THIS HOUSE BELIEVES SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS ARE GOOD FOR EDUCATION

Single-sex schools are schools that only admit those of one specific gender, believing that the
educational environment fostered by a single gender is more conducive to learning than a coeducational school. Studies conducted have shown that boys gain more academically from studying in
co-education schools, but that girls find segregated schools more conducive to achievement. However
academic results are not the only criterion on which the success of the education system should be
judged. In the United States, a long-standing controversy over the Virginia Military Institute resulted in
a landmark Supreme Court ruling, in June 1996, that the institute must admit women. Nevertheless the
Court left room for private (i.e. not state-run) single-sex institutions and other such schools, where
needed, to redress discrimination. Proponents of single-sex schools maintain that, by removing the
distractions of the other sex, students learn more effectively and feel better about their education.
Opponents maintain that co-educational schools in contrast are important in that they prepare students
better for the real world, and do not attempt to segregate students from the realities of adult life. This
debate can apply both to secondary school and college level, but single-sex institutions are found more
frequently at the former.
GOVERNMENT
Women are better off in single-sex institutions
Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in
class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose male
disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers. In the USA Whos Who,
graduates of womens colleges outnumber all other women; there are only approximately 50 womens
colleges left in the States today.[1] Elizabeth Tidball, who conducted the Whos Who research, also
later concluded that womens colleges produced more than their fair share who went on to medical
school or received doctorates in the natural or life sciences, typically male fields.[2]
COUNTERPOINT
Other studies have found that women in fact are not any better off in single-sex institutions. A 1998
survey from the American Association of University Women, a long-time advocate of single-sex
education, admitted that girls from such schools did not show any academic improvement.[1] That they
are more inclined towards maths and sciences is of questionable importance to society as a whole. As
the report noted, "boys and girls both thrive when the elements of good education are there, elements
like smaller classes, focused academic curriculum and gender-fair instruction".[2] These can all be
present in co-educational schools. Tidball in her research made the mistake of not controlling for other
characteristics, namely socio-economic privileges of those at elite womens colleges.[3]
Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to each other
Boys and girls distract each other from their education, especially in adolescence as their sexual and
emotional sides develop. Too much time can be spent attempting to impress or even sexually harassing
each other (particularly boys toward girls). Academic competition between the sexes is unhealthy and
only adds to unhappiness and anxiety among weaker students. As Tricia Kelleher, a school principal,
argues, rather than girls defining themselves by their interests, they define themselves by what the
boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of them.[1] Furthermore, John Silber, President
of Boston University, declared in 2002 that his university would prioritize male applications in order to
even up the student composition and ensure the male population did not become ungentlemanly
1

towards women due to their numerical inferiority. A single-sex environment is therefore a space where
(children) can learn without feeling pressurized by the other sex.[2]
COUNTERPOINT
In fact boys and girls are a good influence on each other, engendering good behaviour and maturity
particularly as teenage girls usually exhibit greater responsibility than boys of the same age. Academic
competition between the sexes is a spur to better performance at school. Any negative effects of coeducational schools have been explained away by studies as the result of other factors, such as
classroom size, economic discrepancies and cultural differences.[1] Furthermore, the separation of
boys and girls only serves to embrace sexual objectification, for they exist for each other only as dates
rather than the classmates they would be in a co-educational environment[2]. Allowing them into the
same educational environment, in part to permit them to distract each other, is a welcome social
development as well as a beneficial learning curve.
Boys and girls develop at different times and speeds, therefore they should be taught separately
Co-educational schools attempt to establish uniformity in the teaching of two groups, boys and girls,
who typically learn and develop at different speeds and using different methods. They do not develop
in the same way or at the same time; boys favour visual processing and do not have the hand-motor
control that girls readily achieve in early grades.[1] It is widely accepted that boys develop more
slowly than girls..thats true at every level of analysis.[2] Furthermore, they develop physically at
different speeds, girls often developing earlier which can lead to bullying from the opposite sex for
those who either over-develop or under-develop. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, at least
in the United States, elementary school boys are 50% more likely to repeat a grade than girls and they
drop out of high school a third more often.[3] If they were taught separately and the curriculum and
teaching was tailored to their needs, drop-out rates would not be so high nor as vastly disproportionate.
COUNTERPOINT
Everyone develops at slightly different speeds, however few would advocate everyone should be homeschooled. Ultimately, the curriculum determines the mode of teaching, not the gender composition of
the class, and the curriculum can be moulded to suit both girls and boys, faster and slower learners
and those with under-developed hand-motor control. If elementary school boys are being forced to
repeat grades that is a manifestation of difficulties in learning and as relevant to their proximity to
girls in the classroom as it is to the higher-achieving boys. Furthermore, the sociologist Cynthia
Epstein argues that in fact there is no consensus among psychologists as to the existence of
psychological or cognitive differences between the sexes.[1] Finally, as Michael Bronski notes, the
benefits of same-sex schools cannot be applied across the educational sphere for the private schools
where the tests take place admit either only high-achieving pupils or self-select by expelling poorlyperforming or misbehaving students.[2]
Teachers favour their own gender in co-educational schools
Teachers frequently favour their own gender when teaching co-educational classes; for example, male
teachers can undermine the progress and confidence of girl students by refusing to choose them to
answer questions etc. A recent study by the American Association of University Women found that
gender bias is a major problem at all levels of schooling, asserting girls are plagued by sexual
harassment and neglected by sexist teachers, who pay more attention to boys.[1] As a result, girls tend
to fall behind their male counterparts.

COUNTERPOINT
There is little evidence to support this claim. Valerie Lee, a professor at the University of Michigan,
studied a sample of coeducational, all-boys and all-girls independent schools, finding that the
frequency of sexist incidents was similar in the three types of schools. Wendy Kaimer argues that the
restraints of femininity are actually self-imposed at single-sex schools, whether manifested in
feminine dcor orpandering to womens fear of masculinizing themselves.
OPPOSITION

Children need to be exposed to the opposite sex in preparation for later life
The formative years of children are the best time to expose them to the company of the other gender, in
order that they may learn each others behaviour and be better prepared for adult life. Moreover, the
school's role is to prepare its students for life which involves interaction between the sexes, by
preventing inter-sexual interaction we hurt the role of the school significantly. The effects of same-sex
schools are significant. This creates segregation men and women, this which as a result of a lack of
contact between them can create fear and uneasiness between them. This might be compatred to
segregation between black and white in the USA or South Africa where the resulting racism and
troubles to bond has yet to heal. We already live in a society where women are discriminated against,
segregation cannot be the answer to this. Furthermore, the number of subjects benefiting from singlesex discussion is so small that this could easily be organised within a co-educational system.
Furthermore, even if girls naturally perform better in an environment without boys, they need to learn
how to perform just as well with boys. Dr. Alan Smithers, a respected British schools expert, declared
in a 2006 report that distraction by boys was a myth and that half a century of research has not
shown any dramatic or consistent advantages for single-sex education for boys or girls.[1]
COUNTERPOINT
Children will gain exposure to the opposite sex when they reach adult life; whilst they are young, they
should be around those who they feel most comfortable with. The inclinations of children in the
formative years, between 7 and 15, are to gravitate towards their own sex. What is natural should be
encouraged, and can most easily be done so in single-sex institutions. Furthermore, they naturally tend
towards behaviour appropriate to their gender. It is therefore easier to implement an education
strategy geared specifically towards one gender. Moreover, certain subjects are best taught, both in
terms of ease and effectiveness, in single-sex classrooms, such as sex education or gender issues.

Single-sex schools are manifestations of patriarchal societies

Single-sex schools are a throwback to the patriarchal society of the past; in many historical cultures,
only men were allowed an education of any sort. To perpetuate this is to remind women of their past
subservience and to continue to hold them from full social inclusion. In India, where the colonial yoke
of British rule remains, the national average for the difference in male-female literacy is 16.7%, with
some districts as high as 28%.[1] Single-sex schools discourage female education and make it
increasingly difficult for parents to find room for girls in the limited co-educational schools. A push for
single-sex education therefore is predicated on outdated, moronic, and destructive gender stereotypes.
COUNTERPOINT
Single-sex schools for women are a natural extension of the feminist movement; there are co3

educational schools, men have had their own schools, why should women not? It would still be
discrimination if there were only male single-sex schools; as long as both genders are catered for, this
discrimination is redressed. The issue in states like India is not there are too many single-sex schools,
but that there are not enough. This is more to do with cultural preferences for males, and a population
heavily overpopulated with males, than the lingering effects of British colonial rule.
Single-sex institutions are bad for the emotional health of males
Men always say that they do not understand women, perhaps because they were sent to single sex
schools. Research has proved that boys who went to single sex schools as opposed to mixed schools
are more likely to get divorced and suffer from depression in their 40. This is proof that we should
school our children in mixed schools in order to give them the best bill of emotional health. Dr. Diana
Leonard, who presented the findings, concluded that Boys learn better when they are with girls and
they actually learn to get on better.[1]
COUNTERPOINT
The positive health effects of single-sex schools pointed out in the same Dr. Leonard study outweigh the
emotional distress potentially felt by a minority of divorced men. Regarding the majority, the research
found those who stayed together were just as likely to be happy in their relationship as men educated
in mixed schools. As for girls, the findings suggest they seem to learn what the nature of the beast is
without needing to learn alongside boys, whilst a central finding of the study is that single-sex
moderates the effect of gender-stereotyping in terms of choice of field of study.[1]

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT CANNABIS SHOULD BE LEGALISED

Governments all over the world have spent decades and billions fighting a "war on drugs". However,
many believe that the most commonly used illegal drug, cannabis, should not be illegal at all.
Advocates of legalization point out cannabis' medicinal properties, its ability to open up the mind, and
plentiful evidence that it is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco. Critics of legalization
meanwhile cite studies showing cannabis' harmful physical and psychotic effects and its tendency to
act as a gateway to harder and more dangerous drugs.
The debate can also be framed as one that pits the concept of freedom of the individual against the
concept of the paternalistic state. Some will argue that people should be allowed to do whatever they
please to their own bodies. Others believe the state has a responsibility to protect people from harming
themselves, and indirectly harming others, by smoking cannabis.
GOVERNMENT
People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies
It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat
or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not
be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most
cases, this is highly debatable.)
Smoking cannabis may have effects on others, such as through the effects of passive smoking.
However, regulation has been brought in to minimize the effects on others for alcohol and cigarettes,
such as bans on smoking in public places, and the same thing could be done for cannabis.
COUNTERPOINT
While individual liberty is an important good, there are cases in which a Government can be justified
in behaving in a paternalistic manner, even to prevent individuals harming themselves. Few people
debate the law that you must wear a seatbelt in cars, for example.
Moreover, cannabis can harm others and many of the ways in which it does so would not be possible to
counter with regulation. In the words of philosopher George Sher, "Drug use harms strangers by
involving them in the collisions, shootouts and other catastrophes to which the impaired and overly
5

aggressive drug users are prone. It harms family members by depriving them of the companionship and
income of their addicted partners. It harms fetuses by exposing them to a toxic and permanently
damaging prenatural environment. It harms children by subjecting them to the abuse of their drugaddled parents"
Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.
POINT
Although cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol.
Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and
Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for
tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the
user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202.
Given that tobacco and alcohol are more likely to harm the user and other people, it seems ludicrous
that they should be legal and cannabis should not be. The legalization of cannabis would remove an
anomaly from the law.

COUNTERPOINT
It is difficult to assess the true harm caused by cannabis. There are limits to the scope for information
on its effects because of its illegal nature1. However, it is widely acknowledged that there are links
between cannabis use and mental and physical health problems2. It is also widely acknowledged that
excessive cannabis use can harm relationships and prevent people from acting as functional members
of society. Cannabis is generally smoked with tobacco and cannabis users are more likely to drink
alcohol. Regardless of whether cannabis itself is worse for you than tobacco or alcohol, it is still bad
for you and therefore it should remain illegal.
The reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is not related to their effect on our health. They (alcohol and
tobacco) are legal as they have existed in this country since long before laws were passed in relation to
health and were far more popular than cannabis so it would have been much harder to ban them.
Cannabis is illegal not because it supposedley is worse but because it is was less commonly consumed.
That said, alcohol and tobacco are irerelvent in this debate.
If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated
Many of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the
worlds most widely used illegal drug 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7
million people in the UK are estimated to do so.
In 2009, the UN estimated that the market for illegal drugs was worth $320 billion. This market is run
by criminals and is often blighted by violence. It has cost thousands of innocent lives, particularly in
supplier countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan 1. In the US, Milton Friedman estimated that
10,000 people die every year as a result of drug dealers fighting over territory 2. Many of the victims
are innocent people, caught in crossfire. By legalizing cannabis, the size of this market for illegal drugs
would be significantly reduced and so, effectively, would the number of crimes and unnecessary deaths
that come with it.
Another way of seeing the problems of prohibition is to look at the failed attempt at alcohol prohibition
6

