title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Private schools provide a better education than state schools In 2007, Time the US magazine discovered that private schools in the US received much higher SAT scores that the state counterparts. Research suggests that private education puts a greater emphasis on critical thinking, while state schools emphasise memory ... | |
This is what is already happening. It is the government that sets a curriculum for state schools (such as in Great Britain, Singapore, Japan, China, New Zealand and France) and the government want us to vote for them. So in many ways the education system may already be indoctrinating children in state school in the way... | |
Abolishing private schools will not bring to an end to inequality between pupils as this is illustrated every day in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being differ... | |
Private schools lack diversity A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems. 1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a... | |
Schools should be free from bias Private education needs funding, be it from a business, individual funders or organisations and private schools rely on this money to run. It seems unlikely then, in this context, that these funders that the school is so reliant on may have an influence (even if unintentional) on vario... | |
Private schools encourage elitism Private education suggests that a higher level of schooling is a privilege of those who can afford it, rather than a right. This encourages a cycle, whereby those who get a good, private education are more likely to get higher paid jobs as private education increases access to higher ... | |
Similarly the counterargument to this has two distinct principles. 1) That some state schools lack social diversity as much as private schools, particularly in small, rural areas. Therefore we cannot simply criticize private schools, and must recognise that all schools have different levels of diversity. MacKinnon rec... | |
Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians. When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any con... | |
Intervention prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi. From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, i... | |
Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it h... | |
A long ruling and ruthless dictator was toppled. Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1]. He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all support... | |
Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regi... | |
Ushered in the liberation of Libya. The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did. Western intervention in the... | |
Russia’s long standing antagonism with the west is not new [1] and Libya is not the cause. Its reaction towards the Syrian conflict is driven by a complex mixture of political and economic interests including having a naval base in the country [2]. The UN security council has also continued to ensure that its operatio... | |
The no-fly zone on its own was not sufficient to protect civilians on the ground. It was the responsibility of NATO to take further action aimed at protecting people whose lives were at risk from gaddafi’s soldiers. This NATO did by attacking military targets such as artillery. This was also part of the UNSC agreement ... | |
It increased conflict and instability in Libya and its neighbours. The toppling of Muammar Gaddafi has had unpleasant side effects. Gaddafi’s army involved a large number of mercenaries, many of them Tuaregs from northern Mali. When Gaddafi was overthrown they returned to their homeland without having given up their a... | |
Created a large divide in the UN security council. The UN security council approved humanitarian intervention in Libya that ensured a no fly zone to protect civilians from government attacks. However, the west went beyond the resolution’s intent and turned it into a de facto campaign for regime change [1]. This made ... | |
The intervention backfired. NATO’S action increased the conflict’s duration about a six fold and the death toll at least sevenfold, but also increasing human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, and weapon proliferation in Libya and neighbouring countries [1]. The UN security council approved the resolution for prot... | |
The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in tr... | |
A minor addition to what the UK has is hardly securing a special place for the UK. Moreover there is no reason to keep such a position if it is not working for Britain. The renegotiation deal did not succeed in making the EU work how Britain would like – a move back to greater national sovereignty – so Britain is bette... | |
Secures a special place for the UK The renegotiation deal ensures that the UK has a special place in Europe. One where it is both a leading part of the club with a major say in the council, commission and parliament, and is also outside of those areas such as the Eurozone and anything relating to the Euro which the UK... | |
The only way to ensure that the UK does not become part of a political union is to leave entirely. The European Scrutiny Committee of the UK Parliament has concluded that the “ever closer union” is largely symbolic so guarantees against it amount to little. [1] Meanwhile the pledges about competitiveness are vague. It ... | |
A fundamental change to Britain’s relationship with Europe It was too much to hope that the deal might involve a complete change for the EU as a whole. However it has the potential to fundamentally change the UK’s relationship with the EU by putting it on a much more secure footing. The most fundamental change is the... | |
While it is quite correct that the UK should not have to be signed up to taking part in a European super-state the renegotiation does not represent a big leap forward. With its’ opt outs that are not time limited the UK was already not further integrating with the EU. The change to accepting the de facto truth is not a... | |
