DEBATE MOTIONS

1. THBT would support nuclear.

As of today, nuclear energy is considered as one of the most environmentally friendly
source of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of
electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants.
While being environmentally friendly is the big plus of nuclear energy, disposal of
radioactive waste and protecting people and environment from its radiations is a big cons of
nuclear energy.
The reason that i say that is because,
# Pros of nuclear energy :

1. Low Pollution: Nuclear power also has a lot fewer greenhouse emissions. It has been
determined that the amount of greenhouse gases have decreased by almost half because of
the prevalence in the utilization of nuclear power. Nuclear energy has the least effect on
nature since it doesn’t discharge any gasses like methane and carbon dioxide, which are the
primary “greenhouse gasses.” There is no unfavorable impact on water, land or any
territories because of the utilization of nuclear power, except in times where transportation
is utilized.

2. Low Operating Costs: Nuclear power produces very inexpensive electricity. The cost of
the uranium, which is utilized as a fuel in this process, is low. Also, even though the expense
of setting up nuclear power plants is moderately high, the expense of running them is quite
low low. The normal life of nuclear reactor is anywhere from 40-60 years, depending on
how often it is used and how it is being used. These variables, when consolidated, make the
expense of delivering power low. Even if the cost of uranium goes up, the impact on the
cost of power will be that much lower.

3. Reliability: It is estimated that with the current rate of consumption of uranium, we have
enough uranium for another 70-80 years. A nuclear power plant when in the mode of
producing energy can run uninterrupted for even a year. As solar and wind energy are
dependent upon weather conditions, nuclear power plant has no such constraints and can
run without disruption in any climatic condition.
There are sure monetary focal points in setting up nuclear power plants and utilizing
nuclear energy in lieu of traditional energy. It is one of the significant sources of power all
through the country. The best part is that this energy has a persistent supply. It is broadly
accessible, there is a lot in storage, and it is believed that the supply is going to last much,
much longer than that of fossil fuels that are used in the same capacity.
4. More Proficient Than Fossil Fuels: The other primary point of interest of utilizing nuclear
energy is that it is more compelling and more proficient than other energy sources. A
number of nuclear energy innovations have made it a much more feasible choice than
others. They have high energy density as compared to fossil fuels. The amount of fuel
required by nuclear power plant is comparatively less than what is required by other power
plants as energy released by nuclear fission is approximately ten million times greater than
the amount of energy released by fossil fuel atom.
This is one the reason that numerous nations are putting a lot of time and money into
nuclear power.What’s nuclear power’s greatest benefit, above any other benefit that we
may explore? It doesn’t rely on fossil fuels and isn’t influenced by fluctuating oil and gas
costs. Coal and natural gas power plants discharge carbon dioxide into the air, which causes
a number of environmental issues. With nuclear power plants, carbon emissions are
insignificant.

5. Renewable : Nuclear energy is not renewable resource. Uranium, the nuclear fuel that is
used to produced nuclear energy is limited and cannot be produced again and again on
demand. On the other hand, by using breeder and fusion reactors, we can produce other
fissionable element. One such element is called plutonium that is produced by the by-
products of chain-reaction. Also, if we know how to control atomic fusion, the same
reactions that fuel the sun, we can have almost unlimited energy.

# Cons of nuclear energy :

1. Environmental Impact: One of the biggest issues is environmental impact in relation to

uranium. The process of mining and refining uranium hasn’t been a clean process. Actually
transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants represents a pollution hazard. Also, once the
fuel is used, you can’t simply take it to the landfill – it’s radioactive and dangerous.

2. Radioactive Waste Disposal: As a rule, a nuclear power plant creates 20 metric tons of
nuclear fuel per year, and with that comes a lot of nuclear waste. When you consider each
nuclear plant on Earth, you will find that that number jumps to approximately 2,000 metric
tons a year. The greater part of this waste transmits radiation and high temperature,
implying that it will inevitably consume any compartment that holds it. It can also cause
damage to living things in and around the plants.
Nuclear power plants create a lot of low-level radioactive waste as transmitted parts and
supplies. Over time, used nuclear fuel decays to safe radioactive levels, however this takes a
countless number of years. Even low level radioactive waste takes hundreds of years to
achieve adequate levels of safety.
3. Nuclear Accidents: The radioactive waste produced can pose serious health effects on the
lives of people as well as the environment. The Chernobyl accident that occurred on 26 April
1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine was the worst nuclear accident in the
history. Its harmful effects on humans and ecology can still be seen today. Then there was
another accident that happened in Fukushima in Japan. Although the casualties were not
that high, but it caused serious environmental concerns.