in the 1920s. People continued to consume alcohol, only it became 150 per cent stronger, was as easy
to obtain for minors as for adults, and was sold by murderous gangsters like Al Capone 3.
Given all of the problems associated with prohibiting cannabis, it seems nonsensical to spend billions
fighting a drugs war when instead governments could reduce crime and make money by selling
cannabis in a regulated manner. They could spend some of the profit on treating people who did
experience any harmful effects.
COUNTERPOINT
Legalizing cannabis would not stop the criminals who currently sell it from continuing to commit
crimes. They could simply diversify their activities. Many of them would already be dealing other
drugs or involved in other criminal activities. The legalization of cannabis could simply give them a
legitimate base from which they may operate.
In order to end the "war on drugs" and the problems of violence associated with it, all drugs would
have to be legalized. While some debate the harmful effects which cannabis may have, few argue that
drugs like heroin and crack cocaine do not present a serious threat to people. To sell these kinds of
drugs legally would be irresponsible and would ruin lives, families and communities.
Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner
Cannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought
of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are
programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive
that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that
reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis
consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1.
COUNTERPOINT
Cannabis does not open the mind. Rather, it harms it. Many researchers have concluded that cannabis
impairs short-term memory, cognition and motivation. It has also proven to be highly addictive for
some users and has damaged people's mental capabilities and abilities to function in society1.
2 Mabry, C. D. (2001, October). Physicians and the war on drugs: the case against legalization.
Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Qualified Surgeons:
OPPOSITION
Cannabis is a gateway drug
People who use cannabis will be more likely to move on to harder drugs. While the bad effects of
cannabis may be disputed, the harmful effects of hard drugs cannot they seriously damage peoples
health. A major study in 2011 found that smoking cannabis daily sets users up for a lifetime of
multiple drug use 1. Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction. Their habit
often harms their relationships with friends, colleagues and family. State money then has to be spent on
benefits, on policing, and on rehabilitation programs.
COUNTERPOINT
There is little evidence of cannabis being a gateway drug. In fact, there is a higher correlation between
cigarette smoking and hard drugs. If anything, the only way in which cannabis could be said to be a
gateway drug is that it is illegal and people may be inclined to buy other illegal drugs after they have
7

bought cannabis, particularly as some dealers will sell other drugs. This problem, however, would be
immediately eradicated if cannabis were legalized.
Furthermore, the people who refer cannabis as a "gateway drug" don't take into consideration the
prerequisites and situations people are in prior to ones marijuana use. The people who use it as an
additive to relaxation occasionally and are in a relaxed environment, maybe with a few friends over to
hang out arent using it as an escape from reality but at an additive to their relaxation and fun. When
cannabis is referred to as a gateway drug people are generally and unknowingly referring to the
people who use marijuana as an escape from a much less than pleasant reality and smoke themselves
sober therefore requiring a harder drug to get the same high and escape that cannabis once provided
for them.
Uncertainty over the effects of cannabis means it is best to be prudent
The debate over the effects of cannabis is based largely upon conflicting evidence. For example, some
argue it can cause psychosis while others argue it only has positive effects on the mind. The effect of
any illegal drug is a very difficult area to study 1. Most drug users use more than one drug and
researchers are often limited to studying those who admit themselves into clinics with a crisis
something of a skewed sample.
Given that Governments cannot accurately predict what the effects of legalizing cannabis would be, it
is prudent to maintain illegality. What if, for example, a state decided to legalize cannabis, to only
discover five years later that it has a dramatically more negative impact on human cognition than
previously thought, or that it substantially increased the risks of psychosis?
COUNTERPOINT
Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a
more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just
as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in
people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability
and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.
More people will use cannabis if legalized
If cannabis is legalized, it will become socially acceptable and more people will smoke it. It will also
become more readily available. In the Netherlands, cannabis usage went up after it was legalized1.
With more people smoking, more people will experience the adverse physical and mental health effects
- more people will be harmed. Furthermore, as Dr. David Murray has noted, 'marijuana use is the
leading cause of treatment need for those abusing or dependent on illegal drugs'2; therefore not only
will more people use cannabis, more of them will be addicted.
COUNTERPOINT
First, it is not necessarily a bad thing for cannabis use to increase. Countries with the highest usage
rates include some of the most prosperous in the world Canada, Australia and New Zealand for
example.
Secondly, even if increased cannabis use is a bad thing, there is little evidence to prove usage would
necessarily go up if cannabis were legalized. Usage may have risen slightly in the Netherlands but
cannabis was depenalized in 1976 and usage rates remain lower than in the US today. Moreover, there
8

are other reasons why usage rose. According to Dirk Korf of the Institute of Criminology at the
University of Amsterdam, "There is no appreciable causal connection between the Dutch
decriminalization of cannabis and the rate at which cannabis use has evolved" 1.Portugal
decriminalized drug use in 2001 and, a decade later, drug usage and drug related crime rates have
fallen and cannabis use remains below the European average2 .
Cannabis is harmful
Studies have shown that cannabis may cause a number of physical and mental problems. It can cause
respiratory problems, increase one's heart rate and lower one's sperm count. Cannabis use is also
associated with causing or worsening some forms of psychosis. It has also been found to increase
tiredness, depression and paranoia, impair short-term memory and hormone production and cause
general cognitive decline1. As for cannabis' medicinal qualities, safer, more effective drugs are
available. They include a synthetic version of THC, cannabis' primary active ingredient, which is
marketed in the United States under the name Marinol.
COUNTERPOINT
While there are studies that argue that cannabis is harmful, there is no substantial proof of many of the
harmful effects it is accused of having. Indeed, there are many studies that claim it does not have these
harmful effects. For example, a 15-year John Hopkins University study published in May 1999 found
"no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and non-users of
cannabis."1 It is also claimed by many researchers that while cannabis has some potentially harmful
effects, it is far less harmful then tobacco and alcohol2.
Cannabis is also known to have medicinal qualities, such as in relieving pain for MS sufferers. In
California, for example, it is possible to obtain a "medical marijuana" card.

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT ASSISTED SUICIDE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED

Assisted suicide is Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician.[1] It
is sometimes used interchangeably with euthanasia The act or practice of ending the life of an
individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the
suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.[2] The important part is that it is assisted death rather
than simply being allowed to die. Assisted suicide is an issue which causes world-wide conflict with
various countries differing strongly on their legal stances towards assisted suicide. Currently there are
only four places which openly and legally authorise assisted suicide; Oregon since 1997, Switzerland
since 1941, Belgium since 2002 and the Netherlands since 2002. Equally, there are countries such as
Russia, Hungary, Republic of Ireland and England and Wales that look upon assisted suicide as a
criminal offence with harsh penalties. Between these two extremes there are also countries such as
Germany, Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg where there is no specific law against assisted suicide
but equally there is no legislation proclaiming it to be legal.[3]. Doctors themselves are divided upon
whether it should be legalised. In September 1996 issue of the BMA News Review, the results of a
survey of over 750 GPs and hospital doctors showed that 46% of doctors supported a change in the law
to allow them to carry out the request of a terminally ill patient for voluntary euthanasia, 44% were
against euthanasia and supported the present law and 37% said they would be willing to actively help
end the life of a terminally ill patient who had asked for euthanasia and so assisting suicide, if the law
allowed it.[4] This debate will examine both the propositional and oppositional arguments concerning
9

whether assisted suicide should be legalised. This debate has received a lot of press recently due to the
death of Jack Kevorkian, the man nicknamed 'Dr Death' since he claimed to have assisted more than
100 suicides. Throughout his life he waged a defiant campaign to help people end their lives, both sides
of the debate would agree that he provoked a national discussion, and doctor-assisted suicide is now
legal in three American states.[5]
GOVERNMENT
Every human being has a right to life
Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice.
The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right
to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which
physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life
judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was
particularly evident in the case of Daniel James.[2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of
a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that
it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their
lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your
rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most
cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent
outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient,
therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death.
COUNTERPOINT
There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent,
you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance.
Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves
have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The
majority suffer from depression that can be treated.[1] If they had been treated for depression as well
as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someones death is also to
participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.
Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them
The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some
cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case,
the huge amounts of medication required to control their pain will often leave them in a delirious and
incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care.
Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their
own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue
Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge
that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would
choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in
choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of
an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994.
COUNTERPOINT
Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far
10

as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the
course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the
terminally ill is of course terrifying, but societys role is to help them live their lives as well as they can.
This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.
Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help
The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of how
their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such as Megan Meier, an American teenager who committed
suicide by hanging herself in 2006,[1] as the parents have to launch police investigations into why their
child might have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into
the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one;
being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to
persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can
understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the
terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.
COUNTERPOINT
Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a
loved ones decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of
being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the
terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them
through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this
did not happen.
OPPOSITION

It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused

The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in
deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great
deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctors role would likely increase the
danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable
burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require
them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the
further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of
medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes
against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a
deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.'
COUNTERPOINT
At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds
with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient
has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are
legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic oversimplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and
lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctors duty is to
address his or her patients suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact
11

already help their patients to die although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion
polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous
opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law.[1] It would be
far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses
of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to
limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though,
this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.
If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them
Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not
prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You
would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply
because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same
way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of
the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her
suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but
are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued
life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the
individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi
2002, 252).[1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental
illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others'
suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality.
Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify
intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as
they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the no regrets' or err on the side of
life approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002).
COUNTERPOINT
Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances those who end
their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality
of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are
unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent
vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to
a merciful close.[1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide
themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through
doctors and modern medicine.
Only God can give and take away life
Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life, this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and
assisted suicide are wrong. There are many passages within the bible that speak of the idea that God
has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the judgement: Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, To every thing there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up
that which is planted; Ecclesiastes 7:17, Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why
shouldest thou die before thy time?[1] In addition to this, physicians are nowhere in Scripture given
authority to take someone's life. Apart from the government in the case of capital punishment, all other
human beings are given the commandment Thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20:13 and Thou shalt do no
murder, Matthew 19:18.
12

COUNTERPOINT
'Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were
an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act
for the preservation of life as for its destruction'[1]. If we accept the proposition that only God can
give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life
then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems
hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's
life.
It would have a damaging effect on society
Some people who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would
damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man
should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. It might also be the case that once voluntary
euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out. With
people deciding that someone else's life such as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living and
therefore performing euthanasia without their consent.[1] A recent study discovered that some sufferers
of locked-in syndrome as many as three out of four of the main sample were happy and did not
want to die.
COUNTERPOINT
However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs killing
in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse
treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of
human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary
euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of
course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who
want to live.'[1]

THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALIZE THE SALE OF HUMAN ORGANS

13

As our knowledge of surgical and diagnostic techniques has increased with time, so has the success
rate of organ transplants. However, the number of patients who require organ transplants exceeds the
number of organs available, particularly if the patient has a rare blood type[1] or belongs to an ethnic
minority where organ donations are even lower than normal[2]. For example, although black people are
three times more likely than the general population to develop kidney failure, and the Asian community
has a particularly high demand for organs, organ donation within these groups is relatively low[3]. It is
important for the donor and recipient to have the same blood type and similar genetic make-up in order
to minimize the change of the receivers body rejecting the organ[4]. More than 10,000 people in the
UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting list[5]. In the US,
over 100,000 people are still on the waiting list[6]. Although these figures are astonishing in
themselves, the genuine figure is probably higher, inflated by the deaths of patients who are never
waitlisted for a transplant. Some patients are never placed on the waiting list because they have certain
habits such as smoking[7] and the precious few organs available are prioritised for patients who fit
recipient categories.
The sale of human organs offers a possible solution to this crippling shortage of organs. There is
already an established black market trade in organs[8][9]. Entrepreneurs offer British and Western
patients the opportunity to receive privately financed transplants in countries such as India and
Malaysia[10]. In 2006, investigators discovered that Chinese hospitals were providing organ
transplants using the organs of executed prisoners[11]. In 1983, Dr. Barry Jacobs requested that the US
government should create a fund to compensate the families who donate the organs of their deceased
relatives.[12] He also proposed a business plan to buy kidneys from living donors to transplant to
American patients[13]. However, these is still plenty of opposition to these ideas, and the National
Organ Transplantation Act of 1984 still prohibits the sale of human organs from both dead and living
donors[14].
The proposition line could argue that organs are the property of the donors, and so they have a right to
do with them as they wish. In this case of buying human organs, it is much easier to argue that the
profits would go to the donor rather than (for example) hospitals or governments which may not have a
vested interest in those concerned. It would be useful to outline in the mechanism that these organs will
be transferred through a unique medical group or business which has the technology available to match
up donors to potential recipients and so avoid potential medical complications as far as possible. After
this, it would be like any other financial transaction. This debate will focus on the United Kingdom, but
the arguments would be relevant to most countries considering this policy change.
GOVERNMENT

We already recognize the benefits of individuals who are able to pay for their healthcare doing so.
The ethics of private healthcare are not in question here; indeed, the UK government has stated that as
many people as possible should be encouraged to pay for private healthcare in order to relieve the
strain on national resources[1]. Critics have understood this as the government prolonging waiting lists
until the patients remove themselves either by going private, or dying[2]. There is, however, a general
understanding that the NHS in the UK is overburdened and that increased private healthcare would
help to balance this[3]. Meanwhile, in the US, private healthcare is the norm[4]. Allowing the sale of
organs is merely an extension of this principle and provides utilitarian benefit. Not only would those
who are able to pay for an organ enjoy a much better chance at recovery, but there would be more time,
space, and resources for the people who could not afford to do this privately.
14

COUNTERPOINT
If payment-for-organs is introduced as a general norm, this will extend to the state-financed hospitals
which are so burdened in the first place. Few families would turn down the opportunity to receive
compensation or payment for the families of their loved ones which could ensure financial stability,
particularly if the family member who died was the sole or main earner. Therefore, either these
families will charge the hospitals the same prices, or they will refuse to donate the organs, and turn to
a private market instead. Given that the black market price for organs can reach tens of thousands of
pounds[1], it seems unlikely that struggling health systems would be able to afford it, and this would
only encourage an incredibly harmful disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. Unless the
proposition case wants to argue that a rich person inherently has a greater right to an organ than a
poor person, their point falls.

Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the black market and ensure safer transplants.
Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption currently associated with the organ market. It can also
make it easy to regulate, and so safer. Given the mystery of the black market, medical complications
are much more likely; it is necessary to match the donor and recipient together[1], but this cannot be
easily done when every step of the organ collection and donation must be hidden for fear of
prosecution. Legalisation could also stop the theft or organs and abuse of people like Chinese
prisoners[2] who are currently exploited for their organs[3] authorities will become accountable to a
publicly recognised and enforced system.
COUNTERPOINT
If certain people are already risking punishment by harvesting and transplanting organs illegally, it
seems unlikely that they will suddenly become accountable to a system that recognises that
organs can be bought and sold arbitrarily. If Chinese officials are already suspected of these activities,
it would be very difficult to ensure that profit from the donated organs did go to the donors or their
families rather than corrupt authorities. Finally, legalizing an action that is currently carried out in
appalling conditions essentially legitimizes appalling human rights violations, and allows human
sacrifice.
People should have rights over their own body and body parts.
The proposition is not concerned with live people trying to donate their hearts, or other vital organs
which they cannot live without. No matter how impoverished that person might be, they will not
choose certain death for a cash payoff. However, organs like kidneys, and sections of liver, can be and
often are donated from a live donor without significant lasting damage[1][2]. It is patronising to forbid
an individual to sell or donate an organ when it is possible for them to live without it. Similarly, the
family of a deceased relative, as next of kin, should have the right to receive financial remuneration
from their organs.
COUNTERPOINT
The state often denies individuals the right to do certain things with their bodies. For example, the
state makes hard drugs illegal[1][2] because it recognizes that sometimes individuals do not make the
best decisions for their health or lifestyle choices, and that the physical damage to their bodies is often
lasting and life-changing in ways which that individual did not apprehend. Furthermore, somebody
15

who is selling an organ to try and pay off debts or to relieve financial pressure is unlikely to be
thinking entirely rationally; this is an incredibly extreme measure, and allowing individuals to take
control over it for a cash reward is a dangerous way to create an incentive to cause bodily harm.
The donor should be able to benefit financially, rather than being expected to donate organs with
no reward.
Given that the doctors, nurses and surgeons who work around organ transplants are all paid, it is
nonsensical that the donor, the most important figure in the organ transplant, should be left out. The
United States already allows markets for sperm[1], blood[2], human eggs[3] and surrogate wombs[4].
There is no good reason why organs should be excluded when these other human products are not;
there is no moral difference between a kidney and an ovum. Moreover, organ donation is
a lifesaving process, whereas sperm and egg donation are not. Simply put, incentivizing donations
through payment will save the lives of many patients in need. The payment from these organs could
also hugely improve the quality of life of the donors by lifting them out of debt, or allowing struggling
individuals, such as students, to improve their career potential by paying for their university fees.
COUNTERPOINT
It is exactly because organs are potentially life-saving that it would be dangerous to legalize their sale.
Sperm and egg donations are a last resort for a couple struggling with infertility[1][2][3]; they have
had time to weigh their options. Similarly, when sperm, blood or eggs are donated, they regenerate
kidneys do not. When an organ is the only and final chance for the patients recovery, the patient loses
rationality and becomes desperate to obtain one[4] to the point where the donors can essentially
name any exploitative price he or she likes. Not only are these individuals then exploited, and the
poorer patients left to die, but hospitals will be unable to afford them so the overall chance of a
patient receiving an organ will plummet for the majority without the money to pay for it.
OPPOSITION

Allowing the sale of organs will harm state-financed health services and create a two-tier system
There is almost no chance that a state-financed health service will be able to afford the prohibitive cost
of purchasing organs under this model. While it is difficult to track the exact price of organs on the
black market, they often reach many thousands of pounds[1] and there is no reason to believe that the
propositions model would suddenly reduce this price. In effect, this would turn essential organs into
luxury items which the state cannot afford to provide, and so the poorest and neediest would be left to
die. This would condone the most gross discrimination between rich and poor where a rich life, perhaps
even despite a previously neglectful lifestyle (for example drinking and smoking), could be prioritised
over a poor persons life where their medical condition may not have been caused by their lifestyle
choices.
COUNTERPOINT
It is just as bad to forbid those who can afford to buy an organ from taking a life-saving action as it is
to allow poorer people to die. In an ideal world, there would be unlimited organs; but as organ
shortages continue, if anybody can afford to skip the queue by buying an organ whether they are
generally rich or poor we should allow them to do so.
Allowing the sale of human organs in the First World will impact negatively on the Third World.

16

The existing black market already shows a firm flow of organs in one direction; from the Third World
to the First. Those who battle with poverty in poor countries will see the opportunity to sell their organs
to the wealthy West; however, current disparities between how much donors are paid for their organs
and how much these are then sold on for shows that the donors are already exploited[1][2]. Levy Izhak
Rosenbaum, a New York City resident, was accused of paying poor donors in Israel $10,000 for a
kidney but charging up to $160,000 to recipients[3]. There is no reason to believe, even if we legalize
and regulate the organ trade within Western countries, that people in poorer countries will not continue
to be exploited in this manner when they do not share the same legislation as us.
COUNTERPOINT
Given the necessity of a close match between donor and recipient blood types, and a higher rate of
transplant success within the same race rather than between races[1], it is a huge exaggeration to
imply that people in poor countries, such as African states, will be scavenged for organs. Donors from
these countries simply will not always match the medical requirements of Western recipients. In fact, if
the organ did match, the balance of harms still falls in favour of donation. While the donor should
obviously be paid the amount (or very close to, given administration and surgical costs) paid by the
recipient, $10,000 to a struggling family in an impoverished country could literally be a life-changing
opportunity to lift them out of poverty. In this case, while there may be financial pressure to donate, it
is still a reasoned and logical trade-off for financial security for a family, and could greatly improve
quality of life for both donor and recipient.
There are better solutions to the problems of organ shortages, such as the BMA system of
presumed consent.
The British Medical Association (BMA) is pushing to introduce a policy of presumed consent,
whereby organs may be taken from a patient who has died unless they expressly registered their
objection to this before their death[1]. Given that a far larger percentage of people indicate that they
would be happy to donate than the percentage who actually do donate[2], this scheme could combat
apathy on behalf of the general society and encourage them to act rather than ignoring or forgetting the
option to donate their organs. This is particularly true in the categories of people who said that they
didnt know how to register, had never thought about joining or who hadnt got round to it
comprising a total of 53% of the participants in the NHS nationwide survey[3]. This scheme could
have an enormous impact in saving the lives of others through a much greater number of available
organs. Several countries, including Spain and Austria have already adopted an opt-out system, and
studies have shown that this policy has caused a dramatic increase in the number of donations.[4] We
can solve the organ shortage without all of the problems inherent in the propositions proposal.
COUNTERPOINT
Would the idea of presumed consent stand up in any other area of the law, particularly in cases
considering a drastic action performed on the body? The BMA system completely undermines the UKs
current conception of consent, particularly that you must be given enough information to enable you
to make a decision[1]. There is no way to assess if a patient who has not opted-out of a system like the
BMA proposes has truly had enough knowledge of the subject to make an informed decision
especially considering that 36% of the nationwide survey conducted by UK Transplant were unaware
the NHS Organ Donor Register existed[2]. Until the general public has a much, much better
understanding of the donor system in which case most citizens would likely opt-in anyway this
system is inherently flawed. Moreover, the potential impact on a grieving family, if they find out that
their relatives organs had been presumptively taken, is very serious. Family objections are already a
problem even in cases where the relative actively opted-in[3]; this would continue to cause greater
17

outrage if the BMA system were implemented.

Individuals do not have an inviolable right of property over their organs.
The notion of property over body parts is very complex, both legally and philosophically. Generally,
judges have shown abhorrence at the idea of defining human bodies or parts of, whether living or
dead, as goods or materials[1]; if a right to property over the body could ever be exercised, it appears
most strongly where the individual shows no intention of abandoning or donating it[2]. While this
continues to be an incredibly complex issue, it essentially demonstrates that there is no absolute right
of property over an individuals own body parts; it is open to interpretation in each case. A proposition
line that grants authority to any potential donor over the selling of organs assumes a right of property
which does not, in fact, exist. As such it can, and should, be prevented.
COUNTERPOINT
Even if there is not an absolute right of property over organs, we still grant individuals to actively
choose organ donation, or to refuse to. In this way, we do accept that each individual has a practical
say over the use of their physical body, just as we must gain consent from a patient to allow a medical
procedure[1], or allow him or her to refuse it[2]. There is a huge tangible benefit in this motion
namely that fewer people will die when there is the option for them to receive organs and this should
take precedent over complicated legal theory which is often inconclusive one way or another. Just
because law and philosophy do not definitively grant a right of property over the body, they do not
definitively deny it either. The balance of harms lies firmly in favour of the motion because more
people benefit, either financially or medically.

18

THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN GAMBLING

Gambling is the betting of money on an outcome that is wholly or largely random. It includes things
like bingo, roulette, raffles, lotteries, scratch-cards and slot machines. Some definitions of gambling
would not include activities like betting on horse racing as this arguably involves a large element of
knowledge and skill to predict what is likely to happen. Card games are a grey area. Some card games,
such as poker, have a considerable element of skill. It is therefore arguable that they should not be
considered gambling. Other card games are largely a matter of luck. The precise legal definition of
gambling varies from country to country.
Most countries regulate gambling but there are still a few who do not, such as Costa Rica, who do not
regulate the offshore licenses for gambling that they provide. For states such as the UK and Gibraltar
who do regulate gambling, it is often necessary to have a license to run a lottery or a casino. There is
also usually a minimum age for gambling. Gambling is illegal in some jurisdictions, including several
states of the USA, most regions of Russia and many Islamic countries. In contrast, some governments
try to use gambling as a force for good. Many states run lotteries the profits are used to pay for public
services. Charities and nonprofit organizations often hold bingo nights or lotteries to fund-raise. In the
USA Native American nations control their own affairs and often profit by being able to run casinos on
reservations, attracting gamblers from surrounding states where gambling is banned.
The rise of online gambling on the internet since the 1990s has made government control much harder.
In some countries like the USA, online gambling is against the law. But in many states online gambling
is now legal. And companies can set up in any country where online gambling is allowed, and offer a
service to internet users all over the world. Many people who never bet on a race or visited a casino
now gamble online. All of this new activity worries campaigners against gambling, as well as
governments who feel that their control is being lost.
GOVERNMENT
Gambling is addictive and psychologically harmful
19

Gambling can become a psychologically addictive behavior in some people. According to the
Emotional Neuroscience Centre in Massachusetts, Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment
produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of
cocaine.1 Because of this addictive nature, many people end up gambling to try to recover money they
have already lost. This is known as chasing losses. It results in people staking more and more money,
most of which they will lose, and sinking deeper and deeper into debt. People start to gamble without
thinking that they will become addicted. Once that happens, it is often too late. A gambling addiction,
in addition to the long term effects it has, can result in financial ruin in a few short hours.
COUNTERPOINT
Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically or metabolically addictive. Most gamblers are not addicts,
simply ordinary people who enjoy the excitement of a bet on a sporting event or card game. Only a
small percentage of gamblers have an addiction. Many more get enjoyment from gambling without
problems. The risks of gambling addiction are well known. People can make a conscious choice to
start gambling, and are aware of the risks of addiction.
Gambling leads to the disintegration of families
Gambling can have a devastating effect on families. The most obvious effect is financial as one partner
uses all their money on gambling the other needs to support the whole family or the gambler may even
gamble away joint savings. Psychologically there is a relationship between gambling and various
psychiatric and alcohol disorders. This is also an impact on friends, who do not want to be tied into
supporting gambling financially or even just emotionally. Lesieur and Custer estimated that for each
problem gambler there were 10-15 other people adversely impacted by the gambling of that
person.1 As with drugs, it is harmful to the individual concerned and their family and friends, and it is
better to ban gambling to stop people getting started in the first place.
COUNTERPOINT
Treatment programs can address the problems of those who are addicted, and many casinos offer
Self-Exclusion Programs, where individuals can effectively ban themselves from casinos. This
could be the initiative of either the gambler or their family or friends.
Online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction
Someone can become addicted very easily they dont even need to leave their home, and online
gambling sites are available at all hours. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may
therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums they cannot afford. In the United States in 1999 the
National Gambling Impact Study stated "the high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and the
high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem and pathological gambling", 1 and it is
estimated that 75% of internet gamblers are problem gamblers, compared with 20% of those who visit
casinos.
It is very hard to know the identity of an online gambler there have been several cases of people
(including children) using stolen credit cards to gamble online.
Online gambling sites can also get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting.
Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to
protect customers.
COUNTERPOINT
Internet gambling is in fact less dangerous than normal gambling. It is free from the pressures to
20

gamble that casinos can create through free food and entertainment, glitzy surroundings and peer
pressure. And as children cant get credit cards, they should not be able to gamble online anyway.
Stolen credit cards can be used to commit fraud in any number of ways - online gambling is not a
specific problem here. It is also in the interest of internet gambling sites to run a trustworthy,
responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that
have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly,
word will soon get around and no one will want to use it.
Casinos are often used to mask criminal activity
Casinos are often associated with crime, particularly organized crime. When it comes to local crimes a
study has found that only larceny(theft) liquor violations increased significantly with a small increase
in prostitution.1 But comparing statistics probably does not show the real harm; drug dealers and
prostitutes operate near casinos they know that there are a large number of potential clients in the
area. Moreover when a gambler is in debt and wishes to continue gambling due to its addictive nature,
he or she often turns to loan sharks as no bank would lend to them. Casinos can therefore be
devastating to neighborhoods. It would of course be wrong to assume all gamblers are criminals,
although there is an increased possibility that gamblers in debt could turn to criminality through illegal
borrowing. These loan sharks themselves usually have links to organized crime, in some cases are
actually run by organized crime,2 and use brutal methods to reclaim their money. By banning gambling
the opportunities for loan sharks to offer their services is greatly reduced due to a lesser amount of
gamblers in debt, as are the opportunities for prostitutes therefore reducing criminal activity in the
areas surrounding casinos.
COUNTERPOINT
People committing crimes should be prosecuted. The existence of criminals does not make nearby
businesses (including casinos) immoral. It is perverse to punish people who just want to gamble (and
not take drugs or use prostitutes) by taking away their chance to do so.
Gambling affects poor people disproportionately
Poor people are more likely to gamble, in the hope of getting rich. In 1999, the National Gambling
Impact Commission in the United States found that 80 percent of gambling revenue came from lowerincome households1. It is immoral for the state or charities to raise money by exploiting peoples
stupidity and greed. Taxing gambling is a regressive tax (this means that the poor pay a greater
proportion of their income in tax than the rich), and regressive taxation is deeply unfair. Gambling
attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall. These are the people who can least
afford to lose money.
COUNTERPOINT
Gambling effects every person in the same way, everyone have the free will to decide to gamble and
each may win or lose despite of their wealth or position in society, thus gambling cannot affect poor
people to a greater extent. Gambling is only regressive because more poor people choose to gamble.
Gambling does also have good effects on all member of society- Gambling is often used to raise money
for the state or good causes. Many governments tax gambling. Some even run their own lotteries.
Charities use prize draws to raise funds. Because people will gamble anyway, the best that
governments can do is to pass rules to make it safe and try to get some social good out of it. If the
government uses the revenue to help people on lower-incomes, it is not necessarily true that taxes on
gambling are regressive and target the poor.
21

Gambling is associated with other forms of addiction and harmful behavior

Gambling makes people concentrate of winning money. Religious leaders of all denominations see
gambling as eroding family values1 because it implies that material goods should be valued above other
things like friendships and families. It also sends out the message that success should not necessarily be
the result of merit and effort. As a philosophy, gambling culture is incredibly dangerous. Those in
society who most need to self-improve, never do. Instead, they tie their hopes and dreams to the
lottery. There may be the possibility of winning a big prize, but the overwhelming likelihood is that a
gambler will lose money. Instead, governments should be promoting values like thrift, hard work and
self-reliance rather than encouraging or even allowing gambling to promote its own negative values.
COUNTERPOINT
There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because
they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. Also, there are many areas
of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get
many advantages in life without merit or hard work. There are therefore no grounds for thinking that
gambling promotes these undesirable values. The desire for wealth one that stems from society as a
whole, not casinos.