Ensures Europe stays of the track Britain wants it to be on Britain’s ideal for the European Union is a union that is founded upon free trade; an economic not a political block. The agreement ensures that the European Union remains on this path in two ways. First through agreement on competitiveness where members pled... | |
Neither are at all likely. Gove’s opinion has been rejected by the Attorney General saying “It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements”. [1] Similarly the European Parliame... | |
This is the case in all negotiations. Both sides start out with their maximalist demands that they would like to have and both sides compromise and reduce their own demands until they meet in the middle. During this compromise many ideas and proposals are dropped or watered down until both sides get the core of what th... | |
The deal makes no difference to migration David Cameron failed to even negotiate on the area that the people of the UK most want changed; cutting migration. The only way to do this is to end freedom of movement through the Schengen agreement; something that was never on the table. As a result the changes are minor one... | |
The renegotiation agreement could yet fall through At the moment is simply an agreement between the leaders of the states within the EU. Until it is written into treaties the agreement is vulnerable. There are two ways in which it could fall through or be changed. The first is for the European Court to declare part of... | |
The renegotiation makes little difference Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg described the deal as “pretty thin gruel” which hits the mark. The British Prime Minister has not been able to go nearly as far as he would like for example with his pledge on migrant benefits where Cameroon failed to ensure that all who claim m... | |
Migration is a benefit to the UK financially. Most migrants don’t claim benefits which is why such benefit rules changes will not make much difference. Cutting migration would be easier outside the European Union however even then there is unlikely to be scope to cut migration as far as skeptics want. Net migration fro... | |
As an American state, Puerto Ricans would pay federal income taxes, which most currently do not. Some businesses would also lose tax breaks they currently enjoy. [1] This would harm not only the wealth of individual Puerto Ricans but also harm the country's economic standing, as it would become less appealing as an inv... | |
Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood American statehood would lead to significant economic growth for Puerto Rico. Statehood would mean that the island would shed its ineffective and costly reliance on preferential tax credits and more fully integrate into the national economy. In a study by Hexner, J... | |
The foreignness of English in Puerto Rico is greater in magnitude than it was in any state at any time in our national experience, including the examples listed. Census data show that just 20 percent of the island’s residents speak English fluently. By comparison, California has the lowest proficiency rate among the 50... | |
Puerto Ricans deserve full political rights and citizenship Currently, Puerto Ricans do not receive full political rights and equal representation, despite their American citizenship. Although it has its own Governor and legislature which handles some domestic matters, inhabitants of Puerto Rico receive no say in US f... | |
Regardless of what Puerto Ricans may or may not “deserve”, the fact is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood many times now, making their voices heard on this issue many times since the late 1960's. The island has repeatedly voted to remain a commonwealth when votes were taken in 1967, 1993, and 1998. [1] If Puert... | |
English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood Some have made the argument that Puerto Rico should not be a state because Puerto Ricans do not speak English, and that the US should not have a non-English speaking state. This argument does not hold up for the following reasons: English is already an official langu... | |
Firstly, Puerto Ricans have repeatedly rejected independence in referendums in 1967, 1993, and 1998, with the votes for independence always being fewer than those for statehood. But secondly, the reasons against Puerto Rican independence are myriad. If Puerto Rico were to vote for independence, it would be hugely costl... | |
The arguments regarding the loss of Puerto Rican culture under statehood do not stand up because Puerto Rican identity is strong and will continue to be so. Puerto Rico has been exposed to U.S. mainland cultures for over 100 years, and Puerto Rican culture and heritage has thrived and grown. Puerto Ricans and mainland ... | |
Puerto Rican statehood is not economical for the US If Puerto Rico were to enter the US in such a way as to harm the US economy or if it were to become a burden to the US, this could lead to resentment of Puerto Rico by the rest of the US and hamper integration. The unemployed in Puerto Rico will at least have higher ... | |
Statehood would prevent Puerto Rican independence The US has treated Puerto Rico as little more than a colony for 100 years, and this has seeped into the Puerto Rican mentality in harmful ways. According to educational scientists Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, in their 1973 work The Puerto Rican Experience: ... | |
The language barrier and Puerto Rican identity Puerto Rico should not become an American state because linguistic and cultural differences continue to divide the other 50 states and Puerto Rico. This would mean that Puerto Rico would either fit incongruously into the union, or it would lose its distinct cultural ident... | |
