solely on the concrete actions of the aggressor in order to prevent punishments from being based... | |
This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups. Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killin... | |
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 persecuti... | |
Victims of violence may be prone to accusing their assailant of hate-motivated crimes. Victims frequently seek revenge, and hate crime laws create a very easy avenue for doing so. Thus hate crime enhancements may serve to fuel the fires of inter-community tensions as people perceive them as being used to exact communal... | |
Much of this symbolism and “meaning” attributed to hate crimes is deeply subjective and open to (mis)interpretation, especially in a politicized environment where hatred against one group is perceived as being the “usual” motivation behind any crime by any individual from another community against that group, and where... | |
Hate crime enhancements help prevent hate crimes The additional punishment given to hate crimes under enhancements can help deter people who hold hateful views from acting on them, as they fear going to prison for any amount of time, and so any additional punishment affects their risk calculation before they commit a ... | |
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, e... | |
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 crim... | |
It isn't necessarily true that hate crime enhancements really do deter hate crimes or help fight recidivism. Those committing hate crimes would face significant deterrents (in the form of legal sanctions, including prison time) for the crimes they commit even without the enhancements, so it seems unlikely that the addi... | |
Just as some people have difficulty remembering so many passwords, so some people have difficulty remembering where they misplaced their belongings. This motion offers no solution if somebody should lose their identity card; given that it may be used to have access to a bank account, act as a travel card or simply be u... | |
Identity cards confer advantages on their users The average person is faced with numerous requisitions for identification every day, whether trying to access their own bank account, prove their age or prove their address. The identity card could easily incorporate all of this information to become one convenient for o... | |
Many illegal immigrants already take steps to avoid official identification. For example, they frequently take jobs which pay cash-in-hand [1] so that they do not have to set up and authorise a bank account, or have a social security number. There is not reason why this would not continue. Moreover, this measure simply... | |
Only those who are guilty have anything to fear from systems that monitor and confirm identities Law-abiding citizens who have not and do not intend to commit any crimes should not have a problem with this motion. Carrying a single card is not a huge burden to an individual. Rather they can reap the benefits of conven... | |
Identity cards improve public safety Identity cards could prove a key instrument to combat crime, terrorism and fraud. Given that terrorists have used fake passports to cross borders in the past [1] , a sophisticated identity card, possibly containing specific biometric information which cannot be easily faked, could ... | |
Many countries – including America [1] and Britain [2] - already use biometric chips in passports to reinforce proof of identity when crossing national borders. If this data does not work in this case, especially since security has increased hugely since 9/11 [3] , there is no evidence to support the idea that it would... | |
It is perfectly legitimate for an innocent citizen to oppose identity cards on the grounds of how they threaten to alter society. The oppressive measure of gaining and essentially holding to ransom everybody’s intimate personal details and biometric data is hardly a soft measure; it is radical and may completely change... | |
It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that medical emergencies require fast action – but that’s the exact reason why we use medical alert bracelets [1] . We already have a simply, non-intrusive way of ensuring that somebody who suffers from an illness such as epilepsy or diabetes can be quickly identified – without the ne... | |
Identity cards can assist in the efficient monitoring of immigration Illegal immigration is an enormous problem in Western nations. The UK estimates that there are more that one million illegal immigrants living in Britain [1] , likely around 2.2 million [2] . For America, this number could be as high as 11 million [3... | |
Identity cards can be used to locate individuals who are in danger As biometric identity cards would be able to store medical data, they could be instrumental in saving somebody’s life. For example, if somebody suddenly suffered an epileptic fit, it would be much faster for medical staff to find out their illness and ... | |
While these crimes are obviously a problem, it doesn’t mean that other crimes which can be challenged by this scheme should be allowed to continue. Identity cards would at least make it more difficult for fraud to occur, which in cases of petty criminals would provide an active deterrent for them to try it in the first... | |
Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airp... | |
An identity card scheme is open to subversion and abuse Demanding identity cards has already been shown as a way for police officers and officials to harass minority groups by singling them out for questioning and searches [1] . This motion would simply serve as a thinly-veiled excuse for more intrusive searches which... | |
The scheme would cause inconvenience and public discontent The more information which is incorporated into identity cards, the greater the problems if they are misplaced or stolen. You would be ‘required to report the theft at a police station’ [1] rather than being able to cancel by phone, because the only way to pro... | |
The scheme does not prevent forgery or identity theft The entire premise of national security and crime prevention falls when biometric identity cards are in fact incredibly easy to falsify. Microchips have already been forged in a matter of minutes in an experiment to determine their security [1] , and biometric info... | |
This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty Introducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements ... | |
This point alludes to a potentially tiny minority of incidents. It is likely that most people, realising the importance of their card, would not lose it. In cases where it is used properly, it could be an enormous benefit to the user and increase their convenience. | |
If anything, this is a reason to introduce better police training, not to abandon the concept of identity cards altogether. An unfortunate fact is that immigrants, who often come from poor backgrounds or have low levels of education, are more statistically likely to be involved in crime [1] . This ‘disproportionate’ [2... | |