OPPOSITION

Gambling is simply a leisure pursuit

People have free will and should be allowed to spend their money on which ever leisure pursuits they
choose. Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure
pursuit that they enjoy.
There is nothing irrational about this. Some people get an enjoyable thrill from the remote possibility
that they might win a huge prize even if he or she loses, they enjoy the experience. Some forms of
gambling are highly sociable. For example, many people are involved in social gambling and go to
bingo halls (or equivalent) to spend time with friends, and some types of gambling are interlinked with
other leisure pursuits such as horse racing.* Society accepts people spending money on other leisure
pursuits with no material benefits (e.g. cinema tickets, watching sport) gambling should not be any
different. It is patronizing to suggest that people should not be able to choose how they spend their
money or their leisure time.
COUNTERPOINT
Gambling is a harmful activity and could have harmful effects on not only to individuals but also on
their friends and family. Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the house
always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they
have worked so hard to earn? Surely it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens
from harming themselves, just as harmful substances are illegal, gambling should also be illegal.
It is impossible to effectively ban gambling
When gambling has been banned, people have just found a way round the ban. They use internet sites
based in other countries. A good example being the Ukraine, who in May 2009 made gambling illegal,
22

this included internet gambling. By July 2009, over 500 illegal gambling operations were established,
where 6,000 slot machines were confiscated and 216 criminal charges were made in connection to
illegal gambling.1 This illustrates how banning gambling can creates a thriving underground market.
It is better to legalize and regulate online gambling than to drive gamblers to poorly-regulated foreign
operators. Regulation can reduce the problems identified by the proposition. For example, online
gamblers can be required to give personal details when registering (e.g. occupation, income). If this
information suggests he or she is spending more than they can afford, the company can block their
credit card.
COUNTERPOINT
Gambling is not impossible to ban, although it will not be easy such examples of states that have
banned it show that it is possible and although illegal activity may arise from the ban this can also be
stopped by though rules. If government did not ban activities where some may find a way around it,
nothing would be banned at all.
Making an activity more difficult to pursue will still reduce the number of those who take it up. It is not
impossible to put effective deterrent steps in place, such as the recent US ban on American banks
processing credit card payments to internet gambling sites.
Casinos create positive economic effects in the communities that host them
Casinos can revive entire areas and regions. They create jobs and cause money to be spent on transport
infrastructure. The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts
of the tourism industry. In an article for nwjob.com Sandra Miedema, Snoqualmies employment
coordinator is quoted saying that at any one time there are an average of 20 vacancies, from chefs to
table dealers.1 In the United States commercial casinos employed more than 350,000 people in 2003. 2
Casinos have helped to regenerate many places that previously had considerable poverty and social
problems, e.g. Atlantic City, New Jersey5.
COUNTERPOINT
The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated. 1 They generally only create low-paid jobs for local
people the casino companies usually bring in managers from elsewhere. The problems associated
with casinos (e.g. crime, gambling addiction) outweigh the economic benefits. In any case, an immoral
industry is not justified by the fact that it creates employment.
Many activities directly comparable to gambling are already legal and regulated
What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting
money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves
knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds,
shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of
other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?
COUNTERPOINT
Gambling is quite different from buying stocks and shares. With the stock market investors are buying a
stake in an actual company. This share may rise or fall in value, but so can a house or artwork. In each
case there is a real asset that is likely to hold its value in the long term, which isnt the case with
gambling. Company shares and bonds can even produce a regular income through dividend and
interest payments. It is true that some forms of financial speculation are more like gambling for
example the derivatives market or short-selling, where the investor does not actually own the asset
23

being traded. But these are not types of investment that ordinary people have much to do with. They
are also the kinds of financial activity most to blame for the financial crisis, which suggests we need
more government control, not less.

THIS HOUSE WOULD INTRODUCE CHILD CURFEWS

Youth curfews are widely used in the USA to keep children off the street at night; a state of curfew
makes it illegal to be out of doors between certain publicised times. In the USA over 300 individual
towns have passed local curfew laws that vary in detail, but are all aimed at reducing juvenile crime
and gang activity.
The exceptions permitted vary between states and between cities but are generally: Minors
accompanied by a parent or guardian, Minors travelling to or from work, Minors attending official
school or religious events, Minors running errands under an adult's instruction, Emergencies.
Punishment for juvenile curfew law violations also varies among jurisdictions, but can often include
one or more of the following options: Fines (usually increasing for subsequent violations), Imposition
of community service or required enrolment in after-school programs, Restriction of driver's license
privileges or Possible detention in jail or juvenile hall. 1
In Britain a 1998 law allowed local councils to impose curfews for all children under ten, although
none has yet chosen to do so. Many of the issues raised by curfews laws in the USA are applicable to
the debates surrounding ASBOs and Grounding laws that have been used by the British government at
various times.
GOVERNMENT
The main objective of curfews is usually crime prevention.
Youth crime is a major and growing problem, often involving both drugs and violence. Particularly
worrying is the rise of youth gangs who can terrorise urban areas and create a social climate in which
criminality becomes a norm. Imposing youth curfews can help to solve these problems, as they keep
young people off the street, and therefore out of trouble, and prevent them from congregating in the
hours of darkness. Police in Philadelphia have found curfews effective in the prevention of gang
violence: the measure has been successful in helping to curb violent attacks by teen mobs that had
severely injured several people in recent months, city officials said. 1
COUNTERPOINT
Curfews are largely ineffective in preventing crime. Curfews do not target the right times of day as
most juvenile crime appears to take place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., after the end of school and before
working parents return home, rather than in the hours covered by curfews. There are many reports
providing evidence that juvenile curfews do not have a significant effect upon crime figures.
In addition, although society does have a problem with youth behaviour, although it is not as bad as
the newspapers make out. What is often labelled anti-social behaviour today was considered normal
for kids in the past things like playing football in the street, going around in groups without an adult
in charge, making a bit of noise sometimes, etc. We need to be careful to draw a line between things
that some people dont like, and actual crime.1
24

Curfews also have an important role in the protection of vulnerable children.

The use of child curfews can help to protect vulnerable children. Although responsible parents do not
let young children out in the streets after dark, not all parents are responsible and inevitably their
children suffer, both from crime and in accidents, and are likely to fall into bad habits. Sir Ian Blair
former chief commissioner of the Metropolitan police argued that curfews were aimed at safeguarding
youngsters and stopping gangs causing trouble. 1 Society should ensure that such neglected children are
returned home safely and that their parents are made to face up to their responsibilities. 2
COUNTERPOINT
Although protecting children domestic abuse is of vital importance curfews are not the most
appropriate way of doing so. Problems at home may be the reason the young person spends so much
time out on the streets in the first place. If that is the case, it could be dangerous to force them to stay
where they may be at risk of abuse. Also, curfews infringe upon the rights of parents to bring up their
children as they choose. Simply because we dislike the way some parents treat their children should not
mean that we intervene to stop it; should we intervene in families where conservative religious beliefs
are preached? 1
A curfew is practical.
Very few children are going to be out late at night without an adult or very good reason. This helps
make curfews enforceable as the police will be patrolling anyway, and any responsible adult can report
children who are out after curfew. The curfew could therefore be for all young people, defined as those
under the age of 18, beginning at 10pm on both weeknights and weekends and ending at sunrise, with
the exceptions like those noted in the introduction. Curfew violations are punishable by fines and
penalty assessments. In Los Angeles these total $675, and violations may also result in community
service and driver's license restrictions. The amount can vary with Philadelphia only having a $250
fine. 1
COUNTERPOINT
Curfews are not enforceable even if they are well known by residents and anyone can report those
breaking curfew. It simply means that young people are trying to avoid the police so that they do not
get fined. The police are only ever likely to catch a small number of those who are violating the curfew
resulting in there being little deterrence.
Curfews are most effective when used a short-term aid to other policing measures.
Other schemes aimed at reducing youth crime are highly effective but work best in conjunction with
curfews. As the National Crime Prevention Council states: A curfew alone wont stop crime. More
preventive measures, including recreational activities and job opportunities, are needed to reach out to
young people and keep them from committing crimes. 1 In areas with a whole culture of lawlessness a
curfew takes the basically law-abiding majority off the streets, allowing the police to engage with the
most difficult element. Curfews are a tool in the struggle to improve lives in run-down areas; they often
used for relatively short periods of a few weeks or months in order to bring a situation under control so
that other measures can be put in place and given a chance to work.

COUNTERPOINT
25

A number of alternative strategies exist which are likely to do more to reduce youth crime. For
example, rather than a blanket curfew covering all young people, individual curfews could be imposed
upon particular trouble-makers, perhaps involving electronic tagging, breaking up gangs without
labelling an entire age-group as criminal. A Scottish scheme puts plenty of police officers on the streets
at night with a brief to engage with young people, deterring crime while steering them towards a range
of youth activities available at clubs set up by the local council.
It is best for children to be at home in the evening.
There is no good reason for children to be out unaccompanied late at night, so a curfew is not really a
restriction upon their liberty. Where the child does have good reasons to be out they can be covered by
the exceptions. They would be better off at home doing schoolwork, schools often set more than an
hour a night which the children should be doing. The time would also be better spent interacting with
the rest of their family.
COUNTERPOINT
Children in their mid-teens have many legitimate reasons to be out at night without adults. Many will
have part-time jobs, for example in fast-food restaurants or delivering newspapers. Others will wish to
participate in activities such as church groups, youth clubs or school trip. Whilst there are clauses for
allowing such activity, the fear of not being believed would be a serious chilling effect on uptake.
Requiring adults always to take them to and from such activities is unreasonable and will ensure that
many never take place in the first place, either because adults are unwilling, or are unable to do so. 1
OPPOSITION
Curfews are ineffective.
Curfews are not an effective solution to the problem of youth crime; research in the USA suggests that
there is no link between areas that achieved a reduction in juvenile crime and areas with youth curfews.
Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales points out that curfews are an
unrealistic scheme: It is fantasy to believe the police could impose an immediate sanction for
somebody to stay in their home for four weeks without any kind of due process. 1Although some
places did see a reduction in youth crime, this often had more to do with other strategies, such as zerotolerance policing.
COUNTERPOINT
Curfews are easy to police compared to other forms of crime prevention, and are therefore effective.
Child curfews can help to the police to establish a climate of zero tolerance and to create a safer
community for everyone.
Curfews compromise children's rights.
Youth curfews infringe upon individual rights and liberties. Children have a right to freedom of
movement and assembly which curfews directly undermine, by criminalising their simple presence in a
public space. They are also subject to blanket discrimination on the grounds of age and the underlying
assumption that all young people are potential law-breakers. It has been established in US law in the
1976 case of Missouri v Danforth that everyone has full constitutional rights regardless of age. Thus,
curfews violate the fifth amendment which guarantees a right to free movement and due process.
Comparable legal principles exist in most liberal states, and there is no reason to treat children as
26