Much of this argumentation assumes that the Puerto Rican economy will not expand with statehood, which there are many good reasons to believe would occur. Look at what happened to the last two states admitted to the Union, Hawaii and Alaska. Both economies grew substantially after being admitted to the Union and became... | |
It does not matter if think tanks are used in this way, so long as the conclusions that are reached by the think tanks are true. If there is objective value in an idea it should be communicated as well as possible. If this cannot be done with conventional marketing, it is good for it to be possible through a think tank... | |
Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views Think tanks are considered more credible than corporate marketing. [1] In the case of corporate marketing the recipient is aware that he is being sold a product. In the case of think tanks, the recipient believes he is being given unbiase... | |
It is already in the interest of think tanks to be transparent. Think tanks exist in societies that depend on open communication and the free flow of ideas. Numerous organisations exist to criticise and unmask non-transparent think tanks: [1] this is sufficient incentive for them to reveal their funding. There may be e... | |
Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups In the status quo, the ability of think tanks to be non-transparent potentially provides a framework for criminal groups, or in extreme cases organisations, to handle large amounts of money without revealing where their money comes from or goes. We are allowing ... | |
People have a right to know where their information comes from Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant oblig... | |
Think tanks don’t have any legislative power. At the end of the day, what they do is merely make suggestions. If they were active lobbyists they would lose their privileged legal position as an academic organisation. [1] Even if there may be other benefits of them being transparent, the legal concept of transparency ca... | |
There is no necessity to disclose think tank funding publically in order to circumvent this issue. As long as there are public institutions that scrutinise think tanks and are also bound to secrecy unless there are anomalies, the risk of terrorism can be successfully regulated. Being a think tank does not prevent an or... | |
Think tanks can choose transparency in the status quo anyway (as shown by nef): this benefit is relatively small. On the other hand, it harms the many other think tanks that need to protect the information of who funds them if, for instance, the funders do not wish to disclose it. It is a loss of freedom for the majori... | |
The status quo promotes non-transparency Non-disclosure can be perceived as objectivity. It is easier for the public to criticise a think tank that is openly associated with a particular funder. That kind of prejudice is stronger than the more general the prejudice against non-disclosure. A person might distrust a non... | |
Legally requiring disclosure from all benefits think tanks Even think tanks benefit from the introduction of this policy. The status quo leaves disclosure as a strategic device: think tanks are unwilling to disclose more than their competition for fear of being unfavourably portrayed. Such negative competition, i.e. c... | |
On the other hand, by disclosing funders more corporations and individuals will have an incentive to fund think tanks. They will be assured that they will be publically recognised for it, and thus be rewarded when the think tanks they support produce good ideas. | |
Such a system, in which one allows think tanks to accept substantial anonymous donations, has immense downsides. It is simply too easy for a think tank to claim all, or most, of its funding is anonymous to them when it is questioned, while in fact they have been having informal strategic talks with potential funders da... | |
Overregulating think tanks sets a dangerous precedent The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by ass... | |
Private investors have a right to privacy The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, fo... | |
Think tanks should be assessed by the value of their ideas, not by who funds them One can conceive of an infinite amount of cases in which results of a think tank’s research are completely independent of their funders. Their opposition, however, will be likely to signal corruption, when in fact there may be no relatio... | |
Being subject to scrutiny discourages investors from supporting good projects Think tanks depend largely on voluntary funding for their projects, [1] so they must be careful when risking potential investments. Investors are likely to be put off from funding think tanks with good aims if this funding will be scrutinise... | |
This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy ... | |
Think tanks should be able to choose not to know who funds them The information think tanks provide can be extremely useful to society. Therefore we should be hesitant to restrict their key strength, which is their independence. There may be scenarios in which think tanks, in need of funding for a purely positive proj... | |
People are capable of assessing a biased idea after discovering its bias, while it is dangerous to present potentially biased ideas as genuine, for this limits discussion. This is especially so in the status quo, where the suspicions of who may be funding think tanks remain when they choose not to disclose their funder... | |
Suggesting that feminising African politics will stop poverty and provide empowerment returns to the ideas we attach to women. Women are often associated with domesticity, care, and reproductivity. Who’s to say that this is what women are or what they stand for? Basing quota systems on what women are believed to do is ... | |
