A Must-Have Guide To Debate

THEDEBATABASEBOOK
AMust-HaveGuideforSuccessfulDebate
REVISEDANDUPDATEDEDITION
THEEDITORSOFIDEA
IntroductionbyRobertTrapp
Published by
internationaldebateeducationassociation
4 0 0 W e s t 5 9 t h S t r e e t / N e w Yo r k , N Y 1 0 0 1 9
Copyright 2004 by
International Debate Education Association
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may
be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c o r m e c h a n i c a l , i n c l u d i n g p h o t o c o p y,
or any information storage and retrieval system, witho u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r.
The topics and arguments included in The Debatabase Book represent the work of an international group of contributors with diverse
points of view. We would like to thank the following for their contributions: James Action (UK), Heather Begg (UK), Kumar Bekbolotov
(Kyrgystan), Matt But (UK), Alex Deane (UK), Joe Devanny (UK),
Thomas Dixon (UK), Alastair Endersby (UK), Peter English (UK),
Tom Hamilton (UK), Alexis Hearndon (UK), Sebastian Isaac (UK),
Maryia Lahutsina (Belarus), Dr. Kevin J. Minch (US), Richard Mott
(UK), Vikram Nair (UK), Jacqueline Rose (UK), Jonathan Simons
(UK), Andrea Stone (US), Jason Stone (US), Richard Stupart
(South Africa), Wu-Meng Tan (Singapore), Hayden Taylor (UK),
Eleanora von Dehsen (US), Bobby Webster (UK), Robert Weekes
(UK), Marc Whitmore (UK), and especially William J. Driscoll (US).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The debatabase book : a must-have guide for successful debate / the editors of IDEA ; introduction by
R o b e r t Tr a p p . - - R e v i s e d a n d U p d a t e d E d i t i o n .
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-9720541-6-2
1. Debates and debating. I. International Debate
Education Association.
PN4181.D3945 2004
808.53--dc22
2004010958
Design by Hernn Bonomo

Printed in the USA
IDEA Press Books
2|TheDebatabaseBook
Contents
Introduction
Debate topics:
AbortiononDemand21
Advertising,TargetingofChildren23
AffirmativeAction24
Afghanistan,Invasionof26
AfricanAffairs,OutsideInterventionin28
AfricanLanguagesinAfricanSchools30
AIDSDrugsforDevelopingCountries31
Alcohol,Banningof33
AmericanCulture:ShouldItBeFeared?35
AnimalRights36
ArrangedMarriages38
ArtsSubsidies,Abolitionof40
AssassinationofaDictator42
AssistedSuicide43
BeautyContests45
BiodiversityandEndangeredSpecies47
Boxing,Abolitionof49
CampaignFinanceReform50
CapitalPunishment52
CellPhones,BanningofUseinCars53
CensorshipoftheArts55
ChemicalCastration57
ChildLabor58
ChildOffenders,StricterPunishmentfor59
China,Fearof61
CivilDisobedience63
CondomsinSchools64
ConfederateFlag,Banningof65
ConscriptionandNationalService66
CorporalPunishment:Adults67
CorporalPunishment:Children68
Corruption,Benefitsof70
CovenantMarriage71
CreationisminPublicSchools73
Cuba,DroppingofUSSanctionson75
CulturalTreasures,Returnof77
CurfewLaws79
Debate,Limitsof81
DevelopingWorldDebt,Cancellationof82
DNADatabaseforCriminals84
DrillingintheArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge87
DrugsinSports88
DrugTestinginSchools90
EconomicDevelopmentvs.Environment91
EconomicSanctionsvs.Engagement93
ElectoralCollege,Abolitionof94
EnvironmentallyLinkedAid95
EthicalForeignPolicy97
EuropeanDefenseForce98
EuropeanFederalization100
ExtremistPoliticalParties,Banningof102
Feminism103
|3
FlatTax105
FreeSpeech,Restrictionson107
FreeTrade108
GayAdoption110
GayClergy111
GayMarriage112
GaysintheMilitary114
GenePatenting115
GeneticallyModifiedFoods116
GeneticScreening118
GlobalizationandthePoor120
GlobalWarming121
God,Existenceof124
GreenhouseGases:TradingQuotas125
GunControl127
HateSpeechonCampus128
HealthCare,Universal129
HumanCloning132
HumanOrgans,Saleof134
HumanRights:Existenceof135
HumanRights:ImpositionbyForce?137
Immigration,Restrictionson138
InternationalCriminalCourt140
InternetCensorship142
Iraq,Invasionof144
IsraelandthePalestinians,USPolicytoward146
IvoryTrading147
MandatorySentencing:ThreeStrikes149
Marijuana,Legalizationof150
MinorityLanguages152
MinoritySchools153
Monarchy,Abolitionof155
Multiculturalismvs.Integration157
NationalTesting158
Nation-States160
Nuclearvs.RenewableEnergy161
NuclearWeapons,Abolitionof163
NuclearWeaponsTesting165
OlympicDream,Deathofthe167
OverpopulationandContraception169
OverseasManufacturing171
Pacifism172
ParentalResponsibility173
PoliticiansandSpecialInterests175
Polygamy177
Pornography,Banningof179
PriestlyCelibacy,Abolitionof180
Privacyvs.Security182
PrivateLivesofPublicFigures,Revealing183
Prostitution,Legalizationof184
Referenda187
Religion:SourceofConflictorPeace?188
ReligiousBelief:RationalorIrrational?189
ReparationsforSlavery191
SchoolUniforms193
SchoolVouchers194
Science:ThreattoSociety?196
SecurityandLiberty197
Self-DeterminationandNationalism199
SexEducationinSchools200
SexOffenders:PubliclyNaming201
SingleSexSchools203
4|TheDebatabaseBook
SingleSuperpower:Beneficial?204
Smoking,FurtherRestrictionson205
SpaceExploration207
StemCellResearchandTherapeuticCloning209
TermLimits211
Terrorists,Negotiatingwith212
TobaccoRegulation:AddictiveDrug?214
Two-PartySystem216
UNSecurityCouncilVeto,Abolitionof217
UNStandingArmy219
Vegetarianism221
Voting,Compulsory223
WarCrimesTribunals224
WaterResources:ACommodity?226
Whaling,LiftingtheBanon227
Workfare229
ZeroTolerancePolicing231
Topical index 233
|5
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION
Debatabaseisastartingpointontheroadtoparticipatingindebates.Thevolumeprovidesabeginningfor
thosedebaterswhowouldliketolearnaboutimportant
topicsbeingarguedinthepublicsphere.Debaterscan
use this volume as a method of discovering the basic
issues relevant to some of the more important topics
beingdiscussedinvariouspublicforums.Itwillprovide
debatersabrieflookatsomeoftheclaimsthatcanbe
usedtosupportortoopposemanyoftheissuesargued
aboutbypersonsindemocraticsocieties;itwillalsoprovidesomesketchesofevidencethatcanbeusedtosupporttheseclaims.Thisvolumeis,however,onlyastarting point. Debaters interested in becoming very good
debatersorexcellentdebaterswillneedtogobeyondthis
volumeiftheyintendtobeabletointelligentlydiscuss
theseissuesindepth.
Thisintroductionisintendedtoprovideatheoretical
frameworkwithinwhichinformationaboutargumentationanddebatecanbeviewed;noattempthasbeen
made to provide a general theory of argumentation. I
begin with some basic distinctions among the terms
communication, rhetoric, argumentation, and debate,
progress to a description of the elements of argument
thataremostcentraltodebate,andthentoadiscussion
ofhowtheseelementscanbestructuredintoclaimsto
support debate propositions. Following the discussion
ofargumentstructures,Imovetoamoredetaileddiscussion of claims and propositions and nally discuss
the kinds of evidence needed to support claims and
propositions.
Acaveatisneededbeforeproceedingtothetheoreticalportionofthisintroduction.Thisintroductiondoes
notintendtobeapractical,how-toguidetothecreation
ofarguments.Itdoesintendtoprovidetheconceptual
groundworkneededfordebaterstolearnhowtocreate
argumentsaccordingtoavarietyofmethods.
Communication,rhetoric,argumentation,and
debate
Communication, rhetoric, argumentation, and
debatearerelatedconcepts.Startingwithcommunication and proceeding to debate, the concepts become
progressivelynarrowed.Bybeginningwiththebroadest
concept,communication,andendingatthenarrowest,
debate,Iintendtoshowhowallthesetermsareinterrelated.
Communication may be dened as the process
wherebysignsareusedtoconveyinformation.Following
thisdenition,communicationisaverybroadconcept
rangingfromhuman,symbolicprocessestothemeans
thatanimalsusetorelatetooneanother.Someofthese
meansareapartofthecomplexbiologyofbothhuman
andnonhumananimals.Forinstance,thebehaviorsof
certainspeciesofbirdswhenstrangersapproachanest
oftheiryoungareapartofthebiologyofthosespecies.
Thereasonweknowthesearebiologicaltraitsisthatall
members of the species use the same signs to indicate
intrusion.Althoughallofourcommunicationabilities
including rhetorical communicationare somehow
builtintoourspeciesbiologically,allcommunicationis
notrhetorical.
The feature that most clearly distinguishes rhetoricfromotherformsofcommunicationisthesymbol.
Althoughtheabilitytousesymbolicformsofcommunicationiscertainlyabiologicaltraitofhumanbeings,
ourabilitytousesymbolsalsoallowsustouseculturally
and individually specic types of symbols. The clearest evidence that different cultures developed different
symbols is the presence of different languages among
humanbeingsseparatedgeographically.Eventhoughall
humansarebornwiththeabilitytouselanguage,some
ofuslearnRussian,othersFrench,andothersEnglish.
Introduction
|7
Theclearestexampleofsymboliccommunicationislanguage.Languageisanabstractmethodofusingsignsto
refertoobjects.Theconceptofasymboldifferentiates
rhetoricfromotherformsofcommunication.Symbols,
hencerhetoric,areabstractmethodsofcommunication.
Still, all rhetoric is not argumentation. Rhetorical
communicationcanbedividedintovariouscategories,
twoofwhicharenarrativeandmetaphor.1Justtogive
a couple of examples, the narrative mode of rhetoric
focuses on sequential time, the metaphoric mode of
rhetoricfocusesoncomparingonethingtoanother,and
the argumentative mode of rhetoric focuses on giving
reasons. All of these modes of rhetoric are useful in
debate,butthemodeofrhetoricthatismostcentralto
debateisargumentation.
Argumentation is the process whereby humans use
reasontocommunicateclaimstooneanother.According
tothisdenition,thefocusonreasonbecomesthefeaturethatdistinguishesargumentationfromothermodes
ofrhetoric.2Whenpeoplearguewithoneanother,not
only do they assert claims but they also assert reasons
theybelievetheclaimstobeplausibleorprobable.Argumentationisaprimarytoolofdebate,butitservesother
activities as well. Argumentation is, for instance, an
important tool in negotiation, conict resolution, and
persuasion.Debateisanactivitythatcouldhardlyexist
withoutargumentation.
Argumentationisusefulinactivitieslikenegotiation
and conict resolution because it can be used to help
peoplendwaystoresolvetheirdifferences.Butinsome
ofthesesituations,differencescannotberesolvedinternallyandanoutsideadjudicatormustbecalled.These
are the situations that we call debate.Thus, according
tothisview,debateisdenedastheprocessofarguing
aboutclaimsinsituationswheretheoutcomemustbe
decided by an adjudicator.The focus of this introductionisonthoseelementsofargumentationthataremost
oftenusedindebate.
In some regards this focus is incomplete because
some nonargumentative elements of communication
andrhetoricoftenareusedindebateeventhoughthey
are not the most central features of debate. Some ele-
ments of rhetoric, namely metaphor and narrative, are

veryusefultodebaters,buttheyarenotincludedinthis
introductionbecausetheyarelesscentraltodebatethan
isargumentation.Beyondnotincludingseveralrhetorical elements that sometimes are useful in debate, this
introductionalsoexcludesmanyelementsofargumentation,choosingjusttheonesthataremostcentral.Those
central elements are evidence, reasoning, claims, and
reservations.Theseelementsarethosethatphilosopher
StephenToulmin introduced in 19583 and revised 30
yearslater.4
TheElementsofArgument
Although in this introduction some of Toulmins
terminology has been modied, because of its popular
usagethemodelwillstillbereferredtoastheToulmin
model.Becauseitisonlyamodel,theToulminmodel
isonlyaroughapproximationoftheelementsandtheir
relationshipstooneanother.Themodelisnotintended
asadescriptivediagramofactualargumentsforavarietyofreasons.First,itdescribesonlythoseelementsof
an argument related to reasoning. It does not describe
otherimportantelementssuchasexpressionsoffeelings
oremotionsunlessthoseexpressionsaredirectlyrelated
toreasoning.Second,themodeldescribesonlythelinguisticelementsofreasoning.Totheextentthatanargument includes signicant nonverbal elements, they are
not covered by the model.5 Third, the model applies
only to the simplest of arguments. If an argument is
composed of a variety of warrants or a cluster of evidencerelatedtotheclaimindifferentways,themodel
maynotapplywell,ifatall.Despitetheseshortcomings,
thismodelhasprovenitselfusefulfordescribingsome
ofthekeyelementsofargumentsandhowtheyfunction
together. The diagrams shown on the following pages
illustratetheToulminmodel.
The basicToulmin model identies four basic elementsofargument:claim,data(whichwecallevidence),
warrant,andreservation.Themodelofargumentismost
easilyexplainedbyatravelanalogy.Theevidenceisthe
argumentsstartingpoint.Theclaimisthearguersdes-
1.AsfarasIknow,noonehassuccessfullyorganizedmodesofrhetoricintoacoherenttaxonomybecausethevariousmodesoverlap
somuchwithoneanother.Forinstance,narrativesandmetaphorsareusedinargumentsasmetaphorsandargumentsarefrequently
foundinnarratives.
2.Thisisnottosaythatotherformsofrhetoricdonotinvolvetheuseofreason,justthattheformofrhetoricwherethefocuson
reasonismostclearlyintheforegroundisargumentation.
3.TheUsesofArgument(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,1958).
4.AlbertR.JonsenandStephenToulmin,TheAbuseofCasuistry:AHistoryofMoralReasoning(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia
Press,1988).
5.CharlesArthurWillard,OntheUtilityofDescriptiveDiagramsfortheAnalysisandCriticismofArguments,Communication
Monographs43(November,1976),308-319.
8|TheDebatabaseBook
tination.Thewarrantisthemeansoftravel,andthereservationinvolvesquestionsorconcernsthearguermay
have about arrival at the destination.Toulmins model
canbeusedtodiagramthestructureofrelativelysimple
arguments.
Inadditiontothesimpleargumentsuggestedabove,
otherargumentstructuresincludeconvergentandindependentarguments.Althoughthesedonotevenbeginto
exhaustallpotentialargumentstructures,theyaresome
ofthemorecommononesencounteredindebate.
StructureofanArgument
ConvergentArguments
Asimpleargument,forinstance,consistsofasingle
claimsupportedbyapieceofevidence,asinglewarrant,
and perhaps (but not always) a single reservation.The
following diagram illustrates Toulmins diagram of a
simpleargument:
Aconvergentargumentisonewhereintwoormore
bitsofevidenceconvergewithoneanothertosupporta
claim.Inotherwords,whenasinglepieceofevidenceis
notsufcient,itmustbecombinedwithanotherpiece
ofevidenceintheefforttosupporttheclaim.
Convergentargument
SimpleArgument
Evidence
Warrant
Warrant
+
Claim
Evidence
Reservation
Evidence
Claim
+
Reservation
Evidence
Considerasanillustration,thefollowingconvergent
Toulminillustratesthisdiagramusingasimpleargu- argument:
mentclaimthatHarryisaBritishcitizenbecausehewas
Lying is generally considered an immoral act.The use
borninBermuda.Hereishowthestructureofthatargu- of placebos in drug testing research involves lying because
mentwasdiagramedbyToulmin:
someofthesubjectsareledfalselytobelievetheyarebeing
givenrealdrugs.Therefore,placebosshouldnotbeusedin
drugtestingunlesstheyaretheonlymethodavailabletotest
SimpleArgument
Warrant
potentiallylife-savingdrugs.
Persons born in Bermuda generally are
British citizens.
Evidence
Harry was born
in Bermuda.
Claim
Harry is a British
citizen.
Reservation
Unless Harrys parents
were U.S. citizens.
Althoughthisdiagramofanargumentclearlyillustrateshowanargumentmovesfromevidencetoaclaim
viaawarrant,veryfewargumentsareeverquiteassimple.
For this reason, I have adapted Toulmin and Jonsens
modeltoillustrateafewdifferentargumentstructures.
Warrant
Associations among
lying, placebos, and
immoral acts.
Evidence
Lying generally is
an immoral act.
+
Evidence
Using placebos in
medical research
involves lying to
some of the
research subjects.
Claim
Placebos should not
be used in medical
research.
Reservation
Unless the placebo is the
only method of testing
a potentially life-saving
drug.
Introduction
|9
Thisparticularargumentbeginswithtwopiecesof
evidence. The rst piece involves the value statement
thatlyinggenerallyisconsideredanimmoralact.This
pieceofevidenceisastatementthatisconsistentwith
theaudiencesvaluesregardinglying.Thesecondpiece
ofevidenceisthefactualstatementthattheuseofplacebosinmedicalresearchinvolvesaformoflying.The
secondpieceofevidence involves the fact that when a
researchergivesaplacebo(e.g.,asugarpill)toaportion
ofthesubjectsinastudyofapotentiallylife-savingdrug,
thatresearcherislyingtothosesubjectsastheyareledto
believethattheyarereceivingadrugthatmaysavetheir
lives.The warrant then combines the evidence with a
familiarpatternofreasoninginthiscase,ifanactin
generalisimmoralthenanyparticularinstanceofthat
actislikewiseimmoral.Iflyingisimmoralingeneral,
thenusingplacebosinparticularisalsoimmoral.
Theclaimresultsfromaconvergenceofthepiecesof
evidenceandthewarrant.Insomeinstances,anarguer
maynotwishtoholdtothisclaiminallcircumstances.
Ifthearguerwishestodenespecicsituationsinwhich
theclaimdoesnothold,thentheargueraddsareservation to the argument. In this case, a reservation seems
perfectly appropriate. Even though the arguer may
generallyobjecttolyingandtotheuseofplacebos,the
arguermaywishtoexemptsituationswheretheuseofa
placeboistheonlymethodoftestingapotentiallylifesavingdrug.
The unique feature of the convergent structure of
argumentisthatthearguerproducesacollectionofevidence that, if taken together, supports the claim.The
structureoftheargumentissuchthatalloftheevidence
mustbebelievedfortheargumenttobesupported.If
theaudiencedoesnotacceptanyonepieceofevidence,
theentireargumentstructurefalls.Ontheotherhand,
the independent argument structure is such that any
single piece of evidence can provide sufcient support
fortheargument.
IndependentArguments
Anarguerusinganindependentargumentstructure
presents several pieces of evidence, any one of which
providessufcientsupportfortheargument.Inother
words, a debater may present three pieces of evidence
and claim that the members of the audience should
accept the claim even if they are convinced only by a
single piece of evidence. The following diagram illustratesthestructureofanindependentargument:
10|TheDebatabaseBook
IndependentArguments
Warrant
Evidence
Warrant
Claim
Reservation
Evidence
Take for instance the following argument against

capitalpunishment:
Onmoralgrounds,capitalpunishmentoughttobeabolished.Ifasocietyconsidersamurderimmoralfortaking
ahumanlife,howcanthatsocietythenturnaroundand
takethelifeofthemurderer?Beyondmoralgrounds,capitalpunishmentoughttobeabolishedbecause,unlikeother
punishments,italoneisirreversible.Ifevidenceisdiscovered
after the execution, there is no way to bring the unjustly
executedpersonbacktolife.
Thisargumentaboutcapitalpunishmentcanberepresentedinthefollowingdiagram:
Warrant
If a murder is wrong
because it takes a life,
capital punishment is
wrong for the same
reason.
Evidence
Capital punishment takes a
human life.
Evidence
Capital punishment
leaves no possibility
for correction of an
incorrect verdict.
Warrant
Mistakes in
judgment
should be correctable.
Claim
Capital punishment ought to be
abolished.
Thisexampleofanindependentargumentstructure
is based on two pieces of evidence, either of which is
strong enough to support the claim that capital punishment ought to be abolished.The rst piece of evidence involves the value of taking a human life, while
the second involves the value of being able to correct
amistake.Accordingtothisargument,capitalpunishmentoughttobeabolishedevenifonlyoneoftheitems
ofevidenceisbelievedbytheaudience.Themoralstrictureagainsttakingalifeis,byitself,asufcientreason
toopposecapitalpunishmentasisthedangerofmaking
anuncorrectablemistake.Thestrategicadvantageofthis
form of argument structure is obvious. Whereas with
convergentstructures,thelossofonepartoftheargumentendangerstheentireargument,intheindependent
structure,theargumentcanprevailevenifonlyapartof
itsurvives.
The Toulmin diagram of an argument is useful
because it illustrates the various parts of an argument
andshowshowtheyfunctiontogetherasawhole.The
modicationswithregardtoargumentstructuremakeit
evenmoreuseful.Still,themodelhasitsshortcomings.
OnedifcultywiththeToulmindiagramisthatitdoes
notprovideanydetailsregardingsomeoftheelements.
Some questions that the diagram leaves unanswered
include:
Whatarethedifferentkindsofclaims?
Howcandifferentclaimsbecombinedtosupport
variouspropositions?
Whatarethedifferentformsofevidence?
Whatarethedifferentkindsofargumentativewarrants?
What distinguishes good arguments from bad
ones?
ClaimsandPropositions
Conceptually claims and propositions are the same
kindofargumentativeelements.Botharecontroversial
statements that need reason for support. Both claims
andpropositionsarecreatedbyarelationshipbetween
evidence and a warrant. Frequently, debaters combine
severalofthesestatementstosupportanotherstatement.
Eachoftheinitialstatementsisaclaimandtheconcludingstatementiscalledaproposition.
TypesofClaimsandPropositions
Mostauthorsdivideclaimsandpropositionsintothe
traditional categories of fact, value, and policy. I have
chosen not to use these traditional categories for two
reasons. First, the traditional categories have no place
for some important kinds of propositions that are not
facts, or values, or policy. More specically, the traditional categories have no place for propositions that
seek to dene concepts nor for propositions that seek
to establish relationships between or among concepts.
Second,thetraditionalcategoriesseparateevaluativeand
policypropositionswhilethesystemusedherewillconsiderpropositionsofpolicyasaspecickindofevaluativeproposition.Iusefourmaincategoriesofpropositions: denition, description, relationship, and evaluation.Thesecategories,whiletheymaynotbeexhaustive
ormutuallyexclusive,provideacoherentsystemforthe
discussionofclaims.
Denitions
Denitionsanswerthequestion,Doesitserveour
purposes to say that Z is the proper denition of X?6
Arguingforaclaimofdenitioninvolvestwosteps:positing the denition and making an argument for that
denition.Incarryingouttherststep,onesimplystates
that X is dened in this way. Rhetoric is an action
humansperformwhentheyusesymbolsforthepurpose
of communicating with one another.7 This sentence
positsadenitionofrhetoric.
Much of the time arguers perform the rst step of
positingadenitionwithoutconstructinganargument
tosupportit.Theymaydothisbecausetheiraudience
doesnotrequirethemtomakeanexplicitargumentin
favor of the denition. The denition may, by itself,
create a frame of mind in the audience that does not
leadtheaudiencetodemandanargumentinsupportof
the denition. For instance, antiabortion forces in the
UnitedStatessucceededindeningaprocedurephysicianscalledintactdilationandextractionaspartialbirthabortion.8Theirdenitionwassuccessfulbecause
itdominatedthediscourseonabortionandturnedthe
controversy away from the issue of choice and toward
aparticularmedicalprocedurethatantiabortionforces
couldusemoresuccessfully.Onthesurface,thedenitionofintactdilationandextractionaspartial-birth
abortionmayhaveseemedsosensiblethatnofurther
6.PerhapsamoreaccuratewayofstatingthequestionisDoesitbestserveourpurposestosaythatZistheproperdenitionof
X?Thiswayofphrasingthequestionmoreclearlyidentiesthevaluedimensionsofdenitionsdimensionsthatwillbediscussed
morefullylater.
7.SonjaK.Foss,KarenA.Foss,andRobertTrapp,ContemporaryPerspectivesonRhetoric(ProspectHeights,IL:Waveland,1991),
14
8.DavidZarefsky,Denitions(keynoteaddress,TenthNCA/AFASummerArgumentationConference,Alta,Utah,August
1997).
Introduction |11
argumentwasrequired.
An argument to support a claim of denition
becomesnecessarywhentheaudiencerefusestoaccept
the denition that was posited without a supporting
argument.Anarguersopponentwillfrequentlyencourage the audience to demand support for a denition.
When antiabortion advocates dened their position as
pro-life,someinthepro-choicemovementobjected,
claimingthatpro-choiceisalsopro-life.Incaseslike
this one, the entire argument can turn on whether or
notthearguerisabletosuccessfullysupportaclaimof
denition.
In those instances when an arguer chooses to construct an argument to support a denition, the argument frequently revolves around the reasonableness of
thescopeandbreadthofthedenition.Isthedenition
sonarrowthatitexcludesinstancesoftheconceptthat
oughttobeincluded?Isthedenitionsobroadthatit
failstoexcludeinstancesthatdonotproperlybelongto
the concept?Thus, in constructing an argument for a
denition,anarguermightpositadenition,thenargue
that the denition is reasonable in terms of its scope
andbreadth.Infact,thisisthecriterionimplicitinthe
objectiontodeningantiabortionaspro-life.Choice
advocatesclaimedthatthedenitionofpro-lifewasso
narrow in scope that it excluded pro-choice advocates.
So,insomecases,theargumentssupportingaclaimof
denitionareimportant.Inothercases,thedenition
becomesevidence(sometimesimplicit)forfurtherargumentsaboutwhetheraclaimofdenitionwasactually
made.
Denitions themselves frequently are important,
but they are also important to subsequent argumentativemoves.Denitionsareimportantbecausetheyoften
dotheworkofargumentwithoutopeningthearguers
position to as much controversy as would otherwise
beexpected.Denitionsmayavoidcontroversyintwo
ways:byimplyingdescriptionsandbyimplyingvalues.
Denitionsimplydescriptionsbyincludingelements
inthedenitionthatproperlyrequireevidentiarysupport.Forinstance,anarguermightclaimthatafrmativeactionisunfairandmightdeneafrmativeaction
asracialpreferencequotas.Whetherafrmativeaction
programsrequireracialpreferencequotasisamatterof
muchcontroversy.Butifthedenitionisnotcontested
byanaudiencememberorbyanadversary,thedeni-
tion shortcuts the argumentative process by avoiding

controversy.
Denitions imply values by including terms that
arevalueladen.Forinstance,whenantiabortionadvocatesdenethemedicalprocedureofintactdilationand
extractionaspartial-birthabortionorevenaspartialbirthinfanticide,thevaluesassociatedwithbirthand
withinfanticidearelikelytobetransferredtothemedical procedure as well. In this case, antiabortion forces
succeededinshortcuttingtheargumentativeprocessby
avoidingthevaluecontroversythatisinherentintheir
denition.
So claims of denition are important. Ironically,
theyprobablyarelessimportantwhentheyareactually
completedwithsupportingevidencethanwhentheyare
implicitlyusedasdescriptiveandvalueevidenceforfurtherarguments.
Descriptions
Descriptions may characterize some feature of an
object, concept, or event or may describe the object,
concept,oreventitself.Examplesofdescriptiveclaims
include
The rie purported to have killed President Kennedy requires a minimum of 2.3 seconds between
shots.
Afrmativeactionprogramsmust,bytheirnature,
includehiringquotas.
JackRubywasspottedinParklandHospitalthirty
minutesafterPresidentKennedywasmurdered.
Each of these statements are descriptive because
they provide a verbal account or characterization of
something.Theyareclaimsintheargumentativesense
becausetheyarecontroversial9andbecausetheyrequire
reasons for support. Because some descriptions are
not controversial, all descriptions are not descriptive
arguments. Many or even most descriptions are not
argumentative because they are not controversial. For
instance, if a person simply describes observations of
the colors of owersroses are red; violets bluethat
person would not ordinarily give reasons to support
thesedescriptions.
One kind of descriptive claim is a claim of historical fact. All statements about history are not historical
claims.Tobeahistoricalclaimastatementmustbecon-
9.Withregardtotherstexample,somepeopleclaimthatthisactionrequiresclosertofoursecondswhenonetakesintoaccount
thefactthatashootermustreacquirethesubjectinthescope.Regardingthesecondexample,somesupportersofafrmativeaction
arguethathiringquotasarerequiredonlyforacompanywithapastrecordofdiscrimination.Inthethirdexample,theprimary
sourceoftheclaimregardingJackRubywasAPreporterSethKantor;theWarrenCommissionclaimedthatKantorwasmistaken
inhisreport.
troversialandmustrequire reason for its support.The

statement, O. J. Simpson won the HeismanTrophy,
isnotcontroversialandthereforenotanargumentative
claim.Ontheotherhand,thestatement,O.J.Simpson
killedNicoleBrownSimpson,notonlyiscontroversial,
butalsorequiresanarguertopresenttoreasonssupportingordenyingit.
Another kind of description is a claim of scientic
fact. Scientic facts are statements that command the
belief of the scientic community: The Earth is the
thirdplanetfromthesun.Aclaimofscienticfactis
acontroversialscienticstatementbelievedbyascientistoragroupofscientists,butnotyetacceptedbythe
entire scientic community: Cold fusion can be producedinthelaboratory.Likeotherfactualstatements,
allscienticstatementsarenotclaimsofscienticfact
eitherbecausetheyarenotcontroversialorbecausethey
donotrequirereasonstobegivenintheirsupport.To
say,TheEarthisthethirdplanetfromthesun,isnota
claimbecauseitisnotcontroversialandbecauseaperson
making that statement would not be expected to give
reasons to support it. But the statement, Cold fusion
canbeproducedinalaboratory,isacontroversialstatement, and the scientic community would challenge
anyonemakingthatstatementtosupportitwithreason
andevidence.
Illustrating different examples of descriptive claims
is important in and of itself because people frequently
argueaboutdescriptiveclaimswithnogoalotherthanto
trytosettleacontroversyregardinganaccountofscience
orhistory.Asjustoneexample,severalhundredbooks
andarticleshavebeenwrittenpresentingmanydifferent
accountsoftheassassinationsofJohnKennedy,Robert
Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. But beyond being
importantfortheirownsake,descriptiveclaimsalsoare
importantbecausetheyareneededwhenarguingabout
subsequentkindsofclaimsaswell.
Descriptiveclaimsfrequentlyareusedasevidencein
relationalandevaluativearguments.Aclaimdescribing
thenatureofanobjectfrequentlyisneededbeforearguingthatoneobjectisrelatedtoanotherobject.People
might need to argue, for instance, that hiring quotas
areessentialfeaturesofafrmativeaction(adescriptive
claim)beforetheycanarguethatafrmativeactionleads
todifferentialtreatmentofpersonsinhiringpools(relationalclaim).Similarly,peoplemayneedtodescribean
object or phenomenon prior to evaluating that object.
Inthisexample,theywouldneedtodescribeafrmative
actionbeforetheyarguethatitiseithergoodorbad.
A scientic description can be the nal product of