having less substantive rights to free movement. 1

Youth curfews have great potential for abuse, raising civil rights issues. Evidence from U.S. cities
suggests that police arrest far more black children than white for curfew violations. Curfews will tend
to be imposed upon poor areas in inner cities with few places for children to amuse themselves safely
and within the law, compounding social exclusion with physical exclusion from public spaces. These
problems will also be made worse by the inevitable deterioration in relations between the police and
the young people subject to the curfew.
COUNTERPOINT
Curfews do not harmfully restrict childrens rights to participation in activities and actually supports
their right to a safe home and neighbourhood environment: The curfew law has several exceptions.
Youths can be out after hours if they are with a parent or guardian or doing errands at a parent or
guardian's direction. They also can be at work or attending an official school, religious or recreational
activity. 1If family breakdown means parents lose control, and in cases where parents cant be
bothered, then the police should step in. If the state has the right to take children away from cruel
parents to protect them, then it also has the right to protect everyone else from dangerous youths. Most
importantly, we can trust the police not to abuse this power. Our police are sworn to uphold the law
and protect people, and trained to respect everyones rights.
Curfews are counter-productive.
Imposing child curfews would actually be counter-productive, as it would increase juvenile offending
by turning millions of generally law-abiding young people into criminals. The Executive director of
D.C. Alliance of Youth Advocates argues that "This tells young people they're the problem, not part of
the solution". 1Already in the USA, more children are charged with curfew offences than with any
other crime. Yet once children acquire a criminal record they cross a psychological boundary, making it
much more likely that they will perceive themselves as criminal and have much less respect for the law
in general, leading to more serious forms of offending. At the same time a criminal record harms their
opportunities in employment and so increases the social deprivation and desperation which breed
crime.
COUNTERPOINT
Child curfews are an important form of zero tolerance policing, showing that a community will not
allow an atmosphere of lawlessness to develop. Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation in
England and Wales, argues that: It would send out the message that we are serious that the criminal
justice system has the power to impose immediate sanctions for bad behaviour and that no will
mean no. At the moment no is negotiable. 1The idea of zero tolerance comes from the theory that if
low-level crimes, like graffiti-spraying, window breaking and drug-dealing (all common juvenile
offences) are not acted against swiftly and effectively by the police, then a permissive atmosphere is
created where violence and other serious crimes flourish and law and order breaks down entirely.
Positive engagement would be more effective than curfews.
Other successful schemes aim to work individually with young troublemakers, in order to cut their
reoffending rate, for example by requiring them to meet with victims of crime so that they understand
the consequences of their actions, and by pairing them with trained mentors. Overall, governments
need to ensure good educational opportunities and employment prospects in order to bring optimism to
communities where youngsters feel that their futures are pretty hopeless.
Rather than trying to scare kids into good behaviour, why dont we offer them a better life? Most areas
27

with anti-social behaviour problems are poor, with bad schools, few jobs and little for kids to do with
themselves. With little hope for the future, no wonder some kids go off the rails. So instead of
threatening punishment, we should invest in better schools, places for kids to play and socialise, and
the chance of a job.1
COUNTERPOINT
Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture in which challenging the law is seen as
desirable and gang membership an aspiration. Impressionable youngsters would be kept away from
gang activity on the streets at night and a cycle of admiration and recruitment would be broken in the
hope that we can stop them from getting so far into trouble that they end up in the criminal justice
system.1 By spending more time with their families and in more positive activities, such as sports and
youth clubs, which curfews make a more attractive option for bored youngsters, greater self-esteem
and discipline can be developed.

28

THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALIZE POLYGAMY

Polygamy is the practice of having two or more spouses at the same time; this includes both polygyny
(the union of one man with more than one woman) and polyandry (the union of one women with more
than one man).
Polygamy is condoned in the original texts of many faiths; in the Bible, there is Lamechs marriage to
Adah and Zillah in Genesis (4:23), and Josephs four wives (Gen 29-30), amongst others. In Judaism,
most of the prophets are polygamous and Solomon is said to have had 700 wives. In Islam, the Koran
tells us that after the battle of Uhud many widows were left, who were married to already married men
(4:3). However, most religions now ban the practice and it is rare in Islam. In most countries, including
all western ones and some Islamic ones, polygamy is illegal, although some Muslim states (such as
Saudi Arabia) do allow it. Apart from these Islamic examples, polygamy does continue in some African
societies but is more generally although incorrectly seen as a practice of Mormons.In the 1840s,
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (the proper name for
the Mormon church), approved the practice of polygamy. However, statehood for Utah only came in
1896 when its leaders finally agreed to abolish polygamy in return for it and for more than a century
the Mormon church has expelled those practising polygamy. It is undoubtedly true that a blind-eye
policy is practiced in some remote places, but the widespread idea that polygamy is legal in Utah is
entirely wrong. Whilst examples are certainly relevant, this debate should revolve around the principles
concerned: it should not be a debate solely about Mormons.
It should be noted that many of the organisations in favour of polygyny particularly, faith-based
groups are explicitly against polyandry. This topic will present the merits of both, but will consider
the roots of that division.
GOVERNMENT
Marrying the right person
The ability to marry people who are already married presents us with the chance to take partners that
have already proven themselves in society as responsible parents and providers - that is, to reduce the
risk in marriage. It also means that one doesn't have to settle for those "left over"; you can marry the
person you want, not just the person that's left. Very few countries have exactly the same number of
males and females; in the UAE, there are 2.2 males per female, but in Estonia, there are only 0.84
males per female1. This means that monogamy restricts options significantly
COUNTERPOINT
The idea of taking an established partner simply because of their status is anathema in the modern
age it implies that income determines suitability as partner, and suggests that the partner concerned
will forever be dominant in the relationship. That logic would see CEOs with 10 wives and unemployed
people with none - hardly supportive of the everyone should be able to marry model this proposition
argument supports. Furthermore, it is difficult to decipher statistics like these. Many people dont want
29

to marry. Certainly, not everyone wants to marry at once, which would be needed for statistics on total
population to be of any use.
Polygamy makes having a family easier
More providers can make great contributions to the home. It makes the family unit more efficient, as
more people can pursue careers and bring in money, but due to economies of scale, less additional
money will be needed for each additional partner. For example, it is cheaper to cook in large quantities
than if each person were cooking individually. Similarly, additional people in the house wont need
another kitchen or necessarily another bathroom, so therefore its cheaper to live in groups
particularly groups with multiple incomes. In addition, there is more likely to be a person staying at
home, which saves on childcare. While it will not always be the case there are many ways in which
living in groups can be more economical.
COUNTERPOINT
Just because something is economically efficient, it isn't necessarily better. The idea that one of the
best reasons for marrying an additional person is because it will cost less in the long run completely
undermines the ideals of love that marriages are based on. Furthermore, in many societies where men
can have multiple wives, it is actually expensive, as the man is expected to provide for everybody as
well as pay dowries, so it is economically unsound 1. If there are extra adult incomes, they must be
shared amongst the extra adults, and often get soaked up in the high number of children polygamous
relationships tend to produce.
Creating stable, long-lasting relationships
Polygamy reduces the strains on family life and minimises the likelihood of breakdown and divorce.
Polygamy reduces the desire for adultery by providing alternatives for sexual exploration within the
family unit. Sibel resin suggests that people look for a lot of qualities in a spouse, and that it is
unlikely that any one person can possess them all, which is why there is so much adultery in
monogamous relationships.
COUNTERPOINT
Even if the marriages last longer this is likely to be based upon feeling subservient to their spouse
(nearly always husband) and so feeling powerless and unable to get a divorce 1. Adultery is based on a
desire for the 'other', for something outside the known, outside the home. Polygamy does nothing to
combat this; adultery still occurs in polygamous societies. Indeed, polygamy encourages adultery as it
dilutes the idea of fidelity from being loyalty to one person, substituting the legitimacy of intercourse
with many. In a study in Nigeria it was found that men with three or more wives were more likely to
engage in extramarital sex2.
People can love more than one other person
The idea that the individual can only truly love one person is artificial and false, a product of a
particular time, place and culture. In fact, in a study on human societies worldwide, of 1231 societies
noted, only 186 were entirely monogamous 1. Polygamy is not about freedom to fornicate with anyone;
it's about cementing relationships with individuals one wants to spend the rest of one's life with, just as
in
monogamous
marriages.
COUNTERPOINT
30

Marriage is about devotion to another, the giving of oneself wholly to that person, granting love to
them to the exclusion of all others. How could one have such a relationship with more than one
person? It's not possible to devote yourself entirely to more than one person. Polygamy therefore
necessarily involves the exploitation of at least one party - and the denigration of the relationship that
exists between the others.
People should have freedom of choice
The law should recognise freedom of choice. If somebody wants to marry more than one person, and
all parties involved agree, then the state should not get involved. We have a right to privacy, and a right
to non-interference in our family life. These are not absolute rights, but they are important: breach of
them needs to be contemplated with extreme care and is not merited here. This is particularly important
because some religious sects promote polygamy, so banning it also impinges on freedom of religion.
COUNTERPOINT
In most cases, some of the partners involved in polygamy will not have true freedom of choice.
Presumably, one of the partners will be proposing the addition of another person to the marriage; the
first partner may well not truly desire this, but feel unable to refuse. This could particularly be a
problem in religious groups that are happy for men to marry many women, but deny women the same
freedom. Daphne Bramham studied a polygamous community in Canada and concluded: "Within that
particular group, those women have absolutely no choice. They are separated from the mainstream
community."1 Whilst a law that allowed polygamy might give a handful of people more freedom, it
would
actually
deny
it
to
many
others.
OPPOSITION
Monogamy preserves the meaning of marriage
Polygamy undermines the institution of marriage, trivialising the union of two people: imagine the
competition to be married to the most partners, or to live in the largest family. This sends all the wrong
messages to society as we attempt reinstitute the stable family as the ideal place to live and bring up
our young. It inflicts harm to children, who - even if they know their parentage - are presented with
confusing signals about role models and family life.
COUNTERPOINT
The whole point of this debate is that marriage does not have to just be between two individuals. This
simply redefines marriage rather than trivialising it. There is not currently competition to have most
children so why should there be competition to have most wives? Furthermore, this opposition point
comes from a very limited perspective; if polygamy is seen as acceptable, there is no reason why
children should be confused, and they may well have a better family life as it is more likely that there
will be a parent around for them.
Polygamy creates hierarchy
Hierarchy within a family structure will emerge, with a 'head wife' dominating over her rivals: this is at
the root of religious polygamy, being seen in Sarah's domination over Abraham's other wives in the
Bible. The attempts by the man in polygamous marriages to dominate and control the wives encourages
and institutionalises the very thing that leads to the break-up of the majority of family units - namely,
jealousy, violence and sexual encounters with others. For example in Uganda a dispute between wives
31

over fetching water lead to one woman stabbing and killing her fellow wife 1.
COUNTERPOINT
Hierarchies also exist in monogamous families - between husband and wife, between siblings. That
they similarly have the capacity to exist in polygamous marriages isn't a true argument against such
unions, capable as they are of producing stable homes, just as monogamous marriages do. Some
marriages are good, some bad - that's true of both monogamy and polygamy. For those involved, a
good polygamous marriage is better than a bad monogamous one.
Other terrible practices accompany polygamy
Where polygamy is found, a wealth of other offences follows. Forced marriage, child abuse, rape,
welfare fraud, incest - all staples of the polygamous communities in the USA, along with the broader
exploitation
of
women1.
COUNTERPOINT
This is a cheap slur. Polygamy doesn't necessarily create other offences, and once legalised those other
offences, if they occurred, would simply be prosecuted as the law demands. You can't say something
should be illegal because there's a theoretical link to other illegal things. Forced marriage is an issue
as much in other communities, such as for those of Indian origin practising monogamous marriages,
as it is for those that wish to practise polygamy. We agree that society needs to decide how it wants to
deal with that offence with regard to its minorities: such a dilemma is entirely separate from allowing
polygamy or not, in which forced marriage remains wrong.
Polygamy is logistically complicated
There are many questions as to what legal polygamy would look like. How many extra partners can
one have? Are line marriages legal? Will one village be able to marry another village? Without
restrictions, that sort of thing will happen sometimes. Either way, the proposition loses: if restrictions
are imposed - say, only one extra partner - then why that number only? If not, then imagine the
consequences of a contested estate or bitter divorce.
COUNTERPOINT
Why impose numerical restrictions at all? It is obviously easy to poke fun at the lives of others who
choose to live in this way. But once we agree that it is acceptable, it is difficult to logically impose
restrictions that would be, by necessity, arbitrary. More sensible might be a transfer of the idea held by
the Muslim faith - that partners are able to provide for one another adequately. It is true that this
practical point is difficult for the proposition to answer, but the opposition also has practical stumbling
blocks. How exactly should we police polygamy? Should polygamists be imprisoned? This is difficult,
especially when children are involved. This is a debate about principles - throwing up absurd
practicalities cuts both ways.
Polygamy has numerous harmful social effects
Women in Polygamous marriages are more likely to suffer from low self-esteem and depression and
unsurprisingly have lower marital satisfaction as a result of not being the centre of affections of their
spouse. There are also higher risks of being infected by sexually transmitted diseases. A study in
Nigeria found that men with 3 or more wives had twice the risk of extramarital sex compared to
monogamous men "indicate a link between high-risk sex, number of wives, and risk of
32

HIV/AIDS."1 Among these other problems increasing the number of marriage mixes greatly enhances
the chances of inadvertent incest, especially in relatively remote, inward-looking villages and small
towns where generations of people live in the same area and are unlikely to move - exactly the kind of
places
most
likely
to
take
up
polygamy
if
allowed
to 2.
COUNTERPOINT
Incest is a possibility in any society, particularly one in which families frequently break up. In fact,
compared to modern society it's arguably less likely amongst polygamous families, which tend by
virtue of their adherence to religious requirements to keep strict records of lineage - unlike most in
modern life.

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES WILD ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE KEPT IN CAPTIVITY

Zoos are premises for the captivity of animals, often in urban areas where many of the animals would
not otherwise be found, with the intention of studying the animals and displaying them to the public at
large. The predecessor of the zoo was the menagerie, which involved the captivity of birds typically for
the entertainment of the aristocracy, and has a long history running back to ancient times. The first
modern zoo evolved out of an aristocratic menagerie in Vienna in 1765. Many types of zoo now exist,
from the petting zoos that encourage the public to get up and close with the animals to the large nature
reserves that provide space for the animals to roam around within and most famously the large, urban
zoos like the London Zoo which include elephants, lions and penguins and are usually notable tourist
drawcards for the cities concerned. Proponents argue that zoos are beneficial both to the animals
themselves, protecting endangered species with specific breeding programs, and the public, as an
educational tool to increase both awareness and understanding. Opponents respond that the removal of
wild animals from their habitat is wrong, that they should be left in their natural surroundings and not
used as tools for public entertainment.
GOVERNMENT
Wild animals in zoos suffer unnecessarily
Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer. They are inevitably confined in
unnaturally small spaces, and are kept from the public by cages and bars. A study of British zoos found
that elephant enclosures were 1000 times smaller than their natural habitats1. Wild polar bears are
confined 'in spaces that are more than a million times smaller than their arctic territory.'1 They suffer
psychological distress, often displayed by abnormal or self-destructive behaviour. Aquatic animals do
not have enough water, birds are prevented from flying away by having their wings clipped and being
kept in aviaries. Furthermore, the locations of zoos in urban areas leads to incidents like the fox attack
at London Zoo in 2010 that killed 11 South African and Rockhopper penguins2.