Feminising the state: women helping women Including women in politics helps enable poverty to be tackled. Poverty is a women’s issue; women are more likely to live in poverty than men, and women are needed in politics to change this. Women understand each other, and what they need. Furthermore, although data varies, ... | |
Women become integrated into a man’s world. But the territory may not be changed. First, women may become like men in response to the jobs they take up and how one is expected to act in the given role. When we consider what conditions women are introduced, potentially with limited training in public speaking, confidenc... | |
Democracy must be representative Quotas are building representative democracies. Through the quota system women are given a voice in society. Quotas mean women are represented in politics. Women are half of the electorate so should be around half of the legislature. Although not there yet the rising numbers symbolise ... | |
Having more women does not mean a representative democracy is built as it is not just gender balance that needs to be considered but ethnicity, language groups etc. as well. Additionally, the bias quota system will cause future problems. In the future men will need to be targeted and receive help. For example in Rwand... | |
When we don’t just consider battle deaths the extent to which violence is declining is questionable [1] . Furthermore, we cannot suggest women in politics will limit war, conflict, or violence, as anomalies are found – such as Margret Thatcher’s use of violence in closing down industries across the UK and willingness t... | |
Changing the male territory African politics remains masculinised and strongly male dominated. Implementing quotas shows a commitment to change gender inequalities by increasing women’s political participation (Bachelet, 2013). More women mean gender imbalances can be changed, women empowered, and the territorial boun... | |
A safer world International relations debates, and conflict theories, suggest more women in politics makes for a safer world. In Pinker’s (2011) book the feminisation of politics is identified as a key factor to explain the decline in conflict and violence – battle deaths have declined from 20 per 100,000 people to on... | |
It remains difficult to compare the experiences of women in Scandinavia and Africa. The contexts – history, ideas, and social geographies – are completely different. While Scandinavia may well not need quotas to change perceptions in Africa it may be the best way to do so. Women in Africa need a voice, and therefore po... | |
The women’s quota is a vital start to tackle underlying inequalities. Quotas of multiple identities such as race, class, age, sexuality, class and ethnicity will need to be included following the implementation of a women’s quota. | |
The woman’s ‘political job’ Quotas mean more women are able to enter the political world; however, how is it decided what political jobs and positions they can utilise? The inclusion of women into politics in Africa has mainly been in certain departments i.e. gender and health. More powerful women are needed in positi... | |
Assuming causality: Africa Vs Scandinavia Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – have high female participation rates in parliament. However, Rwanda is one African nation that has even greater female parliamentary representation. In Scandinavia the quota has been introduced but is only implemented by so... | |
Are the women representative of all women? How can it be assured the women entering African politics are representative of the women in that African nation? Further, will the leader implement politically popular ideas or required policies? If we are introducing quotas for women in politics we need to think about what... | |
Working within gender departments does not mean a woman will be limited in integrating with departments of security. Politics is integrated, and interconnected, therefore learning how to run one political department shows how to run another. Having a woman represent a department shows them in a position of power regard... | |
The opinions of foreign governments and the international community have frequently failed to have any real impact upon the situation 'on the ground' in Tibet. For example, The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese 'aggression' and 'invasion' of Tibet in 1950, however the Chinese exerted their autho... | |
The 'Middle Way' has international support The USA, the most powerful nation in the world, has been vocal in its support for the 'Middle Way' strategy. Concurrently, the US has not given any indication that it would support complete Tibetan independence – nor is it likely to. America is unlikely to jeopardise trade re... | |
China's supposed strategic interests in Tibet are also why the promised autonomy under the 'Middle Way' will never truly emerge. If China's need to hold onto Tibet is really so important as made out, China will always need to keep tight control over all happenings in Tibet so as to further guarantee its security. This ... | |
The 'Middle Way' is the most realistic path for Tibet and China The Dalai Lama believes complete independence is not a viable solution for the Tibet crisis. Rather, his advocacy is aimed at creating common understanding between the Chinese and the Tibetans. He points to the model of the European Union as an example of... | |
The 'Middle Way' is no different from the current situation. Although, theoretically, the 'Middle Way' proposition offers the Chinese authorities and ordinary Tibetans a way to harmonise their conflicting interests, it is practically no different from the political accommodation that Tibet currently subscribes to. Unde... | |
The 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrity The Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”. [1]... | |