4. High Cost: At present, the nuclear business let waste cool for a considerable length of
time before blending it with glass and putting away it in enormous cooled, solid structures.
This waste must be kept up, observed and watched to keep the materials from falling into
the wrong hands and causing problems. These administrations and included materials cost
cash – on top of the high expenses needed to put together a plant, which may make it less
desirable to invest in. It requires permission from several international authorities and it is
normally opposed by the people who live in that region.

5. Uranium is Finite: Just like other sources of fuel, uranium is also finite and exists in few of
the countries. It is pretty expensive to mine, refine and transport uranium. It produces
considerable amount of waste during all these activities and can result in environmental
contamination and serous health effects, if not handled properly.

6. Hot Target for Militants: Nuclear energy has immense power. Today, nuclear energy is
used to make weapons. If these weapons go into the wrong hands, that could be the end of
this world. Nuclear power plants are prime target for terrorism activities. Little lax in
security can be brutal for humankind.

2. THBT government to disturb internet service on ground of national

security

# Pros :
Arguably, the main function of any government is to ensure the survival of the state and its
citizens through economic, military, or political measures. That is why, in times of war, or
imminent threat to national security, governments are legally entitled to adopt
extraordinary measures, like restricting freedom of movement and communication, freezing
of assets, or confiscation of property. Such measures are deemed necessary in a state of
emergency to safeguard the safety of citizens, and are only meant to apply during the time
of crisis.
The reason that i say that is because,
1. Internet censorship would reduce the amount of false information that is available.
Although we see the Internet as a place where everyone can have the chance to visit sites
or speak their minds, it turns out that a lot of what happens online is actually fake. Research
studies published in 2018 suggest that less than 60% of the traffic found online is human.
That number can be significantly lower in some years as well. In 2013, YouTube found that
over half of this traffic were just bots masquerading as people.
2. Internet censorship could have a positive role for individual security.
The dark web is a place where stolen data can find lucrative prices. Although not everything
there is illegal, it is easier to find information about others that can lead to identity theft or
worse. Experian published a report in 2018 about how much specific items of personal
identity are worth to thieves in this Internet space. Here are some of their findings.
• The price of a valid Social Security number is $1.
• Thieves will pay up to $1,000 for accurate medical records.
• Passports from the United States sell for up to $2,000.
• Your driver’s license or loyalty accounts are worth $20 each.
Internet censorship would give law enforcement an opportunity to stop these behaviors
without restricting access to other people.
3. Internet censorship could provide a boost to national security provisions as well.
Anyone who says that it is possible to stop hackers does not fully understand the
technology is involved. Internet censorship will not stop this behavior. What it can do is
provide society with a list of laws, regulations, and penalties to expect when a violation
occurs. When we create the possibility of being able to set an example for what happens
when rules are broken, then it creates a detrimental effect on others who might be
considering a similar behavior.
4. Internet censorship could place limits on human trafficking activities.
The dark web is a place for more than just thieves. You can find links that take you to sites
where you can purchase illicit drugs, download child pornography, access hate literature,
getting involved with sex trafficking, and much worse. Internet censorship would give local
authorities a way to prevent distribution of these materials when they are discovered
instead of working from a reactive process.
5. Internet censorship offers us an opportunity to create limits that are based on common
sense.
There are elements of the Internet which don’t have to be on the dark web to be disturbing
for some individuals. Online posts in recent years have become a way to create infamy for
people who are trying to leave this world with guns blazing – literally. A Facebook Live video
which showed the murder of 74-year-old Robert Godwin, Sr. was watched at least 1.6
million times before it became unavailable. The gruesome footage was live for at least three
hours before the video was taken down.
It is a global phenomenon. Three men were arrested for sexual assault when they streamed
the activity life to a private Facebook group. The video was disabled in 23 minutes, but it
still made an impact on those who got to see it. You can literally get 15 minutes of infamy
with technology today. Internet censorship could help to put a stop to it.
6. Internet censorship allows us to operate in a global world.
Tech companies often comply with borders that appear to be a method of Internet
censorship because of their legal responsibilities as an international company. These
organizations must go to great lengths to comply with local laws so that they can continue
their global operations. Egypt passed a law in 2017 which banned any website that was
deemed to threaten national security. There are rules about what can be posted in
messaging apps. It may create an Internet which feels like it has less freedom, but it also
creates an opportunity to expose additional cultures to ideas that don’t include censorship.