anargumentorcanbeusedasevidenceforthefurther
development of another kind of argument. Whether
theprimarydeterminantofhomosexualityisgeneticor
cultural is an interesting claim from a purely scientic
perspective.Peoplecanarguethefactsthatsupportthe
genetic explanation or the cultural one. However, this
claimfrequentlyhasbeenusedinthedebateaboutthe
moralityofhomosexuality.10Sointhecaseofthedeterminantsofhomosexuality,thedescriptiveclaimisboth
important for its own sake and for the sake of other
potentialclaimsaswell.
Descriptive historical claims are interesting both
becausetheymakestatementsaboutwhetherornotan
eventoccurredasassertedandbecausetheycanbeused
asevidenceinmakingfurtherarguments.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John Kennedy.
O. J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson
andRonaldGoldman.
U.S.shipsMaddoxandTurnerJoywereattackedby
theNorthVietnameseintheGulfofTonkin.
Eachoftheseareinterestingandcontroversialclaims
ofhistoricalfact.Theseandotherclaimsofhistoricalfact
alsocanbeusedasevidenceforrelationalandevaluative
arguments.Forinstance,theargumentthattheMaddox
andTurnerJoywereattackedbytheNorthVietnamese
was used by President Johnson to persuade the Senate
and the House of Representatives to pass the Tonkin
GulfResolutiongivingJohnsonablankchecktopursue
thewarinVietnam.Subsequentlyargumentsthatthe
attackwas,atbest,provokedand,atworse,fakedwere
used by opponents of the Vietnam War to show that
Johnsonsactionswereimproperandevenimmoral.
RelationshipStatements
Descriptive claims are about the nature of reality

whatistheessenceofXorY.Claimsofrelationship
dependon,butgobeyond,theessenceofXorYtothe
relationshipbetweenXandY.Claimsofrelationship
assertaconnectionbetweentwoormoreobjects,events,
orphenomena.Likedescriptiveclaims,claimsofrelationship can be important in their own right or they
canserveasevidenceforthedevelopmentofevaluative
claims.Considertheseclaims:
Secondhand smoke contributes signicantly to
healthproblems.
ThescandalsoftheClintonadministrationarelike
10.Someargue,forinstance,thatbecausethetendencyforhomosexualityisgenetic,itisnotachoiceandthereforecannotbe
consideredmoralorimmoral.
Introduction |13
wasasignofSimpsonsguilt.Accordingtothedefenses
thoseoftheNixonadministration.
Advertisinghaschangedtheroleofwomeninthe claim,theglovesignaledhisinnocence.Thiswasaclear
casewheretheargumentcenteredaroundtherelationUnitedStates
ship between the bloody glove and Simpsons guilt or
All of these are claims of relationship because they innocence.
assert a relationship between two objects or concepts
IntheSimpsonexample,theclaimofsignisimpor(secondhand smoke and health, Clinton and Nixon, tantbecauseifitwerebelieved,theclaimaloneissufadvertising and women).The relationships asserted in cient to establish guilt (or innocence, depending on
theseexamplesareoftwokinds:ofcontingencyandof the nature of the argument). But like other claims, a
similarity.
claimofsignalsocanbeusedasevidencetoestablisha
differentclaim.Say,forinstance,thatapersonclaims
Contingency
that Photographs from the yacht, Monkey Business,
Some claims of relationship assert a relationship of showed that presidential candidate Gary Hart was an
contingency.Thesecondhandsmokingexampleandthe adulterer.Thephotographsarenotdirectevidenceof
advertisingexampleareofthiskind.Ineachcase,these adultery,butgiventheirnature,theyarestrongsignsof
claimsassertthatoneobjectorphenomenonisdepen- indelity.Onecouldthenusethisclaimofsigntosupdentonanotherinonewayoranother.Signandcause portanevaluativeargument:GaryHartisnotworthy
aretwowaysobjectscanbedependentononeanother ofbeingpresidentsinceheisanadulterer.Inthiscase,
viasomeformofcontingency.
theclaimofsignbecomesevidencetosupportanevaluRelationshipsofsignareonewaytoshowthatone ativeclaim.
thingisdependentonanotherthing.
Relationships of sign may or may not involve relaConsiderthese:
tionshipsofcause.Therelationshipbetweenpainand
Thepaininyourchildsabdomenprobablymeans appendicitisisoneofbothsignandcause.Thepainis
shehasappendicitis.
asignoftheappendicitisandtheappendicitisisacause
The palm print on the Mannlicher-Carcano rie ofthepain.Acausalrelationshipisnotdirectlyinvolved
provesthatOswaldhandledtheriesupposedlyused intheexampleofthedoublemurderofGoldmanand
toshootPresidentKennedy.
Brown-SimpsonorintheexampleaboutOswaldspalm
print on the rie. Although the palm print and the
Bothofthepreviousstatementsareclaimsaboutrela- bloodygloveweresignsofmurder,theywerenotcauses
tionships of sign. The pain in the abdomen as a sign of the murder.11Thus, relationships of sign are differofappendicitisisdependentonthebeliefthatthechild entfromrelationshipsofcauseatleastintermsoftheir
actuallyhasabdominalpainandabeliefintherelation- focus.
shipbetweenthatpainandherappendix.Thebeliefthat
Causal relationships are important in many forms
Oswald handled the rie that supposedly was used to ofargument.Thekindofcausalclaimvariesfromone
shootPresidentKennedyisdependentonthebeliefthat instancetothenext.Afewexamplesincludecontribuheactuallylefthispalmprintonthemurderweapon. tory causes, necessary and sufcient causes, blocking
Arguments of sign played a very importantper- causes,andmotiveorresponsibility.
hapscrucialroleinthecriminaltrialofO.J.Simpson
Contributorycausesarespecialkindsofcausalstatefor the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown- ments.Inmanyormostcases,asingleeventisnotthe
Simpson.Theprosecutionclaimedthatthepresenceof cause of an effect. Certain conditions predispose cerabloodyglovenearSimpsonshomewasasignthathe taineffects;otherconditionsinuencetheoccurrenceof
wasthemurderer.Inadramaticturnofevents,Simp- thoseeffects.Finally,someconditionprecipitatesthat
son tried on the glove in the presence of the jury; it effect.Forexample,considerthesethreepossibleclaims
appearedtobetoosmalltotonhishand.Thisevi- aboutthecausesofheartattacks:
dence allowed the defense to support its own claim in
Geneticsarethecauseofheartattacks.
quitepoeticlanguage:Iftheglovedoesntt,youmust
Ahighcholesteroldietcancauseheartattack.
acquit.Accordingtotheprosecutionsclaim,theglove
Vigorousexercisecausesheartattacks.
11.Onecanmakeacaseforacausalrelationshipbetweenthemurderandthebloodygloveinthattheactofcommittingthe
murdercausedbloodtogetontheglove.ThecausalrelationshipbetweenthepalmprintandtheKennedymurderislessdirect,
althoughonecouldsaythattheactofmurderingPresidentKennedycausedOswaldspalmprinttobeonthemurderweapon.This
lastclaimisaweakonesincethepalmprintcouldhavebeenontherielongbeforetheassassination.
Weknowthatsomepeoplearegeneticallymorepredisposedtoheartattacksthanothers.Ifapersonwho
already is predisposed to heart attacks regularly consumes a diet high in cholesterol, that diet contributes
tothelikelihoodofheartattack.Supposeapersondies
ofaheartattackwhileonamorningjog.Whatwasthe
cause?Genetics?Diet?Exercise?Theansweristhatall
three factors may have been contributory causes. No
single cause may have caused the heart attack, but all
threeconditionsincombinationmayhaveresultedina
heartattack.
Necessaryandsufcientcausesfrequentlydealwith
singularcausesratherthancontributorycauses.Money
isessentialtohappinessisanexampleofaclaimofnecessarycausation.Tosaythatmoneyisanecessarycause
of happiness is not to say that the presence of money
automaticallyleadstohappiness.Theclaimdoes,however,implythatwithoutmoneyhappinessisimpossible.
If one wanted to make a claim of sufcient causation
usingthesameexample,onemightclaimthatmoney
isthekeytohappiness.Dependingonhowoneinterpretedthatclaim,itmightmeanthatmoneybringshappiness regardless of other conditions. In that case, one
wouldhavemadeaclaimaboutasufcientcause.
Necessaryandsufcientcausesareusefulwhenarguingaboutrelationshipsbetweenandamongvariousphenomena.Theyarealsousefulasevidencefromwhichto
constructotherkindsofclaims,particularlyclaimsthat
evaluate a course of action. When an arguer proposes
a strategy to eliminate an undesirable effect, evidence
derivedfromaclaimaboutanecessaryconditionofthat
effectisuseful.Havingmadeaclaimaboutanecessary
cause,onecanforwardaproposaltoeliminatethatnecessarycauseandthuseliminatetheeffect.Forinstance,
ifpeoplebelievethatovereatingisanecessarycondition
ofobesity,theycouldusethiscausalclaimasevidenceto
convinceothersthattheyneedtoquitovereating.Thus,
makingaclaimaboutanecessarycauseisagoodwayto
supportaplanforeliminatinganeffect.
Similarly,evidencederivedfromaclaimaboutasufcientcauseisagoodwaytosupportaplanforproducing
aneffect.Ifonecanpresentaproposalthataddsasufcientcause,onecanthenclaimthattheproposalwill
producesomegoodeffect.Forinstance,somedietcommercialsclaimthattheirproductsaresufcienttocause
onetoloseweight.Thisclaimofasufcientcausalconditioncanthenbeusedasevidencetoconvincebuyers
totrytheirdietprograms.Impliedinsuchaclaimisthat
regardlessofwhatelseonedoes,followingtheproposed
dietwillleadtoweightloss.
Statements about motive are causal claims about
the effects of human agents. Many causal claims, like
those already discussed, are related to physical or biological phenomena.The relationships among genetics,
diet, exercise, and heart disease are biological relationships. Various elements in a biological system affect
otherelementsinthatsamesystem.Inasimilarmanner,
motives are a kind of causal explanation when human
choiceisinvolvedincreatingeffects.Why,forinstance,
dosenatorsandrepresentativesstalllegislationforcampaignnancereform?Whydocorporationsknowingly
producedangerousproducts?Theanswerstothesequestionsinvolvecausalclaims,butcausalclaimsofadifferentorderfromthosediscussedearlier.
Inanearlierexample,genetics,diet,andexercisedid
notchoosetocauseheartdisease.Butinhumansystemschoiceisfrequentlyanimportantelementindetermining what actions lead to what effects. One might
claim that representatives and senators self-interest
motivatethemtostallcampaignnancereformorthat
the prot motive induces corporations knowingly to
producedangerousproducts.Thekindsofcausalquestionsthatdealwithmotivesareveryusefulwhenarguing
abouttheeffectsofhumanactions.
Like other causal claims, claims about motive are
useful as evidence in the construction of evaluative
claims.Aclaimbasedonasenatorsmotiveforstalling
campaign nance reform might, for instance, be used
asevidencetoconstructafurtherclaimrelevanttothe
wisdomofreelectingthatsenator.Aclaimthataparticularcorporationsdesireforprotsledtotheproduction
of unsafe products might be used as further evidence
tosupportaclaimaskingforaboycottofthatcorporation.
Theclaimsofrelationshipthathavebeendiscussed
so far have involved relationships of contingency. In
relationshipsofcontingency,onephenomenondepends
onoraffectsanother.Theseclaimsofrelationshipshave
generally been divided into the categories of signs and
cause.However,claimsofcontingencyarenottheonly
kind of claims of relationship. Claims of similarity are
equallyimportantkindsofrelationalclaims.
Similarity
In addition to relationships based on contingency,

otherstatementsofrelationshipassertarelationshipof
similarity.Aclaimofsimilarityassertsthattwoormore
objectsorconceptsaresimilarinimportantways.Claims
ofsimilarityarefrequentlyfoundinwhatiscalledargumentbyanalogyorargumentbyparallelcase.Examples
ofclaimsofsimilarityinclude:
Abortionisvirtuallythesameasinfanticide.
The Clinton administration is like the Nixon
administration.
Introduction |15
Capitalpunishmentisstate-sanctionedmurder.
Evaluative claims bear a family resemblance to one

another because they attach a value to one or more
Each of these examples share certain characteris- objectsorevents.Still,evaluativeclaimsaresovastin
tics. First, each example includes two objects or con- number and in characteristics that they can be more
cepts(ClintonandNixon,abortionandinfanticide,and easilyviewedinthesethreecategories:thosethatevalucapitalpunishmentandmurder).Second,eachexample ateasingleobject,thosethatcomparetwoobjectswith
states that the two concepts or objects are similar in respecttosomevalue,andthosethatsuggestanaction
importantregards.
withrespecttosomeobject.
Claimsofsimilarityareusefulwhenanarguerwants
todonothingmorethansupporttheideathattwoor ClaimsthatEvaluateaSingleObject
more objects and concepts are similar. Although the
Some evaluative claims simply argue that an object
claim focuses on the similarity between the objects, it isattachedinsomeway(positivelyornegatively)with
frequently carries another implied claim of evaluation. somevalue.Thesekindsofclaimsinvolvebothanobject
The claim that capital punishment is state-sanctioned ofevaluationandsomevaluejudgmenttobeappliedto
murder is not a value-neutral statement. When con- theobject:
fronted with such a claim, most audiences begin with
Capitalpunishmentisimmoral.
theassumptionthatmurderisanegativelyvaluedconPrivatepropertyistherootofallevil.
cept.Anarguerwhosucceedsinsupportingtheclaimof
Capitalismisgood.
similarityalsosucceedsintransferringthenegativevalue
associatedwithmurdertotheconceptofcapitalpunishThese examples of claims that attach a value to a
ment.Inalloftheaboveexamplesofclaimsofsimilar- single object all contain some object to be evaluated
ity,thearguerhastwodifferentpurposes:toshowthat (capital punishment, private property, capitalism) and
thetwoconceptsorobjectshavesimilarcharacteristics, some value judgment that is applied to the objects
ortoshowthatthetwoconceptsorobjectsareevaluated (immoral,evil,good).
insimilarways.
Some claims, like those mentioned above, imply
In some cases, the audience may not have enough rather broad value judgments. Others may contain
familiaritywitheitherofthetwoobjectstounderstand morespecicones:
thevaluesassociatedwiththem.Insuchacase,aclaim
Capitalpunishmentisunfairinitsapplicationto
ofsimilarityissometimestherststeptowardprovinga
minorities.
claimofevaluation.Considerahypotheticalclaimthat
Private property has led to an uncontrolled and
states Senator Xs medical care plan is similar to one
immoralrulingclass.
instituted in Canada. If the audience knew nothing
CapitalismprovidesincentiveforindividualenterabouteitherSenatorXsplanortheCanadianone,the
prise.
arguermightestablishthisclaimtobeusedasevidence
inalaterevaluativeclaimthatSenatorXsplanshould
These examples contain value judgments that are
beaccepted(orrejected).Inthiscasethearguermight morespecicthanthebroadonescitedearlier.
presentanevaluativeclaimregardingthesuccessofthe
Canadianplanandthencombinethetwoclaimsone ClaimsthatCompareTwoObjects
ofsimilarityandoneregardingacceptanceorrejection.
Instead of evaluating a single object, some claims
Thus,claimsofrelationshipfallintothreebroadcat- comparetwoobjectswithrespecttosomevaluetoconegories: sign, causation, and similarity. In some cases, stituteasecondcategoryofevaluativeclaim.Unlikethe
claimsofrelationshiparesupportedbyevidencebuilton previouscategoryofevaluativeclaims,claimsinthiscatclaimsoffact.Likewise,relationalclaimscanbeusedto egory include at least two objects of evaluation and at
establishevaluativeclaims.
leastonevaluejudgmenttobeappliedtothoseobjects.
Considertheseclaims:
ClaimsofEvaluation
Lyingismoreproperthanhurtingsomeonesfeelings.
Evaluative claims go beyond descriptive claims and
ReaganwasabetterpresidentthanClinton.
claims of relationship to the evaluation of an object,
event,orconcept.Evaluativeclaimsaremorecomplex
Each of these examples contains two objects (lying
kinds of claims because they ordinarily require some and hurting someones feelings; Reagan and Clinton)
combinationofotherdenitions,descriptions,andrela- and one value judgment to be applied to each object
tionalstatements.
(moreproperandbetterpresident).
ClaimsofAction
Claimsofaction,sometimescalledclaimsofpolicy,
areyetanothercategoryofevaluativeclaim:
Capitalpunishmentshouldbeabolished.
The United States should adopt a policy of free
tradewithCuba.
These claims evaluate a concept by suggesting that
action be taken with respect to that concept. Because
anactioncanbeevaluatedonlybycomparisonorcontrasttootherpossibleactions,claimsofactionbynecessitycompareatleasttwoobjects.Theclaimthatcapital
punishment should be abolished compares the presenceofcapitalpunishmentwithitsabsence.Theclaim
regardingfreetradewithCubaimpliesacomparisonof
a policy of free trade with the present policy of trade
embargo.Inthisregard,claimsofactionaresimilarto
claimsthatcomparetwoobjects.
In a different regard, claims of action are different
fromtheothercategoriesofevaluativeclaimsinthatthey
rarelystatethevaluejudgmentusedtocomparethetwo
objects.Thereasonthevaluejudgmentisnotordinarily
statedintheclaimisthatanactionclaimisfrequently
supportedbyavarietyofotherclaimsofevaluationeach
ofwhichmayberelyingonadifferentvaluejudgment.
Theclaimabouttheabolitionofcapitalpunishment,for
example,mightbesupportedbyotherevaluativeclaims
like
Capitalpunishmentisimmoral.
Capital punishment contributes to the brutalizationofsociety.
Capitalpunishmentisracist.
Tocomplicatemattersevenmore,evaluativeclaims
ofactioninherentlyarecomparativeclaims.Toarguein
favorofaparticularactionispossibleonlyincomparison
tootheractions.Forinstance,thepreviousclaimsimply
thatcapitalpunishmentislessmoral,morebrutal,and
moreracistthanthealternatives.Becauseactionclaims
usuallyrequiremultiple,comparativeclaimsasevidence
tosupportthem,actionclaimsgenerallyaremorecomplicatedthantheothercategoriesofclaims.
Accordingtothiscategorysystem,evaluativeclaims
aregenerallydividedintothreetypes:claimsthatevaluate
asingleobject,claimsthatevaluatetwoormoreobjects,
and action claims. As indicated, one evaluative claim
cansometimesbeusedassupportforanotherevaluative
claim,leadingeventuallytocomplicatedclaimsbuilton
awebofotherclaims.
Inadditiontothefactthatevaluativeclaimsareused
bothastheendproductofanargumentandasevidence
forotherevaluativeclaims,almostallevaluativeclaims
aredependentonearlierdescriptiveclaimsandrelational
claims.Dependingonwhetherornottheaudienceis
familiarwithandacceptsthearguersdescriptiveofthe
concepttobeevaluated,thearguermakinganevaluative
claimmayalsowanttoexplicitlymakepriordescriptive
claimsaswell.Inthepreviousexamples,forinstance,
onecaneasilyseehowanarguermightneedtodescribe
certain features of capital punishment, private property,lying,Clinton,Reagan,freetrade,orCubabefore
launchingintoanevaluationofthoseconcepts.
Inmany,butnotallinstances,anargueralsowould
needtouseaclaimofrelationshipasevidencetosupporttheevaluativeclaim.Toillustrateinstanceswhen
a relational claim is and is not needed, consider the
twoexamplesofclaimsevaluatingasingleobject.The
claim that capital punishment is immoral can be
supported by describing a feature of capital punishment(thatitistheintentionaltakingofahumanlife)
andevaluatingthatfeaturenegatively(theintentional
takingofahumanlifeisanimmoralact).Adescriptionandanevaluationareallthatarenecessary;relationalevidenceisnotneeded.Thesecondclaimthat
privatepropertyistherootofallevilisdifferent.To
makethisclaim,onerstmightdescribetheconcept
of private property, then argue that private property
leadstogreedandselshness(arelationalclaim),then
arguethatgreedandselshnessareevil.Asignicant
difference exists between the rst argument and the
secondone:Therstrequiresrelationalevidenceand
the second does not. In the rst instance, the argumentisevaluatinganinherentfeatureofcapitalpunishment; in the second, the argument evaluates an
effectofprivateproperty.Whenarguinganinherent
featureofaconcept,relationalevidenceisunnecessary
becausetheevaluationisofthefeatureratherthanof
aneffectofthefeature.Butmanytimes,bythenature
oftheclaim,anarguerisforcedtoevaluateaneffectof
aconcept.Inthoseinstances,thearguerisrequiredto
establishtheeffectbymeansofrelationalevidence.
Insummary,fourcategoriesofevidenceandclaims
include denitions, descriptions, relational statements
(of contingency and of similarity), and evaluations.
Sometimesclaimsaretheendproductsofarguments;at
othertimestheyareusedasevidencefortheconstructionoffurtherclaims.Thisintroductionhaspresenteda
categorysystemandbeguntoexplainhowvarioustypes
ofclaimsarerelatedtooneanotherwhenoneisusedas
evidenceforanother.Thisintroductionhasdonelittle
ornothingtowardexplaininghowoneconstructsarguments for these various types of claims. The methods
andprocessesofconstructingtheseclaimsarethetopics
oflaterchapters.
Introduction |17
TheoryandPractice
Thisessayhasprovidedsometheoreticalbackground
relevanttoargumentationindebating.Specically,ithas
providedadiscussionoftheToulminmodelofargument
andamoredetaileddescriptionoftwoofToulminselements:claimsandevidence.Thereasonforfocusingon
thesetwoelementsisthattheremainderofthisvolume
provides information that can be transformed into evidence and claims to support propositions. Claims and
evidence are the foundational elements of supporting
propositions.Warrantsandreservations,whicharemore
likelytobeindividualcreationsthanfoundations,didnot
receivethesamedetaileddiscussion.
Robert Trapp
Professor of Rhetoric
Willamette University
Salem, Oregon, U.S.A.
January 2003
Whenusingthisvolume,debatersneedtoremember
thatitisonlyastartingpoint.Gooddebaters,muchless
excellentdebaters,willneedtogobeyondthisvolume.
Theywillneedtoengageinindividualandperhapscollectiveresearchintothedetailsofotherclaimsandevidence.
Then,ofcourse,comestheactualpracticeofdebating
wheredebaterswillberequiredtocombinetheevidence
provided in this volume and from their own research
with warrants and reservations to support claims and
tocombinethoseclaimsintoargumentssupportingor
refutingpropositions.
DEBATETOPICS
This page intentionally left blank
ABORTIONONDEMAND
Whether a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, and, if so, under what conditions, is one of the most contentious issues facing
modern societies. For some, the question is even more fundamental: At what stage is the fetus to be regarded as a child? The battle lines
are drawn between pro-life supporters, who argue that abortion is never permissible, and pro-choice adherents, who emphasize the
mothers right to choose. In 1973 the US Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal in its landmark decisionRoev.Wade.Since
then antiabortion groups have pressed to have the ruling overturned and have succeeded in having several states pass laws limiting the
conditions under which abortion is permitted. Pro-choice groups have opposed these efforts and made support of Roethe litmus test for
political and judicial candidates wanting their backing.
PROS
CONS
Womenshouldhavecontrolovertheirownbodiesthey
havetocarrythechildduringpregnancyandundergo
childbirth.Nooneelsecarriesthechildforher;itwill
beherresponsibilityalone,andthussheshouldhavethe
sole right to decide. If a woman does not want to go
throughthefullninemonthsandsubsequentbirth,then
sheshouldhavetherighttochoosenottodoso.There
arefewifanyothercaseswheresomethingwithsuch
profound consequences is forced upon a human being
againstherorhiswill.Toappealtothechildsrightto
lifeisjustcircularwhetherafetushasrightsornot,or
canreallybecalledachild,isexactlywhatisatissue.
Everyoneagreesthatchildrenhaverightsandshouldnt
bekilled.Noteveryoneagreesthatfetusesoftwo,four,
eight,oreventwentyweeksarechildren.
Ofcourse,humanrightsshouldberespected,butnoone
hasarighttomakeadecisionwithnoreferencetothe
rightsandwishesofothers.Inthiscase,doesthefather
haveanyrightsinregardtothefateofthefetus?More
important,though,pro-choicegroupsactivelyignorethe
mostimportantrightthechildsrighttolife.Whatis
moreimportantthanlife?Allotherrights,includingthe
mothersrighttochoice,surelystemfromapriorright
tolife;ifyouhavenorighttoanylife,thenhowdoyou
havearighttoanautonomousone?Awomanmayordinarilyhaveareasonablerighttocontrolherownbody,
butthisdoesnotconferonhertheentirelyseparate(and
insupportable)righttodecidewhetheranotherhuman
livesordies.
Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory,

offendingagainstawomansrighttochoose,itisalsoa
practicalproblem.Abanwouldnotstopabortionbut
would drive it once again underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman are
almostcertainlyatrisk.Womenwouldalsocircumvent
thebanbytravelingtocountrieswhereabortionislegal.
Eitherthestatewouldhavetotakethedraconianmeasure of restricting freedom of movement, or it would
havetoadmitthatitslawisunworkableinpracticeand
abolishit.
Unbornchildrencannotarticulatetheirrighttolife;they
are vulnerable and must be protected. Many laws are
difculttoimplement,butdegreeofdifcultydoesnot
diminish the validity and underlying principle. People
willkillotherpeople,regardlessofthelaw,butitdoes
not follow that you shouldnt legislate against murder.
Whether the state should restrain women from travelingforabortionsisaseparatequestion,butonethatcan
be answered in the afrmative given what is at stake.
Restrictingsomeonesfreedomisasmallpricetopayfor
protectinganinnocentlife.
Arewereallytakingaboutalife?Atwhatpointdoesa
lifebegin?Isterminatingafetus,whichcanneitherfeel
nor think and is not conscious of its own existence,
reallycommensuratewiththekillingofaperson?Ifyou
Thequestionofwhatlifeiscancertainlybeanswered:It
issacred,inviolable,andabsolute.Thefetus,atwhatever
stageofdevelopment,willinevitablydevelopthehuman
abilitiestothink,feel,andbeawareofitself.Theunborn
|21
PROS
CONS
afrmthathumanlifeisaqualityindependentof,and childwillhaveeveryabilityandeveryopportunitythat
priorto,thoughtandfeeling,youleaveyourselftheawk- youyourselfhave,giventhechancetobeborn.
wardtaskofexplainingwhattrulyhumanlifeis.
Incaseswhereterminatingapregnancyisnecessaryto While emergencies are tragic, it is by no means obviousthatabortionispermissible.Themothervs.child
saveamotherslife,surelyabortionispermissible.
dilemma is one that dees solution, and aborting to
preserveoneofthelivessetsadangerousprecedentthat
killingonepersontosaveanotherisacceptable.Thisisa
clear,andunpalatable,caseoftreatingahumanbeingas
ameanstoanend.
Not only medical emergencies present compelling
groundsfortermination.Womenwhohavebeenraped
should not have to suffer the additional torment of
beingpregnantwiththeproductofthatordeal.Toforce
awomantoproducealiving,constantreminderofthat
actisunfairtobothmotherandchild.
While rape is an appalling crime, is it the fault of the

unbornchild?Theanswerisno.Denyingsomeonelife
becauseofthecircumstancesofconceptionisasunfairas
anythingelseimaginable.
Finally,advancesinmedicaltechnologyhaveenabledus
todetermineduringpregnancywhetherthechildwillbe
disabled.Incasesofseveredisability,inwhichthechild
wouldhaveaveryshort,verypainfulandtragiclife,it
issurelyrighttoallowparentstochooseatermination.
Thisavoidsboththesufferingoftheparentsandofthe
child.
Whatrightdoesanyonehavetodepriveanotheroflife
onthegroundsthathedeemsthatlifenotworthliving?
Thisarrogantandsinisterpresumptionisimpossibleto
justify,giventhatmanypeoplewithdisabilitiesleadfulllinglives.Whatdisabilitieswouldberegardedasthe
watershed between life and termination? All civilized
countriesroundlycondemnthepracticeofeugenics.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldforbidabortionondemand.
ThisHousebelievesinawomansrighttochoose.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion:ReproductiveFreedom.<http://www.aclu.org/issues/reproduct/hmrr.html>
Providesinformationonthestatusofreproductiveissuesandreproductiverightsfromapro-choiceperspective.
TheNationalRighttoLifeCommittee.<http://www.nrlc.org/>
Presentsinformationonthestatusofissueslikeabortion,humancloning,euthanasia,andRU-486.
ReligiousTolerance.Org:Abortion.<http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm>
Offersinformationonboththepro-lifeandpro-choicepositions.
FurtherReading:
Dworkin,Ronald.LifesDominion:AnArgumentAboutAbortion,Euthanasia,andIndividualFreedom.VintageBooks,1994.
ADVERTISING,TARGETINGOFCHILDREN
Much television advertising is aimed at children, promoting not only toys and candy but also food, drink, music, lms, and clothing.
Increasingly this practice is coming under attack. Sweden, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Denmark, and Belgium impose restrictions on advertising that targets children. Recent campaigns in the United States and Britain have concentrated on banning advertising to children under 5
years of age.
PROS
CONS
Targeting TV advertisements to children is unethical.