Obviously the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was an atrocity, it may have been aimed at a particular group, Buddhists, but it is hard to see how their destruction was crime against humanity because of this. It may have come as a grave harm and insult to Buddhists around the world, however none can be said to hav... | |
The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity. Items and sites of cultural heritage are often destroyed for discriminatory and oppressive reasons. The Maoist onslaught on all “old” aspects of Chinese culture is a prime example while the destruction of the Bu... | |
The kinds of people or groups that attack and destroy sites of cultural heritage are not likely to care much about international law. If anything, making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would further radicalise extremist groups. One only has to look at the proposition’s example of the dest... | |
Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity. Cultural property is important for many reasons. In this argument, its significance as part of our world cultural heritage will be assessed, while in the second argument, its local significance is examined... | |
The proposition are not contentious in their claims that our world cultural heritage is valuable. However it is not true that if an item or site of cultural heritage is destroyed, it ceases to have any educational value. If the Taj Mahal were destroyed, of course it would be a great loss in terms of aesthetic value, bu... | |
Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected. Were the desecration and destruction of items and sites of cultural heritage to be an internationally recognised crime against humanity, people would be more reluctant in causing either intended or collateral damage (in a co... | |
Firstly, it is not true that human beings are not harmed with the destruction of cultural property. When committed on a systematic and large scale as was seen in China during the 1960s, such attacks are very harmful. The harm comes more from the motivation and symbolism of the acts of desecration and destruction, rathe... | |
Making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity is mainly targeted at the wanton destruction of sites of immense value or the systematic destruction on a gross scale, such as that witnessed in the 1960s in China. For the majority of cases, the current UNESCO conventions regarding the protection of ... | |
Military objectives are more important than that of protecting cultural property. Ultimately the debate between conservation of cultural heritage and the need to secure a military advantage in times of conflict, comes down to a comparison of two different kinds of goods. One the one hand we have cultural goods that ar... | |
The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC. Though it is true the international Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and investigates crimes against humanity, the destruction and desecration of cultural property cannot be categorised as a crime against humanity. This is quite simply because huma... | |
Making destroying cultural heritage a crime against humanity would create severe strategic disadvantages for our armed forces. The current UNESCO conventions are correct in allowing for the possibility of a waiver on our international duty to protect cultural property should a case of military urgency arise. The Propo... | |
The opposition present us with a false dichotomy here. It is not true that we have to make a choice between saving lives and protecting cultural property. The hypothetical situation where a site of high cultural and historical value would have to be destroyed in order to provide famine relief or prevent genocide seems ... | |
The Lubanga case took 6 years to reach a verdict owing to problems with the reliability of testimony and the sheer number of witnesses and victims involved in the proceedings. [1] Although the Prosecutor sought a harsher sentence, these problems with the weight of evidence and difficulties ascertaining the number of c... | |
In the decade since its formation, the ICC has only one successful conviction Since becoming operational in March 2003 the ICC has only had one case resulting in a conviction and it is currently being appealed. Despite being found guilty of the war crime of recruiting and forcing child soldiers to fight and kill, Thom... | |
Precisely because many rank and file perpetrators are easily controlled or manipulated by group leaders, their criminal responsibility is diminished. While Article 26 of the Rome Statute prevents prosecution of those under 18 years of age, this is designed to prevent injustices towards those who are often themselves vi... | |
The ICC lacks the power to ensure arrests While the ICC has the power to issue arrest warrants, it does not have the coercive powers to ensure that those warrants are followed. Despite the fact that States that are parties to the Rome Statute are obliged to co-operate with the directions of the Court, there have been ... | |
The fact that the Sudanese president has been able to travel freely to several countries without being arrested does not indicate that he or other would-be criminals are undeterred by the threat. Though the African Union has strongly advised its member states to ignore the arrest warrant and most have obliged, more rec... | |
As the ICC intentionally limits its prosecutions to group leaders, many of those who actually commit atrocities need have no fear of prosecution By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impuni... | |
Many of those 122 States Parties have repeatedly shown their reluctance to co-operate with the ICC. Among the African Union states, only Botswana has shown its complete commitment to the Rome Statute. It appears that even South Africa may ultimately be more supportive of the AU than the ICC. [1] [1] Miruthi , p.4 | |
The actions by Columbia and Sri Lanka do not alter the fact that, as noted earlier, the recruitment of child soldiers in Africa and elsewhere is still endemic in 2013. And while the Lord’s Resistance Army and its leader Joseph Kony have indeed been muted, that is largely due to the initiative of the U.S. government wh... | |
Potential prosecution by the ICC encourages local authorities to improve their own judicial systems. As an international court of ‘last resort’, the ICC’s very existence serves as a constant reminder of the failings of national and regional governments to effectively curtail crimes against humanity in all their forms.... | |
The ICC’s widely endorsed authority extends its deterrent effects. The ICC’s investigative and prosecutorial powers are endorsed by 122 States Parties to the Rome Statute. This broad reach and agreement not only provides a strong disincentive for individuals and groups who would attempt to evade prosecution, but also ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.