# Cons :
1. Internet censorship gives one group of people power over another.
The primary disadvantage with the idea of Internet censorship is that someone or a specific
group must be given power over others to filter what becomes accessible for the average
person. Even if someone with “correct” morals and ethics were put in charge of this project,
then who would oversee their activities? And then who would oversee the overseer? We
eventually get to a level where someone or an organization has responsibility for this
process without a requirement to report to someone else. Whoever would have that role
would be the supreme position to control global information.
2. Internet censorship shifts accountability.
When a government or another entity declares what is permissible for someone to see
online, then any responsibility for personal decisions is no longer present in that society.
People could justify their actions because no one was telling them to stop. When someone
is willing to let go of that control, it becomes easier to let others rule over additional areas
of their lives as well.
3. Internet censorship is a costly process.
Research published by Brookings in 2015 found that the countries who practice Internet
censorship spend about $2.5 billion each year on this activity. When Egypt decided to cut
connectivity for users within their borders, the cost was roughly $100 million that had to
come from a different budget line. Then there are the positive economic benefits of
broadband access to consider, which can total up to $90 billion per year for developed
societies. Who is going to pay for these costs? The consumers who are being restricted from
the Internet in the first place.
4. Internet censorship prevents the flow of information.
Information published by the World Economic Forum found that one in four people on the
Internet today are living in a country where Internet censorship is common. Roughly 40
governments processed criminal charges against individuals because of their conduct that
was tracked online. In the nations where censorship is at its highest levels, a simple action
that many people take for granted, liking a post on social media, is enough for an arrest
warrant to be signed.
This issue is more than a decade old when bloggers took to the Internet to speak out against
the repressive governments. The Guardian reported in 2008 that the average sentence
handed out to someone for speaking their mind online was 15 months.
5. Internet censorship limits economic opportunities.
When a government passes legislation that permits Internet censorship, then everyone
must go through an approval process to have their content published. That means
entrepreneurs would need to present their ideas before government officials without a
guarantee that they could start to build a business. Corporations would be forced to seek
out permission to have their website become available to the general public. In extreme
circumstances, individuals would have their social media profiles constantly examined by
law enforcement to ensure they were complying with local laws.
In the past, Internet censorship problems involved governments that were placing filtering
mechanisms online to prevent access. Today’s primary threat is a company located in Silicon
Valley who is willing to listen to the takedown requests of foreign governments. Netflix
recently joined this trend when they took down an episode of Hasan Minhaj’s show at the
request of Saudi Arabia.
6. Internet censorship leads to lower levels of intelligence.
When people are exposed to a new idea for long enough, then it begins to feel normal to
them. There is a desensitization process which eventually allows someone to accept their
circumstances when they normally would not. We already see this effect in the United
States with the numerous stories of gun violence that occur. Repetitive information, no
matter how negative it may be, will eventually cause society to become numb. If we permit
Internet censorship to continue as it is today, then one day the new normal will be a lack of
freedom online instead of what we have right now.
7. Internet censorship is a restriction of free speech.
The Supreme Court of the United States constantly reaffirms that hate speech is a protected
item under the constitutional provisions of free speech. Someone can attack a group or
person verbally based on their attributes, which might include race, national origin, gender
identity, spiritual identity, or ethnic origin. Some people direct hate speech toward
individuals with disabilities. If you look at the average Facebook comment chain about
politics, you’ll see a lot of hate speech there too.
As much as we would like to take a common-sense approach to censoring this type of
speech, Internet censorship creates a precedent where anyone who becomes offended by
anything could petition for damages because of a comment that is left. There are categories
which are not protected, such as a call from violence against people or groups, but once we
give someone power over one item, then how long is it before we do so over others too?
8. Internet censorship reduces the economic impact of online communities.
Once we begin to declare that specific items are good and others are bad, then we start
creating an influence that shifts the economics of the society. Imagine the Internet being a
place where a company can no longer promote itself because their competitor files a
complaint that says those activities violate their rights. That is a real possibility when
discussing Internet censorship because the people who make the laws tend to be influenced
by the groups which make the most money in society.
9. Internet censorship is a way to maintain social control.
When Saudi Arabia gave Netflix a takedown request, it was a symptom of a darker disease.
The laws, cultural norms, institutional processes, and various other mechanisms involved in
that society help to create high levels of social control. Internet censorship is ultimately less
about what data a government or entity decides is “inappropriate” for consumption and
more about how a powerful group wants to keep people thinking, acting, and living in
specific ways. When the people who pull the strings in society are able to influence
perceptions at the individual level, then it is easier for them to stay in power because they
are maintaining social control.