Childrencannotdistinguishadvertisingfromprogrammingandcannotjudgewhetheranadvertisementismisleading. Moreover, they are not yet able to resist sales
pitches.
Childrenarenotnaveinnocentsbutcannyconsumers
who can distinguish between advertisements and programs at a very early age. Moreover, they can learn to
evaluateadvertisingonlybybeingexposedtoit.Responsibleparentsshouldteachchildrenhowtobegoodconsumersbywatchingtelevisionwiththemanddiscussing
whattheyhaveseen.
Advertisingspecicallytochildrenisunethicalbecause
theyhavelittleornomoneyoftheirownandhaveto
persuade their parents to buy the products for them.
Rather than advertising directly to parents, companies
encouragechildrentonagandwhineforwhattheysee;
such behavior inevitably leads to bad feeling between
parents and children. Advertising that presents productstochildrenasmust-haveisalsosociallydivisive.It
makeschildrenwhoseparentscannotaffordthenewest
fadsfeelinferior.Theseparentsoftengointodebttosatisfytheirchildren.
Advertisingdoesnotcreateunnaturaldesiresformaterialpossessions.Childrenwhonagarebadlybroughtup.
Moreover,advertisingisnottheonlyforcestimulating
thedesirefortoys,etc.Childrenfrequentlywantthings
because their friends have them. Also, many children
have money, either through allowances or, in the case
of teenagers, through jobs. Learning how to manage
nancesispartofgrowingup,andadvertisementshelp
childrenandteenagersmakespendingdecisions.
Advertisingaimedatchildrenhasnegativesocialconsequences.Encouraginggulliblechildrentoconsumejunk
foodcreatesobese,unhealthyyoungsters.Societypaysa
highpriceintermsoftheextramedicalcaresuchchildrenwilleventuallyrequire.Consequently,government
hasadirectinterestinbanningadvertisementsthatcontributetothisproblem.
Childrennaturallylikefoodsthatarerichinfats,carbohydrates,andsugar;theygivethemtheenergytheyneed
toplayandgrow.Yes,eatingonlyjunkfoodisbad,but
parentsshouldtakeresponsibilityforteachingchildren
propereatinghabits.
Exploitative advertising brainwashes children into

becoming eager consumers. Companies deliberately
encouragethemtobematerialisticsothattheyassociate
happinesswithpurchasingpowerandthepossessionof
particulargoods.Astudyrecentlyfoundthatchildrenin
Sweden, where marketing campaigns to under-12s are
banned,wantedsignicantlyfewertoysthanchildrenin
Britain,wheretherearenorestrictions.
Banning advertisements is a severe restriction on freedom of speech. Companies should be able to tell the
publicaboutanylegalproductsbecauseadvertisinghelps
companies succeed and innovate. Children also have a
human right to receive and evaluate information from
awiderangeofsources.Theyarefarfrombeingbrainwashedbyadvertisements,whichformonlyasmallpart
of their experiences; family, friends, school, and other
televisionprogramsaremuchmoreimportantinshapingtheirviewsoftheworld.
|23
PROS
CONS
Restrictingadvertisingtochildrenwillnotaffectbroadcast revenues signicantly. It will lead to better programming.Muchofchildrenstelevisioncentersaround

productplacementandadvertisingtie-ins,whichresult
inpoorprogramsandunimaginativeformats.
Advertisements are the major source of television stationrevenues.Ifgovernmentrestrictsorbansadvertisingtochildren,broadcasterswillstopshowingchildrens

programs or greatly reduce their quality and quantity.
Clearly,thisisnotinthepublicinterest.Consumersalso
benet from childrens advertising. In Greece, children
havealimitedselectionoftoysbecauseofagovernment
banontoyadvertisements.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbantelevisionadvertisingtochildren.
ThisHousewouldrestrictadvertisingaimedatchildren.
ThisHousewouldprotectchildren.
ThisHousebelieveschildrenhavearighttotheirchildhood.
WebLinks:
TheCenterfortheNewAmericanDream.<http://www.newdream.org/campaign/kids/index.html>
Statisticsaboutadvertisingandmarketingtargetedatchildren.
TheChildrensAdvertisingReviewUnit.<http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/safeharbor/caruselfreg.pdf>
Self-regulatoryguidelinesforchildrensadvertising.
YoungMediaAustralia.<http://www.youngmedia.org.au/mediachildren/03_advertising.htm>
Informationontheeffectsofadvertisingandspecicallytheimpactofadvertisingfood,clothes,andtoysonchildren.
FurtherReading:
Fox,RoyF.HarvestingMinds:HowTVCommercialsControlKids.Praeger,2000.
Gunter,Barry,andAdrianFurnham.ChildrenAsConsumers.Butterworth-Heinemann,1997.
Macklin,M.Carole,andLesCarlson,eds.AdvertisingtoChildren:ConceptsandControversies.Sage,1999.
AFFIRMATIVEACTION
Afrmative action in the United States was born of the civil rights and womens movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It is designed to provide historically disadvantaged groupsminorities and womenspecial consideration in education, housing, and employment. Those institutions with afrmative action policies generally set goals for increased diversity, although the courts have ruled quotas unconstitutional. By
the end of the twentieth century, Supreme Court decisions had limited afrmative action, and a vocal opposition movement was arguing
that it was no longer necessary. In June 2003, however, the Supreme Court ruled that universities could use race as one factor in making
admission decisions, although the deeply divided Court seemed to put limits on the weight race should receive.
PROS
CONS
Womenandminoritieshavefrequentlyfacedobstacles
anddifcultiesinaccesstoeducationandemployment
that white males did not. Afrmative action levels the
playingeld.
Alldiscriminationisnegative.Itisalwayswrongtoselect
on any basis other than merit and ability. Afrmative
action leads to able applicants being unfairly passed
over.
PROS
CONS
Afrmative action unlocks the unrealized potential of

millions.Minorityapplicantsarejustasskilledasthose
fromthemajoritybuttheirtalentsareuntappedbecause
oflackofopportunity.Thecountrygainsenormouslyby
usingthetalentsofallourcitizens.
Afrmative action results in less able applicants lling

positions.Employersmusthavetheexibilitytoemploy
thebestcandidatestoensureefciencyandproductivity.
Successfulminoritymembersarerolemodelswhowill Afrmative action undermines the achievements of

encouragethedevelopmentofminorityyoungsters.
minoritymembersbycreatingtheimpressionthatsuccess was unearned. Some members of minorities see
afrmativeactionaspatronizingandastokenismonthe
partofthemajority.
Bringing more minority applicants into the workplace Afrmativeactioncausesresentmentamongthosewho
will change racist and sexist attitudes because workers do not benet from it and creates a backlash against
willbegintoknoweachotherasindividualsratherthan minorities.
stereotypes.
Theproportionofminoritiesinparticularjobsshould
mirror that of the minority in the general population.
The underrepresentation of minorities and women in
certaineldsleadstoperceptionsofinstitutionalracism
andsexism.
Granted,weshouldaimforimprovingminorityrepresentation in high-prole positions, but we should not

sacriceouremphasisonmeritandability.Insteadwe
shouldgiveeveryonebetteraccesstoeducationsothat
wecanchooseonmeritandwithoutdiscrimination.
Getting minority candidates into top jobs will enable Educational institutions are becoming more diverse.
themtochangethesystemfromtheinsidetomakeit Thisdiversityultimatelywillleadtoincreasingminority
representationinseniorpositionsinbusiness,education,
fairerforall.
andgovernment.Althoughthepaceofchangeisnotas
fastasitmightbe,wehaveseenimprovement.Continuedimplementationofafrmativeactioncouldleadtoa
backlashthatstopsprogress.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesinafrmativeaction.
ThisHousebelievesracedoesmatter.
ThisHousewouldactafrmatively.
WebLinks:
AfrmativeActionandDiversityProject.<http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/>
SitemaintainedbytheUniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara,offeringarticlesandtheoreticalanalysis,publicdocuments,current
legislativeinitiatives,andresourcesonafrmativeaction.
AfrmativeActionSpecialReport.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/afrm/afrm.htm>
WashingtonPostsiteofferingoverviewofissue,keystoriesfromthePost,andlinkstootherresources.
FurtherReading:
Beckwith,FrancisJ.,andToddE.Jones.AfrmativeAction:SocialJusticeorReverseDiscrimination?Prometheus,1997.
Curry,GeorgeE.,andCornelWest,eds.TheAfrmativeActionDebate.Perseus,1996.
Mosley,Albert,andNicholasCapaldi.AfrmativeAction:SocialJusticeorUnfairPreference?RowmanandLittleeld,1996.
|25
AFGHANISTAN,INVASIONOF
Even before the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, Afghanistan was probably the most
isolated country in the world. Only three countries recognized its Taliban rulers, who in the mid-1990s had swept across that country to
impose a very strict and distinctive form of Islamic law upon the Afghan people. Osama bin Laden had based his Al Qaeda organization
in Afghanistan since 1996. The Taliban said that bin Laden was a guest of the Afghan people and refused to give him up, prompting
military action against the regime.
PROS
CONS
AftertheSeptember11attacks,theUSwasfullyjustied in waging war to punish those responsible and to

preventfutureattacks.TheTalibangovernmentwasnot
a passive host of bin Laden but was closely associated
withhimideologically.Byshelteringhimandhisterroristnetworkandbyrefusingtogivehimup,theTaliban
becamehisaccomplicesinterrorismanddeservedtobe
overthrown.
EventhoughbinLadenmastermindedtheSeptember11
atrocities,thiswasnoreasonfortheinvasionofAfghanistan.Giventhefragmentarynatureofgovernment,the
Talibanwasprobablyincapableofseizinghimevenhad
itwishedtodoso.
TheinvasionofAfghanistanwasaimedatcapturingbin
Laden and overthrowing the Taliban, which harbored
him. It was not a war against the Afghan people.The
Afghan people, especially women and ethnic and religious minorities, suffered greatly under Taliban rule.
Theirliveshaveimprovedsincetheinvasion.
EveniftheTalibanwasjudgedtobeequallyguiltywith
binLaden,theAfghanpeoplewerenot.Yettheyarethe
ones who have suffered through the invasion and the
ongoingpowerstrugglesamongthelocalwarlords.
Invasion was the only way to capture bin Laden and InvadingAfghanistandidnotleadtobinLadenscapture
destroy his terrorist organization. Without the com- despiteanextensiveon-the-groundsearchandbombing
mitment of land forces the global coalition formed by campaign.
theUScouldnothavehopedtoachieveitsobjectives.
Inaddition,becausetheTalibanregimewassoisolated
beforeSeptember2001,nomeaningfuldiplomaticsanctionscouldhavebeenappliedinanattempttoachieve
theseaimspeacefully.
Invasion was the only way to prevent terrorists using
Afghanistanasabaseinthefuture.TheTalibanprovided
asupportivebaseforarangeofterroristgroupsseeking
tooverthrowregimesinCentralAsia,China,andKashmir, as well as for the global terrorist campaign of Al
Qaeda.ThestabilityofthewholeCentralAsianregion
depended on the installation in Afghanistan of a new
government dedicated to peaceful coexistence with its
neighbors.Thiscouldonlyhavebeenachievedthrough
aninvasion.
An invasion using conventional military tactics will

neverbeeffectiveagainstadiffuse,highlysecretiveinternationalnetworksuchasAlQaeda.Aswehaveseen,the
organizationmayhavebeendrivenoutofAfghanistan
butcontinuesitsactivitiesfrombaseselsewhere.Tohave
madethewholepopulationofAfghanistansufferinthe
vainhopeofdamagingsuchanelusiveorganizationwas
andisunacceptable.
PROS
CONS
SwiftanddecisiveactionagainstAfghanistanwasnecessaryasadeterrenttootherregimesthinkingofsupportingterrorism.Ifitisclearthatallowingattacksonother
countrieswillresultinmassiveretaliationandtheswift
overthrowofthesponsoringregime,thentheworldwill
havebecomeasaferplaceandsomegoodwillhavecome
outofthetragedyofSeptember11.
Ill-consideredactionagainstAfghanistanhasmadethe
US more widely feared and hated. The invasion has
increasedsympathyforbinLaden,especiallyinIslamic
countries. This in itself seriously increases the risk of
future terrorist attacks, but it also threatens moderate
andpro-WesternIslamicnations.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportstheinvasionofAfghanistan.
ThisHousecelebratesthetopplingoftheTaliban.
ThisHousewouldoverthrowregimesthatsupportterrorism.
WebLinks:
AcrosstheGreatDivide.<http://newyorker.com/FROM_THE_ARCHIVE/ARCHIVES/?010924fr_archive05>
AnarticlefromtheNewYorkermagazine(May2000)providingbackgroundontheTaliban.
TheTaliban:AfghansFundamentalistLeaders.<http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/taliban.html>
CanadianBroadcastingCompanyarticleontheTaliban,includingapartiallistofwhatwasbannedunderitsregime.
Time.comPrimer:UnderstandingtheTalibanandAfghanistan.<http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.
html>
ArticleprovidingbackgroundontheTaliban,theproblemsbinLadenposedforit,andthepoliticsofthearea.
UnitedStatesDepartmentofDefense.<http://www.defenselink.mil>
Providesup-to-datenewsonthemilitaryaspectsofthecampaignagainstterrorism,includingtheinvasionofAfghanistan.
USInvasionofAfghanistan.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan>
Ahistoryoftheinvasion.
FurtherReading:
Coll,Steve.GhostWars:TheSecretHistoryoftheCIA,Afghanistan,andBinLaden,fromtheSovietInvasiontoSeptember10,2001.
Penguin,2004.
Cooley,JohnK.UnholyWars.Stylus,2000.
Gohari,M.J.TheTaliban:AscenttoPower.OxfordUniversityPressPrintonDemand,2001.
Goodson,Larry.AfghanistansEndlessWar:StateFailure,RegionalPoliticsandtheRiseoftheTaliban.UniversityofWashingtonPress,
2001.
Margolis,Eric.WarattheTopoftheWorld:TheStruggleforAfghanistan,KashmirandTibet.Routledge,2001.
Marsden,Peter.TheTaliban:WarandReligioninAfghanistan.ZedBooks,2002.
|27
AFRICANAFFAIRS,OUTSIDEINTERVENTIONIN
Africa has had some of the bloodiest and most violent conicts of recent decades. In Rwanda, for example, hundreds of thousands of people
died during the 1990s in a genocidal war. In the United States and in Europe international organizations such as the United Nations
have been criticized for their slowness in dealing with these conicts. Others maintain, however, that non-African organizations and former
colonial powers have no legitimate role to play in Africas politics and African conicts. African conicts need African solutions, not articial resolutions imposed by non-African nations and organizations.
PROS
CONS
Often,onlyneighboringcountriesareabletorespondto
crisesinatimelymanner.AcaseinpointwastheSouth
African intervention in an uprising in Lesotho. It stabilizedthecountryandrestoredtherightfulruler,thus
preventingapotentialcivilwar.
Is the involvement of African countries really without

self-interest? For example, Zimbabwes involvement
in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC)was,atleastinpart,toenableittogainaccessto
thediamondminesandotherresourcesinthewarzones.
Someneighboringcountrieshaveagreatervestedinterestinfuelingwarsthaninstoppingthem.
Regionalinterventionisoftenmoreeffectiveinproducingchange.WhileinternationalgroupssuchastheUN
maybesuccessfulinkeepingthepeace,theirphilosophy
leaves once their soldiers go home. By having regional
groupsintervene,thechangestheyimposeremainafter
thesoldiersdepart.Regionalpoliticswillensurepolitical
progress.
The effect of regional blocs on many African despots

hasbeennil.Forexample,ZimbabwesPresidentRobert
Mugabe has consistently ignored condemnation from
neighboringcountries.Theinuenceworksbothways:
Many corrupt but politically powerful countries force
their neighbors to condone their acts. In the case of
Zimbabwe,cronyism,especiallyintheSouthernAfrican
Development Community (SADEC), has resulted in
many African nations condoning human rights abuses
inthecountry.
Theuniquesituationsandpowerorganizationspresent
in many African conicts are best understood by the
countries involved and their immediate neighbors. A
one-size-ts-allinternationalresponsefailstotakeinto
accountspecialcircumstancesandfrequentlyresultsin
the breakdown of negotiations or mediation. African
leadersarealsomorelikelytotrustandcooperatewith
regionalorganizations,suchasSADEC,thanwithinternationalorganizations.
TheuniqueunderstandingofAfricanpoliticsisoften
nomorethancronyismordictatorsensuringeachothers
continued power. In these cases, an impartial international intervention is far preferable. In other cases this
uniqueunderstandingmeansthesurroundingcountries
havealignedthemselveswithdifferentsidesinthewar,
escalatingit,ratherthancontributingtopeace.
African countries must be seen to be successfully pursuing democratic and economic development. Many
Africanleadersstillcarrycolonialresentmentsthatmake
foreigninterventiondifcultorimpossible.Theseleaders will be willing to listen to African approaches to a
problem, while automatically distrusting foreign ones,
howeverwellintentioned.
We need to be sure that the intervention is justied.

Whilemanycountriesmaybedemocraticinnameonly,
itisgenerallytheroleoftheinternationalcommunityto
determinewhetherviolatingthesovereigntyofanother
countryisjustied.Assumingthatsuchdecisioncould
best be made by the countries closest to the despots
wouldbeamistakebecausethosecountrieswouldprobablybetheleastimpartial.Manyongoingconictshave
beenstartedorsustainedonthebeliefofneighborsthat
itwasthemoralthingtodo.
PROS
CONS
Mostofthepowerfulcountriesandinternationalorganizations are loathe to become involved in the sort of

peacemaking (as opposed to peacekeeping) needed in
African countries. Active and direct participation of
infantry and other elements of armies is required to
ghtguerrillawarssuchasthatintheDRC.Thecurrenttrendawayfromthissortofmilitaryinterventionis
illsuitedtoaddressingAfricanproblems.Africancountries, by contrast, have already illustrated that they are
willingandabletobecomeinvolvedinthiscapacity,as
evidencedintheDRC.
Just because the intervening country uses infantry or

tanks instead of negotiation or aerial bombardment
doesntmakeitanymorelikelytorestorepeace.Vietnam
istheclassicexampleofhowusinginfantrytointervene
inaguerrillawarisfutile.OnanAfricanstage,infantry
interventionbyneighboringcountrieshasincreasedonly
thedeathtoll,notthesuccessatendingthewar.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldkeepitsownpeace.
ThisHousedoesntneedtheUN/US.
ThisHousewouldsolveitsownproblems.
WebLinks:
AmnestyInternational:DemocraticRepublicofCongo:WarAgainstUnarmedCivilians.<http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/
index/AFR620361998>
OverviewofhumanrightsissuesintheDemocraticRepublicofCongobyleadinghumanrightsorganization.
WhenAllElseFails,MugabeGetsRough.<http://www.lowell.edu/users/grundy/public/oped001.html>
ShortessayonRobertMugabesoppressiveruleinZimbabwe.
FurtherReading:
DuPlessis,L.,andM.Hough.ManagingAfricanConict:TheChallengeofMilitaryIntervention.HSRCPublishers,2000.
Smock,DavidR.,ed.MakingWarandWagingPeace:ForeignInterventioninAfrica.UnitedStatesInstituteofPeacePress,1993.
West,HarryG.,ed.ConictandItsResolutioninContemporaryAfrica.UniversityPressofAmerica,1997.
|29
AFRICANLANGUAGESINAFRICANSCHOOLS
Many African schools use French and English in the classroom, a legacy of Africas colonial past. However, this may not altogether
undermine the value of the practice. English is increasingly becoming an international language for both business and culture. Would
African nations be putting themselves at a disadvantage if they taught their own distinctive linguistic and cultural heritages by using native
languages in the classroom?
PROS
CONS
The use of non-African languages such as French and

EnglishinAfricanschoolsisathrowbacktocolonialism.
Theywereadoptedmorebytheorderoftherulersofthe
daythanforanypracticaladvantagetheymightgive.
FluencyinEnglishconfersmanyacademicadvantages.
Englishisthelanguageofmostacademicpublications,
ofworldbusiness,andofothermodernresourcessuchas
thoseontheInternet.PeoplewhodonotknowEnglish
arehandicapped.
If the issue is one of understanding, then it is a weak

argument. Many countries (e.g., Japan and Germany)
have proved that they can be powerful both academically and economically by teaching pupils in their
mothertonguewhileprovidingearlyandcomprehensive
instructioninEnglishasasecondlanguage.Instruction
inthelanguageofthecountryservestomaintaincultural
identity;translationisaneasyoptionforturningEnglish
textsintotherequiredlanguage.Thismaynotevenbe
necessaryifschoolsencourageprociencyinEnglishas
asecondlanguage.
DevelopingAfricancountriesarenotinthesameposition as highly industrialized and computerized Japan

and Germany. Developing countries do not have the
resourcestoteachasecondlanguagetothelevelofhigh
prociencythatispossibleindevelopednations.Translationisnotonlytediousbutalsodelaystheaccessibility
ofimportantscienticandacademictextsforexpertsin
thecountry.Translationisalsonotanacceptableoption
inconversation,suchasconferencesandspeeches.
Insteadoflookingathowindigenouslanguagescant
intotheglobalsociety,weshouldlookathowEnglish
ts into other societies. The vast majority of Africans
have grown up speaking languages other than English
astheirrstlanguage;thusbyadoptingEnglishasthe
standard language of your country, you are essentially
disempoweringmostcitizensinacademic,commercial,
andevensocialspheres.
ThesuccessofFirstWorldnationsshouldnotbeused
as evidence for the success of instruction in another
languagebecauseitisbasedonhighlydevelopededucationalsystemsthatarelackinginmostAfricannations.
PerhapsEnglishmayhavearoleinthefutureofdeveloping countrieswhen they are powerful enough to

competeglobally.Forthemoment,however,manyare
divided internallymost often on ethnic lines. Only
by respecting peoples ethnicity (of which language is
animportantcomponent)willAfricanseverbeableto
achievethesortofnationalstrengthtocompeteglobally.
Untilthen,theuseofEnglishwillhandicap,nothelp,
Africannations.
The inuences of the world on a country cannot be

ignored. By adopting an indigenous language, you are
isolatingyourcountrylinguisticallyfromtherestofthe
world. No matter how good that may be for cohesion
within a country, your country will be held hostage
ininternationalrelationsbythosefewwhoareableto
understandandnegotiateinEnglish.
Makinganindigenouslanguagearstlanguagedoesnot Many African countries do not have one or even two

excludemakingEnglishasecondlanguage.Thestandard indigenous languages. South Africa, for example, has
ofeducationforeachlanguagemustremainhigh,butwe 10ofciallanguagesthatarenotEnglish.Ifyouallow
PROS
CONS
arerespectingpupilsrightstobecomemoreprocient
inthelanguagetheycommonlyuseintheirsociety;this
isfarmorebenecialtothemthanhavingitrelegatedto
second-languagestatus.English,bycontrast,isspoken
muchlessfrequentlyinAfricancountries,andmakingit
asecondlanguagerecognizesthis.
peopletooptforoneoftheseasarstlanguage,youare
dividingyourcountry.Ifyoudeclareonelanguagetobe
thenorm,itwouldhavetobeEnglishbecauseithasthe
mostpracticaluseforyourcountry.Adoptingalanguage
otherthanEnglishwouldleaveacountrywiththesame
problemofglobalisolationraisedearlier.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldplaceitsownculturerst.
ThisHousewouldputitselfrst.
ThisHousebelievesinalanguagebarrier.
ThisHousewouldputEnglishlast.
AIDSDRUGSFORDEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES
The vast majority of people infected with HIV/AIDS live in Africa, more specically, sub-Saharan Africa. These typically poorer and
developing countries are confronting the issue of the cost of drugs for treating the disease. Some nations say that they cannot afford the
drugs and that drug companies are making an immoral prot; some nations have threatened to ignore the patents of pharmaceutical companies and to manufacture generic forms of HIV/AIDS drugs unless the companies agree to lower their prices for poorer markets. Bending
to international pressure, in the opening years of the 21st century, some of the worlds largest drug companies announced that they planned
to cut the cost of HIV/AIDS drugs in the worlds poorest countries.
PROS
CONS
Without a doubt many of the worlds pharmaceutical

companies are making large prots by selling drugs to
poor nations that have a great portion of their population infected with HIV/AIDS. This is an immoral
exploitationofthoseAIDSsuffererswhocanleastafford
topayfortreatmentandwhohavetheleastpowerinternationallytonegotiatecheaperprices.
Just like any business, the pharmaceutical companies need to recoup signicant nancial investment in
research and development.The development of AIDS
drugs is highly technical, and a measurable return on
initialnancialinvestmentisneededifcompaniesareto
continuedrugresearchanddevelopment.
The countries with the biggest AIDS problems are a

captivemarketandareforcedtopaywhateverthedrug
companiesdemandfortheirproducts.Poornationsare
thus justied in using the threat of producing generic
drugstoforcedrugcompaniestolowerprices.
Drugcompaniesareasmuchsubjecttotheforcesofthe
freemarketasanyotherbusiness.Thethreatofillegally
producinggenericdrugsonlyfurtherservestodiscourage
drug companies from creating new and more effective
medicines because the developing nations have shown
themthatpatentprotectionswillbeignored.
Generic drugs would be far cheaper to produce and

wouldavoidtheshippingcostsfromfactoriesinEurope
orAmerica.Genericdrugshavenoresearchanddevelopmentcoststorecoup,sotheycouldbesoldforaprice
Becausemostofthedrugcompaniesarebasedinricher,
FirstWorld nations, they have both the technology to
produceeffectivemedicinesandthefundingtoensure
that no corners are cut in the process. Poorer nations
|31
PROS
CONS
greatlyreducedfromcurrentlevels.Thecostofkeeping
apersononAZTorotherdrugcocktailsisexorbitant;
suchcostwouldbegreatlyreducedthroughtheuseof
genericdrugs.
would almost certainly cut chemical corners in manufacturinggenericdrugsshouldthetechnologyforlargescalemanufactureevenbeavailable.Inaddition,bycontravening international treaties covering patents, they
would not benet from the next generation of AIDS
drugsbecausecompanieswouldbereluctanttosupply
thenewerdrugstoacountrythatstealsadrugformula
tomanufacturegenericdrugs.
Millions of people will continue to suffer while drug

companiesrefusetomakeAIDSmedicationavailableto
poorernationsatapricetheycanafford.Aretheytrying
tousethemillionsofHIVsufferersashostagesintheir
battletogetthepricestheywant?
Is it right that those infected with HIV in the Third

WorldgethugediscountswhilethoseintheFirstWorld
payfullprice?Developednationsmayevenhavetopay
more if the drug companies decide to subsidize their
charitysalestopoorcountries.Arenotpoorcountries
themselvesusingsufferersashostages?Manydeveloping
nations could realize signicant long-term savings by
buyingandusingpreventivemedicinestostopmotherto-childtransmission,etc.
Drugcompanieswillnotlosemoneybyreducingprices;
theirmarketwillexpand.Ifpricesarereduced,thedrugs
willbecomeaffordabletomillionsofsufferers,manyof
whom will be using products like AZT for the rest of
theirlives.
ThemajorityofThirdWorldcountrieswouldbeunable
to afford the drugs even at a breakeven price. One-off
treatmentstopreventmother-to-childtransmission,for
example,wouldbeexpensiveenough.Thecostforcomplexdrugcocktailswouldstillbecompletelyoutofreach
ofdevelopingnations.Drugcompanieswouldhaveto
selltheirmedicationsatalosstomakethemaffordable
tomostdevelopingnations.
HIV/AIDS treatments are as cheap as they can be at

present. By buying the medicines now, especially for
preventivepurposes,developingnationscanreducethe
chanceoffutureHIVinfectionintheirpopulationsand
thusnotneedtobuythenextgenerationof(inevitably
moreexpensive)drugs.
No matter how low the drug companies price HIV/

AIDS treatments, they are unlikely to ever be cheap
enough:AsthenumberofHIVinfectedpeopleinAfrica
grows,thestrainonnationalhealthbudgetswillbecome
unbearable.Developingcountriesarebetteroffpursuing
preventativemeasuresandeducation.Governmentswill
needtousetheirhealthcarefundscarefullyproducing
genericmedicinesofferssignicantsavings.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldinsistoncheaperdrugs.
ThisHousebelievesthatcapitalismletsthesicksuffer.
ThisHousewantstheFirstWorldtohelp.
ThisHouseneedshelpwithAIDS.
ThisHousewouldghtAIDS.
WebLinks:
EarthSummit2002.<http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/issues/AIDS/hiv.htm>
OfferslinkstoawidevarietyoforganizationsandpapersonHIV/AIDSissues.
HEALTH:CheaperAIDSDrugsaMyth,SaysMedicalAidAgency.<http://www.aegis.com/news/ips/2000/IP000505.html>
InternationalPressServicearticleonthecontroversysurroundingpharmaceuticalcompanyagreementstosupplyinexpensiveHIV/
AIDSdrugstopoorcountries.
FurtherReading:
Hope,KempeR.AIDSandDevelopmentinAfrica:ASocialSciencePerspective.Haworth,1999.
IntensifyingActionAgainstHiv/AIDSinAfrica:RespondingtoaDevelopmentCrisis.WorldBank,2000.
Webb,Douglas.HIVandAIDSinAfrica.PlutoPress,1997.
ALCOHOL,BANNINGOF
In almost all countries, adults can buy and consume alcohol with very little restriction (although there are often restrictions on the times
and places alcohol can be sold). This is a marked contrast to the legal status of other mind-altering drugs, including marijuana, cocaine,
Ecstasy (methamphetamine), and heroin. Alcohol abuse has a serious impact on society. In 2000 alcohol-related trafc accidents were
responsible for almost 17,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries in the United States. In 1996 alcohol-related crimes cost the
United States $19.7 billion, while alcohol abuse resulted in $82 billion in lost productivity. Despite the far-reaching impact of alcohol
abuse, the failure of Prohibition in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s makes most people very wary of trying a ban again.
PROS
CONS
Alcohol is just as potentially addictive as many illegal

drugs.Thosewhobecomeaddictedoftenlosetheirmarriages,jobs,families,andeventheirlives.Alargeproportionofhomelesspeopleweremadesobecauseofalcoholism.Anydrugthisaddictiveanddestructiveshould
beillegal.
Theperfectsocietymightprohibittheproductionand
sale of alcohol. However, in most cultures, alcohol,
unlikeotherdrugs,isanintegralpartofsociallifeand
culture.To ban it is completely impractical. Doing so
would make criminals of billions of people and create
thebiggestblackmarkettheworldhaseverseen.
Inmanycountriesalcoholisacontributoryfactorin60
70%ofviolentcrimes,includingchildabuse,domestic
violence,sexualassault,andmurder.Inaddition,alcohol
isfarandawaytheleadingcauseofpublicdisorder,street
ghts,etc.Inshort,alcoholisoneoftheprimecauses
of violence and crime in modern society, and its banning would immediately reduce the incidence of these
crimes.
Human beings are naturally inclined to violence and

conict.Sexandviolenceareprimalpartsofourgenetic
make-up,andwedonotneedalcoholtobringthemto
the surface. At worst, alcohol may slightly exaggerate
these tendenciesbut that makes it the occasion, not
the underlying cause, of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social. Making rape and
murderillegaldoesnoteradicaterapeandmurder,soit
isunlikelythatmakingalcoholconsumptionillegalwill
dosoeither.
Although organizations like Mothers Against Drunk

DrivinghavesuccessfullyreducedthenumberofdrunkdrivingdeathsintheUnitedStates,deathsandserious
injuries caused by drunk drivers still run to the thousands each year. This is unacceptable. Alcohol should
simplybebanned.
The progress made against drunk driving in recent

decadeshasbeenveryencouraging.Weshouldcontinue
tocampaignagainstitandhaveeveryreasontohopethat
campaignstorestrictdrinkinganddrivingwilleventually eradicate the problem. Injuries and deaths, while
tragic, are not a good enough reason to take away the
civillibertiesofthevastmajorityoflaw-abidingcitizens
bydeprivingthemofthepleasureofdrinkingalcohol.
|33
PROS
CONS
We need consistency in our drug laws. If marijuana,

whichisnotveryaddictiveandwhichresultsinvirtually
noviolentcrimeorpublicdisorder,needstobebanned
because of its mind-altering effects, then how much
moresoshouldalcoholbebanned?
Yes,weshouldhaveconsistentdruglaws,whichiswhyit
isabsurdformarijuanatobeillegal.Marijuanaandalcoholshouldbothbelegaldrugsbecausethevastmajority
ofpeopleknowhowtousethemsafelyandresponsibly.
Currentlythousandsofpeopleareemployedbythealcoholindustry.However,thefactthatanimmoralindustry
employsalotofpeopleisneveragoodargumenttokeep
that immoral industry going. Instead, the government
shouldfundprogramstoretrainworkers.
The alcohol industry is an enormous global industry.