33

COUNTERPOINT
Wild animals do not suffer in well-regulated, well-run zoos.
There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are
reformed and weeded out. The Animal Welfare Act, enacted by the United States in 1970, is a good
example of a step that can be taken to ensure all animals are treated appropriately and not misused or
harmed1. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are
becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and
so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should
be shut down.
Zoos encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment
Adults and children visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for
our own ends, however it impinges on their freedom or quality of life. Therefore zoos will encourage
poor treatment of animals more generally. People do not go to zoos for educational reasons they simply
go to be entertained and diverted by weird and wonderful creatures seen as objects of beauty or
entertainment. Dale Marcelini, a zoo curator in Washington, conducted a study that found 'visitors
spend less than 8 seconds per snake, and one minute per lion.'1Otherwise, 'most people preoccupied
themselves with eating, resting and shoppingpeople treated the exhibits like wallpaper 1. As a form
of education the zoo is deficient: the only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its
natural environment the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the animal by isolating it
from its ecosystem.
COUNTERPOINT
Zoos do not encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment. This argument assumes that both the
harm suffered by these animals is tremendous and the only value gained from zoos is human
entertainment. However, the motives of the general public and the professional zoo keepers are not one
and the same. Zoo keeping is a trained profession. Animals in the zoo have regular access to good food
and vets on standby should they fall ill. This is a far more luxurious lifestyle than they would have in
their natural habitat. Furthermore, within zoos animals have many benefits that wild animals are
deprived of, from human understanding to biological study. To see zoos as pure entertainment is
myopic.
States can have immigration regulations in place that protect and conserve the populations of
wild animals
States concerned with the protection and welfare of wild animals are able to close zoos, release the
animals back into their natural habitats and thereafter enforce immigration regulation that would ensure
they any live cargo entering the country would be searched and checked. If found to contain wild
animals, they could be sent back to where they had arrived from and hopefully re-placed in their
natural habitat. To cut supply would be inadvertently to reduce demand, and eventually ensure that the
trade in live animals would cease, to the benefit of the wild animal populations themselves.
COUNTERPOINT
Sending the trade underground is not the most effective means to ensure the protection and
conservation of wild animals. A general populace with previous first-hand exposure to wild animals
will not lose their appetite to them if zoos were closed, fostering a demand for a black market in the
trade of live, wild animals. As such, the most effective means to protect and conserve the populations of
wild animals is regulation of the zoos themselves, not restrictions on their very entry to the state.
34

Furthermore, the release of previous-captive animals into their 'natural' habitats is not advisable, they
are not fit to survive in an environment where food is not provided and predators not kept separate.
Wild animals belong in their natural habitat
Animals belong in their natural habitat, in the wild. It is a breach of their natural rights to take them by
force into captivity for our own purposes. They are 'prevented from gathering their own food,
developing their own social orders and generally behaving in ways that are natural to them.'1 No matter
how we may try to replicate their surrounding in a zoo, we will never achieve the full result. Predators
need to hunt and taking from them their ability to do so by taming/caging/drugging them is beyond
cruel. A study by the journal Science in 2008 found that 'Asian elephants in European zoos had a
median lifespan of just 18.9 years compared to 41.7 years for wild elephants in an Asian logging
camp.'2 Excessive human involvement in the food cycle has disrupted it considerably. Let nature take
its course.
COUNTERPOINT
The truth is that these claims are based around the logically-skewed ideas of animal rights groups.
Their arguments have little or no factual basis/merit for we cannot measure animal happiness. We
cannot really say that they would be best left in the wild. All we can do is review the information at
hand. Domesticated animals; treated well, would you say they were unhappy? Well then how can we
argue that taking animals out of the wild is wrong? We cannot. So rather than banning zoos, we should
ensure that relevant safety measures are in place to ensure that these animals are as well looked after
as possible. Human beings are part of the animal kingdom thus food cycle and our involvement is part
of nature.
OPPOSITION

Zoos act as educational tools

Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most
modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many
schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and
conservation. As long ago as 1898 the New York Zoological Society claimed to be taking 'measures to
inform the public of the great decrease in animal life, to stimulate sentiment in favour of better
protection and to co-operate with scientific bodies.'1 Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals,
zoos provide a means to inform the public at large about proper treatment of animals, how valuable
they are to the ecological system and how they can contribute to their conservation. Such direct
experience of varied and diffuse species will increase ecological awareness in a way that television or
documentaries could only hope to do.
COUNTERPOINT
Zoos do not act as education tools, or if they do, they fail at the role. The average zoo-goer knows less
about animals than those who claim an interest in animals, like fishermen, and only slightly more than
those who claim no interest in animals at all1. Furthermore, we would not tolerate this view if it were
placed on humans. We would not force a human to be subjected to inhumane treatment and captivity
with the reasoning that they would be saving future humans. We have something that is called integrity.
Everyone has it and there is no reason why animals should not be given this grace as well. We cannot
subject an animal, against it wishes, to captivity and rationed foods by citing the future good for all
35

animals. We should respect every animal, even those in zoos and not offer them up as sacrifice. The
education lessons obtained from zoos could just as easily, and less inhumanely, be presented in the
classroom1.
Zoos help to protect endangered species
One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human
factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can
preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are
certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should
at least try to conserve them. The Australian Government, responding to the 90% drop in the
Tasmanian Devil population, has precipitated a nationwide breeding program to ensure their future
sustainability1. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation,
education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. There is also, of course,
a valid role for breeding in different environments such as large nature reserves. Nevertheless, zoos are
unique in being able to balance public entertainment and therefore, income, with the needs of their
inhabitants.
COUNTERPOINT
There are two problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve
endangered species. First, they do not have a very high success rate many species are going extinct
each week despite the good intentions of some zoos. This is partly because a very small captive
community of a species is more prone to inter-breeding and birth defects 1. Secondly, captive breeding
to try to stave off extinction need not take place in the context of a zoo, where the public come to look
at captive animals and (often) see them perform tricks. Captive breeding programmes should be
undertaken in large nature reserves, not within the confines of a zoo. Lastly, breeding programmes also
generate unwanted animals, in a herd of lions only a few males are required to service the females; this
leads often to the sale of the excess males to inappropriate establishments 2.
Zoos permit longer, more fruitful scientific research
Animals can and should be studied in the wild but they can be studied more closely, more rigorously,
and over a more sustained period of time in captivity. 'Zoos support scientific research in at least three
ways: they fund field researchemploy scientists as member of zoo staffs and they make otherwise
inaccessible animals available for study 1. For example, a 2011 study completed at zoos in the United
Kingdom and United States of gorillas found that happiness can extend their life-expectancy by up to
11 years, a study that could only be carried out in an environment where zookeepers could observe
them constantly 2. That understanding can now be taken and used to protect and conserve gorillas in
captive and wild populations world-wide. Furthermore, the money raised by zoos can also be utilized
to study not just the captive animals, but fund field research, as exemplified by the Smithsonian
National Zoological Park 3.Therefore, zoos are the lesser evil in the wider campaign to fund animal
conservation projects and ensure endangered animals do not become extinct for preventable reasons.
COUNTERPOINT
Zoos do not permit longer, or more fruitful, scientific research. Behavioural research, as the research is
termed, is felt by some to contribute little due to the unnatural habitat in which the animals are
observed1. Environments are felt to 'trigger reactions', therefore there is 'no reason to believe that
better, fuller or more accurate data can be obtained in predation-free environments than in natural
habitats.'1As such, the Orangutan study carried out in 2011 is only relevant to captive populations,
36

and potentially only the population at the zoos concerned. Research into animals (when it respects
their rights and is not cruel or harmful) may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context
of confinement and human entertainment.

THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN BEAUTY CONTESTS

The First modern Beauty Pageants took place in the United States in the second half of the 19th
Century with the first Miss United States bathing beauty contest being held at Rehoboth Beach,
Delaware in 1880.[1] Beauty contests are popular in many parts of the world. The biggest, the Miss
World competition, has been running annually since 1951, and although it is less popular in the UK
now than it was in 1968, when it attracted 27.5 million TV viewers, it attracts an enormous worldwide
audience up to 3 billion viewers in 120 countries.[2] There are beauty contests for various categories
of age, sex and sexuality; this topic focuses on adult womens beauty contests as overwhelmingly the
37

most popular and high-profile version.

Note that there are difficult technical issues about running this debate: it probably works best as a
values debate on whether beauty contests are a good thing or not, but this kind of comparison motion is
frowned upon in some policy-based debating circles. Proposing a ban on beauty contests might be met
with various entirely valid opposition lines on enforceability and warped priorities (what about porn?),
which would tend to undermine the point of the debate.
GOVERNMENT

Beauty contests are patriarchal

Beauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically
aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by
encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate
and ugly by comparison to this ideal that is promoted. Moreover, these contests force the models and
contestants to look even slimmer and perfect all the time, thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia.
Naomi Wolf argues that "in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse
off than our un-liberated grandmothers." Why? Because of how "cruelly images of female beauty have
come to weigh upon us." [1] This pressure has therefore forced a backwards step that reduces freedom
of women when in almost every other area of life there have been great advances.

COUNTERPOINT
There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the
time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success. Moreover
doing so is little different from judging people on non-physical qualities such as intellect. Every
competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift
heavy weights isnt the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting;
similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all
that matters about anyone.

Beauty contests objectify women

Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities
they may possess (the existence of a talent element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly
women simply arent going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes
to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal
femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself
potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is
notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular
than female ones.
COUNTERPOINT
There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the
time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success. Moreover
doing so is little different from judging people on non-physical qualities such as intellect. Every
38

competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift
heavy weights isnt the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting;
similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all
that matters about anyone.

Beauty contests are culturally insensitive

The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesnt
matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the
swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. This clash
of cultures has led to numerous protests, demonstrations and even violence when beauty contests are
going on. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it
was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more
than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London.[1]
COUNTERPOINT
Riots often have many causes and it is only the spark that is picked up upon. The example of the riots
in Kaduna is misleading; there were serious underlying tensions that were the root cause.[1]
Beauty contests, like sport, can be an important focus of national or regional pride. Despite the
declining popularity of competitions such as Miss World in the UK, they hold an important cultural
place in many parts of the world. The victories in recent years of Miss India, Miss Turkey and Miss
Nigeria in Miss World competitions made many Indians, Turks and Nigerians proud, and were seen as
symbolic of those countries progress in competing with more powerful countries on their own terms.
OPPOSITION

Beauty contests are an avenue of opportunity that women are entitled to pursue
In an environment where women are valued on solely on their appearance, and in which there are more
opportunities for men, beauty contests give women an opportunity to improve their situations. Winning
a beauty contest can be a first step toward a successful life in the future; the most attractive earn 12%
more.[1] Many Hollywood actresses are former beauty queens, and they would not have reached their
success without the beauty contests they won. In addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests
are able to publicize charities and causes they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they
could not otherwise have gained.
Beauty pageants can also empower in other ways: The Miss America competition is the largest
provider of scholarship assistance for women in the world[2], indeed it pioneered assistance for women
in higher education in the 40s and 50s.[3]
COUNTERPOINT
Beauty contests are part of the system that values women solely on their appearance. It is better to
break down that system than seek to work within it.
Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service to
feminist keywords such as empowerment and self-confidence, they do nothing concrete to aid the
liberation of women; indeed, by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they harm
39

womens liberation in general. The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no problem with
holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a woman was due to be
stoned for adultery exposes the competitions hypocrisy.[1]
Assigning scholarship funds based on physical appearance rather than academic merit is unfair
because it neuters the aspirations of many regardless of how hard they might work.
Beauty pagents are about moral than physical aesthetics
Modern Beauty pageants have mandatory talent portions and are more about establishing and striving
for an ideal than rating physical beauty. This was specifically made mandatory by Lenora Slaughter
in the 1938 Miss America Pageant in order to attract ladies to participate in the competitions. The
modern form of the beauty pageant was designed by women in order to attract women.[1]
COUNTERPOINT
This is a red herring beauty pageants areprimarily about physical attractiveness. Broadcasting data
shows that viewers turn off Miss America for the talent and interview portions of the show while
continuing to watch the swimsuit portion.[1]
Self defined feminists do not have the right to dictate how other women relate to their femininity
A ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty contests would do
little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of society which are unrelated
to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the entertainment industry. The only result of a ban
will simply be to reduce the choice of women who of course do choose to participate. Choice is
fundamentally a good thing and everyone should have as much choice as possible so long as they are
not limiting the choice of others.
COUNTERPOINT
Beauty Pageants do limit the choice of others due to putting pressure on women to conform to this
ideal of beauty which is promoted. This is limiting the lifestyle choices of many more women than
choose to take part in the pageants.