3. THBT parents should be responsible for their children time

There are many parenting styles out there. Some are highly recommended by experts, and
others — usually the more authoritarian/punishment-based ones — are thought to have
detrimental effects on a child’s development. So, should parents be responsible for their
childern time?
The reason that i say that is because,
# Pros :
All parents have a responsibility to their child until they are at least 17. That responsibility is
to insure their safety and upbringing. So when a prepubescent or even a pubescent
adolescent commits a crime it shows that the parent was not having regard for their child.
A parent has a responsibility to actively engage themselves in their children’s upbringing if
they expect their children to conform to societal norms. A parent who doesn’t make it a
point to know what their children are doing, and even thinking when possible, for example,
can be expected to be surprised by unexpected and even possibly undesired activities. It is
their responsibility as parents to redirect their children away from actions we don’t want
them to engage in as they occur. If they fail to do that consistently then they are just as
responsible for the results of those actions as the children themselves.
Even from a biological standpoint children should not be held solely responsible from their
poor choices. The frontal cortex of the brain changes and matures well into adulthood, and
during that changing process children think quite differently than mature adults. The frontal
cortex of the brain controls reasoning, and it’s the part of the brain that allows us to think
before we act on impulse. Brain scans have shown that a teen’s brain actually functions
differently than a fully mature adult during problem solving and decision making.
Some parents are very good and teach their kids at home and the kids decide not to listen
to them and do their own thing. Also some kids hang out with the wrong friends and the
parents don't even know about it and the kid is out sneaking around without the parent
knowing thinking that they are getting away with something when really in the long run it
will catch up with them. They are being influenced by the outside world and even though
their parents are doing their best going to work providing and sending them to school the
kids are still going down the wrong road, with the wrong people.
If the parents did not have a good influene than the children may do things that are not
right but think they are because of the things that their parents do. Children need to be
educated with the right things and if their parents can't do that than they should be held
responsibel for their kids actions.

# Cons :
Parents are not their children. Children are their own person. The parents should not be
held responsible for their children's actions. Children have control over their own mind no
one is making them do anything. They could have the best parents or even the worst and
still do the things that they do. Parents do the best they can to make sure their child has
every thing they need. When something happens they don't blame someone else they
blame that person that is responsible for the problem, this is the same situation. No one
controls what they do, parents can only help the childs do the right thing. So, blame the
childern for their actions not the parents.
When children get to be at an age where they are able to make their own decision if their
choice to make the action they should be held accountable. Some parents are not even
aware of some of the actions their kids participate in, and sometimes parents are not
 physically able to even worry about their kids and the behavior they give off. Morally a
mother/father or legal guardian may feel responsible but should they be held accountable
legally ? No they shouldn’t be. Even when they do not have a stable home, they as a child
should want to do better and be better than what their parent was.
Not all parents are aware of what their kids are doing.Some kids sneak around and hang
with the wrong friends and get into the wrong things. Most time kids do have a really stable
and good parent its just the friends that they surround their self by influence them to do
wrong and make the wrong choice. And most the time the parent does not know so they
should not be held responsible for what they do not know. And some parents really do try
and they send their kids to school and dress them right and have the best interest in heart
for them but they just don't follow the pave way that they have lay out for them.
Parents are human. Not every kid is raised the same but if your child gets in some type of
trouble that kid should learn from his or hers mistakes. Parents do all they can to make their
children have good life. It’s unfair to parent to be accountable for the child actions. The
child should learn from their mistakes because when the child gets in some type of trouble
the first person they will call is one of the parents. Kids need discipline soon or later they
will learn.

4. THBT increase the tax

Governments impose taxes on individuals and businesses to cover operating expenses
and finance projects. Taxes can be levied at the local, state and federal levels on income,
sales, property and other activities. While some level of taxation is necessary to fund
government operations, excessive taxation can have negative consequences. Taxation is
a controversial economic and political issue, so people are likely to disagree about the
advantages and disadvantages of taxes depending on their personal opinions.

# Pros :
• When economic times are tough, the government needs to look at ways of bringing in
more money. Increasing taxes on the wealthy makes sense, as they are the ones who are
most able to afford tax increases.
• A progressive tax system can prevent wealth discrepancies from getting too large. When
the gap between rich and poor gets beyond a certain point, there is an increased risk of
social instability and strife, such as crime and political turmoil. Big differences in wealth are
also seen by many economists as one of the factors that led to the Wall Street Crash in
1929.
• Taxing the rich can also be justified on moral grounds, if it is used as a form of wealth
redistribution, with the tax money raised being used to aid the poorest sections of the
population.
• Countries such as Australia, Sweden and Canada all do well in terms of economic growth,
despite them having high taxes.
• Since the 1970s, the income of the wealthiest members of society has increased
dramatically, while the income levels for the rest of society have barely moved in real
terms, which means that adjustments need to be made.
• Money is needed to pay for defense, health, education, social security, etc and it has to
come from somewhere.