Thus,notonlywouldbanningalcoholinfringeonpeoplescivillibertiestoaunacceptabledegree,itwouldalso
putthousandsofpeopleoutofwork.
Tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned.

Again,however,thisisnotaprincipledreasontoreject
the proposition, simply a practical problem. Governments could signicantly reduce spending on police
andhealththroughthereductionincrimeandalcoholrelatedillnessresultingfromanalcoholban.
Currently governments raise large amounts of revenue

fromtaxesanddutiespayableonalcohol.Tobanalcohol
would take away a major source of funding for public
services. In addition, enforcing the ban would call for
much additional policing. It would also create a new
class of illegal drug users, trafckers, and dealers that
wouldbeunprecedentedinsize.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbanalcohol.
ThisHousewouldhitthebottle.
ThisHousebelievesthatalcoholistherootofallevil.
WebLinks:
AlcoholicsAnonymous.<http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/>
Offersinformationontheorganizationsprogramandservices.
MothersAgainstDrunkDriving(MADD).<http://www.madd.org/>
Goodsourceforstatistics,laws,andinitiativesondrunkdrivingandunderagedrinking.
TheNationalClearingHouseforAlcoholandDrugInformation.<http://www.ncadi.samhsa.gov/>
Excellentsourceforlinkstoalargenumberofarticlesonalcohol,alcoholism,andthesocialandeconomicimpactofproblemdrinking.
FurtherReading:
Plant,Martin,andDouglasCameron,eds.TheAlcoholReport.FreeAssn.Books,2000.
AMERICANCULTURE:SHOULDITBEFEARED?
The United States has the strongest economy in the worldand through that economy has exported its culture around the globe: American manufactured goods are ubiquitous; American television shows are familiar fare as far away as eastern Europe and India; American
fast food chains have planted restaurants in cities from Dublin to Tokyo. In addition, American lms dominate the movie screens of every
continent. The Internet itself is an American invention, populated largely by American sites. In short, people around the world are constantly exposed to the American way of lifeand have, to varying degrees, adopted American customs and values. The worlds peoples,
however, have shown some resistance and resentment. One striking example came in 1999 when French farmers vandalized a McDonalds franchise. They are not alone: Political and cultural leaders in many countries have denounced the insidious inuence of American
culture, which may weaken traditional and indigenous cultures.
PROS
CONS
American culture is materialistic and individualistic.

Americansareconcernedprimarilywiththeirownpersonalwealthandwell-being,andgiveinsufcientregard
tothegoodofsocietyasawhole.
DemocracyhasfunctionedinAmericalongerthananywhereelseintheworld.Americansocietyisfoundedon
the importance of individual liberty and is devoted to
protectingindividualrightsandfreedoms.
Americanculturehasastrongcomponentofviolence
evidencedbywidespreadgunownership,thedeathpenalty,andthefocusoncrimeandviolenceinAmerican
entertainment. European cultures, in particular, are
morepeacefulandhumane.
TheUnitedStatesoffersrealopportunitiesforitscitizens
toimprovetheirlives.Americansarenotboundtostay
in the same social and economic class as their parents
orgrandparents.Withuniversalpubliceducation,anda
systemofhighereducationthataccommodatesmillions
ofstudents,manyofthemfromforeignlands,America
helpshardworkerstogetahead.
Americansocietyisdrivenbyconsumptionnotjustof
goodsandservices,butalsooffood.TheAmericandiet,
fastfoodforthemostpart,isunhealthyandaccountsfor
theepidemicofobesityinAmerica.BycopyingAmerica,othercountriesarejeopardizingthehealthoftheir
citizens.
America prizes and rewards creativity and leads the

worldininnovation.Americacontinuallydevelopsnew
products and new technologies; American advances in
medicine and pharmaceuticals have improved health
andlengthenedlivestheworldover.
American culture is ignorant and arrogant. Americans

have little understanding of other parts of the world,
butreexivelyassumethatAmericancultureissuperior
toeverythingelse.Americansareintentuponimposing
theircultureontheworld.
TheUnitedStatesisoneoftheworldsmostdiverseand
tolerant societies. The nation was founded by people
whocamefromdifferentcountriesandpracticeddifferent religions; throughout its history, America has welcomed immigrants from all over the world. American
identityisnotbasedonethnicity.
America seeks to dominate the world, but it does not

recognize its responsibilities to the world; America has
notdoneenoughtoprotecttheenvironmentortoeliminatediseaseandpovertyinothercountries.
The American commitment to improving the world

began with the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe
afterWorldWarII.TheUnitedStateshasbeenaleader
inhelpingtodeveloptheeconomiesofpoorernations.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportstherestrictionofforeignprogramsonnationaltelevision.
ThisHousewouldforbidfurtherconstructionofgoldenarches.
|35
WebLinks:
Anti-AmericanismHasTakentheWorldbyStorm.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0%2C3604%2C645562%2C00.html>
AnessaybyauthorSalmanRushdieaboutreasonsforanti-Americansentiment.
CanadianNationalismandAnti-Americanism.<http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/index.shtml>
AWebsitethatexaminesthepossibilityofthepoliticalamalgamationoftheUSandCanada;alsodiscussesquestionsofCanadian
identityandAmericanculturalinuence.
WhyAnti-Americanism?<http://www.empower.org/patriotism/podhoretz.pdf>
AnessaybyconservativewriterNormanPodhoretzthatoffersadefenseofAmericanvalues.
FurtherReading:
Barber,Benjamin.Jihadvs.McWorld:HowGlobalismandTribalismAreReshapingtheWorld.Ballantine,1996.
Hardt,Michael,andAntonioNegri.Empire.HarvardUniversityPress,2001.
Huntington,SamuelP.TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingoftheWorldOrder.Touchstone,1998.
ANIMALRIGHTS
In the nineteenth century reformers began urging the more humane treatment of animals and founded groups like the American Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to improve the conditions rst of working animals and then of domestic and farm animals as
well. In the 1970s Australian philosopher Peter Singer became one of the rst to argue that animals have rights. While most people agree
that humans have an obligation to care for animals and treat them humanely, the idea that they have rights remains contentious.
PROS
CONS
Humanbeingsareaccordedrightsonthebasisthatthey
areabletothinkandtofeelpain.Manyotheranimals
arealsoabletothink(tosomeextent)andarecertainly
abletofeelpain.Thereforenonhumananimalsshould
alsobeaccordedrights,e.g.,toafreeandhealthylife.
Human beings are innitely more complex than any

otherlivingcreatures.Theirabilitiestothinkandtalk,to
formsocialsystemswithrightsandresponsibilities,and
to feel emotions are developed well beyond any other
animals. Trying to prevent the most obvious cases of
unnecessarysufferingortortureofanimalsisreasonable,
butbeyondthat,nonhumananimalsdonotdeserveto
begivenrights.
Ever since the publication of Charles Darwins Origin

of Species in 1859 we have known that human beings
arerelatedbycommonancestrytoallotheranimals.We
oweadutyofcaretoouranimalcousins.
Thatweare(incrediblydistantly)relatedtootheranimalsdoesnotmeanthattheyhaverights.Thissortof
thinking would lead to absurdities. Should we respect
therighttolifeofbacteria?Wemightwishtoreduce
unnecessaryanimalsuffering,butnotbecauseallcreaturestowhichwearedistantlyrelatedhaverights.
Weshoulderronthesideofcautioninascribingrights
tohumanornonhumancreatures.Ifweplacehighstandards(suchastheabilitytothink,speak,oreventoenter
intoasocialcontract)ontheascriptionofrights,there
isadangerthatnotonlyanimalsbutalsohumaninfants
andmentallyhandicappedadultswillbeconsideredto
havenorights.
Only human beings who are members of society have

rights.Rightsareprivilegesthatcomewithcertainsocial
dutiesandmoralresponsibilities.Animalsarenotcapableofenteringintothissortofsocialcontractthey
are neither moral nor immoral, they are amoral.They
donotrespectourrights,andtheyareirrationaland
entirelyinstinctual.Amoralandirrationalcreatureshave
PROS
CONS
neitherrightsnordutiestheyaremorelikerobotsthan
people. All human beings or potential human beings
(e.g., unborn children) can potentially be given rights,
butnonhumananimalsdonotfallintothatcategory.
Crueltytoanimalsisthesignofanuncivilizedsociety;it
encouragesviolenceandbarbarisminsocietymoregenerally.Asocietythatrespectsanimalsandrestrainsbase
andviolentinstinctsisamorecivilizedone.
Using animals for our own nutrition and pleasure is

completelynatural.Inthewildanimalsstruggletosurvive,arehuntedbypredators,andcompeteforfoodand
resources. Human beings have been successful in this
struggleforexistenceanddonotneedtofeelashamed
ofexploitingtheirpositionasasuccessfulspeciesinthe
evolutionaryprocess.
That a small number of extremists and criminals have

attachedthemselvestotheanimalrightsmovementdoes
not invalidate the cause. Why shouldnt animal rights
supportersandactiviststakemedicine?Theyaremorally
obligatedtotakecareofthemselvesinthebestwaythey
canuntilmorehumaneresearchmethodsaredeveloped
andimplemented.
Animalrightsactivistsarehypocrites,extremists,andterroristswhodontcareabouthumanlife.Organizations
like the Animal Liberation Front use terrorist tactics
and death threats; People for the EthicalTreatment of
Animalsisalsoanextremistorganization.Theseextremistsstillavailthemselvesofmodernmedicine,however,
which could not have been developed without experimentsandtestsonanimals.Animalwelfareisareasonableconcern,buttalkingofanimalrightsisasignof
extremismandirrationality.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatanimalshaverightstoo.
ThisHousewouldrespectanimalsrights.
ThisHousecondemnstheexploitationofanimals.
WebLinks:
AnimalRightsFAQ.<http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm>
Includesabout100FAQs,biographiesofanimalrightsactivists,listsofUSandUKorganizations,bibliography,andlinkstoother
animalrightsgroups.
EthicsUpdates.Edu:TheMoralStatusofAnimals.<http://ethics.acusd.edu/animal.html>
IncludesessaysonthemoralstatusofanimalsaswellaslinkstoSupremeCourtdecisionsonanimalsandsitesrelatingtoanimal
rights.
PeoplefortheEthicalTreatmentofAnimals.<http://www.peta-online.org/>
Homepageforradicalanimalrightsorganizationincludesnewsstoriesonanimalsandanimalrights.
FurtherReading:
Singer,Peter.AnimalLiberation.Avon,1991.
Wise,StevenM.,andJaneGoodall.RattlingtheCage:TowardLegalRightsforAnimals.Perseus,2000.
|37
ARRANGEDMARRIAGES
In the Western world, people usually choose their own marriage partners, but arranged marriages are still common in Middle Eastern and
Asian cultures. The practice can cause culture clash when immigrants maintain this tradition in the West. For Westerners, the practice
rouses concern about the rights of women and brings up the question of assimilation vs. cultural identity.
PROS
CONS
Arrangingmarriageisaninsulttotheverynatureofmarriage,whichshouldbeaboutcreatingalovingandlastingpartnershipandfamily.Itreducesmarriagetoacommercial transaction and, therefore, undermines family

values.Itbecomesevenmoreofanissuewhenitoccurs
inaWesternsocietythatvaluesfreedomofchoice.
Arranged marriages are often very successful; only a

very small number end in divorce. Millions of people
marryforthewrongreasons:nancialsecurity,desire
forchildren,parentalpressure,andlackofchoiceamong
potentialpartners.Toclaimthatallmarriagesmustbe
lovematchesispureromanticism.
Parentsandthecommunityoftenputunacceptablepressure on their children to accept an arranged marriage.

Moreover, the line between an arranged and a forced
marriageissohazythatitcannotbepoliced.Wemust
stoptheformertopreventthelatter.
Arranged marriages do involve choice.The difference

ismerelythatwholefamiliesareinvolvedinthedecision.Manyofwhatwewouldcallarrangedmarriages
areeitherparentsintroducingtheirchildrentopotentialpartnersorengaginginthenegotiationsnecessary
formarriageaftertheirchildrenhavechosenapartner.
Moreover, it is totally illogical for the government to
intervenetostoppeoplehavingthemarriagesthatthey
andtheirfamilieshavechoseninthenameoffreedom
ofchoice.Wemuststopforcedmarriages,butinafree
society, people have the right to choose an arranged
marriage.
Arranged marriages are bad both for the individual

women concerned and for women generally. Immigrantwomenoftenareveryvulnerable:theyarefarfrom
home, do not speak the local language or dialect, and
are totally reliant on the husbands house and family.
Thelackofasupportnetwork,thelanguagetoappeal
forhelp,orknowledgeoftheirrightsmakeswomenin
arranged marriages disproportionately likely to suffer
abuse.Arrangedmarriagescommodifywomen,whoare
barteredbetweenthemaleheadsofhouses.Thisisnot
acceptableinanegalitariansocietythatemphasizesindividualrights.
ArrangedmarriagesinEuropeandNorthAmericahave
lowlevelsofabuseandmaritalviolence.Vulnerabilityof
thosewithoutlanguageskillsisaproblemforallimmigrants, not just those in arranged marriages. Finally,
mostmarriageorganizersarewomen,whogainprestige
and authority through their role. What you are really
saying is that Islamic societies are patriarchal and that
Muslimshavearrangedmarriages.
Arranged marriage separates immigrant communities

andthewidersociety.Itleadstoculturalghettoization
anddistrustinthewidercommunity,whichemphasizes
individualrightsandfreedomofchoice.
Groups practicing arranged marriage are not the only

ones set on maintaining cohesive communities; many
groups retain a distinct cultural life while fully taking
partinthelifeofthiscountry.Theirculturalcontributionsareoneofthemostvaluableadditionstomodern
PROS
CONS
multicultural societies. A multicultural society values

peoplewithdifferentperspectivesandtraditions.
Arrangedmarriageisnotaninviolateculturalvalue.Every
major religion,including Islam, guarantees freedom of
choiceinmarriage.Further,thecustomisaproductofa
patriarchalculturethatoppresseswomen.Althoughwe
cannotinterveneincountrieswithsuchvaluesystems,
wecanstoptheimportationofsuchsystems.Truemulticulturalismreliesonsharedcommitmenttoatolerant
andfairsociety.
Arrangedmarriageisaculturaltraditionconrmedby
ethnographicdata.Thereisnoconictbetweenarrangementandaguaranteeoffreechoice;thetwoareentirely
consistent.Westernsocietiescannotdictatewhatisculturally valid for ethnic minorities.To do so would be
ethnocentrismwritlarge.Furthermore,howcanimmigrantsunderstandtheimportanceweplaceontoleration
ifwedenythemculturalfreedom?
Arrangedmarriageprovidesacoverforillegalimmigra- Mostarrangedmarriageslastbeyondthetimerequired
tion.Authoritieswillchallengemarriagesofconvenience for citizenship, so they would be legitimate under any
betweencitizensandaliensbutarereluctanttoinvesti- circumstances.
gatearrangedmarriagesbecauseofthedangerofbeing
seenasculturallyinsensitive.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbanarrangedmarriages.
ThisHousebelievesatruemarriageisafreemarriage.
ThisHousebelievesmarriageshouldbeforlove.
WebLinks:
ArrangedMarriage.<http://www.askasia.org/frclasrm/readings/r000153.htm>
EssayonarrangedmarriageinJapan.
AuntsandArrangedMarriagesinIndia.<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3550/aunt.htm>
Humorousessayontheroleoffamilymembersinarrangingmarriages.
FirstComesMarriage,ThenComesLove.<http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/3321/win4a.htm>
Essaydescribinghowamarriageisarranged.
FurtherReading:
Schwartz,MaryAnn,andBarbaraMarlieneScott.MarriagesandFamilies:DiversityandChange.4thed.PrenticeHall,2003.
|39
ARTSSUBSIDIES,ABOLITIONOF
Government support for the arts has a long history, with members of the aristocracy having acted as patrons for artists, including
Beethoven, Mozart, and Shakespeare. Now, artists, including poets, playwrights, painters and sculptors, and performance artists, receive
subsidies or grants from governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Much of the funding these organizations receive is provided by
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which was founded in 1965. In the mid-1990s, the NEA came under re for supporting
artists who produced and exhibited what many considered objectionable, even pornographic, work masquerading under the rubric of art.
Since then, the NEA has focused more on supporting mainstream efforts like community theater and arts education. The cry to abolish
the NEA has subsided and Congress has expressed its approval of the NEA. Although the NEA is again on rm footing, the legitimacy
of government subsidies for artists is still in question.
PROS
CONS
Thenancialstrugglethatartistsexperienceisoneway
toweedthegoodartistsfromthebad.Onlythosewho
are truly dedicated will make the sacrices needed to
succeed.Otherswillenterotheroccupationswheretheir
creativityandtalentscanberewarded.Artistscouldalso
ndpaidemploymentthatwillenablethemtocontinue
working on their art. If an artists work is worthy of
nancialsupport,thatartistwillndapatronfromthe
privatesectorwhowillsupporthimorher.
Thecreativeprocessneedstime.Ifartistsmustworkto
makeendsmeet,whenwilltheyhavethetimeandthe
creativeenergytocompletetheirprojects?Withoutfederalfundingforgrants,fewartistswillbeabletocontinuetheirworkandmaintainareasonablestandardof
living.Artistswillbeforcedtoentertheworkforceand
abandonart.
Government subsidies for art simply take money away

frommiddle-classandlow-incomepeopletosubsidizea
self-indulgenthobbyfortherich.Thekindofartthatthe
majorityofAmericansareinterestedin,popularmovies
andmusic,forexample,isnotsubsidized.Justasarock
bandshouldnotreceivegovernmentfundstomaketicket
priceslower,neithershouldoperasorballets.Lettherich
whowanttoattendthesekindsofperformancespayfull
price;whyshouldtaxpayersunderwritebargainpricesfor
entertainmentforthewealthy?
The NEA costs each American only 36 cents a year.

AlthoughsomeNEAmoneyisusedtosupportartsthat
are traditionally supported by individuals with higher
incomes,muchoftheNEAbudgetsupportsartistswho
work with programs like art education in schools and
community theater. Projects like these benet all childrenandgivepeopleacrossthecountrywaystocontributetomakingtheircommunityabetterplace.
Subsidies could function as a way to reward artists

who are creating what the government prefers. In this
way, subsidies could lead to government censorship of
art to silence critics. Communist dictatorships subsidizedpatrioticartbutsquelchedindependentartists.
Having artists rely on the government for their daily
bread risks their artistic integrity; how could they be
social critics and advocate for change in the system,
whenitisthesystemthatisputtingfoodonthetable?
The strings attached to subsidies make them potential
weaponsagainstdemocracy.
ArtsinAmericaareaunifyingexperience.Peoplefrom
differentbackgroundscancommunicatethroughartand
shareexperiencesandtalents.ArtisticexpressioniscentraltowhoweareasAmericansandashumanbeings.
Supportingartistsiscrucialtopreservingourvaluesand
transmitting our American heritage to future generations.Inaddition,federalsupportofartistsispatriotic
because art builds and preserves American traditions.
The grant process, because it is run by artists, ensures
the independence of the NEA and reduces the danger
ofcensorship.
PROS
CONS
Historically, patrons did not support unknown and

unproventalent.Artistsgainedpatronageonlyafterprovingtheirworth.Inthecurrentsystemofsubsidies,new,
unproven, and often substandard artists receive grants.
Artistswhoarealreadysuccessfulgenerallydonotneed
the grants to meet their living expenses. Mozart and
Beethoven,iftheywerelivingtoday,wouldndmany
opportunitiesintheprivatesectorandwouldnotneed
torelyongovernmentsubsidies.
Traditionisonthesideofthoseinpowersupportingthe
arts.SincetheRenaissance,composersandartistshave
beensupportedbypopes,kings,andotherpatrons.In
ourdemocracy,thisburdenfallstogovernmenttoensure
thatthenextMozartorBeethovenwillnotforgohisor
herartisticvisionforlackoffunds.
Subsidies usually support artists who have created art

thatmostpeopleobjectto.RobertMapplethorpewith
his homoerotic photographs and Andres Serrano with
hisphotographofacrucixsubmergedinhisownurine
arespecicexamplesofartistswhotaxpayershavesupported. Artists should have the freedom to create any
typeofarttheywant,buttaxpayermoneyshouldnotbe
usedtofundprojectsthatareindecent.Ifprivatefunds
are used, then the American people cannot claim they
have involuntarily supported the creation of perverse
andvileworks.
TheMapplethorpeandSerranocasesareisolatedincidents.Thevastmajorityofartthatisproducedthrough
subsidiesisartthatmosttaxpayerswouldsupport.The
NEAhasmademanychangesinthewayitawardsgrants
sincethoseincidents.Infact,manyofthesamemembersofCongresswhocalledforanabolitionoftheNEA
overthisissuevotedforanincreaseinfundinginJuly
of2002.Congressmandatesthatthecriteriaofdecency
andrespectbeusedinevaluatinggrantproposals.Overall,theartworksupportedbysubsidieswouldmakemost
Americansproud.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldtellCongresstostopfundingtheNEAsartistsubsidyprograms.
ThisHousebelievesthatsubsidizingartistsisdetrimentaltodemocracy.
ThisHousewouldincreasesubsidiesforartists.
ThisHousebelievesthatstoppingsubsidieswouldharmartinAmerica.
WebLinks:
LibertarianPartyPositiononSubsidies.<http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=376>
LibertarianPartyarguesagainstgovernmentfundingofthearts.
NationalEndowmentfortheArts.<http://arts.endow.gov>
Sitemaintainedbytheagencyinchargeofdistributingfederalgrantstotheartscontainsusefulinformationabouthowtheprocess
worksandaboutthebenetsofartinAmerica.
NPRsTalkoftheNationArchive.<http://www.npr.org/ramarchives/ne091901-2.ram>
AudiorecordingofadebateonNPRsTalkoftheNationoffersmultipleargumentsonbothsidesofthefundingdebate.
FurtherReading:
Bolton,Richard,ed.CultureWars:DocumentsfromtheRecentControversiesintheArts.NewPress,1992.
Netzer,Dick,andDickMietzer.TheSubsidizedMuse:PublicSupportfortheArtsintheUnitedStates.Ashgate,1993.
Zeigler,JosephWesley,etal.ArtsinCrisis:TheNationalEndowmentfortheArtsVersusAmerica.ACappellaBooks,1994.
|41
ASSASSINATIONOFADICTATOR
Often considered in the context of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, the issue regained topicality in the 1990s as leaders such as Saddam
Hussein in Iraq and Slobodan Milosovic in Yugoslavia pursued bloody policies that led to war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
PROS
CONS
Deaths and much suffering could be prevented if one

man is killed.The greater good demands a single evil
act,especiallyifitwouldaverttheimmediateandcertain
dangerofmuchworseevil.
Murdercanneverbejustied.Ifweassumetheroleof
executionerwithoutthebackingoflaw,wearesinkingto
thelevelofthedictators.Anynewgovernmentfounded
upon such an arbitrary act will lack moral legitimacy,
underminingitspopularsupportandmakingitsfailure
likely.
Dictatorialsystemsarehighlypersonal,soremovingthe
drivingforcebehindsucharegimewillresultinitscollapse,allowingamorepopularandliberalgovernment
toreplaceit.
Killingtheindividualwillachievenothing.Dictatorsare
partofawiderrulingelitefromwhichsomeonesharing
thesameautocraticvalueswillemergetotaketheassassinatedleadersplace.Thissuccessorislikelytousethe
assassinationastheexcuseforfurtherrepression.
Assassinationofadictatormaybetheonlywaytoeffect
changeinacountrywherearepressivepolicestateprevents any possibility of internal opposition. Cowed
populacesneedasignalinordertondthecourageto
campaignforchange.
Assassination is likely to be counterproductive, rallyingpopularfeelingaroundarepressiveregimeasexternal enemies or internal minorities are blamed, rightly
or wrongly, for the act. An unsuccessful assassination
attemptisevenmorelikelytobringaboutsucharesult.
Dictatorsareathreattointernationalpeace,notjustto
theirownpeople.Theytendtoattackothercountriesto
divertattentionfromtheirunpopularactionsathome,
thusassassinationisjustiedasameansofpreventinga
warthatmightrapidlybecomeregionalorglobal.
Sometimesdictatorshipispreferabletothealternatives,
especially for those outside the country itself. Great
powers have often supported autocrats who promote
suchpowersgeopoliticalinterestsinawaythatademocraticregimewouldnot.Sometimesdictatorshavesuccessfully held together countries that otherwise might
havedescendedintocivilwarandethnicstrife.
If scruples over the morality of our actions prevent us

frompursuingagreatergood,effectivelyopposingevil
willneverbepossible.Dictatorsthemselvesignoremost
ethicalstandardsandinternationalconventions,thereby
effectivelyplacingthemselvesbeyondtheprotectionof
thelaw.
Byassumingthepowertotakelifearbitrarily,eveninan
apparentlygoodcause,wecheapenthevalueoflifeitself.
Manyterrorists,criminals,anddictatorscouldandhave
claimedsimilarlegitimacyfortheirviolentactions.Only
ifwerespecthumanrightsabsolutelywillourpromotion
ofthesevaluesseemvalidtoothers.
Thealternativestoassassinationwouldallleaveadictatorinpowerformanyyears.Inthattimenotonlywill
manymorepeoplesufferunderarepressivesystem,but
alsothepoliciespursuedbyanout-of-touchandunrepresentative regime are likely to do serious harm to the
Alternatives such as constructive engagement or economic sanctions are preferable and much more likely
toresultineventualliberalizationoftheregime,albeit
slowly. The examples of Eastern Europe in 1989 and
Yugoslaviain2000showthateveninapparentlyhope-
PROS
CONS
wholenationanditseconomy,makingeventualrebuild- less cases, change can come through popular action,

ing much more costly in both human and economic oftenquicklyandwithoutgreatviolence.
terms.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldassassinateadictator.
ThisHousewouldassassinate...(supplynameofcurrentdictator).
ThisHousebelievesthatmurderisntalwayswrong.
ThisHousebelievesthatviolenceissometimestheanswer.
FurtherReading:
Boesche,Robert.TheoriesofTyranny:FromPlatotoArendt.PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1995.
Brooker,Paul.Non-DemocraticRegimes:Theory,Government&Politics.St.MartinsPress,2000.
Lee,Stephen.EuropeanDictatorships,19181945.Routledge,2000.
ASSISTEDSUICIDE
Assisted suicide is currently being discussed and debated in many countries. The central question is: If a terminally ill person decides that he
or she wishes to end his or her life, is it acceptable for others, primarily physicians, to assist them? For many years assisted suicide was illegal
in all US states, but in the past decades organizations like End of Life Choices and individuals, most notably Dr. Jack Kevorkian, have campaigned for a change in the law. They argue that terminally ill patients should not have to suffer needlessly and should be able to die with
dignity. In 1997 Oregon became the rst state to legalize physician-assisted suicide under very restricted conditions. Four years later John
Ashcroft, the attorney general and a conservative, ordered federal drug agents to punish doctors who used federally controlled drugs to help
the terminally ill die. In 2002 a district judge ruled that Ashcroft had overstepped his authority. The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the law in 2004. In 2001 the Netherlands became the rst country to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
PROS
CONS
Everyhumanbeinghasarighttolife,perhapsthemost
basicandfundamentalofallourrights.However,with
everyrightcomesachoice.Therighttospeechdoesnot
remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote
bringswithittherighttoabstain.Inthesameway,the
righttochoosetodieisimplicitintherighttolife.
There is no comparison between the right to life and

otherrights.Whenyouchoosetoremainsilent,youmay
changeyourmindatalaterdate;whenyouchooseto
die, you have no such second chance. Participating in
someonesdeathistoparticipateindeprivingthemofall
choicestheymightmakeinthefutureandistherefore
immoral.
Thoseinthelatestagesofaterminaldiseasehaveahorricfuture:thegradualdeclineofthebody,thefailureof
organs,andtheneedforarticiallifesupport.Insome
cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the
essenceofthemselves.Evenwhenthisisnotthecase,the
hugeamountsofmedicationrequiredtocontrolpain
willoftenleavetheminadeliriousandincapablestate.
Facedwiththis,itissurelymorehumanethattheseindividuals be allowed to choose the manner of their own
endanddiewithdignity.
It is always wrong to give up on life. Modern palliative care is immensely exible and effective, and helps
topreservequalityoflifeasfaraspossible.Terminally
illpatientsneedneverbeinpain,evenattheveryend.
Societysroleistohelpthemlivetheirlivesaswellasthey
can. Counseling, which helps patients come to terms
withtheircondition,canhelp.
|43
PROS
CONS
Societyrecognizesthatsuicideisunfortunatebutacceptableinsomecircumstances.Thosewhoendtheirown
livesarenotseenasevil.Theillegalityofassistedsuicide
isthereforeparticularlycruelforthosewhoaredisabled
andareunabletodiewithoutassistance.
Thosewhocommitsuicidearenotevil,andthosewho
attempttotaketheirownlivesarenotprosecuted.However,ifsomeoneisthreateningtokillhimselforherself,
yourmoraldutyistotrytostopthem.Youwouldnot,
for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge
andthreateningtojumpsimplybecauseitishischoice;
and you would denitely not assist in his suicide by
pushinghim.Inthesameway,youshouldtrytohelpa
personwithaterminalillness,nothelphimtodie.
Suicideisalonely,desperateact,carriedoutinsecrecy
andoftenisacryforhelp.Theimpactonthefamilycan
becatastrophic.Bylegalizingassistedsuicide,theprocess
canbebroughtoutintotheopen.Insomecases,families
might have been unaware of the true feelings of their
lovedone.Beingforcedtoconfronttheissueofafamily
membersillnessmaydogreatgood,perhapsevenallowingthefamilytopersuadethepatientnottoendhislife.
Inothercases,itmakesthefamilypartoftheprocess.
Theycanunderstandthereasonsbehindapatientsdecisionwithoutfeelingsofguiltandrecrimination,andthe
terminallyillpatientcanspeakopenlytothemabouther
feelingsbeforeherdeath.
Demanding that family members take part in such a

