title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling wil... | |
More screening of travellers who display suspicious behaviour does not mean no or insufficient security surrounding travellers who do not. Security profiling would simply me a part of the security operation. What it does mean is individuals who buy one-way tickets with cash and no luggage will be more closely investiga... | |
Profiling is racist: Profiling in many ways would simply result in institutionalized racism, as Mark German argues: “racial profiling is wrong, un-American and unconstitutional. It is institutionalized racism.” [1] Mark Thompson adds: “So it’s not 'political correctness' (aka the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Am... | |
Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it: Profiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism. Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be co... | |
Profiling is ineffective at increasing security: Terrorists simply do not conform to a neat profile. Many suspects linked to past terrorist attacks that have been apprehended or identified come from within the United States and European Union countries. Profiling does not help against individuals with names and ethnic... | |
As conservative columnist Deroy Murdock put it: “We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be waterboarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut.” [1] There is simply no reason why security profiling necessarily has to be, or be perceived as, racist or targeted against ce... | |
The distribution of the vote is more important than the percentages for each candidate. The entire point of having the electoral college is to that it can act as a check on the majority vote is to ensure that the candidate who is best suited and had the broadest amount of support wins the presidency. If it was simply d... | |
The electoral college violates the democratic principle that the winner should be the candidate receiving the most votes. In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and probably 1960, the candidate receiving the most votes for president lost the election [1] . This occurs because all but two states award all their electoral votes to... | |
No one defends this aspect of the electoral college. It is indefensible. However, it is important to note that the election has never come to the House of Representatives choosing the president. It is merely a plan of last resort to ensure that there is a president. | |
The electoral college weakens incentives for voting and party building. There is no incentive for candidates to mobilize voters in states they are sure to win – or sure to lose, and voters have little incentive to vote in noncompetitive states where their vote is likely not to matter. Some states like Texas just have... | |
The electoral college violates the democratic principle of equality in voting Under the electoral college, all votes do not count equally. Voters in some states have more say in selecting the president than voters in other states. For example, California has 55 electoral college votes, while Delaware only get 3 votes... | |
The US is not a pure democracy. The electoral college is one of the checks on majority rule. It is not violating the principle of equality of voting, because it gives every state a proportional voice based on their population. The states that have more of a say also have a larger population of voters, therefore it is ... | |
This argument is suggestion that there is simply a strategy behind elections- which is true for every election. The electoral college framework does make a candidate have to acquire a number of states, in order to win, and while there may be some states that it is not the best use of time and resources to campaign as h... | |
The propositions argument is not only a logical fallacy, but also discourages democracy. It is illogical to argue that because Ralph Nader got a few votes in New Hampshire and Florida that if he was not on ballot they would have voted for Al Gore instead. Furthermore, the American electoral framework is comprised alm... | |
If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives chooses the president, with each state receiving one vote. This provision allows the 7 smallest states with a population of about 4.9 million to outvote the 6 largest states with a population of 119 million. [1] This is blatently u... | |
The electoral college allows small third parties to tip the balance in a state and distort the preferences of the voters. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned a few votes from Al Gore in New Hampshire and Florida, costing Gore victories and thus the election. Nevertheless, Gore was the preferred choice of voters in a match u... | |
The electoral college encourages third parties. Under the electoral college, a third party with regional support can win something: a state. The winner take all aspect of direct election of the president with no runoff discourages third parties because they have to come in first to win anything. | |
There is no such thing as a small state interest. States do not embody coherent, unified interests, nor do they require protection. The Constitution places many constraints on the actions of simple majorities, and the Senate provides extraordinary representation to small states. Moreover, candidates ignore most small s... | |
The electoral college is an essential bulwark of federalism. The electoral college emphasizing the role of states, and abolishing it would weaken federalism. This system reinforces the division and sharing of powers between the states and the national government. Without it the national government would have much grea... | |
The electoral college forces candidates to win broad coalitions across the country, encouraging national harmony. In direct election of the president, candidates might appeal to clusters of voters, whose votes could be aggregated across states and regions, perhaps representing only one strata of society. | |
Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign. The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- ser... | |