40

THIS HOUSE WOULD CENSOR THE INTERNET

The Internet is growing at a fantastic rate and is a huge resource for mass communication and
information distribution. It can be used to spread information anywhere in the world at a minimal
cost[1] and, due to the increase of computers or other electronic devices in the home. [2] It is one of the
most accessible forms of information in the world. However, not all the information on the internet has
a benevolent use. In the past few years, there has been growing concern over information available on
the Internet which could be used to attack or damage society and vulnerable individuals; for example,
radical political or opinion websites, including social networking sites, which can be used to attack and
bully individuals[3] or to promote group violence[4].
Currently, countries which censor such culturally controversial internet sites include China[5],
Vietnam[6], Pakistan[7], North Korea[8], Syria[9], The United Arab Emirates[10] and Saudi
Arabia[11]. These often focus on seemingly low-risk sites such as social networking sites like
Facebook[12] and Weibo[13]. While the specific sites which are banned by each country varies
according to what these countries deem to be a threat, the general case in the debate is to argue that the
government should have a right to censor whatever material they see fit. This makes the debate an
interesting discussion of the harms or benefits of censorship, and government power over the freedom
on information.
This debate will focus on the concept that a government should be able to ban whatever internet
material they feel is not in the public interest to view, or which may actually pose a threat to that
nation. For example, it would be legitimate for the government in a strictly Muslim country such as
Iran to block overly Westernised websites such as www.amazon.com and www.youtube.com, which
indeed they already do[14]as they believe that it threatens their culture. Countries would also be
allowed to block social networking sites if they believed that it was having a negative impact on the
population, for example inciting violence[15]or losing work hours through procrastinating on
Facebook[16]. Websites which feature things such as child pornography are already banned within the
EU[17] for violating child rights and in countries across the Middle East[18] as it is seen to mock
Islamic beliefs[19], therefore while some debates on increasing censorship would include it for the
purposes of this debate it is excluded.
GOVERNMENT
Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.
In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to
harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases[1][2].
Given that both physical[3] and psychological[4] damage have occurred through the use of social
networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium
through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals[5].
Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those
sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the
population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved
through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to
41

exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens[6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such
sites is the best way to achieve this.
COUNTERPOINT
While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also
be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to
issues such as domestic abuse[1] and racism[2], and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring
citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011.[3] Furthermore, this motion
entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between
what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which
discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred
for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended
towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could
feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only
increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an
opinion of belief[4].
The government here may legitimately limit free speech.
We already set boundaries on what constitutes free speech within our society. For example, we often
endorse a balancing act[1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the
point where it does not impede the protection of other human rights[2] other peoples right not to be
abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another especially racism - they may be
deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply
an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate
hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The
harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small
number of cases.
COUNTERPOINT
Outright banning this kind of prejudice does not directly tackle it it ignores it. A better way for the
government to tackle derogatory and prejudicial speech is to engage with it in a public forum and
reasonably point out the flaws and ignorance that it embodies, rather than desperately trying to hide it
from public view. In this way, those who are being attacked by these websites would feel as if the
government is actively protecting them and their rights and punishing those who have violated them,
rather than simply closing a few websites and allowing their authors to continue in other ways. This
motion does not solve the problem of prejudice in the way it claims to.
Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.
Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government[1], have already seen sufficient cause to ban
social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation
and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged
over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and
Nottingham[2]. Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to
ensure that they could cause maximum damage[3], which resulted in the destruction of property[4],
physical violence towards others[5], and even the deaths of three young men[6]. These events prove
that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a
devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands[7]. To protect the population and maintain
42

order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a
tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring.
COUNTERPOINT
Given the number of people who actually use Facebook[1] and other social networking sites, these
occurrences were remarkably small[2]. These riots cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the
mindset of the rioters rather than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots
to occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile phones to co-ordinate
their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not prevent such events, and would anger those who
use Facebook to communicate with friends[3] and share photos[4] innocently.
As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of
media are.
Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently.
Newspapers and books are subject to censorship[1], and mediums such as television, film and video
receive a higher degree of regulation[2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound
can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many
means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the
information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet[3], alongside
the millions of uploads from internet users themselves[4].
COUNTERPOINT
Any information from television or newspapers has already been regulated, so it is not a problem that
it may now appear somewhere on the internet. It is exactly because the internet is a forum for free
information and expression that so many people engage with it; removing this is a dictatorial move
against ordinary citizens who seek information without bias and undue censorship.

OPPOSITION
Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.
Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the
patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the
flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites
will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way
to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly
censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech
and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free
speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and
logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether.
COUNTERPOINT
We already frown upon certain forms of speech[1] as we recognise that it is important to protect
groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that
ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be
acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the
43

government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the
government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.
The Internet is a free domain and cannot be controlled by the government.
Given that the Internet is used as an international[1] and public space[2], the government has no right
over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies,
governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country how they will create
or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The
Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should
have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the
government as dictatorial and a nanny state[3], demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by
assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially
harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites.
COUNTERPOINT
The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a
particular country, it certainly is that governments responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects
their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can
govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious
opinion websites, often seek to recruit others to their school of thought or even to action; their
purpose is often to gather support and followers[1]. Therefore there certainly is a risk that these
people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive[2], might lure others to them without protection
by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection.
People often react poorly to being censored by their governments.
In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret
this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the
governments constant censorship has led to public outrage[1], and political satire which heavily
criticises the government[2]. Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public
interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of
the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any
kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices.
COUNTERPOINT
Governments are often obliged to do things that the population doesnt like raising taxes is an
obvious example. However, it is also recognised that sometimes the government has to do these things
in order to represent the long-term, best interest of its people whether or not it is a popular measure
at the time.

44

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT ADVERTISING IS HARMFUL

Advertising has grown to be an industry worth many billions of dollars across the world. Online
advertising alone is believed to be worth $24 billion a year 1. Almost all public space has some
advertisements in sight and all forms of media, from newspapers to the cinema, are also filled with
adverts. Whilst this helps companies sell their products, and helps consumers to learn what is on offer,
many believe that this huge amount of advertising can be harmful. It may make people want too much,
or things that they cannot have, or it might make them feel inadequate when they don't have something.
Research shows that children can be particularly open to these kinds of risk.
GOVERNMENT

There are too many advertisements in everyday life.

The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus
or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of
something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a
day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control' 1. People shouldn't
have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases,
redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace
without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement.
COUNTERPOINT
Though there are a great many advertisements in everyday life, there are not so many that they can't
simply be ignored. Advertisements attempt to get you to buy a product, if you're not interested, then
don't buy the product. For every person who finds all the advertisements stressful, another person finds
them enjoyable and something to read or watch while they make their daily journey to work or school.
Out of control could mean simply that customers think businesses are spending too much on
advertising. Without proof that the number of advertisements is having a negative effect, the point is
45

worthless.
People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.
Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between
competing demands on their attention this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload.
Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite
being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on 1. The claims of
adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable
disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the
company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was 2. Shoppers feel that a poor
purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead.
Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all.
COUNTERPOINT
People are unhappy because they can't have everything, not because they are given too much choice
and find it stressful. In fact, advertisements play a crucial role in ensuring that what money people
have, they spend on the most appropriate product for themselves. If advertisements were not permitted,
people would waste money on an initial product when, given the choice, they clearly would go for
another.
A meta-analysis incorporating research from 50 independent studies found no meaningful connection
between choice and anxiety, but speculated that the variance in the studies left open the possibility that
choice overload could be tied to certain highly specific and as yet poorly understood pre-conditions 1.
Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.
People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to
get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts
today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't
realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their
advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly
all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take
away people's freedoms to make choices.
COUNTERPOINT
Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the
viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising
are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright
colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their
image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these
choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.
Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product.
Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they
don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of
beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem,
and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the
models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm.
Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with
46

one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to
portray a limited (small) number of body shapes' 1.
COUNTERPOINT
The media and celebrity magazines do much more harm, by mocking unattractive or overweight
people, and glorifying models who are often dangerously thin. Adverts never criticise people - that
would be terrible for the companies behind them. Their aim is to understand and provide what people
want, and so their adverts only ever reflect what people think. If people's perceptions are wrong, then it
not the advertisers' job to put them right, but politicians, the media and schools.
Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.
Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they
want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and
obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the
importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their
personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole.
COUNTERPOINT
Our society is built around the idea that companies produce things that people want, and this is what
makes us prosperous. If consumers suddenly stopped wanting to buy so many products then what
happens to the people whose job it is to make them? The economy will suffer terribly. Of course some
people take materialism too far, but most people buy just what they need and then a little extra when
they treat themselves. This is a much better situation than one in which people can only afford to buy
the things they need - that would be a step backwards.

OPPOSITION

Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known.

If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well
known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a
clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested.
The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who
everyone already knows about.
COUNTERPOINT
Advertising in fact gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much
better products, but they cannot afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about
them. In the film industry, the big film studios spend more than $75 million on advertising alone 1.
Small films cannot compete. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and places a huge
roadblock to the success of small businesses.
Advertising helps us choose between different goods.
Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods.
Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful
47

computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other
adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases
advertising does not make us go shopping we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and
entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend
our money, by giving us more information about the choices available.
COUNTERPOINT
Advertising does not help us choose, it merely confuses customer who are not sure who is offering
what. This is particularly true with advertisements that compare products with other businesses. In
Britain, advertising for broadband (internet) services confuse nine out of ten people 1. With different
costs and add-ons, it's hard to for a customer to know what they are actually paying for and whether it
is better than going somewhere else. As a result, many customers end up stressed and confused.
Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.
Advertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to
ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used
celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 2007 1. Furthermore, adverts which promote
seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol
adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are
changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be
viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any
advertising problems back under control.
COUNTERPOINT
Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about
making profit. This means that they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food adverts
are a large part of the reason so many children are obese. Researchers have found that children aged
6-13 who were shown commercials for junk food were more likely to pick meals that were bad for
them1. The adverts just try to make children eat as much bad food as possible without any concern for
the health costs.
Advertising is only as annoying as you want it to be.
No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of
their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. Manchester
United's shirt sponsorship deal with Aon is worth 80 million. For the small annoyance of having to
have a logo on the shirt, the football club can afford to buy new players and hopefully win more games.
And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past
adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them.
COUNTERPOINT
It is hard to ignore advertising when it is everywhere in modern life. Advertising may be welcomed by
companies which profit from their sponsorship, but fans do not like it nor necessarily want it.
Barcelona in Spain went without commercial advertising on their shirts for a long time, proving
sponsorship is not necessary to win trophies and buy players.

48

THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN BOXING.

Boxing, the physical skill of fighting with fists, originated as a sport around 800BC.[1] It is a sport of
antiquity that has had a troubled and contentious livelihood. The modern day sport has developed from
rules and standards established since this time; with two participation forms: professional and amateur.
Each has its own rules, although for both forms of boxing, a win is achieved by scoring more points
than an opponent by delivering more blows to the designated scoring regions of the body (trunk and
head), or by an opponent being unable to complete a bout. 4 When first started, this sport was designed
as entertainment for aristocrats who enjoyed watching two people slug it out to the death.[2] That
history has continued into the present day sport which is a largely entertainment based activity, with
millions of dollars of investment at the highest of levels. The potential dangers of the sport are a
double-edged sword - they create both the entertainment aspect that makes boxing popular, but also run
the risk of ending the sport altogether. In the 20 th Century, approximately 1000 boxers died in the ring,
or shortly afterwards.[3] The youngest death was in a 12-year old participant. In the first decade of this
21st Century, an additional 68 participants have died as a result of their participation in boxing. Such
deaths are more common in professional boxing, but deaths in amateur boxing have also been reported.
Thousands more boxers have suffered permanent disfigurement, detached retinas in their eyes and
49

various neurological complaints. Unfortunately for the sport, the most well-recognised and revered of
all of its participants - Mohammed Ali - is now seen shuffling and mumbling as a result of Parkinsons
Disease which many incorrectly contribute to his boxing career. While neurological conditions
(including chronic traumatic encephalopathy - which has almost exactly the same symptoms and signs
as seen with Parkinsons Disease) have been reported at high rates in former boxers, Ali is not one of
its victims.
Despite a tightening of safety regulations, neurological and non-neurological injuries have continued
with this sport[4]. Most medical associations have policies against boxing, including the World
Medical Association and the national bodies of the USA, Britain and Australia. Although the tightness
of regulations upon boxing varies from country to country, and from state to state within countries,
only a handful of countries have any kind of ban in place. Sweden is one country that bans professional
boxing, although amateur boxing remains an Olympic sport.
As safety concerns over boxing have grown, high schools in most western countries have stopped
offering it as a sport. Yet overall enthusiasm for boxing is at an all-time high; television audiences are
up and record numbers of youngsters across the world are joining boxing clubs. In Britain the young
Olympic silver medallist Amir Khan, who turned professional in 2005 and quickly won the title of
World super lightweight champion, is a popular hero and role model. In a number of western countries
where amateur boxing was losing popularity, especially the United States, interest has been renewed in
the past ten years by the rise of womens boxing and by white-collar boxing for office workers in their
lunch-breaks. On the other hand, the large number of organisations claiming to be world bodies for
boxing (e.g. WBA, WBO, IBF, etc), each with their own world champions, has damaged the credibility
of the sport. Many people have also disliked the sight of aging former champions coming out of
retirement in their forties or later, tempted by one last big purse.
The arguments below ask if boxing should be banned. Most apply to both the professional and amateur
sports, but the last points deal particularly with banning the professional game while leaving amateur
boxing legal. The arguments would also apply to most other forms of combat sport, for example cagefighting.
GOVERNMENT
Boxing is a barbaric sport, and it should not be a part of any 21st century society.
Unlike in any other sport, boxers intend to physically injure their opponents by knockout. Allowing
people to intentionally inflict injuries upon others for public entertainment and private profit is
barbaric. Children especially are trained in these ways. When boxers turn professional, they have often
already fought in at least 50 fights in their youth, which does not include the countless rounds of
sparring during training sessions. Boxers are essentially being trained in violent ways, often at a young
age. The Australian Medical Association actively opposes boxing for this reason, calling it, a public
demonstration of interpersonal violence which is unique among sporting activities.[1] While there are
other rough sports, boxing is different because itsintent is harmful. The World Medical Association,
which also opposes the sport, justifies this position by noting, its basic intent is to produce bodily
harm in the opponent.[2] Boxing is a violent sport, in which youth are taught to try to hurt their peers.
It has no place in modern society.
COUNTERPOINT
Labeling boxing barbaric merely expresses ones disapproval of it rather than suggesting reasons
50