decisioncanbeanunbearableburden.Manymayresent
alovedonesdecisiontodieandwouldbeeitheremotionallyscarredorestrangedbytheprospectofbeingin
any way involved with the death. Assisted suicide also
introducesanewdanger,thattheterminallyillmaybe
pressuredintoendingtheirlivesbyotherswhoarenot
preparedtosupportthemthroughtheirillness.Eventhe
mostwellregulatedsystemwouldhavenowaytoensure
thatthisdidnothappen.
At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds
withpatientsandwillwanttogivethemthebestqualityoflifepossible.However,whenapatienthaslostor
islosinghisabilitytolivewithdignityandexpressesa
strongdesiretodie,doctorsarelegallyunabletohelp.
Tosaythatmodernmedicinecantotallyeradicatepain
isatragicoversimplicationofsuffering.Whilephysicalpainmaybealleviated,theemotionalpainofaslow
and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a
meaningful life, can be horric. A doctors duty is to
address his or her patients suffering, be it physical or
emotional.Asaresult,doctorsarealreadyhelpingtheir
patientstodiealthoughitisnotlegal,assistedsuicide
doeshappen.Itwouldbefarbettertorecognizethisand
bringtheprocessintothe open, where it can be regulated.Trueabusesofthedoctor-patientrelationshipand
incidents of involuntary euthanasia would then be far
easiertolimit.
Adoctorsrolemustremainclear.Theguidingprinciple
ofmedicalethicsistodonoharm:Aphysicianmust
not be involved in deliberately harming her patient.
Without this principle, the medical profession would
lose a great deal of trust; admitting that killing is an
acceptablepartofadoctorsrolewouldlikelyincrease
the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it.
Legalizingassistedsuicidealsoplacesanunreasonable
burden on doctors.The daily decisions made to preserve life can be difcult enough.To require them to
alsocarrytheimmensemoralresponsibilityofdeciding
who can and cannot die, and the further responsibilityofactuallykillingpatients,isunacceptable.Thisis
whythevastmajorityofmedicalprofessionalsoppose
thelegalizationofassistedsuicide:Endingthelifeofa
patientgoesagainstalltheystandfor.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldlegalizeassistedsuicide.
ThisHousewoulddiewithdignity.
WebLinks:
Doctor-AssistedSuicide:AGuidetoWebsitesandtheLiterature.<http://web.lwc.edu/administrative/library/suic.htm>
Linkstogeneralinformationandsites,proandcon,onphysician-assistedsuicide.Containsanexcellentchronology.
EndofLifeChoices.<http://www.hemlock.org/>
Right-to-diegroupprovidesinformationonorganizationservicesandtheprogressoflegislationlegalizingassistedsuicide.
Euthanasia.Com.<http://www.euthanasia.com/>
Providesmedicalandlegalinformationfromthoseopposedtoassistedsuicide.
FinalExit.Org.<http://www.nalexit.org/>
Generalsitecontaininginformationonlegislation,euthanasiainpractice,andindividualsprominentinthecampaigntolegalize
assistedsuicide.
FurtherReading:
Dworkin,Gerald,R.G.Fry,andSisselaBok.EuthanasiaandPhysician-AssistedSuicide.CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
Humphrey,Derek.FinalExit:ThePracticalitiesofSelf-DeliveranceandAssistedSuicidefortheDying.DTP,1997.
Shavelson,Lonny.AChosenDeath:TheDyingConfrontAssistedSuicide.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1998.
BEAUTYCONTESTS
Beauty contests are popular in many parts of the world. The biggest, the Miss World competition, has been running annually since 1951;
although less popular than it was in the 1960s, it attracts an enormous worldwide audiencearound 3 billion viewers in 115 countries.
Are beauty contests relevant in the 21st century, when women want to be judged on intelligence and accomplishments rather than appearance? Do they perpetuate the subjugation of women? And do they harm young women by encouraging potentially destructive behavior in
pursuit of what may be an unobtainable ideal?
PROS
CONS
Beautycontestspromoteanidealoffemalebeautythat
mostwomencannotattain.Societalacceptanceofthis
ideal can harm women by encouraging dieting, eating
disorders, and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making
themfeelinadequateandugly.
Peopleenjoybeautycontests.Nobodyisforcedtoenter
orwatchthem.Thebeautyofafit,healthy,wellproportioned human form is something from which
wecanalltakepleasure,andbeautycontests,alongwith
otherformsofart,arevehiclesthatenableustodoso.
Womeninbeautycontestsarejudgedontheirphysical
appearanceratherthanonanyotherqualitiestheymay
possess. (The existence of a talent element in many
such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply
arenotgoingtobecrownedasbeautyqueens.)Judging
women,butnotmen,primarilyontheirlookscontributestothesubjugationofwomenbecauseotherqualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal
femininity.Themasculineideal,whilepotentiallydamagingtomen,tendstobeexpressedinmuchwiderand
lessrestrictiveterms.
Judging people primarily on their physical prowess is

notwrong.Wedothisallthetimeincompetitivesport,
where tness and strength are major determinants of
success.Everycompetitionofeverykindvaluescertain
qualities over others.We recognize that being able to
liftheavyweightsisnottheprimedenitionofhuman
worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting.
Similarly,wecangiveaprizetoawomanforherbeauty
withoutimplyingthatbeautyisallthatmattersabout
anyone.
Beautycontestspromoteanimageoffemalebeautythat
isculturallyspecicandWestern.Nomatterhowmany
Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do
soiftheytakepartintheswimsuitcompetition,which
Beautycontests,likesports,canbeanimportantfocusof
nationalorregionalpride.DespitethedecliningpopularityofcompetitionssuchasMissWorld,beautycompetitionsholdanimportantculturalplaceinmanyparts
|45
PROS
CONS
may well not be considered appropriate dress in their

culture.ThereweredemonstrationsagainstMissWorld
by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held
in Bangalore, India, in 1996. Riots in Kaduna, Nigeria,overMissWorld2002leftmorethan200deadand
forcedthecontesttorelocatetoLondon.
oftheworld.ThevictoriesinrecentyearsofMissIndia,
MissTurkey,andMissNigeriainMissWorldcompetitionsmademanyIndians,Turks,andNigeriansproud
andwereseenassymbolicofthosecountriesprogressin
competingwithmorepowerfulcountriesontheirown
terms.
Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudesaboutwomen.Despitepayinglipservicetofeministconceptssuchasempowerment,theydonotfurther the liberation of women. Indeed, by reinforcing
looksasthemostimportantfemalequality,theyharm
womensliberation.ThefactthattheorganizersofMiss
World 2002 had no concerns about holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-prole case
in which a woman was due to be stoned for adultery
exposesthecompetitionshypocrisy.
In a society in which women really are valued on the

basisoftheirlooks,andinwhichtherereallyarefewer
opportunitiesforwomenthanformen,beautycontests
givewomenachancetobenoticedandtoimprovetheir
situations.Winningabeautycontestcanbearouteto
success.ManyHollywoodactresses,suchasHalleBerry,
MichellePfeiffer,andSharonStone,areformerbeauty
queenswhowouldnothavehadtheopportunitiesthey
havehadwithoutwinningbeautycontests.Inaddition,
the winners of high-prole beauty contests are able to
publicize charities and causes about which they feel
strongly; they have a public platform they could not
otherwisehavegained.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbanbeautycontests.
ThisHousebelievesthatbeautycontestsaredegradingtowomen.
ThisHousebelievesthatfatisafeministissue.
FurtherReading:
Banet-Weiser, Sarah. The Most Beautiful Girl in theWorld: Beauty Contests and National Identity. University of California Press,
1999.
Cohen,ColleenBallinero,RichardWilk,andBeverlyStoeltje,eds.BeautyQueensontheGlobalStage:Gender,ContestsandPower.
Routledge,1995.
Grogan,Sarah.BodyImage:UnderstandingBodyDissatisfactioninMen,WomenandChildren.Routledge,1999.
Wolf,Naomi.TheBeautyMyth.Perennial,2002.
BIODIVERSITYANDENDANGEREDSPECIES
Biodiversity refers to the variety of bacteria, plants, and animals that live on our planet and the unique behavioral patterns and activities
of each species. Scientists believe that biodiversity is essential to human life on Earth. In recent years environmentalists have become concerned about the decline in the number of species. International agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) aim to protect biodiversity. Nevertheless, current research suggests that species are disappearing at an alarming rate and that approximately one-quarter of all species will be extinct within the next few decades. Environmentalists
are particularly concerned about endangered species in developing nations, where the economic needs of a poor population may threaten the
existence of other life.
PROS
CONS
ThespeciesHomosapiensisunprecedentedandunique
among all life on Earth. Human sentience and intelligence far surpass those of other creatures.These gifts
haveallowedhumanbeingstopopulatetheEarth,construct civilizations and build industry, and affect the
environment in a way that no other species can.This
great power comes with great responsibility, and we
should avoid abusing our planet, lest we cause irreparable damagedamage like the extinction of species
andtheconsequentreductioninbiodiversitycausedby
deforestation,over-shing,hunting,andtheillegaltrade
inanimalproductsandexoticanimals.
Theideathatextinctionswillleadtoecologicaldisasteris
anexaggeration.Fossilevidenceshowsthatmassextinctionshaveoccurredmanytimesthroughoutthehistory
oflifeonEarth,oneofthemostrecentbeingthedie-out
ofthedinosaurs.Aftereverycollapseofbiodiversity,it
hasrebounded,withEarthcomingtonolastingharm.
Extinctionsaresimplypartofthenaturalevolutionary
process.
Protecting endangered species is an extension of our

existing system of ethics. Just as modern civilization
protects its weaker and less able members, so humanityshouldsafeguardthewelfareofother,less-privileged
species.Animalsaresentientcreatureswhosewelfarewe
shouldprotect(eveniftheymaynothavethesamefull
rightsthatweaccordtohumanbeings).
NospeciesonEarthwouldputtheinterestofanother
species above its own, so why should human beings?
Furthermore,sincetheverybeginningsoflife,nature
hasoperatedbytheDarwinianprincipleofsurvivalof
thettest.Lifeformswillalwaysriskextinctionunless
theyadapttonewchallenges.Humanshavenoobligation to save the weaker species; if they cannot match
ourpace,theydeservetodieoutandbesupplantedby
others.
The most successful pharmaceuticals have often used

natureasastartingpoint.Antibioticswererstdiscoveredthroughthestudyoffungi,andmanyanti-cancer
drugsarederivedfromthebarkofAmazontrees.Every
timeaspeciesbecomesextinct,scientistsforeverlosean
opportunitytomakeanewdiscovery.
Modernsciencehasadvancedtothepointwhereinspirationfromnatureisnolongerrequired.Today,medicinesderivedfromnaturalproductsareintheminority.
In any case, the upcoming era of genetic engineering
will allow humankind to rid itself of disease without
resortingtomedicines.
As occupants of this planet, we must have respect for

other life forms, especially since life on Earth may be
theonlylifeintheuniverse.Wecanshowthisrespectby
makingeveryefforttopreventtheextinctionofexisting
species,therebypreservingbiodiversity.
Even if this respect was justied, its expression comes

atasignicantcost.Biodiversitypoliciesarecostlyand
spend taxpayers money that could better be used on
healthcareandsocialservices.Itdoesnotmakesensefor
ustoconcentrateonotherspecieswhenhumanityhas
notyetsortedoutitsownwelfare.
|47
PROS
CONS
Maintaining biodiversity is a global problem and

demandsaglobalsolution.Thedevelopedworldshould
applypressureonthedevelopingworldtoadoptmore
environmentallyfriendlypolicies.
Environmentalprotectionandtheprotectionofbiodiversityareverymuchaluxuryofdevelopednations(First
World).Manyofthesepoliciesarebeyondthenancial
means of developing nations, and implementing them
wouldstunteconomicgrowthanddisenfranchisetheir
citizens.Itishypocriticalfordevelopednationstocriticizethelackofenvironmentalprotectioninthedeveloping world, considering that the First World got to its
currentpositionthroughanIndustrialRevolutionthat
paidnoheedtobiodiversity,pollution,andothersuch
concerns.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesinbiodiversity.
ThisHousefearsthewayofthedodo.
WebLinks:
Bagheera.<http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/vanishing.htm>
Presentsinformationonapproximately30endangeredanimals,theproblemstheyfaceandwhatcanbedonetosavethemfrom
extinction.
TheBornFreeFoundation.<http://www.bornfree.org.uk/>
Sitededicatedtotheconservationofrarespeciesintheirnaturalhabitatandthephasingoutoftraditionalzoos.
EELink.Net:EndangeredSpecies.<http://eelink.net/EndSpp>
Offersinformationonendangeredandextinctspecies,lawsandpoliciesonendangeredspecies,andorganizationsinvolvedinsupportingbiodiversity.
TheNaturalHistoryMuseum,London:BiodiversityandWorldMap.<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/projects/worldmap/>
Containsmapofglobalbiodiversityaswellasinformationonbiogeographyandconservationpriorities.
TomLovejoysReithLectureonBiodiversity.<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture2.stm>
Lecturesupportingecosystemmanagementtosustainbiodiversity.
TheVirtualLibraryofEcology&Biodiversity.<http://conbio.net/vl/>
Provideslinkstohundredsofsitesonecologyandbiodiversity.
FurtherReading:
Dobson,Andrew.ConservationandBiodiversity.H.W.Freeman,1998.
Eldredge,Niles.LifeintheBalance:HumanityandtheBiodiversityCrisis.PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.
Jeffries,Mike.BiodiversityandConservation.Routledge,1997.
BOXING,ABOLITIONOF
During the last century, hundreds of boxers died in the ring or shortly afterwardthe youngest recorded victim was just 12 years old.
Thousands more, including one of the greatest ghters of all time, Mohammad Ali, suffered permanent disgurement, detached retinas,
and a whole host of neurological complaints. Despite a tightening of safety regulations, these injuries have continued. Yet efforts to ban the
sport have failed.
PROS
CONS
Medicalevidencesuggeststhatevenifaboxersurvives
individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative
effectofacareerinboxingcanleadtoagreatersusceptibilitytodiseasessuchasParkinsons.Althoughtheincidenceofinjuryismuchhigherinsportssuchasbasketball,theriskofseriousinjuryinboxingisfargreater.In
fact,thatriskissogreatthatboxingshouldbebanned.
A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead,
injured,orpermanentlybraindamaged.
Boxers are aware of the signicant risks of their sport

and are paid well for accepting them. We allow individuals to engage in known risk behaviorssmoking
and hang gliding, for example. Why should we single
outboxingforabolition?Boxingauthoritieshavemade
everyattempttominimizeinjury.Doctorsandmedical
equipmentarepresentatringside,andrefereesintervene
tostopghtsifnecessary.
Boxingistheonlysportinwhichcombatantsintentionallyinjureeachother.Inthe21stcenturyitisbarbaricthat
weallowpeopletointentionallyinictinjuriesonothers
forthesakeofpublicentertainmentandprivateprot.
People under 16 should also be banned from amateur
ghtsbecauseofthesportshealthrisks.Itseemscurious
thatinmanycountriesyoucanstartboxingbeforeyou
arelegallyabletodrive.
Most people who call for a ban on boxing have no

understandingofthesportbeyondagutdisapprovalof
it. Boxings appeal lies in its simplicity, the distillation
ofthesportingcontesttoitsmostbasicformaphysical battle between two egos.To say that boxing is the
onlysportwhereopponentsintendtoinjureoneanother
ignorestherealityofsportslikehockey.Introducingan
ageorghtlimitmaywellbesensible,butthereisno
compellingargumentforaban.
Boxing is exploitative. An average boxer will compete

in30to40professionalboutsbeforehis(orevenher)
healthandskillsdeterioratedramatically.Whileitmay
wellbeinaghtersinteresttohanguphisgloves,those
aroundhimhaveanancialincentivetopushhiminto
moreghts.
A ban on boxing would rob many talented poor and

working-classindividualsofanopportunitytobecome
rich and successful. Mohammad Ali was a sanitation
workerwhousedhistalenttobecomeagloballegend.
Whenaskedinarecentinterviewifhewoulddoanythingdifferentlyorifhehadanyregrets,hisanswerwas
aresolute,No.Manyghtersaccepttheirinjuriesas
theipsideofthecoinofsuccess.
Thecelebrityawardedboxersglamorizesandlegitimizes Boxingisoneoftheleastculpableinpromotingnegative
violenceinsociety.Boxersarenotrolemodelsofwhom stereotypes.Farmoredangerousisthesportofwresweshouldbeproud.
tling where the violence is not part of a contest but a
machosoapopera.Mostboxingisonlateintheevening
anyway,andthereforeitsimpactonchildrenislessdamagingthanthatofothersports.
Asserting that boxing would just go underground is A ban on boxing would drive it underground, where
not a valid argument. Dog ghting and cockghting ghts would be unregulated, with no medical superwere banned to protect the welfare of the (admittedly vision. The safety of boxers should be paramount; to
|49
PROS
CONS
nonconsenting)combatants.Whentheseghtscometo minimizetheriskofinjuries,itshouldremainlegalbut
theattentionofthepolice,theperpetratorsreceivehefty regulated.
penalties.Thesepenaltiesareaneffectivedeterrentand
wouldbeforboxingalsoifimplemented.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbanboxing.
ThisHousewouldbancontactsports.
ThisHousewouldendtheghtgame.
ThisHousebelievesviolenceisunacceptable.
WebLinks:
AthletesatRisk:SecondImpactSyndromeinSports.<http://www.rmani.com/SIS-case/incidents.htm>
Essayonheadinjuriesinsports.
DeathundertheSpotlight:TheManuelVelasquezBoxingFatalityCollection.
<http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_a_0700.htm>
Informationonringfatalities.
JournalofCombativeSports:BoxingInjuryBibliography.<http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0901.htm>
Printandelectronicbibliography.
FurtherReading:
Calder-Smith,Dominic.TarnishedArmour.TrafalgarSquare,2001.
Hotten,Jon.Unlicensed:RandomNotesfromBoxingsUnderbelly.MainstreamPublishing,1999.
McRae,Donald.DarkTrade:LostinBoxing.MainstreamPublishing,1998.
CAMPAIGNFINANCEREFORM
Political campaigns have changed in nature in the modern era. Two centuries ago, political campaigning was thought to be ungentlemanly; today, cross-country trips and expensive television advertisements have become both necessary and the norm. The need for everlarger sums of money has created a crisis in the political system because donors of large sums can attain positions of tremendous inuence.
Recognizing the natural link between money and political corruption, Congress took steps to limit personal donations to candidates during
the 1970s. The huge sums, however, continued to ow: Major donors made contributions to the political parties, rather than to the candidates directlyand the parties offered indirect support to the candidates (e.g., through issue ads that supported a candidates position,
but not the candidate by name). Many politicians argued that the system was being corrupted by money and by the need to raise it, and
pushed for radical reforms. Others defended the system as it stood, arguing that citizens should be free to use their money to advance their
political ideas. In 2002 Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, prohibiting unlimited donations to political partiessoft
money. The Supreme Court declared the law constitutional the following year.
PROS
CONS
With contributions to a candidate, donors effectively

buyinuence(oratleastaccess,whichmaybethesame
thing),sothattheirinterestsarerepresentedwhenlaws
are made. The result is inequality: The wealthy have
moreinuencethanthepoor.
Donors give money to a candidate because they agree

withthecandidatespositions.Thedonationis,ineffect,
a form of speech and should be protected by the First
Amendment.
PROS
CONS
Moreoftenthannot,televisioncampaignsaresupercialanddistorted.Advertisementsshouldbereplacedby
publiclynancedforumsthatwouldallowcandidatesto
discusspoliticalissuesinasubstantiveway.
Candidates cannot convey their ideas to the voting

populace without expensive advertising campaigns in
theelectronicandprintmedia.Financereformimpedes
theirabilitytocommunicatewithvoters.
The cost of running political campaigns has gotten so

highthatordinarycitizenscannotrunforofce;candidatesneedtobepersonallywealthyorwellconnectedto
sourcesoffunds.Financereformwouldleveltheplaying
eld.
As no limit is placed on how much can be spent by

wealthy candidates to nance their own campaigns,
nancereformwillputpoorercandidates,whodepend
oncontributions,atadisadvantage.
Thecostofpoliticalcampaignshasforcedlegislatorsto
spendmuchoftheirtimeraisingmoneyfortheirreelection campaigns. Limiting campaign expenses would
eliminatethisdistraction.
Experience has shown that incumbents usually have

anadvantageinelections,largelybecausetheyarewell
known.Financereformwillhurttheabilityofchallengerstoovercomethatadvantage.
Large contributions are made by large organizations:

corporations, unions, trade associations and the like.
Thesizeofthesecontributionsmeansthatlegislatorspay
moreattentiontotheorganizationsandlessattentionto
individualvoters.
Legislators pass laws that have direct and immediate

effectsonorganizations.Theseorganizationsshouldbe
freetosupportcandidateswhoaresympathetictotheir
interests.
AlthoughCongresspassedlawslimitingcampaigncontributionsalmost30yearsago,theemergenceofpoliticalactioncommitteesandsoftmoney(giventoparties,
ratherthancandidates)hasmadetheoriginalrestrictions
useless.Reformisneededtocloseloopholes.
Any restrictions are doomed to fail because individualsandorganizationswillneversurrendertheirrightto

expressthemselvespolitically.Norestrictionsshouldbe
placedoncontributions,whichshould,however,befully
disclosedtothepublic.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldmakeallpoliticalcampaignspubliclynanced.
ThisHousewouldbanpaidpoliticaladvertisingontelevision.
WebLinks:
TheCatoInstitute:MoneyandPolitics.<http://www.cato.org/campaignnance/>
Membersoftheinstituteofferargumentsonwhycampaignnancereformisunconstitutional.
HooverInstitution,PublicPolicyInquiry:CampaignFinance.<http://www.campaignnancesite.org/>
TheHooverInstitutionatStanfordUniversityoffershistory,SupremeCourtrulings,proposals,andcurrentlegislation.
PublicCampaign:CleanMoney,CleanElections.<http://www.publicampaign.org>
Websiteofanadvocacygroupthatsupportssweepingreforms.
FurtherReading:
Corrado,Anthony,etal.CampaignFinanceReform:ASourcebook.BrookingsInstitution,1997.
Donnelly,David,etal.MoneyandPolitics:FinancingOurElectionsDemocratically.BeaconPress,1999.
Smith,BradleyA.UnfreeSpeech:TheFollyofCampaignFinanceReform.PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.
|51
CAPITALPUNISHMENT
Approximately 90 countries have the death penalty, but nowhere is it debated so often as in the United States where, under the Constitution, each state can formulate its own policy. Thirty-eight of the 50 states allow death penalties. In 2000, Gov. George Ryan of Illinois
imposed a moratorium on executions in response to the high number of death row inmates found to be innocent of the crime for which they
were incarcerated, frequently because new scientic techniques proved their innocence. He ordered a review of the death penalty system,
asserting that it was so riddled with error that it came close to taking innocent life. Nine other states followed the Illinois lead. Before
Ryan left ofce in early 2003, he pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the death sentences of all other inmates to life in prison
without parole. In a speech justifying his action he said that the states death penalty system was arbitrary and capriciousand, therefore,
immoral.
PROS
CONS
The principle of capital punishment is that certain

crimesdeservenothinglessthandeathasajust,proportionate,andeffectiveresponse.Theproblemsassociated
withthedeathpenaltyareconcernedwithitsimplementation rather than its principle. Murderers forgo their
rightsashumansthemomenttheytakeawaytherights
ofanotherhuman.Bywieldingsuchapowerfulpunishmentastheresponsetomurder,societyisafrmingthe
valuethatisplacedontherighttolifeoftheinnocent
person.Manymoreinnocentpeoplehavebeenkilledby
released, paroled, or escaped murderers than innocent
peopleexecuted.
Executionis,insimplestterms,state-sanctionedkilling.
It devalues the respect we place on human life. How
can we say that killing is wrong if we sanction killing
criminals?Moreimportantistheprovenriskofexecuting innocent people. At least 23 innocent people were
executedintheUSinthetwentiethcentury.Theexecutionofaninnocentpersoncanneverbejustied.
Capitalpunishmentis100%effectiveasadeterrentto
thecriminalbeingexecuted;thatkillercannotcommit
anymorecrimes.Asadeterrenttoothers,itdependson
howoftenthedeathpenaltyisapplied.IntheUS,where
lessthan1%ofmurderersareexecuted,itisdifcultto
assessthetrueeffectofdeterrence.Buta1985study(StephenK.Layson,UniversityofNorthCarolina)showed
thatoneexecutiondeterred18murders.
Higher execution rates can actually increase violent

crime rates. California averaged six executions annuallyfrom1952to1967andhadtwicethemurderrate
of the period from 1968 until 1991, when there were
no executions. In New York, from 1907 to 1964, the
months immediately following an execution saw murdersincreasebyanaverageoftwo.
If and when discrimination occurs, it should be corrected. Consistent application of the death penalty
againstmurderersofallraceswouldabolishtheideathat
itcanbearacisttool.Makethedeathpenaltymandatory
inallcapitalcases.
Implementation of the death penalty, particularly in

America,cansufferfromsocialorracialbiasandcanbe
usedasaweaponagainstacertainsectionofsociety.In
theUSnearly90%ofthoseexecutedwereconvictedof
killingwhites,despitethefactthatnon-whitesmakeup
morethan50%ofallmurdervictims.
Opponentsofthedeathpenaltyprefertoignorethefact
that they themselves are responsible for its high costs
bylinganeverendingsuccessionofappeals.Prisonsin
manycountriesareovercrowdedandunderfunded.This
problemismadeworsebylifesentencesordelayeddeath
sentencesformurderers.Whyshouldthetaxpayerbear
thecostofsupportingamurdererforanentirelifetime?
Capitalpunishmentcostsmorethanlifewithoutparole.
StudiesintheUSshowthatcapitalcases,fromarrestto
execution,costbetween$1millionand$7million.Acase
resultinginlifeimprisonmentcostsaround$500,000.
Different countries and societies can have different Defendants who are mentally incompetent will often
attitudestowardthejustiabilityofexecutingmentally answerYestoquestionsinthedesiretopleaseothers.
PROS
CONS
incompetentorteenagedmurderers.Ifsocietyopposes This can lead to false confessions. Over 30 mentally

suchexecutions,thenimplementationofthedeathpen- retarded people have been executed in the US since
altyinthesecasesisaproblem.Foropponentstoseize 1976.
onsuchcasesistocloudtheissue;thisisnotanargumentagainsttheprinciple.
Somecriminalsarebeyondrehabilitation.Perhapscapitalpunishmentshouldbereservedforserialkillers,terrorists,murderersofpolicemen,andsoon.
Byexecutingcriminalsyouarerulingoutthepossibilityofrehabilitation.Youhavetoconsiderthattheymay
repent of their crime, serve a sentence as punishment,
andemergeasusefulmembersofsociety.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsthedeathpenalty.
ThisHousewouldtakeaneyeforaneye,atoothforatooth,andalifeforalife.
WebLinks:
AmnestyInternationalandtheDeathPenalty.<http://www.web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/index?openview>
Presentsfactsandguresonthedeathpenaltyaswellascurrentdevelopmentsontheissue.
DerechosHumanRights:DeathPenaltyLinks.<http://www.derechos.org/dp/>
Linkstohundredsofsitesonallaspectsofthedeathpenalty,bothproandcon.
Pro-DeathPenalty.Com.<http://www.prodeathpenalty.com>
Offersinformationfromapro-death-penaltypointofview;alsocontainsgoodstatisticalinformation.
FurtherReading:
Costanzo,Mark.JustRevenge:CostsandConsequencesoftheDeathPenalty.St.MartinsPress,1997.
Hanks,Gardner.AgainsttheDeathPenalty:ChristianandSecularArgumentsAgainstCapitalPunishment.HeraldPress,1997.
Pojman,Louis,andJeffreyReiman.TheDeathPenalty:ForandAgainst.RowmanandLittleeld,1998.
CELLPHONES,BANNINGOFUSEINCARS
Safety experts have blamed the use of cell phones while driving for causing a considerable number of trafc accidents. As a result, many
countries and a number of US states, following the lead of Ireland and New York State, are seriously considering prohibiting drivers from
using them. Although polls indicate that Americans overwhelmingly favor banning the use of handheld cell phones in cars, some contend
that such prohibition will not solve the problem of distracted drivers.
PROS
CONS
Using a cell phone while driving is very dangerous.