# Cons :
• Governments already waste much of the money that they collect. If taxes are increased, all
that will happen is that the government will just have more money to waste and there will
be no incentive for them to spend efficiently.
• Raising taxes acts as a disincentive for individuals and businesses to make money. Some of
the most talented people and businesses will leave the country and find somewhere with
lower taxes, if they feel that their efforts are not being rewarded sufficiently.
• There is no public appetite for adopting higher taxes and the high taxation rates that were
used in the past are now seen as a failure. High taxes in the past slowed the economy and
lead towards stagnation.
• Cutting taxes for business has been shown on numerous occasions to actually increase
overall revenue. Increasing taxes, on the other hand, just makes businesses alter their
investment, spending and tax behaviors in order to find ways of cutting their tax
expenditure, which generally leads to an overall decrease in revenue for the government.
• Higher taxes inevitably lead to a reduction in investment, as the people most likely to
invest have their money supply hit. If there is less investment, then there are less
businesses and unemployment increases. With more people out of work, there is less
money being spent and the economy goes into a downward spiral.
• Increasing taxes for the wealthiest is socially divisive and encourages a class war situation
where the poor and middle class begin to resent the rich, and the rich, who find
themselves paying an increasing share of the tax bill, resent the poor and the middle class
in return.
5. THBT formal education is more important than informal one
Education is the imparting and acquiring of knowledge through teaching and learning,
especially at a school or similar institution. Education developed from the human struggle
for survival and enlightenment. It may be formal or informal. Informal education refers to
the general social process by which human beings acquire the knowledge and skills needed
to function in their culture. Formal education refers to the process by which teachers
instruct students in courses of study within institutions.

# Pros :
Formal Structure: Formal schooling system has a disciplined structure. The students are taught by
well-trained professors. There are proper timelines and routines which a school follows.

RTI ACT: After the introduction of RTI act, the government has made education free and
compulsory between the age of 7 to 14. This further made education available, accessible and
affordable to the minority section of society.

Socialisation: Formal schooling helps a child to commingle well with diversity. It fosters classroom
discussion, buddies etc. which help a child to mix up well with diversity.

Availability of resources & platforms: Formal schooling provides ample resources and platform
to students. Students get proper access to technical aids, libraries, laboratories etc. The student also
gets a chance to explore different platforms which is essential to promote holistic development of a
child.

Convenience to Parents: Formal schooling seems more convenient to parents because this system
allows parents to balance their professional commitments along with parenting responsibilities. The
system has a proper feedback mechanism which is more approachable to parents and this, in turn,
helps them to keep proper track and progress of their child.

# Cons :
1. Gathering and collecting the desired knowledge is easier today owing to the exhaustive media
and devices we have. Informal learning does not require any prior learning experiences or
prerequisites. All you need is the willingness to complete your learning.

2. Learning informally is more relaxing and less threatening for most people. With no exams or
projects to complete within limited schedules, many learners commit to learning a new skill or a
concept readily.

3. In an informal setting, you will find SMEs willing to share more knowledge than ever! So if you
have a group of experts in your organization, simply arrange an informal meeting and have them
share their expertise. Better yet, make them leaders in the online community where employees post
questions and they can answer them. A low-stake, no-hot-spot setting is ideal for this kind of
knowledge sharing and knowledge management.

4. Informal learning is close to natural learning. People tend to follow the pathway that best suits
their individual needs. Lifelong learning is a great example of informal learning. We acquire more
knowledge informally than formally.

5. Resistance to learn new concepts and ideas is also lower when learning is presented informally.
Adult learners strive on autonomy and self-direction. They readily complete self-generated tasks.

6. Boredom and procrastination are replaced by excitement and curiosity. Time and cost barriers are
almost non-existent in informal learning environments.

6. THBT extracurricular activitie in schoold should be formally recognized

An extracurricular activity is that activity which does not relate to the professional life based
on degrees. In most schools and educational institutions, extracurricular activities are
offered to the students, where they are not only taught on the subjects that they need to
learn, but also other things that are outside their curriculum. These activities are offered by
these institutions as a way to promote a balanced life among their students, where in some
schools, students are even required to have at least one extracurricular activity that they
can be involved in.

7. THBT survey institution in election should not exist

One of the most prominent applications of survey research is election polling. In election
years, much of the polling focuses on people’s issue preferences, engagement in the
election, opinions about the candidates, views of the campaign and voter preferences. Even
in the so-called “off years,” many of theoir polls include questions about party
identification, past voting behavior or voter reactions to events.