why it should be banned. People need to separate their ethical/moral judgements about the sport from
their evidence-based scientific/medical reasons for banning it. Most people who call for a ban on
boxing have no understanding of the fight game beyond a gut disapproval of it. The appeal of boxing
lies in its simplicity, the distillation of the sporting contest to its most basic form a physical battle
between two people. There is no intent in boxing to injure the opponent; it is merely to score more
points than the opponents by hitting them within defined scoring regions of the body. Critics are more
likely to attack boxing because it is more obviously a fight, rather than a game with a ball in which the
athletes hit and tackle one another anyway.
The celebrity status that societies award to boxers glamorizes and legitimizes violence in society.
Boxers are presented as beacons of success for young people, but they are not good role models.
Children should not idolize people who make a living by injuring other people. In addition to the
violence in the ring, brawls often break out at press conferences and even inside boxing venues. The
marketing of boxing exalts this mindless violence and those who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a
particularly harmful example. Tyson was one of the most popular and successful boxers in history,
when he faced Evander Holyfield in the most hyped fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a portion of
Holyfields ear in the fight, on live television.[1] These are not role models of which we should be
proud.
COUNTERPOINT
Every sport has the potential to glamorize and legitimise things that outside of sport we may not accept
as appropriate. Boxing is one of the least bad culprits when it comes to promoting negative stereotypes
to society. Far more dangerous is the 'sport' of professional wrestling where the violence is not part of
a contest but a macho soap opera. Participants are routinely 'hit' over the head with metal objects to
apparently no consequence, which sends out dangerous signals to the youngsters who form the
majority of the audience. Boxing, on the other hand, only encourages its athletes to score points by
hitting the body and/or head of their opponent. Mike Tyson is an extreme example, and he was severely
punished for the Holyfield incident, being fined $3 million and sent to jail. If you want an example of a
boxer who had morals, ethics and believed in something - you cant go beyond Mohammed Ali as an
exemplar role model for justice, belief and societal values. Even if it doesnt set the greatest example
for kids, most boxing is on late in the evening anyway and its impact on youngsters is therefore less
damaging than that of other sports.
All professional boxing should be banned, not amateur boxing.
When most people think of boxingthe sport that they see on TVthey are thinking particularly of
professional boxing, which is much worse. The main difference is that in amateur boxing the round
lengths are often shorter as are the number of rounds and more protective equipment is worn. Therefore
the level of exposure is minimised. As a result, 76 participants out of every million die, in professional
boxing, but only six per million die in amateur boxing. That makes professional boxing more than 12
times more dangerous than amateur boxing.[1] The fact remains, however, that professional boxing is
violent, barbaric, and dangerous, so it should be banned.
[1] Svinth, Death under the Spotlight.
Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.
The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head
from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer
51

survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a
greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury. A doctor who has studied the effect of boxing on
Parkinsons specifically says that boxing causes unnecessary harm. He writes, Unlike most
degenerative neurologic diseases, this disorder can be prevented.[1]Although the incidence of injury
is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far
greater. That risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer
people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged.
COUNTERPOINT
Just because medical associations dont like something, it doesnt mean they have the right to
determine what individuals can and do choose to do with their recreation or work time. Given the
scant medical evidence against boxing, it is highly hypocritical of medical associations which
supposedly work on an evidence-based approach to suggest it should be banned. Although there are
risks of injury in boxing, boxers are aware of the realities of their sport and are willing to take on this
risk. This is the very mantra by which informed consent in medical procedures is allowed - so why not
for participation in boxing? We allow individuals to take risks in all walks of life - in business,
smoking, gambling and other activities. Every attempt is made to ensure that the risk of injury to
boxers is minimised: thorough medical checks; doctors and appropriate equipment present ringside;
and referees to intervene to stop fights. The best thing that governments and medical associations can
do is to minimise the risks of injury to boxers.
Additionally, much recent now indicates that while chronic neurological injuries were common in
boxers who fought in the early part of the 20 th Century, this is no longer the case due to improved
regulations and huge reductions in exposure risk for modern day boxers.[1] Therefore, there is no
basis on which to use old data to make a case for banning current day boxing.
More important than that anecdotal evidence, however, is the fact that boxing is no more dangerous
than other sports and work activities. Worldwide, the risk to professional boxers is less than that to
professional athletes in general.[2][3] Moreover, as Joseph Svinth writes, both amateur boxers and
high-school football players are much less likely to die of athletic injuries than they are to die in
Moms car on the way to or from practice. He indeed shows that the death rates per outing for cars
tend to be higher than the death rate per fight for boxers.[4]
Boxing is famously exploitative, but a ban could prevent youth from falling into the sports
economic trap.
To be successful, boxers have to train for 8 hours a day 6 days a week, spending the best years of their
lives in the gym. Because most boxers lack a formal education and spend all their time in the gym they
employ managers to handle their business affairs; very often the boxers entourage control the fighters
destiny. This relationship can be exploitative given the inequality of bargaining power and the fact that
most boxers need to make as much money as they can before they are worn out. An average boxer will
have about 30-40 top-level professional bouts in them before their health and skills will dramatically
deteriorate. Whilst it may well be in the fighters interest to hang-up his gloves, those around him have
a financial incentive to push fighters into more and more title defences or comebacks. The decisions
that older boxers make provide further proof that they feel they have been exploited: over 80% of older
boxers surveyed in Chicago said that they did not want their children to be boxers.[1]
The truth is that boxers are only treated as money-making devices by their promoters and the boxing
industry. When American boxer Leavander Johnson died after a fight in 2005, his promoter told the
press, I dont think theres anyone to blame here other than the circumstances. Hes a victim of his
52

own courage.[2] This shows promoters desire to exploit boxers courage and willingness to put
themselves at risk, without having any regret for such a dangerous system. Oftentimes the promoters
actively make it more dangerous, exploiting their clients for criminal ends. In his exploration of boxing
deaths throughout history, Joseph Svinth finds that in addition to health reasons, many deaths were
criminal, with the promoter playing the dual role of gangster.[3] Its time to break up this industry
before any more young athletes get taken advantage of in a bad way.
COUNTERPOINT
That people participate in boxing for the money is one of the most often reported, but incorrect
statements. Very few fighters compete in the sport for the money - they do it for the sport. In fact, very
few ever make money out of it - most participants - even those that are professional - still work fulltime to pay for their participation in the sport. The people who make money out of boxing are the
promoters, sports venue operators, television and about 1% of fighters.
Boxers love the one-on-one aspect of it; no tools, no resources, just you, your opponent, your training
and your belief. Thats what gets them in the ring and thats what keeps them there.
It is true that many boxers come from lower socio-economic backgrounds - but that does not
necessarily mean they will be exploited. In some cases, boxing provides these people with a family, a
drive for existence, a place where they can show who they are and do something they can be proud of.
It doesnt have to be exploitive - we could put limitations and regulations on promoters and trainers to
make it better. It is a rare fighter who participates because he/she likes to be violent. That is more often
the case for the people who aspire to be boxers, rather than those who actually compete in the ring. For
those that fight, there is a discipline and commitment that is needed, that if they were just doing it for
violence or thrill - they wouldnt last long.

OPPOSITION
Boxing is a beloved culture and one that inspires youth and work around the world.
The simple reason why boxing should not be banned is because it brings joy and entertainment to so
many people, without providing harm. The government has no right to stop this practice from
continuing. French sociologist Loc Wacquant argues that the boxers themselves are the best evidence
in support of the sport. When people talk about banning boxing, he writes, one voice is invariably
drowned out and lost: that of the fighters themselves.[1] So many children dedicate themselves so that
one day they might become successful boxers. We cannot take away this dream.
COUNTERPOINT
Youth could still be inspired and it would be part of the culture through amateur boxing. As a first step,
professional boxing at least should be banned, as is already the case in countries like Sweden, Cuba
and North Korea. Even if adults wish to fight each other for sport, violence should not be encouraged
by financial reward. The amateur sport is at least much better regulated, with credible governing
bodies and tough rules on wearing helmets, the length of fights, the role of the referee, etc. Knock-outs
are very rare and serious injuries much less common than in the professional game (although there are
still deaths each year in amateur boxing).
Boxing is dominated by the working classes and a ban would rob many people of opportunity to
participate in a sport that requires discipline and commitment.
A ban on boxing would be classist, because it would disproportionately hurt the working class. Most
53

people who want to ban boxing are more well-off people who are turned off by its gritty nature. This is
an aesthetic complaint that is most often based on an ethical or moral judgement against the sport,
when the fact of the matter is that boxing is not especially violent for members of the working class
and it provides great opportunity for those who are skilled at the sport. The risk of death to professional
boxers is lower than the risk for most manual laborers. U.S. construction workers, for example, are
more than three times more likely to die on the job than professional boxers are to die from the sport.
U.S. farm workers are more than five times more likely.[1] Boxing is a great opportunity for members
of the working class, and banning it would hurt them especially.
Boxing rules and regulations should be strengthened, not banned.
Boxing should not be banned; whatever problems there are with the sport can be fixed with reforms.
The World Health Organization has called for tighter regulation, including Simple rules, such as
requiring medical clearance, national passports to prevent boxers from fighting under more than one
name, restricting fights for fixed periods after knockouts, requiring that ringside physicians be paid by
the state and not the promoter, and making sure that the boxers are aware of the potential long-term
consequence of boxing may help protect boxers to some degree.[1] The Australian Medical
Association additionally recommends that media coverage of boxing should be subject to control
codes similar to those which apply to television screening of violence.[2]Finally, the World Medical
Association suggests that all matches should have a ring physician authorized to stop the fight at any
time.[3]
It has been reported that no safety regulations would be effective if head blows remain 20 - however
such authors incorrectly apportion blame on boxing for a group of diseases known as Parkinsons
Syndrome. Boxing can result in chronic traumatic neurological conditions if fighters are not well
matched, and fight without regulations in regard to their exposure. Boxing cannot cause Parkinsons
Disease or other conditions such as Alzheimers Disease as those are genetic conditions - so to include
them together as one set of conditions is incorrect and misleading.
About 80% of deaths are caused by head, brain, and neck injuries,[4] so the removal of the head as a
scoring region may make a huge difference to the injury outcomes for this sport. However it would also
change the very nature of the sport; and may mean people wont participate in it. Ultimately,
governments should do what they can to make boxing as safe as possible, without losing the essence of
the sport or banning it entirely.
COUNTERPOINT
The reality of boxing is that no matter what precautions are taken, blows to the head will always lead
to the medical problems that have caused so many injuries and deaths. In his study of Parkinsons
syndrome in boxers, Joseph Friedman concludes that no safety regulations would have helped the
plight of our former boxing superstarsin the slightest.[1] The suggestion that the head should be
taken out of the target area is equivalent to suggesting that football should be played without goals. It
clearly would not preserve the essence of the sport. There is no evidence that head-guards prevent
anything but cuts, and they can even exacerbate certain injuries. Paradoxically, shortening rounds
may lead to greater incidence of injuries as instead of out-pointing an opponent over 12 rounds, boxers
would have a greater incentive to go for knockout punches. No matter what the government might do
to the sport, boxing will always be violent and dangerous. The only option is to ban it.
A ban would not remove boxing from society; it would only drive it underground, creating a
much more dangerous culture around the sport.

54

Throughout history we have seen that placing blanket bans on things (alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs,
cockfighting, etc) do not work. People will still find a way to do what they want and when you remove
the ability to regulate something by ignoring its existence, you have the potential to create more
problems. There is certainly the potential that such is the popularity of and desire to see boxing that a
ban would just drive it underground, where fights would be unregulated and unsupervised by qualified
medics. Crowd trouble can also be a problem at boxing venues, and unless the proper security
arrangements are made, many people could be hurt. The safety of boxers and fans should be paramount
and therefore to minimise the risk of injuries to all it should remain legal but regulated.
One of the reasons for such popularity of the sport in recent years is the increasing use of boxing
training as a fitness approach in gyms and other training venues. There is such an acknowledgement of
the effectiveness of boxing training as a training approach that banning boxing clubs will make it
difficult for people who are doing legitimate training to do so.
COUNTERPOINT
It is not a valid argument to claim that boxing would 'go underground'. Dog fighting and cockfighting
were banned to protect the welfare of the (admittedly non-consenting) combatants. Consent, however,
is not the important issue - welfare is. When cockfights come to the attention of the police the
perpetrators receive hefty penalties. These penalties are an effective deterrent to these 'sports' and they
are now all but extinct in most countries. A boxing ban would also deprive the sport of television
exposure, which would cut off its primary source of revenue. The government would also shut down
boxing clubs, making it harder for people to fight and train. All of these factors would prevent boxing
from thriving underground.
Banning boxing would force people to channel their aggression into more harmful, violent
activities.
There is no conclusive scientific evidence linking increased contact sport participation with being more
violent in social settings. Such statements make it sound as thought we would have not violence in
society if all contact sport was removed - and we all know that is untrue. Boxing isnt about violent
aggression, it is about controlled aggression - this is very different to violent behaviours. In a report on
violent sports in schools, conducted by the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a martial-arts instructor
explained, Contact and combat sports allow students to deal with their aggression in a safe
environment, rather than in the context of the classroom or school hallway.[1] This type of outlet is
not only important for youth, but for adults as well.
COUNTERPOINT
Encouraging people to fight in the ring encourages them to fight outside of the ring as well. Violent
sports like boxing dont provide an outlet for people who would otherwise be violent; they actually
train people to become violent. Studies have repeatedly linked sports to violent activity outside of
competition. One paper published in the American Sociological Review concluded, there is a strong
relationship between contact sports and violence.[1] Boxing is the quintessential contact sport, and
so it should be banned because it encourages violence in and out of the ring.

55