Physically holding a handset removes one hand from
thecontrols,makingaccidentsmorelikely,whiledialing is even worse, as it also requires users to divert
attention from the road. Research shows that drivers
speakingonacellphonehavemuchslowerreactionsin
brakingteststhannonusers;suchdrivershavereaction
times that are worse even than the reaction times of
drunkdrivers.
Clearly,usingacellphonewhiledrivingcanbedangerousinsomecircumstances,butsuchuseisnotriskyin
manysituations,forexamplewhilethecarisatastandstillingridlockedtrafc,whilewaitingattrafclights,or
whiledrivingonaquietroadwithgoodvisibility.Other
actions in a car can be at least as distractingeating,
changingtapes,retuningtheradio,arguingwithpassengersaboutdirections,tryingtostopchildrensquabbling,
etc.Weshouldnotintroducealawthatvictimizescell
|53
PROS
CONS
phoneusersunderallconditions,whileignoringmany
othercausesofaccidents.
Research shows very little difference between using
a handheld and a hands-free cell phone, in terms of
impaired concentration and slower reaction times in
braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephoneconversationdifferentlyfromtalkingtoapassenger,perhapsbecausethepassengerisalsoawareofpossibleroadhazardsinawaythetelephonecallercannot
beand,accordingly,stopstalkingwhenthedriverneeds
to concentrate. In any case, voice-activated technology is often unreliable, thus frustrating drivers, who
loseconcentrationasaresult.Banningonekindofcell
phonewhileallowingtheuseofanotherkindwouldbe
inconsistent.Inaddition,hands-freecellphonescause
justasmanyaccidents.
Hands-free cell phone sets, with earpieces and voiceautomateddialing,aretheanswer.Theseallowdriversto

communicatefreelywithouttakingtheirhandsoffthe
controlsortheireyesofftheroad.Effectivelythereisno
differencebetweentalkingtosomeoneonahands-free
cellphoneandholdingaconversationwithapassenger
nexttoyou;infact,thelatterismoredangerousasyou
may be tempted to turn your head to directly address
thepassenger.
Existing laws are inadequate; driving without due care

and attention is a limited charge that can be very difcult to prove. In any case, every time a driver of a
movingvehicleusesacellphone,apotentiallydangeroussituationiscreated.Thisjustiesaspecicoffense
beingintroduced.
Society has no need for a specic law relating to cell

phoneuse;almosteverycountryhaslawsagainstdriving
withoutduecareandattention.Thusifsomeoneisdriving dangerously because of inappropriate use of a cell
phone,thelawstoprosecutearealreadyonthebooks.
Thepoliceshouldenforcetheexistingrulesmoreconsistently.Suchenforcementcouldbecoupledwithenergeticadvertisingcampaignstowarnpeopleofarangeof
potentiallydangerousdrivinghabits.
Newlawswouldbeenforceablebecausebillingrecords
show when a phone has been in use. Technological
improvementsinphotographymayalsoallowtheautomatic detection of drivers breaking laws against cell
phoneuseatthewheel.Inanycase,justbecausealawis
notcompletelyenforceabledoesnotmeanthatitshould
bescrapped.
Banning cell phone use by drivers will be unenforceableoften it will just be a policemans word against
a drivers.This is especially true of hands-free phones,
whereaccusedmotoristscouldsimplyclaimtobesingingalongtotheradioortalkingtothemselves.Inany
case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in
manycountriesandanincreasedpublicfearofviolent
crimehaveledtotheredeploymentofthetrafcpolice
whowouldbeneededtoenforcesuchlaws.
Usingacellphoneinthecarisunnecessaryeveryone
copedwithoutthem10yearsago,andlittleelseaboutlife
haschangedradicallyenoughtomakethemindispensable,sonoreallossofpersonallibertyoccurswiththe
banningofcellphoneusewhiledriving.Driversalways
havethechoiceofpullingoverandcallingfromaparked
vehicle.Thebanwillalsoprotectdriversfrompressure
frombosseswhocallthemwhileontheroad,requiring
employeestorisktheirlivesforthecompany.
Usingcellphonesontheroadcouldimprovesafety,for
example,byallowingdelayedemployeestocalltheofce
ratherthandriverecklesslyinanefforttoarriveontime.
Drivers now often use cell phones to report accidents
totheemergencyservicesandalertthepolicetoothers
drivingdangerously,strayanimals,unsafeloads,etc.
Thestatesauthoritytocontroltheactionsofdriversis Thestatehasnorighttointerferesoblatantlyinourperalready accepted, for example, through speed limits or sonalliberties.Cellphonesdontkillpeople,baddriving

rules against drunk driving. Dangerous driving meets does,andsimplybanningtheuseofphoneswhiledriv-
PROS
CONS
theclassicliberaltestbyendangeringnotjusttheindi- ingwillpenalizethemanygooddriverswithoutremovvidual but others, including drivers, passengers, and ingthedangerousones.

pedestrians,thussocietyhasarighttointervenetoprotecttheinnocent.Anewlawsignalssocialunacceptabilityandwillsendamessagetodrivers;theNewYorkban
hasalreadybeenhighlyeffective.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbandriversfromusingmobilephones.
ThisHousewoulddomoretopromoteroadsafety.
ThisHousewouldtametechnology.
WebLinks:
CellPhonesBansMayNotMakeRoadsSafer.<http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.82343>
ArticleonWebMDHealth,discussinghowhands-freedevices,suggestedasalternativestotraditionalcellphones,maycauseeven
moreproblems.
InsuranceInstituteforHighwaySafety.<http://www.hwysafety.org/sr.htm>
Containsinformationonallaspectsofhighwaysafety,includingtheuseofcellphones.
CENSORSHIPOFTHEARTS
While all modern democracies value free expression, freedom of speech is never absolute. The restrictions a nation puts on speech are
a product of its experience and culture. The United States views free speech as the cornerstone of American civil liberties and has few
restrictions on expression. Nevertheless, conservatives have called for some type of censorship of art that they nd morally offensive, such as
Robert Mapplethorpes sadomasochistic and homoerotic images of adult men and pictures of nude children. Many people are also disturbed
by studies that show a correlation between watching violent lms and television shows and violent behavior.
PROS
CONS
An individuals rights end when they impinge on the

safety and rights of others. By enacting laws against
incitementtoracialhatredandsimilarhatespeech,we
acknowledge that freedom of expression should have
limits.Artshouldbesubjecttothesamerestrictionsas
anyotherformofexpression.Bymakinganexception
forart,wewouldbecreatingalegalloopholeforcontent
suchashatespeech,whichcouldseekprotectiononthe
groundsthatitwasaformofart.
Civil rights should not be curtailed in the absence of

aclearandpresentdangertothesafetyofothers.Furthermore,aslongasnoillegalactswerecommittedin
thecreativeprocess,thepublicshouldhaveachoicein
deciding whether to view the resulting content. Argumentsaboutchildpornographydisplayedasartareirrelevantbecausechildpornographyisillegal.
Certaintypesofcontent(e.g.,sexualcontent)areunsuitableforchildrendespitetheirartisticmerits.Weshould
beabletodevelopasystemofcensorship,basedonage,
thatprotectsourchildren.
Anage-ratedsystemisaveryblunttool.Itdoesnottake
into account differing levels of education or maturity.
Censorship also deprives parents of the right to raise
their children as they see t. Adults have the right to
vote,beararms,anddiefortheircountry.Whyshould
|55
PROS
CONS
they be deprived of the ability to decide what they or

their children see? Finally, we have to remember that
peoplearenotforcedtoviewart;theydonthavetolook
atsomethingtheythinkisoffensive.
Censorshipmayactuallyhelpartists.Thegeneralpublic Censorshipisfarmorelikelytohurtthearts.Ifthegovisfarmorelikelytosupporteroticartifitknowsthat ernmentlabelsartasunsuitableforchildren,thegeneral
publicisnotgoingtowanttofundit.
childrenwontseeit!
Manyformsofmodernartpushtheboundariesofwhat
is acceptable or aim for the lowest level of taste.This
typeofcontentisunacceptable,andgovernmentsshould
havetherighttobanit.
Contentthatweconsideracceptabletodaywouldhave
beenregardedastaboo50yearsago.Ifanovelorcontroversialpieceofartisoutoftouchwithsociety,society
willrejectit.
Excessivesexandviolenceinthemedialeadtosimilar The correlation between watching violence and combehavior in viewers. This alone should justify censor- mitting violent crimes is still not established. These
ship.
studies are not exhaustive, and often are funded by
special interest groups. We must also realize that correlation is different from causation. An alternative
interpretationisthatpeoplewithviolenttendenciesare
morelikelytobeconnoisseursofviolentart.Evenifwe
believethatsomepeoplearelikelytobecorrupted,why
shouldallofsocietybepenalized?Therearefarbetter
waysofreducingthecrimerate,withfarlesscostincivil
liberties,thancensorship.
Evenifsomeindividualsmanagetocircumventcensorship laws, government has sent an important message
aboutwhatsocietyconsidersacceptable.Theroleofthe
stateinsettingsocialstandardsshouldnotbeunderestimated,andcensorship(beitthroughbansorminimum
agerequirements)isanimportanttoolinthisprocess.
Censorshipisultimatelynotfeasible.Trycensoringart
ontheInternet,forexample!Inaddition,censoringart
merely sends it underground and might glamorize the
prohibitedartwork.Itisfarbettertodisplayitsothat
peoplecanjudgeforthemselves.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportscensorshipofthearts.
ThisHousebelievesthatnudeartislewdart.
ThisHousefearsthatartisticlicenseisalicensetokill.
ThisHousebelievesthatyouarewhatyousee.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion.<http://www.aclu.org>
Offersinformationonlaws,courtcases,andchallengestofreespeech.
PBS:CultureShock.<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/>
AcompanionsitetoaPBSseriesonart,culturalvalues,andfreedomofexpression.
UniversityofPennsylvania:BannedBooksOnline.<http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/banned-books.html>
On-lineexhibitofbooksthathavebeentheobjectsofcensorshipandcensorshipattempts.
FurtherReading:
Dubin,Stephen.ArrestingImages:ImpoliticArtandUncivilActions.Routledge,1994.
CHEMICALCASTRATION
Many people consider sexual abuse one of the worst crimes a person can commit. Some have suggested that sex offenders be punished by
chemical castration in addition to a jail term. Chemical castration uses drugs to lower testosterone levels, blunting the sex drive. During
the late 1990s several US states passed laws mandating or permitting judges to impose this treatment for certain kinds of paroled sex
offenders.
PROS
CONS
Because sexual abuse is a horric crime, damaging its

victim both physically and psychologically, chemical
castrationisasuitablepunishment.Inmanyinstances
counselingcannotcurethepsychologicalandphysical
urges behind these crimes. Chemical castration preventsrepeatoffenses(oneofthemainpurposesofany
punishment) and is a strong deterrent for prospective
offenders.
Ourjusticesystemhasrejectedthebarbaricpracticeof
usingphysicalpainordisgurementaspunishmentin
favor of a more enlightened system of reforming the
offender.Whatwouldhappenifthesuspectwerelater
foundtobeinnocent?Imprisonmentandcounselingto
preventrecidivismwouldbefarmoreeffective.
Chemicalcastrationwillhelpoffendersbyfreeingthem
from the urges that cause them to repeat their crimes.
Manysexualcriminalshavesaidthattheywouldliketo
befreeoftheseurgesbutcannotcontroltheiractions,
muchlikeheroinaddictscannotcontroltheirs.Achemicalcurefortheseurgeswillfreetheoffender.
Evenifchemicalcastrationiscombinedwithajailterm,
it is still a far cruder and less effective treatment than
prolonged psychotherapy. Also, the propositions argumentplacesthelegalemphasisonhelpingtheoffender
andmaygivetheappearanceofcoddlingcriminals.
Chemical castration will also stop the widespread stigmatization of and violence against sex offenders. In
manycases,theyarerequiredtoregisterwiththepolice,
whomayposttheirnamesandaddressesonWebsites
ornotifytheirneighbors.Somesexoffenderswhohave
served their sentences have been driven out of their
homes. Sex offenders are also subject to violence from
otherprisoninmates.Ifchemicalcastrationwereintroduced,thepublicwouldnolongerseesuchoffendersas
athreat,andtheywouldbeallowedtogetonwiththeir
lives.Chemicalcastrationremovesboththepublicstigmatizationandpersonalsufferingofsexoffenders.
Therewouldbenosuchbenet.Witchhuntsagainstsex
offendersarenotmotivatedbyrationalconsiderations.
Chemicalcastrationwouldnotendpublicanxiety.Also,
violenceagainstsexoffenders,bothinandoutofprison,
ismotivatedbythedesiretopunishtheoriginalcrime,
nottopreventrepeatoffenses.Chemicalcastrationisan
unprovenandunsubtlemethodthatdeservesnoplacein
amodernpenalsystem.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldcuresexoffendersbyphysicalmeans.
ThisHousewouldusecureratherthanpreventionindealingwithsexoffenders.
ThisHousewouldchemicallycastratepedophiles.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU)CondemnsGovernorforSigningMandatoryChemicalCastrationLaw.<http://www.
aclu.org/news/n091796b.html>
ACLUpressreleasepresentingargumentsopposingchemicalcastration.
IsChemicalCastrationanAppropriatePunishmentforMaleSexOffenders?<http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/crimes_y.htm>
Informationandlinkstoarticlesinsupportofchemicalcastration.
|57
FurtherReading:
Pallone,Nathaniel.RehabilitatingCriminalSexualPsychopaths.Transaction,1990.
Prentky,Robert,andAnneWolbertBurgess.ForensicManagementofSexualOffenders.Plenum,1999.
CHILDLABOR
In the past, activists have urged consumers to boycott companies that use child labor to produce goods. Is this response enough? Should the
international community impose sanctions against governments that permit child labor? Ultimately the issue of using child labor is more
a question of solving poverty than a simple moral or emotional issue. Any proposed sanctions would need to address several considerations
both general (Who would impose sanctions? How and to what extent would they be enforced?) and questions particular to this topic
(What age is a child? Is child labor inherently an issue or is the debate really about minimum labor standards for all employees and
employers?).
PROS
CONS
Governmentshaveadutytoupholdhumandignity.All
peoplehavetherighttothebenetsgainedfromeducation, a good quality of life, and independent income.
Childlabordestroysthefutureoftheyoungandmust
bestopped.
While sanctions are effective for enforcing political

and legal standards, they are less effective in dealing
withsocialandeconomicones.Theworldcommunity
cannotforceanimpoverishedstatetomaintainWestern
standards of education and labor laws, which did not
existwhentheWestindustrialized.
Sanctions provide the only means of forcing countries

totakeaction.Consumerpressureistooweaktodoso.
Whilepeoplesaytheyarewillingtopaymoreforproductsmanufacturedinhumaneconditions,veryfewput
thisintodailypractice.
Consumerpowerhasprovedhighlyeffectiveinforcing
transnational companies to institute ethical practices.
Boycotts of one producer have led others to change
theirpracticesoutoffearofnegativepublicityandpossible boycotts.The market takes care of the problem
itself.
Pressureontransnationalcompaniesisnotenough.Not
allchildlaborisinsweatshopsformultinationalsinpoor
countries. Children also work on family farms and as
prostitutes.Somecountriesalsoforcechildrenintotheir
armies.
Imposingsanctionsonstatesisunfairbecausetheyare
notwhollyresponsiblefortheactionsoftheircitizens.
ShouldweimposesanctionsontheUnitedStatesbecause
ithasillegalsweatshops?
Endingchildlaborwillallowtheyoungagreaterchance
togetaneducationandtodevelopfullybothphysically
andsocially,thusbenetinganationshumanresources
and encouraging economic growth.The large number
ofunderemployedadultsinmostdevelopingcountries
canreplacechildren.Oftenthesewillbetheparentsof
currentchildworkers,sotherewillbelittleornooverall
effectonfamilyincome.
The vision of all former child laborers leaving work

forschoolisutopian.Evidenceshowsthatmanyeither
cannotaffordtopayschooltuitionorcontinuetowork
whileattendingschool.Infact,manytransnationalcompanies have now set up after-work schools within the
veryfactoriesthatactivistscriticize.
Theinternationalcommunitywasabletoplacehuman Placingsanctionsonsomecompanieswillmerelypush
rightsoverthecauseoffreetradeinthecasesofSouth child labor underground. Moving poor children who
AfricaandBurmasowhynothere?
havetoworkintounregulatedandcriminalareasofthe
economywillonlyworsenthesituation.
PROS
CONS
This is an argument for a targeted and more sophisticated use of sanctions, not against them in any form.
Sometimes free market economics is simply an excuse
fordenyingresponsibility.
Sanctionsharmthepoorestinsociety.Companieswill
simply move to areas that do not have restrictions on
child labor. Past experience has shown that governmentinterferencewiththemarketdoesmoreharmthan
good.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatchildrenshouldbefree.
ThisHousebelievesthateducationisthebesteconomics.
ThisHousewouldendchildlabor.
ThisHousewouldputsanctionsonstatesusingchildlabor.
WebLinks:
ChildLabourCoalition.<http://www.stopchildlabor.org/>
Informationonchildlaboraroundtheworldandcampaignstoendit.
InternationalLabourOrganization.<http://www.ilo.org/>
InformationontheInternationalProgrammeontheEliminationofChildLabour.
FurtherReading:
Haass,Richard,ed.EconomicSanctionsandAmericanDiplomacy.CouncilonForeignRelations,1998.
Hobbs,Sandy,MichaelLayalette,andJamesMcKechnie.ChildLabour:AWorldHistoryCompanion.ABCClioEurope,2000.
Mizen,Phil,ed.HiddenHands:InternationalPerspectivesonChildrensWorkandLabour.Routledge,2001
Schlemmer,Bernard,ed.TheExploitedChild.ZedBooks,2000.
CHILDOFFENDERS,STRICTERPUNISHMENTFOR
Most US states have separate justice codes and justice systems for juvenile offenders. Traditionally the main goal of these systems has been
rehabilitation rather than punishment; courts have frequently sentenced delinquents to probation or counseling rather than jail. During the
1980s and early 1990s, the US experienced an unprecedented wave of juvenile crime, and although juvenile crime had dropped by the
mid-1990s, a series of high-prole school shootings and murders by children as young as six kept the issue in the news. In response nearly
every state passed laws making it easier for minors to be tried and incarcerated as adults.
PROS
CONS
Theprimarypurposeofajusticesystemistheprevention of crime and the protection of the innocent. It is

to achieve these purposes that children should not be
entitled to lenient punishment.The purposes of punishment are proportional retribution, deterrence, and
preventionofcrime.Rehabilitationshouldatbestbea
secondaryaim.
Childcrimeisdifferentfromadultcrime.Inmostlegal
systemstheoffendersarenotdeemedtobefullyfunctioningasmoralagents.Thus,thebestwaytohandle
themisthroughrehabilitationratherthanpunishment.
The just desserts theory of punishment argues that

theretributionsocietytakesagainstanoffendershould
beproportionaltotheharmhehascausedthevictim.
Forexample,apersonwhokillsismoreculpablethan
apersonwhorobsorhurts.Becausetheharmchildren
Subjectiveculpabilityshouldplayasimportantapartin
punishmentastheharmprinciple.Thatiswhymurder
ispunishedmoreseverelythannegligentmanslaughter,
eventhoughbothcausethesameharm.Childrenarenot
capableofmakingthesamemoraljudgmentsasadults.
|59
PROS
CONS
causeisthesameasthatcausedbyadultscommittinga Itistheinabilityofchildrentoformmoraljudgments
similaroffense,childrenshouldnotreceivespecialtreat- thatmakesthemlessculpableandthereforeworthyof
ment.Theassumptionthatchildrenarenotasmorally lighterpunishment.
culpableasadultsisfalse.
Treatingchildrenmorelenientlythanadultsundermines
the deterrent value of punishment. A 1996 survey in
Virginia,forexample,showedthat41%ofyouthshave
atvarioustimeseitherbeeninagangorassociatedwith
gangactivities.Ofthese,69%saidtheyjoinedbecause
friendswereinvolvedand60%joinedforexcitement.
Thisclearlyshowsthatyoungadultsdonottakecrime
seriouslybecausetheythinkthejusticesystemwilltreat
themleniently.
Thedeterrencetheoryassumesthatallcrimeiscommitted as a result of rational evaluation. If, indeed, 8- or

10-year-oldchildrenarecapableofmakingrationalcalculations,thentheprospectofspendingseveralyearsin
reformschoolshouldbenolessadeterrentthenspendingthetimeinjail.Itisstillacurtailmentoftheirliberty,andiftheywererational,theywouldnotwanttheir
liberty curtailed.The real problem is that most crimes
arecommittedbypeoplewhodonotmakerationaldecisions.
Thebestwaytopreventcrimeintheshortrunistolock
up the offenders. This stops them from immediately
harmingsociety.Inthelongterm,thesechildrenwillbe
reluctanttoreturntocrimebecauseoftheirmemoryof
harshpunishment.
This is an argument that would justify imprisoning

peopleforlifebecausethatisthesurestwaytoprevent
themfromharminganyone.Becausethisisplainlyridiculous,itmustbeacceptedthatlockingapersonupisat
bestashort-termremedy.Thelong-termanswerliesin
rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation(counselingandpsychiatrictreatment)is
too lenient. It will make children believe that they are
spendingshortperiodsoftimeatcamp.IntheUS,more
thanhalftheboyswhowereorderedtoundergocounseling rather than sentenced to detention committed
crimeswhileintherapy.Rehabilitationprogramsshould
takeplaceinadetentionfacility.Youngoffendersshould
be separated from hardened adult criminals, but they
should not be given lighter sentences than adults who
committedthesamecrimes.
Theonlylong-termsolutiontojuvenilecrimeisreform
of the child. Childrens characters are less formed and
thus they are more amenable to reform. The rate of
recidivism for child offenders in counseling in the US
issignicantlylowerthanthatofadultoffenders.Some
children who have had counseling do return to crime,
butasignicantproportiondoesnot.Puttingchildrenin
prisonwithhardenedadultoffendersislikelytoincrease
recidivismbecausetheywillbeinuencedbyandlearn
fromtheadults.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldlowertheageofcriminalresponsibility.
ThisHousewouldpunishchildrenasiftheywereadults.
ThisHousebelievesthatsparingtherodspoilsthechild.
WebLinks:
CornellLawInformationService:AnOverviewofJuvenileJustice.<http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/juvenile.html>
Quicksummaryofthetheoryandcurrentstatusofjuvenilejusticewithlinkstospecicstatutesandcourtdecisions.
JuvenileCrime/PunishmentStatistics.<http://crime.about.com/newsissues/crime/library/blles/bljuvstats.htm>
Offerslinkstostatisticsonjuvenilecrimesandarrests,juvenilesinthecourtsystem,juvenilesinadultjails,andjuvenilesandthe
deathpenalty.
NationalCriminalJusticeReferenceServiceJuvenileJustice.<http://virlib.ncjrs.org/JuvenileJustice.asp>
Provideslinkstoresourcesonawidevarietyofjuvenilejusticetopics,includingalternativestoincarceration.
FurtherReading:
Fagan,Jeffrey,andFranklinE.Zimring,eds.TheChangingBordersofJuvenileJustice:TransferofAdolescentstotheCriminalCourt.
ChicagoUniversityPress,1998.
Jensen,Gary,andDeanG.Rojek.DelinquencyandYouthCrime.WavelandPress,1998.
Lawrence,Richard,andChristopherLawrence.SchoolCrimeandJuvenileJustice.OxfordUniversityPress,1997.
Morrison,Blake.AsIf:ACrime,aTrial,aQuestionofChildhood.Picador,1997.
Vito,Gennaro,etal.TheJuvenileJusticeSystem:ConceptsandIssues.WavelandPress.1998.
CHINA,FEAROF
Chinas perceived threat to the West stems largely from its history under communist rule. Continuing human rights abuses and its violent
suppression of democratic reform movements, as witnessed in Tiananmen Square in 1989, are not easily ignored. The nations aggressive
foreign policy during the Cold War years and its willingness to provide arms to rogue nations and leftist revolutionaries have created an
image of China as a warmonger and powerbroker. In recent years China has worked to counter its image and to improve relations with the
West. However, the fear of China continues. The 1999 CoxReporton Chinese espionage revealed that China had acquired American
nuclear weapons technology, and China remains the only nation known to target its missiles at the United States.
PROS
CONS
ChinaisaneconomicpowerhousethatcoulddwarfWesternnations.ThebiggestmarketonEarth,Chinaalready
produces one-third of the worlds toys and one-eighth
ofitstextiles.Between1951and1980,theeconomyof
Chinagrewata12.5%annualrate,whichisgreatereven
thanthearchetypalTigereconomyofJapan.Americas
hugetradedecitwithChinasuggeststhatChinacould
dominate the conventional trading relationships and
suckinmostWesterneconomies.
Chinas economic growth is unremarkable. In 1997 it

accountedformerely3.5%ofworldGDP,asopposed
to the leading economy, the United States, representing 25.6%. In terms of GDP per capita, China ranks
eighty-rst, just ahead of Georgia and behind Papua
New Guinea. In terms of international trade, China
isequivalenttoSouthKoreaanddoesnotevenmatch
theNetherlands.InChinaspeakyearforthereceiptof
foreign direct investment, it received $45US billion.
However,thiswasaccompaniedbyrecordcapitalight,
inwhich$35USbillionleftthecountry.
Since the middle of the twentieth century, China has

presented a formidable military threat. China has the
worlds largest standing army and poses a threat both
intermsoftechnologyandregionalambition.TheCox
ReportrevealedthatChinahadacquiredmodernnuclear
warheads.Inaddition,Chinasarmssales,particularlyto
roguestates,threatenworldpeace.ItstransferofweaponstoPakistanhasprecipitatedanarmsracewithIndia
andconictinKashmir,resultedintwocivilwars,and
bolsteredamilitaryregime.Wenolongerhavetofear
terror from the East only, but terror from around the
worldthatowsfromChina.
People wrongly assume that a communist regime is a

militarythreat.Intermsofdefensespending,Chinais
insignicant, accounting for only 4.5% of the global
total,asopposedto33.9%spentbytheUnitedStates.
Similarly,Chinasarmsdealingisalsonocauseforconcern.Attheendofthetwentiethcentury,Chinasweaponstransfersconstituted2.2%oftheglobaltotal.The
United States, by contrast, traded 45% of the worlds
weapons.ChinaisasignatorytotheNuclearNon-ProliferationTreatyandtheComprehensiveTestBanTreaty.
Ithasneverdetonatedanuclearweaponinconictnor
shownanyinclinationtodoso.
ChinaactsasadestabilizinginuenceinEastAsia.The Chinaactuallyactsasastabilizingforceinaturbulent
threatposedtoTaiwanisclear,notonlyintheaggressive region.Ithasconsiderableinuenceoveritsneighbors,
statementsmadebyChineseleaders,butalsoinrecent particularly North Korea. No one would deny that
|61
PROS
CONS
navalmaneuversdesignedtointimidatetheTaiwanese. Chinahasarighttopracticemilitarymaneuvers.MoreIn 1997, China went so far as to launch missiles over over, it is by no means certain that China is exerting
undueinuenceonTaiwan.BoththeTaiwaneseandthe
Taipei.
ChinesenationalconstitutionsstatethatTaiwanisapart
ofmainlandChina.
ChinathreatenstheWesternpowersevenintheUnited
Nations.AsapermanentmemberoftheSecurityCouncil,ChinahasrepeatedlyvetoedWesternproposals,often
forpettypoliticalobjectives.Forexample,itvetoedpeacekeepingoperationsforGuatemalaandMacedoniaonthe
groundthatthesenationstradewithTaiwan.NATOhad
tointerveneinKosovoinpartbecauseChinarefusedto
authorizeaUNoperationthere.
ChinaactuallyhasamuchbetterSecurityCouncilrecord
thaneitherRussiaorFrance.Disagreementsthatdivide
theglobeshouldnotbelaidatChinasdoor.Chinahas
mademanyeffortstopromoteinternationalpeaceboth
withinandoutsidetheUN.Inanycase,whateverChina
doesintheUNisoflittleconsequencebecausetheUN
hasverylittlerealpower.
Chinaiscapableofformingadangerouspowerblocin
EastAsiathatthreatensWesterninterests.Chinaremains
both politically and economically close to many states
thatlackthesupportofWesternpowers:Vietnam,Cambodia,Burma,andNorthKorea.
Chinaexertsanastonishinglysmallinuenceoverother
nations.Asthelargestrecipientofinternationalaidand
a very reluctant donor, China is certainly not buying
herself allies. For 2,000 years, China rejected the concept of international interdependence. Although economic globalization has modied this approach, there
isnoevidencethatChinahasadoptedanaggressiveor
expansionistphilosophy.
SampleMotions:
ThisHouseshouldregardChinaasaglobalpower.
ThisHousethinksthatChinaismerelyaregionalpower.
ThisHousetreatsChinaasanequalpower.
WebLinks:
CoxReport.http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1999/cox.report/>
CNNsummaryofCoxReportonChineseespionage.
Sinomania.com.http://www.sinomania.com
NewsresourcedevotedtoghtingfearofChina.
TheState-to-StateFlap:TentativeConclusionsAboutRiskandRestraintinDiplomacyAcrosstheTaiwanStraits.<http://www.
fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200001/0001a008.htm>
ScholarlyarticlefromtheHarvardAsiaQuarterlyonrecentChina-Taiwanrelations.
FurtherReading:
Lampton,DavidM.,ed.TheMakingofChineseForeignandSecurityPolicyintheEraofReform,19782000.StanfordUniversity
Press,2001.
Mann,James.AboutFace:AHistoryofAmericasCuriousRelationshipwithChina.VintageBooks,2000.
Swaine,MichaelD.,andAshleyJ.Tellis.InterpretingChinasGrandStrategy:Past,PresentandFuture.RandCorporation,2000.
CIVILDISOBEDIENCE
Civil disobedience is the deliberate disobeying of a law to advance a moral principle or change government policy. Those who practice
civil disobedience are willing to accept the consequences of their lawbreaking as a means of furthering their cause. Henry David Thoreau
rst articulated the tenets of civil disobedience in an 1849 essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. He argued that when conscience
and law do not coincide, individuals have the obligation to promote justice by disobeying the law. Civil disobedience was a major tactic in
the womens suffrage movement, the campaign for the independence of India, the civil rights movement, and the abolition of apartheid in
South Africa.
PROS
CONS
Elections do not give the people sufcient opportunitytoexpresstheirwill.Incertaincircumstancescivil

disobedience is a powerful method of making the will
ofthepublicheard.Ifalawisoppressiveitcannotbe
opposedinprinciplebyobeyingitinpractice.Itmust
bebroken.
Thevoiceofthepeopleisheardinmanyways.Elections
takeplaceregularly,andmembersofthepubliccanwrite
their local, state, or national representatives expressing
theiropinion.Legislatorsaretheretorepresentandserve
thepeople.Becausecitizenshavemanywaystoexpress
their views, civil disobedience is unnecessary. Protests
canbemadeperfectlywellwithoutbreakingthelaw.
Civildisobediencehasahistoryofovercomingoppression and unpopular policies where all other methods