The electoral college inhibits the emergence of third parties and thus acts as a bulwark against extremist candidates. The founding fathers had a reason to fear the emergence of extremist parties. A modern day example is with Rwanda. When they gained a multiparty democracy, without checks on majority rule, it allowed ... | |
Candidates ignore large areas of the country in their campaigns. Moreover, George W. Bush lost most major demographic groups in winning election in 2000 under the electoral college. | |
The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests. When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purpos... | |
Candidates do not focus on local interests because of the electoral college. The evidence is overwhelming. Candidates do not campaign in most states, nor do they run advertisements in them. Instead, the electoral college provides incentives to focus on competitive states, especially large competitive states. Moreover, ... | |
The electoral college is not a federal principle. Federalism was not mentioned at the Constitutional Convention in relation to the electoral college. The electoral college does not enhance the power or sovereignty of states. Federalism is based on representation in Congress and the Constitution’s allocation of powers t... | |
Politicians are not true stand-ins. They represent the interests of the people on a policy basis not on the basis of their personal lives. Trying to divine personalities in politicians inevitably results in misallocation of the limited resources of time and energy people can generally spend informing themselves about c... | |
Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the peopl... | |
All intense scrutiny will do is make fewer people be willing to enter politics. This does not mean the most capable will stay, only those with a higher tolerance for media intrusion, and those with a talent for concealment and spin. The result is not better governance, because the pool of potential leaders is reduced b... | |
The right to privacy is not absolute and is sacrificed in standing for public office A right such as that to privacy is not absolute. Rights are general statements of principle that are then caveated and curtailed in the interests of society. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept t... | |
Even if one concedes that such rights are not entirely sacrosanct, it is important to recognise that rights should apply universally and should still be defended. The right to privacy is also important, and must include politicians who, while fulfilling an important societal role, are not so special as to merit signifi... | |
The power structures that command people are best challenged through attention to policy and shaping the discourse in a positive manner. Attention to private lives is simply salacious and does nothing to actually forward the cause of groups outside the elite. In fact, focus on the foibles of the few serves only to conf... | |
Heavy scrutiny forces politicians to dedicate themselves fully to their public service When politicians see themselves constantly under the lens of public scrutiny, they are essentially forced to dedicate themselves wholesale to their duties as representatives. They are disincentivized in the extreme to pursue any tra... | |
Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures The power structures that command peoples’ lives are often difficult to identify. While there are usually multiple candidates to choose from at election time, in many polities they all tend to come out from small-based elite. Oxford and Cambridge, for exampl... | |
Even if the media occasionally distracts from more pressing issues, it does not make the issues attending politicians’ private lives entirely unimportant. The media can be admonished, as it was in the case of Lewinski, to stop getting overly fixated. As society’s watchdog, the media owes a duty to the people to provide... | |
Even if privacy is a fundamental human right, it is certainly not an absolute one. When the authorities have probable cause they can search the property, residence, and computers of suspects in pursuit of greater societal justice. Politicians are not simply doing a job for the electorate they are in a special position ... | |
Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves Politicians, like all people, are not islands. They have loved ones and families. When a citizen chooses to offer him or herself up as a candidate for office he or she takes on many responsibilities. However, the p... | |
The focus of politics and politicians should be on policy Delving into the private lives of politicians does nothing to improve citizens’ understanding of who represents them except to show that a certain politician may have issues in his or her private life that is unsavoury, or slightly hypocritical. But that focus ... | |
The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media When the lives of politicians are fair game, they necessarily become a major target for journalists. Salacious gossip sells much better than more complicated stories about policy, so they are given pride of place. The result is the media wasting ... | |
All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect... | |
Politicians are not merely elected to enact policies as stated but to act as a surrogate for the views and values of the voters who elect them. That is why politicians are expected, and are considered legitimate in doing so, to legislate on issues not necessarily discussed on the campaign trail. It is the scrutiny of p... | |
While it is no doubt unfortunate that the innocent family members of politicians might feel unpleasant scrutiny, it remains essential to the promulgation of political accountability. Furthermore, it is valuable that citizens understand who their leaders are, and what kind of people they are, which necessitates knowing ... | |
Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the politica... | |
Modernisation In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices [1] [2] [3] [4] . Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelmin... | |
Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines [1] . In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject ... | |
Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with compan... | |
Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote [1] . In the USA, the... | |
Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government [1] . Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than ... | |
The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal [1] . Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2] , supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events... | |
The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to rem... | |
Efficiency Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster [1] , and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system [2] . For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 20... | |
Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise [1] , Canada’s 2008 elect... | |
It is impossible to tackle potential problems in party politics without an input from the electorate. Young people may have the opinion that politics itself is inaccessible, but this will never change if they refuse or fail to vote. A democratic government can only ever be truly representative when everybody casts thei... | |
Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of... | |
Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting [1] [2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster v... | |
Engagement with democracy If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. In... | |
Democratisation If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more lik... | |
Voter apathy The need to travel to a polling station might be a minor consideration, but growing disillusionment with the political system in general is a far bigger cause of voter apathy. Young people in particular believe that their vote will not make a difference [1] , or are confused over politician’s aims [2] and... | |
At what stage do we deem that an individual has considered their vote enough to cast it? Would we stop less-educated people from voting at all in case they hadn’t fully considered it? This argument goes completely against any democratic principle which values everybody’s vote as equal, and denounces the idea that one p... | |
Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve... | |
Computer literacy is constantly on the rise [1] [2] . In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide [3] , and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also ava... | |
Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance. This would result in people... | |
Separation would show acceptance of other religions. It is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a fa... | |
There are little to no barriers to non-religious people contributing to the state. In present day UK, there are no issues with non-religious people being or feeling unable to contribute to the state. It is far from a necessity to be part of a religious group, or to even be religious, in order to be part of, or contribu... | |
The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state. The role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ... | |
The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final... | |
Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same... | |
Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued. In the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount. [1] Clearly t... | |
International signalling. As a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to... | |
The government is not going to suddenly stop listening to the views of religious minorities in the country and will keep listening to the views of the Church of England. It will simply stop the government being prejudicial towards the Church of England compared to any other religion or belief. Currently what we see is ... | |
The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are no... | |
Separation would create animosity towards immigrants and non-Christians. Currently, we already see problems in the UK with extremist groups blaming immigrants and non-Christian religious groups for pretty much everything from unemployment among whites to a lack of patriotism. Completely separating the church and the s... | |
Minimal practical effect. As it stands, the Church of England’s involvement in the state actually has little effect on it. Decisions are taken by the Prime Minister and his/her government rather than by religious officials and indeed the Church of England can often be a vehicle for the government’s views rather than t... | |
Disestablishment sidelines all religious people. Rather than other religious groups seeing the removal of the Church of England’s involvement of the state as them all being put on a level playing field, it is more likely to be seen as a total removal of religion from the government. [1] Bishop John Pritchard of Oxford... | |
Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity. The reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as sev... | |
That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater. | |
Separation would be inclusive to immigrants and non-Christians. People will not be disillusioned by the separation of church and state at all, it is even less likely that they will look for a scapegoat upon whom to pin the blame. The Church of England routinely condemns racist and extremist attitudes and separation wil... | |
Legislation already exists in most countries where this issue is in dispute – including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted – have the option to opt out of working on a Sunday [i] . In addition there is an entire body of case law in the USA where various states have upheld the rights of individual workers not to wo... | |
A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation There is extensive evidence that reserving one day for communal recreation has benefits in areas as diverse as community cohesion and the reduction of childhood obesity. The Colombian initiative, Ciclovia, which closes some streets... | |