China will simply never accept independence for Tibet, and so it is not a reasonable alternative to hold up against the 'Middle Way'. Rather, whatever gains can be made by adopting the 'Middle Way' should be embraced, as the alternative is not independence but rather unchanged Chinese dominance and control. | |
The average Tibetan does not actually want independence from China. For example, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, who was born in a refugee camp in India in 1968 and was named Prime Minister of the Cental Tibetan Administration (Tibetan exiles) on April 27, 2011, was once a militant of the Tibetan Youth Congress, a group that unequ... | |
The Dalai Lama is no longer relevant to Tibet's future The Dalai Lama's influence and significance in the debate over Tibet’s future has been fading; he has resigned from all ‘formal authority’ and handed over his political role [1] , and his support for the 'Middle Way' strategy- over attempts to secure full independ... | |
The Chinese government is exploiting the 'Middle Way' against Tibet's interests The Chinese government manipulates people every day, and it is clear how Beijing is manipulating the good intentions of the Dalai Lama and his 'Middle Way'. The Middle Path is therefore not only hopeless, but also dangerous. Henry Kissing... | |
Tibetans want independence, not the 'Middle Way' The Dalai Lama's 'Middle Way' is far from popular amongst the Tibetan population. Many ordinary Tibetans have criticised the Dalai Lama's conciliatory approach to China. His refusal to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games is symbolic of this conciliatory appr... | |
The Dalai Lama is the only solution for Tibet. His political advocacy as a leader and religious figure is imperative for the problem of Tibet. His commitment for non-violence and cohabitation and cooperation serves the peaceful interests of Tibet while accommodating for moderate changes. His 'Middle Way' platform is th... | |
Status in the world is not based upon having one extremely powerful weapon; there are much more important factors such as a country’s economy and use of diplomacy. Britain would still be a major financial centre, a major economy, a member of the UNSC (which is not based on nuclear weapons) as well as being one of the b... | |
Trident allows the UK to maintain its global status Currently the UK is recognised as a nuclear power by the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty along with the USA, China, France and Russia. All of whom are either modernising or maintaining their current nuclear arsenals. This means to not replace Trident would mean that... | |
We already rely on the USA for our Trident missile systems so our ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ is already a fiction. The USA can at the moment easily pull the rug out from underneath us. While the UK maintains command and control over its weapons the United States is needed to keep the weapons operational. This mean... | |
Deterrence is still necessary. The Trident Weapons System while it may be a "horrific part of our system" is still necessary even in today’s post-Cold War world. Firstly through deterrence it protects us from being blackmailed by any other states, and in particular so called "rogue states" like North Korea and potenti... | |
A deterrent is useless if no one thinks it will ever be used. The only conceivable use of Britain’s nuclear deterrent would be in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK, and if that has happened then there is little point in firing the missiles as there will be nothing left to save. Any blackmail today is likely to be... | |
Can we rely on US nuclear umbrella? The UK nuclear weapons programme was first created in late 1945 a time when people were concerned about the US commitment to Europe which was uncertain as the rise of the Iron Curtain had not been yet apparent. Currently if we didn't replace trident and disarmed more likely than not... | |
That Britain is not currently threatened with nuclear Armageddon as it was during the cold war does not mean that such a threat could never again occur. Britain must remain prepared for any eventuality which has to include the unthinkable such as the United States no longer being an ally. The world is not yet a safe p... | |
A state of the art nuclear weapons system is always going to be costly and no one wants to cut corners for the risks that could create. Yet it is money well spent when compared to the damage which would be caused if Britain was attacked due to not having a nuclear deterrent. | |
The UK should encourage others to reduce their own stocks of nuclear weapons. Britain as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty the United Kingdom is obliged to pursue “nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” [1] While complete di... | |
Trident is not an independent weapons system Britain tries to maintain that it has an ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ but this is just a fiction. Britain has not had an independent nuclear deterrent for fifty years. The United Kingdom has used American missiles since the Polaris Sales Agreement of 6 April 1963 first w... | |
Nuclear weapons are no longer needed When the United Kingdom first tested Nuclear Weapons in 1952 she was still a great power with a large empire to defend. In the early 1980s when trident was being conceived [1] the UK fought a war with Argentina and the Cold War was perhaps at its deepest following the Russian invas... | |
The cost of replacing trident is prohibitive Britain is in the longest recession it has ever been in – longer even than the great depression of the 1930s – with the economy not having recovered to pre-recession levels four years after the start of the downturn. [1] This is obviously completely the wrong time to be was... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.