havefailed.Forexample,MohandasGandhiscivildisobediencewasinstrumentalinwinninglibertyforIndia,
and Martin Luther Kings tactics won basic rights for
AfricanAmericansintheUnitedStates.Inthesecasesno
otheravenuewasopentoexpressgrievances.
Peacefulprotestisquitepossibleinanysocietytogo
furtherintoactuallawbreakingispointless.Civildisobedience can devolve into lawlessness. Indeed, it can be
counterproductivebyassociatingacausewithterrorand
violence.
Inactualfact,theconictwiththeauthoritygivesany
protestitspowerandurgencyandbringsanissuetoa
wideraudience.ThewomenssuffragemovementinBritainandthecivilrightsmovementintheUnitedStates
arebothexamplesofaneventuallysuccessfulcampaign
thatwonbyitsconfrontationwithauthority,wheremore
sedatemethodswouldsimplynothavesucceeded.
Toooftenthisproductiveviolenceisdirectedagainst
innocent members of the public or against the police,
oftencausingseriousinjuries.Nocauseisworththesacriceofinnocentlives;protestmustbepeacefulornot
atall.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportscivildisobedience.
ThisHousebelievestheendsjustifythemeans.
ThisHousewouldbreakthelawinagoodcause.
WebLinks:
CivilDisobedienceIndex.<http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/CDindex.html>
Offersinformationonthehistory,theory,andpracticeofcivildisobedience.
FurtherReading:
Arendt,Hannah.CrisesoftheRepublic.HarvestBooks,1972.
Thoreau,HenryDavid.CivilDisobedienceandOtherEssays.Dover,1993.
|63
CONDOMSINSCHOOLS
Should public schools actively promote the use of condoms as a way to prevent pregnancy, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and
the proliferation of HIV infection? While scientic evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that condoms, when properly used,
reduce the incidence of these problems, numerous critics fear that advocating condom use would encourage children to become sexually
active earlier than they otherwise would. In particular, more conservative religious traditions, as well as religious groups that oppose contraception, oppose the distribution of condoms in schools out of fear that such access might undermine basic religious values in their children.
PROS
CONS
Providing condoms to students in public schools will Providing students with condoms actually encourages
reduce the incidence of underage pregnancy and the beginningsexualactivityearlier.
spreadofsexuallytransmitteddiseases.
Providing condoms to students is the pragmatic thing Presenting condoms to students in public schools is
to do. Educators need not endorse sexual activity, but offensivetopeoplefromavarietyofreligionswhooppose
theycanencouragestudentstomakewisechoicesifthey birthcontrolandsexoutsideofmarriage.
decidetohavesex.Suchanapproachissensiblebecause
it accepts the inevitability that some young people,
regardlessofthestrengthofanabstinencemessage,will
stillhavesex.
Providingcondomstostudentsisawiseinvestmentof
governmentfunds.Worldgovernmentsspendafortune
annuallyaddressingthepublichealthproblemscreated
by risky sexual behavior.The cost of raising the many
children created through unintended pregnancies over
a lifetime can be astronomical. The cost of treating a
patientwithHIVcanbeenormous.
Taxpayers should not have to support programs that

theyndmorallyobjectionable,evenifthereseemtobe
pragmaticjusticationsfortheaction.Moreover,ifoverallsexualactivityincreasesastheresultofencouraging
safersex,thenumberofpeopleoccasionallyengaging
inriskybehaviorwillincrease,andtheriskoftheseproblemsspreadingwillincreasewithit.
Condom distribution encourages the responsibility of

menandincreaseschoicesforwomen.Itcanalsoestablishcondomuseasthenorm,notsomethingthatwomen
continuallyhavetonegotiate,oftenfromapositionof
weakness.
Widespread condom distribution will establish sexual

activityasthenormamongyoungteens,creatingpeer
pressuretoparticipateinsex.Theaddedtemptationto
engageinsexualactivitythatisprotectedwillresultin
morewomenhavingsexatayoungerage,perhapscontributingtotheirexploitation.
Condoms are one of the most effective and cost-effectivemeansofprotectingagainstsexuallytransmitteddiseases,HIV,andpregnancy.
The effectiveness of condoms is grossly exaggerated. If

not used properly, condoms can be highly ineffective.
Youngpeoplearemorelikelytousecondomsincorrectly,
due to lack of experience or because they are drunk.
Moreover,thetemptationtohavesexwithoutacondom
maybesignicantwherethesupplyofcondomsisnot
plentiful.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldprovidefreecondomstoallhighschoolstudents.
ThisHousebelievesabstinence-basedsexeducationissuperiortocondomdistributioninschools.
ThisHousewouldgivestudentstheoptionoffreeaccesstocondomsthroughtheirschools.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion:ReproductiveRights.
<http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=11141&c=147>
Informationonreproductiverightsissuesandcampaigns.
CondomsinSchools.
<http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlawperspectives/HealthPolicy/981021Condoms.html>
HistoryofUScourtdecisionsoncondomdistributioninschools.
TheKaiserFamilyFoundation.<http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_report.cfm?DR_ID=17970>
Reportontheeffectofcondomavailabilityonhighschools.
FurtherReading:
Irvine,JaniceM.TalkAboutSex:TheBattlesOverSexEducationintheUnitedStates.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2002.
Levine,Judith.HarmfultoMinors:ThePerilsofProtectingChildrenFromSex.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2002.
McKay,Alexander.SexualIdeologyandSchooling:TowardsDemocraticSexuality.StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000.
CONFEDERATEFLAG,BANNINGOF
The display of the Confederate ag has been an enormous issue in the states of the former Confederacy. Many believe the ag to be a
continuing symbol of unrepentant racism while others maintain that it is the strongest sign of their legitimate pride in the past and that
they have a right to y or display this or any other ag.
PROS
CONS
Therebelagsmodernassociationwithwhitesupremacistsmakesitaashpointforracialconfrontation.Many
support the NAACP view that the ag is a symbol of
a society based on slavery and the dehumanizing of
blacks.
Thisisanissueoffreedomofspeech.FirstAmendment
rightsarebeingtrampledinthenameofpoliticalcorrectnesshencetheliberalAmericanCivilLibertiesUnions
oppositiontoaban.Furthermore,slaveswerebrought
totheUnitedStatesonshipssailingundertheStarsand
Stripes,andthereisnosuggestionthatthenationalag
bebanned.
Whatisthepositivecontributionofthissymbol?Why
shouldtheConfederateagberegardedanydifferently
fromtheswastika?Thosewhoyordisplayitareproclaimingtheirsupportforracistprinciplesthatbelong
inthepast.IndeedtheConfederateagdidnotenjoy
renewedpopularityuntilthecivilrightseraofthe1960s,
when it became a symbol of opposition to the movement.
Inanationthatencouragesminoritiestocelebratetheir
owncultures,todemandacessationofsuchcelebration
regardingthecultureoftheSouth(ofwhichtheConfederateagisthemostvividandenduringsymbol)islittle
shortofperverse.Theagmeansmorethanprideinthe
Confederacy;italsomeanssouthernprideintheSouth
ofthepresent.
ThosewhowishtoaunttheConfederateaginpublic
arebackwardlooking,rejectingthediversityanddynamismoftheNewSouththathasdevelopedsincethecivil
rightsera.Bypersistentlypromotingadivisivesymbol,
they undermine continuing efforts at integration and
generatenegativeviewsoftheSouth.
SouthernerswhorespecttheirConfederateheritageand
wishtopreservetraditionalwaysarenowanembattled
group,assaultedbypoliticallycorrectliberalsandothers
whowanttopublicizetheirownminorityrightsagenda.
Ifwevaluediversityandrespectoneanotherscultures,
why should the culture of the old South be uniquely
singledoutforattack?
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbantheConfederateag.
ThisHousewouldyaagagainstracism.
|65
WebLinks:
NAACP.<http://www.naacp.org/http://www.naacp.org/>
InformationonNAACPcampaignsfortheremovaloftheag.
SouthernLegalResourceCenter.<http://www.slrc-csa.org/>
SiteinsupportofrighttopubliclydisplayConfederatesymbols.
CONSCRIPTIONANDNATIONALSERVICE
Many countries throughout Europe and the rest of the world have conscription or some type of required national service. This is normally
for 18-year-olds and lasts between one and three years. Usually young people have the option of serving in the military or performing
community service. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the United States has relied on a volunteer army. At age 18, young men are
required to register with Selective Service, but there is no draft. Nevertheless, some believe that some type of obligatory national service
would be good both for young people and the nation. The issue of reviving the draft emerged during the debate over the Iraq War in
2003, but died quickly.
PROS
CONS
Weaccepttheneedfornationalserviceinwartime;serviceinpeacetimeisjustanextensionofthesameidea.It
wouldmeanthatthecountrywaspreparedforemergencies when they happen, rather than having to prepare
afterthefact.
No justication exists for compulsory military service.

Thearmedforcesastheystandarecapableofcarrying
out their role without conscripts. In fact, the military
prefersavolunteerarmy.
Nationalservicedevelopsvaluablecharactertraits.Young Forcingyoungpeopletogointothearmedforcesagainst
peoplelearnrespectforauthority,self-discipline,team- theirwillfostersonlyresentmentagainstauthorityand
work,andleadershipskills.
underminesanyrealchanceatlearningnewskills.
The military teaches important skills that help young Thegovernmentwouldbebetteroffestablishingcivilpeoplegetjobs.Inthelongrunthiswillreduceunem- iantrainingprograms.Themilitaryisnotaneducational
ploymentandhelptheeconomy.
institution.
Nationalservicehelpstopromotepatriotismandasense Patriotism should not be centered on the military.We
ofnationhood.
haveseenthedetrimentaleffectafocusonthemilitary
has had in other nations, such as Germany. National
prideshouldbefosteredinotherways.
Theindividualhasadutytogivesomethingbacktosoci- Acitizenhasadutytopaytaxesandfollowtherulesof
ety, and national service allows this. Whether through society.Anyservicetothecommunityshouldbevolprotectingthecountryorhelpingwithsocialorenviron- untary.
mentalprojects,nationalserviceencouragestheideaof
workingasacommunity.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldreintroducethedraft.
WebLinks:
CorporationforNationalService.<http://www.cns.gov>
USgovernmentsitepresentinginformationonpublicserviceprograms.
DraftRegistration:ThePoliticsofInstitutionalImmorality.<http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-214.html>
EssayinsupportofdismantlingtheSelectiveServiceSystem.
FurtherReading:
Danzig,Richard,andPeterSzanton.NationalService:WhatWouldItMean?LexingtonBooks,1986.
Evers,WilliamM.NationalService:ProandCon.HooverInstitutePress,1990.
CORPORALPUNISHMENT:ADULTS
Nigeria, Malaysia, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore have retained ogging as a punishment long after other countries have declared
it a violation of human rights. In some fundamentalist Islamic countries the cutting off of a hand is also an acceptable sentence.
PROS
CONS
Criminals must be punished. All forms of punishment recognize that with the commission of criminal
acts individuals surrender some of their human rights.
Why,logically,iscorporalpunishmentanymoreofan
infringementoftheserightsthanprison?Corporalpunishment is an easy, strong, visible, and therefore effectivedeterrent.Itisalsoaproportionatepunishmentfor
certaincrimes.
Punishingwithpainisbarbaric,athrowbacktosocieties built on military might, slavery, and the treatment

ofcriminalsasentitieswithoutanyrights.Themarkof
civilizedsocietyisthatitbehavesbetterthanitscriminals.Prisonisnecessaryasamethodofpunishment,prevention,andrehabilitation,butitdoesnot(oratleast
shouldnot)stooptocruelty.ThisiswhytheUNDeclaration of Human Rights forbids torture or ... cruel,
inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.
Likeallformsofpunishment,oggingandwhippingcan
and should be subject to regulation. In Singapore, for
example,caningisconnedgenerallytomalesbetween
16 and 50, with a maximum number of 24 strokes,
whichmustbeadministeredallatonce.
Any regulation tends to be arbitrary and allow abuse.

Singapores list of crimes for which caning may be
imposed includes the transport of reworks or a third
trafc offense. In 1995, a 48-year-old Frenchman was
canedvetimesforoverstayinghisvisa.
Corporalpunishmentisausefuldeterrentagainstprisonersbreakingprisonrules.Sincetheirfreedomisalready
goneandtheirdateofreleasemayseemdistant(ornonexistent),littleelseremainstohelpmaintainorder.
There are always alternative punishments that can be

used in prison: solitary connement, removal of privileges, extension of sentence, and so on. Prisoners are
particularlyvulnerabletoabusefromprisonsupervisors
whoseektomaintainorderthroughaclimateoffear.
Corporal punishment is appropriate for some cultures,

butnotforothers.CitizensofWesterndemocraciesnd
a great deal of state control and authority frightening,
andholdverydiverseviewsonacceptablebehaviorand
appropriatepunishment.InmanyMiddleandFarEastern countries, however, consensus is much greater on
what is acceptableand a harsher collective response
exists toward those who breach societys norms. SingaporehasverylittlecrimeincomparisonwiththeUS.Let
theresultsofitsjusticesystemspeakforthemselves.
Societieswithacollectivementalityneedlessstrictpunishment laws than societies without. The US doesnt

havemorecrimethanSingaporebecauseofthelackof
corporalpunishmentbutpreciselybecauseofthelackof
abehavioralnorm.TheUSandBritainallowedcorporal
punishmentinthepast;nevertheless,crimeourished.
|67
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldogcriminalsliveonnationaltelevision.
ThisHousewouldbringbackthebirch.
WebLinks:
WorldCorporalPunishmentResearch.<http://www.corpun.com>
Linkstohundredsofsitesprovidinghistoricalandcontemporarydataonthesubject.
FurtherReading:
Newman,Graeme.JustandPainful:ACasefortheCorporalPunishmentofCriminals.Harrow&Heston,1995.
CORPORALPUNISHMENT:CHILDREN
The issue of paddling or spanking children is less about punishment in itself and more about punishment as a means of education. How
can young children learn the difference between right and wrong? How can teachers establish order in the classroom and with it a better
environment for learning? With the exception of the United States, Canada, and one state in Australia, all industrialized countries now
ban corporal punishment in schools although they may permit parental spanking.
PROS
CONS
Corporal punishment, specically spanking or similar

actions, can be an effective punishment and deterrent
for childish misbehavior. If children do not respond
seriously to verbal warnings or light punishment from
teachersorparents,thenashort,sharpstimulus,which
inictspainbutnolastingdamage,isthelastresortto
cause the child to associate misbehavior with punishmentacrucialassociationinachildsdevelopment.
Hitting a child is never right. The power of physical

punishmenttoteachachildthedifferencebetweenright
and wrong is unproven. A young child may learn that
theadultisdispleased,butnotwhy.Spankingwillcause
astateofextremedistressandconfusionthatmakeschildrenlesslikelytoanalyzetheirbehaviorwithclarity.In
olderchildrendisciplinedatschool,aphysicalpunishment is likely to provoke resentment and further misbehavior.
Muchoftheargumentagainstcorporalpunishmenthas
ahystericaledge.Corporalpunishmentmustbeusedas
part of a wider strategy and at the correct time: when
otherimmediatedisciplinehasfailedandafteraninitial
warning and opportunity for the child to repent. The
persondeliveringthepunishmentmustnotbeangryat
thetime.
Nomatterhoworderlyyoumakethebeatingofachild,
adverseeffectsarenumerous.Childrenlosetrustinthe
adultswhoadministerthebeating;theylearnthatforce
isacceptableinhumaninteraction;theyfeelhumiliated
andloseself-respect;andtheybuildupresentmentthat
mayleadtoseveremisbehaviorinthefuture.
Serious physical injuries occur only where disciplined,

strategic corporal punishment becomes child abuse.
Thereisastrictlinebetweenthetwoandtoignoreitis
deliberatelymisleading.
The actual physical damage inicted via corporal punishmentonchildrencanbehorrifying.Examplescanbe

found of students needing treatment for broken arms,
nerve and muscle damage, and cerebral hemorrhage.
Spankingofthebuttockscancausedamagetothesciatic
nerve.
Corporalpunishmentadministeredinthepresenceofat Thebuttocksareasexualzone.Adultscanderivepleasure
leasttwoadultsismuchlesslikelytobecomeviolentor fromadministeringpunishmenttothatzone,andsucha
PROS
CONS
leadtosexualabuse.Atschool,anotherteachershould punishmentcanaffectthepsychosexualdevelopmentof
bepresent;athome,bothparents.
childrenbeingdisciplined.Eventhepresenceofanother
adultdoesnotpreventtheeasydegenerationfrompunishmentintochildabuse.AnotoriouscasefromArizona
in1995involvedschoolprincipalMichaelWetton,who
had previous convictions for violence against children.
Hewasconvictedofabuseafterforcinga9-year-oldboy
anda15-year-oldgirltostripnakedandbepaddled.In
thegirlscase,hermotherwaspresent,buttoofrightenedtoresist.
He who spareth his rod hateth his son, but he who TheDevilcanciteScriptureforhispurpose.
lovethhimischastenethhimbetimes.Proverbs13:24. Shakespeare. The Bible frequently condones practices
thatareoutrageoustothemodernsensibility.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldspankitschildrenwhennecessary.
ThisHousebelievesthatitisneverrighttohitachild.
WebLinks:
CorporalPunishmentofChildren.<http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/index.html>
Provideslinksandreferencestoresearchoncorporalpunishmentforchildreninthehomeandcritiquesofanti-spankingresearch.
UltimateDeterrent:PunishmentandControlinEnglishandAmericanSchools.<http://www.hku.hk/cerc/2b.html>
1966articleexaminingdisciplinarypolicyinBritishandAmericanschools.
WorldCorporalPunishmentResearch.<http://www.corpun.com>
Linkstohundredsofsitesprovidinghistoricalandcontemporarydataonthesubject.
FurtherReading:
Hyman,Irwin.TheCaseAgainstSpanking:HowtoDisciplineYourChildWithoutHitting.Jossey-Bass,1997.
Rosemond,John.ToSpankorNottoSpank:AParentsHandbook.AndrewsMcMeel,1994.
Straus,Murray,andDeniseA.Donnelly.BeatingtheDevilOutofThem:CorporalPunishmentinAmericanFamiliesandItsEffecton
Children.Transaction,2001.
|69
CORRUPTION,BENEFITSOF
Public corruption is generally viewed as an obstacle to the development of a country. Many governments, international organizations, and
aid agencies as well as donor-states have special agendas to ght the problem. Yet, in the countries with high levels of corruption, arguments have been made that because corruption is pervasive it has to have some benet. While denitely not something to be proud of,
public corruption is seen as an unavoidable side effect of development.
PROS
CONS
Corruptionreducesbureaucracyandspeedstheimplementation of administrative practices governing economic forces of the market. Corrupt public ofcials
acquire incentives to create a development-friendly
systemfortheeconomy.Asaresult,corruptionstarts
achainofbenetsforalltheeconomicactors,making
overregulated, obstructive bureaucracies much more
efcient.
Countries with lower levels of corruption still have

efcientbureaucraciesandenjoybettereconomicwell-
being. Corruption in the public sector is the biggest
obstacletoinvestment,causingmisallocationofvaluable
resourcesandsubversionofpublicpolicies.Itisalsoan
invisibletaxonthepoor.GDPlevelsforcorruptedstates
couldbemuchhigherwithoutcorruption.
CorruptionisaWesternconceptandisnotapplicable
totraditionalsocieties,wherecorruptiondoesnothave
suchanegativemeaning.Manytraditionalsocietieswith
a gift culture have a different understanding of civil
responsibilities and etiquette.The social structure and
politicaltraditionsofmany countries are based on the
benecialeffectofcorruptionandcannotsurviveinits
absence.
The very idea of corruption is unethical, regardless of

onestraditions.Culturalrelativismisjustanattemptto
legitimizecorruptionbythecorrupted.Notenoughevidencehasbeenpresentedtosupportthesuggestionthat
corruptionisrequiredbycertainsocio-culturalpractices.
Moreover,regardingcorruptionasaninnatequalityof
human culture undermines the hope for any improvementandisinherentlyfatalistic,servingasanexcusefor
creatingculturesofcorruptionandfear.
Corruption is a condition of developing states, and

should be seen as a childhood disease. Western countriesthemselveswereoncethemostcorruptedsocieties
oftheworld.Notonlyiscorruptionendemicinunderdeveloped nations, it is also an evolutionary level that
precedesdevelopmentandindustrialization.Corruption
isasideeffectofemergingcapitalismandafreemarket.
Underdeveloped countries cannot combat corruption
withouthavingachievedthelevelofeconomicdevelopmentnecessarytoghtit.
Corruption is universal, and the fact that a nation is

economically developed does not mean that it has less
corruption.SomeFirstWorldcountrieshavehighrates
ofpubliccorruption.Havingalowlevelofcorruption,
however, gives a unique advantage to any developing
nation.Appropriatepoliciescansubstituteforanypositiveeffectofcorruption.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousedeclaresthatanticorruptioneffortsdomoreharmthangood.
ThisHouseconrmsthatcorruptionisunethical.
ThisHouseshouldghtpubliccorruption.
WebLinks:
Anti-CorruptionGateway.<http://www.nobribes.org>
ProvidesinformationaboutcombatingcorruptioninEuropeandEurasia.
GlobalCorruptionReport.<http://www.globalcorruptionreport.org>
ProjectofTransparencyInternationalprovidesanextensivereportoncorruptionaroundtheworld.
TransparencyInternational.<http://www.transparency.org>
Globalcoalitionagainstcorruption.
FurtherReading:
Anechiarico, Frank, et al. The Pursuit of Absolute Integrity: How Corruption Control Makes Government Ineffective. University of
ChicagoPress,1998.
DellaPorta,Donatella,andAlbertoVannucci.CorruptExchanges:Actors,Resources,andMechanismsofPoliticalCorruption.Aldine
deGruyter,1999.
Rose-Ackerman,Susan.CorruptionandGovernment:Causes,Consequences,andReform.
CambridgeUniversityPress,1999.
COVENANTMARRIAGE
Divorce is an unfortunate reality of American life. Recent statistics compiled by the US Census Bureau show that between 40% and
50% of marriages end in divorce. Divorce can have a negative effect on society; accordingly, advocates of divorce reform have suggested
giving couples the choice of covenant marriage. Thus, couples could either marry under the current no fault system in which either
party can, at any time, dissolve the marriage or they could choose the covenant marriage option if they want a marriage that is more difcult to dissolve. Before entering into a covenant marriage, premarital counseling would be required; counseling would also be required prior
to granting a divorce By 2004, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Arizona had implemented covenant marriage laws; many other state legislatures
are considering instituting covenant marriage as an option.
PROS
CONS
Covenantmarriagesmightreducethenumberofdomesticviolencecases.A1991JusticeDepartmentstudyconcluded that current husbands/fathers account for only

9%ofthecasesofdomesticabuse.Therestoftheabuse
was perpetrated by former husbands, boyfriends, or
transientpartners.Withoutdivorce,womenmaybeless
likelytobeinvolvedwithabusivemen.
Inacovenantmarriage,apartnermustprovethatabuse
actuallyoccurredtobepermittedtoendthemarriage.
This especially worries advocates for battered women
whosaythatprovingdomesticabusecanbedifcultand
the waiting period makes women stay in abusive relationshipslonger.Inaddition,mentalabuseisnotseenas
alegitimatereasontoendamarriage.
Inacovenantmarriage,theoffendedspouseistheonly
onewhocanaskforthedivorce.Thisgivestheoffended
spousemanybenetsinnegotiatingtheendofthemarriage.Awomanclearlyhasmoretoloseinassuminga
marriagewilllastforever,especiallyifsheputshercareer
on hold to care for children. A covenant marriage is a
way for women to have more security in a marriage.
Religiousbeliefisonlyonereasontowantmarriagesto
succeed;societyasawholehasaninterestinstablefamilies. Advocate for covenant marriage, Amitai Etzioni,
founderanddirectoroftheWashington-basedCommunitarianNetwork,said,Onecanbedeeplyconcerned
withstrengtheningthecommitmentofmarriagewithout
favoringtraditionalorhierarchicalformsofmarriagesor
denyingwomenfullequalstanding.
Some feminists feel initiatives for covenant marriage

simply conceal the hidden agenda of the antifeminist
MoralMajority.LiberalcommentatorKathaPollitt,acolumnistforTheNation,saidcovenantmarriagesenforce
a narrow and moralistic vision of marriage by rendering divorce more painful and more punitive. Many
advocates of covenant marriage laws are self-described
conservativeChristians;religiousgroupsaremajorsupportersofthecovenantmarriagelaws.LouisianaNOW
presidentTerry ONeill pointed out that Covenant
and covenant marriage are terms with a very specic
meaningintheChristiancommunity.Conatingreligiousvalueswithsecularlawsonmarriageiswrong.
Thepremaritalcounselingbyatrainedcounselorthatis
a requirement of covenant marriage enables the future
husbandandwifetogettoknoweachotherwell.Issues
suchashowtoraisechildren,howtosplithousework,
and nancial matters are discussed and explored with
Ifpartnersenteracovenantmarriage,theywouldnotbe
abletodivorceuntiltheyareseparatedforatleasttwo
years.Peoplecouldgetstuckinmarriagesandbeunable
tocontinuewiththeirlivesevenwhenthemarriagehas
produced no children and the spouses have no signi-
|71
PROS
CONS
the counselor. Covenant marriages are more restrictive

butallowfordivorceinspeciccircumstances:adultery;
physicalorsexualabuseofaspouseorchild;abandonmentofatleastoneyear;incarcerationofaspousefor
a felony conviction; spouses living separate and apart
fortwoyears;andalegalseparationofoneyear,or18
monthsifaminorchildisinvolved.
cant assets to divide. Also, covenant marriage lays the

burdenofproofonthespousewholesfordivorce.A
judgemustbeconvincedthatgroundsfordivorceactuallyexist.Inaddition,althoughacovenantmarriagecan
bedissolvedbecauseofafelonyconviction,apartners
stringofmisdemeanorsisnotgroundsfordivorce.
Divorceisterribleforchildren.Theylosestabilityand
security. Children whose parents have divorced have
higherratesofsuicide.Theyaremorelikelytocommit
crimes and abuse drugs. Their education suffers, and
they are less likely to graduate from college and more
likelytodropoutofhighschool.Thedetrimentalnancialeffectsofdivorcealsoaffectthesechildren.Children
ofdivorcemustadapttomanychangesintheirfamily
environmentandareatgreaterriskofbeingabused.The
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers summer
1997newslettersays,Onlyactsofwarandtheevents
ofnaturaldisastersaremoreharmfultoachildspsyche
thanthedivorceprocess.
Covenant marriages force families in conict to stay

together,whichhasthepotentialtoharmchildrenmore
than divorce. Research shows that when parents stay
in a high-conict marriage, children fare worse than
when their parents actually divorce. Children must be
consideredwhenparentsdivorce,butwithappropriate
nurturingandsupport,childrencancopewithdivorce
and eventually have strong marriages of their own. In
fact,studiesshowthatachildofdivorcedparentsisno
morelikelythanachildofmarriedparentstodivorceas
anadult.
Passageofno-faultdivorcelawsresultedinanonslaught
ofdivorceandabreakdownoftheAmericanfamily.In
1968,theyearbeforeCaliforniaadoptedthenationsrst
no-faultdivorcelaw,theUShad584,000divorces(2.9
divorcesper1,000Americans).After30yearsofno-fault
divorce,thenumberofdivorceshadreached1,135,000
annually,or4.2per1,000.Covenantmarriagesarethe
answer.Researchhasshownthat33%to45%ofcouples
onthebrinkofdivorcemayreconcileiftheyarelegally
preventedfromdivorcingforsixmonthsasspeciedin
acovenantmarriage.
Covenantmarriagelawsareweak,andtheresourcesdo
notexisttoprovidethecounselingtheymandate.The
USSupremeCourtruledmorethan50yearsagothatthe
stateofresidenceatthetimeofthedivorcedetermines
thelawsgoverningthatdivorce.Soifthecovenantmarriagepartnersmovetoastatewithoutcovenantmarriage
laws,theyarefreetousetheno-faultsystemanyway.The
mandated counseling both before marriage and before
divorcecouldbecostly.Statesthathavepassedcovenant
marriagelawshavedonelittletoprovidelow-costorfree
counselorsforthosewhocannotaffordthem.Inaddition,thosewhochoosecovenantmarriagesaretheleast
likelytodivorceanyway.Studiesshowthatthoseincovenantmarriageshavehigherincomesandeducation,are
more involved with their churches, and take marriage
more seriously than those who do not select covenant
marriages.Thesetraitsareallpredictorsofasuccessful
marriage, regardless of the requirements of covenant
marriage.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatcouplesshouldchooseacovenantmarriageinsteadofatraditionalmarriage.
ThisHouseopposescovenantmarriagelaws.
ThisHousesupportscovenantmarriagelawsastheanswertoAmericasdivorceproblem.
WebLinks:
AmericanAcademyofMatrimonialLawyers.<http://www.aaml.org>
Websitewithmanyarticlesrelatedtomarriageanddivorcelaws.
AmericansforDivorceReform.<http://www.divorcereform.org>
Pro-divorcereformpageoffersmanyarticlesondivorcereformaswellasasectiononcovenantmarriagesandsamplelegislationstates
couldadopttocreatecovenantmarriagelaws.
CovenantMarriageMovement.<http://www.covenantmarriage.com>
ThisChristian-basedsitegivesinformationforcouplesconsideringcovenantmarriageandurgeschurchcongregationstosupport
covenantmarriage.
FurtherReading:
Bennett,WilliamJ.TheBrokenHearth:ReversingtheMoralCollapseoftheAmericanFamily.Doubleday,2001.
Fineman,MarthaAlbertson.TheIllusionofEquality:TheRhetoricandRealityofDivorceReform.UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.
Hetherington,E.Mavis,andJohnKelly.ForBetterorforWorse:DivorceReconsidered.W.W.Norton,2002.
Lowery,Fred.CovenantMarriage:StayingTogetherforLife.HowardPublishing,2002.
Wilson,JamesQ.TheMarriageProblem:HowOurCultureHasWeakenedFamilies.HarperCollins,2002.
CREATIONISMINPUBLICSCHOOLS
In the mid-nineteenth century, Charles Darwin articulated his theory of evolution, which argues that human beings evolved, over the
course of millennia, from more primitive animals. This theory conicts with the account of mans creation in Genesis, wherein Adam is
created by God as the rst fully formed human, having no predecessors. Adams creation is the act of an intelligent designer, rather than
the result of some natural evolutionary process. Although many believers think that evolution is compatible with the Bible, many others
feel that the account in Genesis must be taken literally and that teaching evolution is an affront to their religious beliefs. Many states and
school districts have tried to ban the teaching of evolution (most famously, the state of Tennessee, which prosecuted John Scopes in 1925
for violating its ban), but the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the purpose of such bans is religious and cannot be permitted in public
schools. In 1987 the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Louisianas Creationism Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution
unless the theory of creation science was also taught. Nonetheless, believers in intelligent designor creationismhave continued to
insist that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the classroom.
PROS
CONS
TheConstitutionforbidstheestablishmentofanyone
religion,butitalsoguaranteesfreedomofreligion,which
meansthatthegovernmentcannotsuppressreligion.By
teachingthatevolutionistrue,schoolsareviolatingthe
religiousbeliefsofstudents.
Inpractice,thereisnoquestionthatthesupportersof
creationism depend upon one religious traditionthe
Judeo-Christianand upon the account of creation
in its sacred texts.Teaching creationism establishes, in
effect,onlythatspecicreligioustradition,tothedetriment of other religions and of nonbelievers. Teaching
creationisminapubliclyfundedschoolisclearlyaviolationoftheConstitution.
Evolution has not been proved; it is a theory used to