For many marginalised workers the opportunity to work what many would consider antisocial hours is their only chance of employment. Legislating to enforce leisure time removes a valuable opportunity for earning. There are entire micro-economies based around this reality and it is unsurprising that marginalised individ... | |
Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday The right to freedom of religious practice and association is acknowledged by most countries and is enshrined in Article 18 of UN Declaration of Human Rights [i] . In those countries that can, on the basis of their his... | |
Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state o... | |
Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week Unions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is ... | |
Opposition is making an excellent argument for ensuring that workers should be remunerated at a level to support a reasonable level of existence but does not speak to the issue of keeping Sundays as a day of rest. Indeed it is possible to take the issue further and suggest that the understanding that everybody has the... | |
Exactly the same group that Opposition identify are also those least likely to have any leisure time at all. They are also least likely to have leisure at a time when they can share it with their families and communities. Sunday is already the day when most people are likely to be away from work all enshrining it in l... | |
It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions It is already difficult enough for members of minority religions to have time for their own religious celebrations. It seems unlikely that employers would be likely to respect the rights of other religi... | |
It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so Many people work long hours not out of greed or obsession but out of simple necessity. To deny people the right to work when they need to is unfair and, potentially, financially crippling. In an ideal world everybody woul... | |
People should be allowed to take their leisure at their own convenience and not on the basis of religious decree It is unfair to compel people to take their leisure at a time that is not of their convenience. Workers who have to work a certain number of hours per week just to cover their costs should not be obliged to... | |
Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that ... | |
Realistically speaking, music is not even property - for property to really be property, it needs to be tangible (something physical you can touch). [1] If it is tangible, it is easier to keep you from using it, whereas when it is intangible, I can’t. What if you hear a song on the radio which stays in your head all da... | |
A legal transaction is the only way to achieve free exchange of value Because the artist made the music, it is their property, in this case “intellectual property”. Property means that the owner/artist has the right to ask something from you in exchange for you gaining access to the music. This may be money. It may al... | |
It’s true that musicians have to eat, too, but it’s not true that downloading cuts their income. Most of the money spent on music goes to record companies, not to artists, from each retail CD sold the artist only gets between 3 and 10%. [1] Those record companies have been keeping musicians on a leash for decades, payi... | |
Theft is an assumption of property rights Theft is taking something from someone who is the rightful owner without their permission. It doesn’t matter if the rightful owner keeps an original version or not. If you are downloading music from an unofficial source, you are stealing it: you can start listening to that son... | |
Theft always involves a thief taking something away for themselves with the result that the original owner can’t use it anymore. For example, if I steal your bike, you can’t use it anymore. And this is exactly why theft is wrong: you had something which you wanted to use, and now you can’t anymore, simply because I too... | |
Musicians have to eat Apart from the moral reason, there is also a simple societal reason why it is wrong to download music without permission. The reason is that musicians have to eat, too. Suppose you are an up-and-coming young musician thinking about what to do with your future. You can either become a full time mu... | |
It is a mistake to think that when you’re downloading, there isn’t someone else making a huge profit. Torrent sites and other “pirate” sites gain huge amounts of income from the advertisements on their site. This means that they profit from material which is not theirs. Why should they profit from material they have go... | |
Downloading does not fall under the so-called “private copy exception”. The private copy exception only covered those rare cases when you took the effort to make a copy from a lawful source (perhaps putting a song you owned on CD on to a cassette so you could listen to it in your car). With the internet, the situation ... | |
Downloading is morally right Even when downloading is illegal, it still is right from a moral viewpoint. The reason is that by downloading, you’re not hurting the artists, but the record companies. And these record companies have engaged in unfair practices towards consumers for decades. They asked €20 euros for a CD,... | |
Downloaders spend more on music Downloading songs could mean more income for musicians. Concerts (plus merchandise like T-shirts) are becoming a bigger source of income. But suppose a new musician comes to town. How am I supposed to know if I want to go to their concert if I don’t know their music? Previously, I would... | |
There is a private copy exception Downloading music without permission is allowed under the “private copy exception”. Practically, the exception meant that you were allowed to copy, but not distribute any music. Downloading music from a torrentsite or newsgroup is essentially the same. People who download music do it ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.