explainobservablefacts.Butthosefactscanbeexplained
justaswell,andinsomecases,evenbetter,byintelligent
designtheory.Moreover,evolutionistsdonotacknowledgethattheevidenceessentialforprovingtheirideas
e.g., fossil remains of transitional, evolving beings
simplydoesnotexist.Creationismisatheorythatisat
leastasworthyasevolutionandshouldbetaughtalong
withit.
Evolutionisatheorythatisbasedonveriablescientic
facts, but creationism is based on the revelations containedinscripture.Creationismcannotbetaughtassciencebecauseitisnotconsistentwithstandardscientic
procedure.
|73
PROS
CONS
By teaching intelligent design theory, a school is not

doinganythingtoestablishanyparticularreligion.IntelligentdesignisacceptedbyChristians,Jews,Muslims,
NativeAmericans,Hindus,andmanyothers.Therefore,
itshouldnotbeforbiddenbytheestablishmentclauseof
theFirstAmendment.
Allreligionsofferacreationstory,varyingfromreligion
toreligionandfromculturetoculture.Apublicschool
might examine all of these beliefs in the context of a
historyofideascourse,ratherthaninasciencecourse.
In practice, however, creationists are not interested in
exploring different beliefs; they are, rather, committed
toputtingonereligiousbeliefonequalfootingwithprevailingscienticthinkinginthescienceclassroom.
Creationism is not, as the Supreme Court has ruled,

areligiousbelief.Itisascientictheory,andhasbeen
articulated by many philosophers and scientists, for
example,Aristotle,inacompletelysecularcontext.
Creationismisnotascientictheoryandisnotaccepted
bythescienticcommunity.Schoolshaveamandateto
teachwhatiscurrentlyacceptedbythecountrysscientiststhat is, they must teach evolution, not material
fromoutsidethedisciplineofbiology.
Historyhasshownthatscientictheoriesareoftendisprovedovertime;evolution,thus,shouldnotbeconsideredtobeanunassailabletruth.Inthespiritofscientic
inquiryandintellectualskepticism,studentsshouldbe
exposedtocompetingtheories.
Scienceismorallyandreligiouslyneutral.Itdoesnotaim
to uphold religious beliefs; it does not aim to debunk
religiousbeliefs.Evolutionisnottaughtasanattackon
religion;itistaughtasthebestscienticexplanationof
availablefacts.Studentsarefreetopursuetheirownprivatereligiousbeliefs.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousefavorsacurriculumfreeofcreationismteachingsinpublicschools.
ThisHousebelievesthatevolutionoughttobetaughtinsteadofcreationism.
ThisHousethinksthatteachingcreationisminpublicschoolsisjustied.
WebLinks:
Evolutionvs.Creationism.<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/ORIGINS/origins.html>
Sitecontainsinformationonbothsidesofthedebate,includinglinkstoarticles,newsgroups,books,andfrequentlyasked
questions.
ScienceandCreationism.<http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html>
DetailedessayfromtheNationalAcademyofSciencessummarizesthekeyaspectsofevolution,describesthepositionstakenby
advocatesofcreationscience,andanalyzestheirclaims.
ScienticCreationism.<http://www.scienticcreationism.org>
Siteoutlinesargumentsinsupportofcreationism.
FurtherReading:
Binder,AmyJ.ContentiousCurricula:AfrocentrismandCreationisminAmericanPublicSchools.PrincetonUniversityPress,2002.
Gilkey,Langdon.CreationismonTrial:EvolutionandGodatLittleRock.UniversityPressofVirginia,1998.
CUBA,DROPPINGOFUSSANCTIONSON
Fidel Castro and his communist government came to power in Cuba in 1959, much to the horror of the Eisenhower administration in the
United States. Cuba was supported throughout the Cold War by the Soviet Union and became a ashpoint for Cold War tensions, notably
during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when Nikita Khrushchev sparked the most dangerous Cold War confrontation by attempting
to place nuclear weapons on the island. America has maintained near total sanctions on Cuba since 1959, but before 1990 they were
largely offset by the support, trade, and subsidy offered by the Soviet Union. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the withdrawal of
these subsidies has caused a 35% drop in Cubas GDP. The decreased threat of communism has led to a reevaluation of the sanctions by
the United States, but so far the wounds of the twentieth century, and the electoral signicance of Florida where most Cuban migrs live,
has steeled the resolve of the White House. Sanctions were, in fact, strengthened signicantly in the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, although
recent moves have made food and medicine a little easier to move from the United States to Cuba. In November 2003 almost 180 UN
delegations voted to end the unilateral sanctions. Nevertheless, the Bush administration has insisted that sanctions will remain until President Fidel Castro takes meaningful steps toward freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.
PROS
CONS
Thesanctionscauserealandunacceptableharmtothe
Cubanpeople.Inthe1990sCubalost$70USbillionin
tradeand$1.2USbillionininternationalloansbecause
ofUSsanctions.Cubaistoopooracountrynottosuffer
from these losses. The dominance of America in the
pharmaceuticalsindustry,moreover,meansthatCubans
areunabletogainaccesstomanydrugs.Americawould
bethenaturalmarketformostCubanproducts,andits
refusaltoacceptgoodswitheventhemostminorCuban
componentsfromthirdnationsdamagesCubasability
to trade with other countries. Other South American
countrieshaverecentlyreliedonthetypesofloansthat
Cubaisdeniedtokeeptheireconomiesontrack.
Sanctions didnt cause economic failure in Cuba. The

communist political and economic system has been
shown to lead inevitably to economic collapse with or
without sanctions. Even if sanctions were lifted, lack
of private ownership, foreign exchange, and tradable
commoditieswouldholdCubaback.TheInternational
Trade Commission found a minimal effect on the
Cuban economy from sanctions. In fact, the US can
best contribute to an economic recovery in Cuba by
using sanctions to pressure that nation into economic
andpoliticalreforms.
Sanctionsarepointlessandcounterproductive.Theyve
made no political difference in the last 43 years, why
wouldtheynow?TheyresulttheUSbeingblamedfor
allthefailuresoftheCubaneconomy,andsanctionsare
alsousedtojustifyrepressivemeasuresforsecurity.PresidentGeorgeW.Bushclaimstowanttoempowercivil
societyinCuba,butin1998,whilegovernorofTexas,
hearguedthatthebestwaytoachievethisinChinawas
totradeandspreadAmericanvalues.
Sanctionsareaprovenpolicytoolandcanbeusedtopressureanextremelyrepressiveregimeintoreforms.AggressiveUSengagementandpressurecontributedtothecollapseoftheSovietUnion.Sanctionsarealso,according
toSecretaryofStateColinPowell,amoralstatement
of Americas disapproval for the Castro regime. BlamingAmericaforalleconomicwoesdidntfoolordinary
Russians,anditwontfoolCubans.Nowisexactlythe
timethattheUSshouldbetighteningthescrewssothat
Castrossuccessorisforcedtomakerealchanges.
No legitimate reason has been offered for singling out

Cuba for sanctions. Cuba has no biological, chemical,
ornuclearweaponsanddoesnotsponsorterror.Cuba
holds fewer prisoners of conscience than China, Vietnam, Iran, or even Egypt. To maintain sanctions to
encouragechangeintheformofgovernment,astheUS
claims it is doing, is totally illegitimate under internationallaw.CubahasofferedtocompensateUScitizens
whosepropertywasnationalizedin1959.
Cubaisarepressiveregimewithone-partyrulethatholds
political prisoners and sties opposition and economic
freedomthroughconstantharassment.TheCastroregime
hasrefusedtoaidwiththesearchforAlQaedasuspectsand
isontheUSlistofsponsorsofterrorbecauseitprovides
asafehaventomanyAmericanfugitives.Cubaisknown
tohaveadevelopmentalbiologicalweaponseffortand
isrecordedasbreakinginternationalsanctionstoexport
dual-usetechnologiestoIran.Finally,Cubahasfailedto
stopillegaldrugshipmentsthroughitswaters,anditsgov-
|75
PROS
CONS
ernment prots directly from resources stolen from US

citizensin1959.
Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage Americas
international standing. They violate the UN Charter,
laws on the freedom of navigation, and repeated UN
resolutions since 1992 (passed with only the US and
Israel in opposition). Furthermore, some parts of the
Helms-BurtonActareextraterritorialintheireffectson
thebusinessofothernationsandthuscausesignicant
protestaroundtheworld.Thismakesamockeryofthe
USclaimtobeaguardianofinternationallaw,notonly
in its dealings with Cuba but also in the negotiations
overthefutureofIraq.Americacouldachieveitsgoals
internationallymoreeasilyifitwerenotforitsownlack
ofrespectforinternationallaw.
Americaisattemptingtoprotecttherightsenshrinedin
theUniversalDeclarationofHumanrightsforbothits
owncitizensandcitizensofCuba.IftheUSbreaksinternationallaw,itisonlytomorefullyrealizethetrueaims
of international law.The UN resolutions condemning
thesanctionshaveneverpassedtheSecurityCounciland
thereforelackanyauthority.Americasstatusasaguardianofhumanrightsandanenemyofterrorisenhanced
byitsmoralrefusaltocompromisewitharepressivegovernmentjustoffitsownshores.
TheUSwillalsobenetfromtheopeningoftradewith
Cubaeconomically.MidwestRepublicanshavevotedto
droptheembargobecauseofthepotentialforprotsin
theirfarmingstates.Further,ifsanctionsend,Americans
willbeabletostoppretendingthattheypreferBolivian
cigars!
Cubawillneveraccountformorethanatinypercentage
of Americas trade, and it is able to source and sell all
itsproductselsewhere.EvenifCubawereavitalmarket
forAmericangoods,itwouldbeworthgivingupsome
economicgrowthtomaintainacommitmenttothefreedomoftheCubanpeople.Asitis,thetotalCubanGDP
isadropintheocean.
Sanctions are not the will of the American people but

ofasmallminorityofembitteredCubanAmericansin
Florida who are being pandered to. National opinion
generally expresses no preference about or opposes the
ban. In recent years the House of Representatives has
votedbyincreasingmarginstoliftthebanontravelto
Cuba, but the Bush administration remains opposed.
Thisiselectioneeringgovernmentatitsworst.
The people who care most about the Cuban question

oppose dropping sanctions.The Midwest Republicans
whovotedtodropthetravelbanarenolessblinkered
thantheCubanAmericanswhovotetokeepit.Opiniononsanctionswavers;theseparationofpowersisin
placespecicallytoallowtheWhiteHousetomaintain
astablepolicyonissuesofnationalsecurity.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewoulddropthesanctionsonCuba.
ThisHousewouldsanctionsanctions.
ThisHousebelievesinCubaLibre.
ThisHousecondemnsUSforeignpolicy.
WebLinks:
CIACountryProle.<http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html>
QuickoverviewofthegovernmentandeconomyofCuba.
CubaNet.<http://www.cubanet.org>
ProvideslatestnewsonCubandomesticissuesandinternationalrelations.
StateDepartmentReportsonCuba.<http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cuba/>
ArchiveofStateDepartmentinformationonCubabefore2001.
FurtherReading:
Castro,Fidel.CapitalisminCrisis:GlobalizationandWorldPoliticsToday.OceanPress,2000.
Fontaine,Roger,andWilliamE.Ratliff.AStrategicFlip-FlopintheCaribbean:LifttheEmbargoinCuba.HooverInstitutePress,2000.
Schwab,Peter.Cuba:ConfrontingtheUSEmbargo.PalgraveMacmillan,1999.
CULTURALTREASURES,RETURNOF
Debate has raged for almost two centuries about the ownership and display of cultural treasures that were frequently acquired from the
(then) developing world by imperial powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and displayed in Western museums. This debate
most often uses the Elgin, or Parthenon, Marbles, masterpieces of classical Greek sculpture that Lord Elgin removed from the Parthenon
in 1801 and sold to the British Museum in 1816. Greece has consistently demanded their return since independence in 1830. The issue
of who owns cultural treasures reemerged following World War II, when the victorious Allies, principally the Soviet Union, seized art from
the defeated Axis powers. During the last decades of the twentieth century, Native Americans successfully waged a number of campaigns
for the return of their sacred relics.
PROS
CONS
Cultural treasures should be displayed in the context

in which they originated; only then can they be truly
understood.InthecaseoftheElginMarbles,thisisan
architecturalcontextthatonlyproximitytotheParthenonitselfcanprovide.
Arttreasuresshouldbeaccessibletothegreatestnumber
ofpeopleandtoscholars.Inpracticethismeansdisplaying them in the great museums of the world. Returningtreasurestotheiroriginalcontextisimpossible.Too
much has changed physically and culturally over the
centuriesforthemtospeakmoreclearlyintheircountryoforiginthantheydoinmuseumswheretheycan
becomparedtolargeassembliesofobjectsfromawide
varietyofcultures.Inanycase,copiescouldbeplacedin
originallocations.
DisplayofculturaltreasuresinWesternmuseumsisan
unfortunatelegacyofimperialism.Itreectstheunacceptable belief that developing nations are unable to
lookaftertheirartisticheritage.Thedisplayofimperial
trophiesininstitutionssuchastheBritishMuseumor
theLouvrehasbecomeoffensive.
Forwhateverreasonthetreasureswererstcollected,we
should not rewrite history; sending such artifacts back
totheircountryoforiginwouldsetabadprecedentthat
coulddenudemuseumsaroundtheworld.Placinggreat
artifacts in a geographical and cultural ghettoAfricansculpturescouldbeviewedonlyinAfrica,Egyptian
mummiesonlyinEgyptwouldleavetheworldmuch
poorerandreducepopularunderstandingoftheachievementsofsuchcivilizations.
Artifacts were often acquired illegally, through looting

in war, under the duress of imperial force, or by bribingofcialswhoweresupposedtobesafeguardingtheir
countrysartistictreasures.
Although some art treasures may have been acquired

illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. For
example,LordElginsbribeswerethecommonwayof
facilitatinganybusinessintheOttomanEmpireanddo
notundermineBritainssolidlegalclaimtotheParthenonmarblesbaseduponawrittencontractmadebythe
internationally recognized authorities in Athens at the
time.Muchartwasfreelysoldtotheimperialpowers,
indeedsomeartwasspecicallyproducedfortheEuropeanmarket.
Some treasures have religious and cultural associations

withtheareafromwhichtheyweretaken,butnonefor
thosewhoviewtheminglasscases.Descendantsoftheir
creatorsareoffendedbyseeingaspectsoftheirspiritualitydisplayedforentertainment.
Thismaybetrue,butreligiousartifactsmayhavebeen
originally purchased or given in good faith, perhaps
with the intention of educating a wider public about
thebeliefsoftheircreators.Descendantsshouldnotbe
allowedtosecond-guesstheirancestorsintentions.Also,
|77
PROS
CONS
many cultural treasures relate to extinct religions and

cultures;noclaimfortheirreturncanbevalidlymade.
Inthepast,countriesmaynothavebeencapableoflookingaftertheirheritage,butthathaschanged.Astate-ofthe-artmuseumisplannedinAthenstohousethesurviving marbles, while pollution-control measures have
reducedsulfurdioxideinthecitytoafthofitsprevious
level. At the same time the curatorship of institutions
suchastheBritishMuseumisbeingcalledintoquestion,
as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and
restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures
theyclaimtoprotect.
InthecaseoftheParthenonmarbles,LordElginsaction
in removing them was an act of rescue because the
Ottoman authorities were pillaging them for building
stone.TheycarednothingfortheclassicalGreekheritage.Furthermore,hadtheybeenreturneduponGreek
independencein1830,theheavilypollutedairofAthens
would by now have destroyed them. Similar problems
facethereturnofartifactstoAfricanorNativeAmerican
museums. Delicate artifacts would be destroyed withoutproperhandlingandpreservationtechniques.These
institutions frequently lack the qualied personnel or
necessaryfacilitiestopreservethesetreasures.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldreturnculturaltreasurestotheircountryoforigin.
ThisHousewouldreturntheElginMarbles.
ThisHousebelievesajewelisbestinitsoriginalsetting.
ThisHousewouldloseitsmarbles.
WebLinks:
TheParthenon(Elgin)Marbles.<http://www.museum-security.org/elginmarbles.html>
Offerslinkstomanysitesdealingwiththeissue.
StolenPropertyorFindersKeepers.<http://home.att.net/~tisone/problem.htm>
Generalsiteofferinginformationontheissuesconcerningmanystolenhistoricalartifacts.
FurtherReading:
Hitchens,Christopher.TheElginMarbles:ShouldTheyBeReturnedtoGreece?VersoBooks,1998.
St.Clair,William.LordElginandtheMarbles.OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
Vrettos,Theodore.TheElginAffair:TheAbductionofAntiquitysGreatestTreasuresandthePassionsItAroused.LittleBrown,1998.
CURFEWLAWS
More than 300 US towns have passed local curfew laws making it illegal for youths to be out-of-doors between certain publicized times.
In most cases cities imposed nighttime curfews, but a 1997 survey indicated that approximately one-quarter had daytime curfews as well.
All curfews are aimed at proactively reducing juvenile crime and gang activity. Ofcials also see curfews as a way of involving parents and
keeping young people from being victimized. Opponents say the curfews violate the rights of good kids to prevent the actions of a few bad
ones.
PROS
CONS
Youth crime is a major and growing problem, often

involvingbothdrugsandviolence.Particularlyworrying
istheriseofyouthgangs,whichcanterrorizeurbanareas
andcreateasocialclimateinwhichcriminalitybecomes
thenorm.Imposingcurfewsonminorscanhelpsolve
theseproblems.Theykeepyoungpeopleoffthestreet
and out of trouble. Curfews are easy to enforce comparedtootherformsofcrimepreventionandarethereforeeffective.
Curfewsarenotaneffectivesolutiontotheproblemof
youthcrime.Researchndsnolinkbetweenreduction
in juvenile crime and curfews. Although some towns
withcurfewsdidseeadropinyouthcrime,thisoften
hadmoretodowithotherlaw-enforcementstrategies,
such as zero-tolerance policing, or with demographic
andeconomicchangesintheyouthpopulation.Inany
case,mostjuvenilecrimetakesplacebetween3p.m.and
8p.m.,aftertheendofschoolandbeforeworkingparentsreturnhome,ratherthaninthehourscoveredby
curfews.
Theuseofcurfewscanhelpprotectvulnerablechildren.
Althoughresponsibleparentsdonotletyoungchildren
outinthestreetsafterdark,notallparentsareresponsible. Inevitably their children suffer, both from crime
andinaccidents,andarelikelytofallintobadhabits.
Society should ensure that such neglected children are
returnedhomesafelyandthattheirparentsaremadeto
faceuptotheirresponsibilities.
Youthcurfewsinfringeuponindividualrightsandliberties.Childrenhavearighttofreedomofmovementand
assembly, which curfews directly undermine by criminalizing their simple presence in a public space. This
reversesthepresumptionofinnocencebyassumingall
young people are potential lawbreakers. They are also
subjecttoblanketdiscriminationonthegroundsofage,
althoughonlyafewyoungpeoplecommitcrimes.Furthermore,curfewsinfringeupontherightsofparentsto
bringuptheirchildrenastheychoose.Justbecausewe
dislike the way some parents treat their children does
notmeanthatweshouldintervene.Shouldweintervene
infamilieswhosereligiousbeliefsmeangirlsaretreated
asinferiortoboys,orinhomeswhereparentspractice
corporalpunishment?
Children have no good reason to be out alone late at

night,soacurfewisnotreallyarestrictionontheirliberty.Theywouldbebetteroffathomedoingschoolwork
andparticipatinginfamilyactivities.
Childrenintheirmid-teenshavelegitimatereasonstobe
outatnightwithoutadults.Manyhavepart-timejobs.
Others participate in church groups or youth clubs.
Requiringadultstotakethemtoandfromactivitiesis
unreasonable.Itwillensuremanychildrendonotparticipateinafter-schoolactivitieseitherbecauseadultsare
unwillingorareunabletoaccompanythem.Onamore
sinisternote,somechildrenaresubjecttoabuseathome
andactuallyfeelsaferoutonthestreets.
Childcurfewsareaformofzero-tolerancepolicing.The Youthcurfewshavegreatpotentialforabuse,raisingcivil
ideaofzerotolerancecomesfromthetheorythatifthe rightsissues.Evidencesuggeststhatpolicearrestfarmore
police ignore low-level crimes they create a permissive blackchildrenthanwhiteforcurfewviolations.Curfews
|79
PROS
CONS
atmosphereinwhichseriouscrimecanourishandlaw
andorderbreaksdownentirely.Childcurfewscanhelp
thepoliceestablishaclimateofzerotoleranceandcreate
asafercommunityforeveryone.
tend to be imposed in inner cities with few places for

childrentoamusethemselvessafelyandlegally.Curfews
compoundthesocialexclusionthatmanypoorchildren
feel with physical exclusion from public spaces. This
problemismadeworsebytheinevitabledeteriorationin
relationsbetweenthepoliceandtheyoungpeoplesubjecttothecurfew.
Childcurfewscanhelpchangeanegativeyouthculture
inwhichchallengingthelawisseenasdesirableandgang
membership an aspiration. Impressionable youngsters
wouldbekeptawayfromgangactivityonthestreetsat
night,andacycleofadmirationandrecruitmentwould
be broken. By spending more time with their families
andinmorepositiveactivitiessuchassports,whichcurfewsmakeamoreattractiveoptionforboredyoungsters,
childrenwilldevelopgreaterself-esteemanddiscipline.
Imposingcurfewsonchildrenwouldactuallybecounter-productive because it would turn millions of lawabiding young people into criminals. More American
childrenarechargedwithcurfewoffensesthanwithany
other crime. Once children acquire a criminal record,
they cross a psychological boundary, making it much
morelikelythattheywillperceivethemselvesascriminals and have much less respect for the law.This can
leadtomoreseriousoffenses.Atthesametime,acriminal record decreases the chances for employment and
socontributestothesocialdeprivationanddesperation
thatbreedcrime.
Weshouldtryotherwaysofreducingyouthcrime,but
they will work best in conjunction with curfews. If a
troubledareadevelopsacultureoflawlessness,identifyingspecicyoungstersforrehabilitationbecomesmore
difcult.Acurfewtakesthebasicallylaw-abidingmajorityoffthestreets,allowingthepolicetoengagewiththe
mostdifcultelement.Curfewsareatoolinthestruggle
to improve lives in rundown areas. They are likely to
beusedforrelativelyshortperiodstobringasituation
undercontrolsothatothermeasurescanbeputinplace
andgivenachancetowork.
A number of alternative strategies exist that are likely

todomoretoreduceyouthcrime.Ratherthanablanketcurfew,individualcurfewscouldbeimposedupon
particular troublemakers. Another successful strategy
isworkingindividuallywithyoungtroublemakers.For
example,authoritiescanrequirethemtomeetwithvictimsofcrimesothattheyunderstandtheconsequences
oftheiractions.Youthscanalsobepairedwithtrained
mentors.Overall,thegovernmentneedstoensuregood
educationalopportunitiesandemploymentprospectsso
thatyoungstersfeelsomehopefortheirfutures.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldintroducechildcurfews.
ThisHousewouldlockupitsdaughters.
ThisHousebelieveschildrenshouldbeneitherseennorheard.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion.<http://www.aclu.org/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm>
Linkstoarticlesonthelegalstatusofcurfews.
StatusReportonYouthCurfewsinAmericanCities.<http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/news/publications/curfew.htm>
Summaryof1997surveyof374citiesprovidingstatusofcurfewsandinformationontheireffectiveness.
FurtherReading:
Jensen,Gary,andDeanG.Rojek.DelinquencyandYouthCrime.WavelandPress,1998.
DEBATE,LIMITSOF
Many people who hold views that are demonstrably falsethat the Holocaust never happened or that God created the world in seven days,
for exampleoften are denied access to public platforms and debates. Is this a valid response or should the mainstream engage them in
debate?
PROS
CONS
Freedomofspeechisadeningmarkofacivilizedsociety;tobemeaningfulitmustextendtoeveryone.
Of course people have the right to say whatever they

likesubject to the law. However, your freedom of
speechdoesnotgivemeadutytolistentoyou,orto
haveadiscussionwithyou,ortopublishwhatyouwant
tosay.Weallhavetomakedecisionsaboutwhatisworth
listening to and engaging with. Holocaust denial and
creationsciencearenot.
Thepublicisinterestedinthesetopicsandhasaright Weshouldnotwastetimeonpatentlyfalsepositionsor
tohearthemdiscussed.Ifthereispublicdemandfora giveaplatformtopeoplewhobelieveinthem.
debateoncreationismorwhethertheEarthisat,that
demandshouldbemet.
Holocaustdenialandcreationsciencearewrong.Ifwe
presenttheevidenceagainstthem,wewillwinadebate.
We should have condence in the power of our argumentstodefeatouropponentsandpersuadethepublic
atlarge.Ifwerefusetoengagewiththem,thenweappear
tolackcondenceinourposition,andwelose.
Howeverdistastefulyoumayndthem,howeverignoranttheymaybe,manypeoplereallydodenytheHolocaustorbelievethatJapanhasnoreasontobeashamed
ofitsconductinthe1930sandduringWorldWarII.If
theyarewrongandofcoursetheyarethenwehave
toengagewiththem,discusstheirideasandbeliefs,and
showthemwhytheyarewrong.
Public discourse does not consist of the dispassionate

presentationoffactstoaperfectlyrationalaudience.It
involvesthearticulate,stylishpresentationofarguments
designedtoappealtoanaudienceandmakeaposition
look as attractive as possible. If someone organized a
debatebetweenaworldchampiondebaterandaninarticulateacademichistorianonthequestionofwhether
the Holocaust happened, the debater might well convincemanypeoplethatithadnot.
Iftheindividualsholdingdemonstrablyfalseviewshave
hiddenagendas,allthemorereasontoexposethemin
public.FormostpeoplethefactthatHolocaustdenial
leadstoneo-Nazismwillbeonemorecompellingargumentagainstit.Again,thetruthhasnothingtofear,and
theevilimplicationsoffalsehoodshouldnotbecovered
upbyrefusingtoengagewithit.
Debateinallitsformshasconventionsgivingequaltime
to opposing positions. This gives legitimacy to both
sides.Indebatesaboutfact,whereonesideisdemonstrablyrightandtheotherwrong,weshouldnotgivelegitimacy to the false position.Those who promote views
thatarefalseandmaybedangerouswillboastthatthey
havespokenatprestigiousuniversitiesordebatedagainst
eminentauthoritiestogivetheirviewsmorecredibility;
theywillnotrecordhowtheirspeecheswerereceived.
If we refuse to allow those who hold false positions a

platform, we give legitimacy to their claims of censorship. We also enable them to say, If our position is
wrong,whywontanyonediscussit?Isitbecausethey
knowwereright?Censorshipiscounterproductive.
Both creation science and Holocaust denial have seriousanddangeroushiddenagendas.Weshouldnotallow

suchviewsthelegitimacythatdebategivesthem.
Turning demonstrably false views such as creationism
and Holocaust denial into respectable, legitimate positionsistoohighapricetopayforreducingtheirappeal
toconspiracytheorists.
|81
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldcensorhate.
ThisHousesupportsfreedomofspeech.
ThisHousebelievesthateverythingispermitted.
ThisHousewouldtalktoterrorists.
WebLinks:
FlatEarthTruth.<http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm>
ArticleabouttheFlatEarthSociety.
TheNizkorProject.<http://www.nizkor.org/>
RebuttalofthosedenyingtheHolocaust.
TalkOriginsArchive:ExploringtheCreation/EvolutionControversy.<http://www.talkorigins.org/>
Usergroupdevotedtothediscussionanddebateofbiologicalandphysicalorigins.
WWWMemorialHalloftheVictimsoftheNanjingMassacre.<http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/NanjingMassacre/NM.html>
Informationonthe1937JapanesemassacreatNanjing.
FurtherReading:
Katsuichi,Honda,TheNanjingMassacre:AJapaneseJournalistConfrontsJapansNationalShame.M.E.Sharpe,1999.
DEVELOPINGWORLDDEBT,CANCELLATIONOF
For many years, poor nations in Asia, Latin America, and particularly Africa, have borrowed heavily to reduce poverty and foster development. Over the years external debt payments increased dramatically, often forcing countries to choose between paying their debt and funding social, health, and education programs. By the beginning of the new millennium the situation had reached a crisis in some countries.
Sub-Saharan Africa owed lenders approximately $200US billion, 83% of its GNP. Groups such as the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and the World Bank, with their Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative, are working toward a partial reduction or rescheduling of this debt, but demand adherence to strict economic reforms. Others, such as Jubilee 2000, are pressing for more immediate and
more substantial action.
PROS
CONS
Theburdenofdebtcostslives.Someofthemostheavily
indebtedpoorcountriesarestrugglingtopayeventhe
interestontheirloans,letalonepayingdowntheprincipal.Thismassivelydistortstheireconomiesandtheir
spending priorities. African nations currently spend
fourtimesasmuchondebtrepaymentsastheydoon
health. The reforms demanded by the IMF in return
forrescheduleddebtmakethisproblemevenworse.In
Zimbabwe, spending on health care has dropped by a
third,inTanzania,schoolfeeshavebeenintroducedto
raisemoremoney.Progressmadeinhealthandeducationoverthepast50yearsisactuallybeingreversedin
somecountries.Itisobscenethatgovernmentsarecutting spending in these vital areas to repay debts. The
debtsmustbecancellednow.
Therearemanyreasonsforthecurrentproblemsinthe
worlds poorest nations. They may often have heavy
debtburdens,butthedebtisnotnecessarilythecauseof
the problems. Many countries spend huge amounts of
moneyonweaponstoghtlocalwarsinsteadofinvestingintheirpeople.Manyareledbydictatorsorother
corrupt governments, whose incompetence or greed
is killing their own population.The money to pay for
socialprogramsand,atthesametime,repaydebtmay
wellexist,butitisbeingwastedinotherareas.
To raise the cash for debt repayments, poor countries Again,therearemanypotentialcausesforstarvation

have to produce goods that they can sell internation- famines are caused by war or by freak weather condi-
PROS
CONS
ally.Oftenthismeansgrowingcashcropsinsteadofthe
foodneededtosupporttheirpopulation.Peopleinfertilecountriescanndthemselvesstarvingbecausethey
cannotaffordtobuyimportedfood.
tions,notbydebt.Whilegrowingcashcropscanseem
tobecounter-intuitive,themoneytheybringinhelps
boost the countrys economy. The idea that a nation
couldandshouldbeagriculturallyandindustriallyselfsufcientisoutdated.
Debt repayments often punish those who were not

responsibleforcreatingthedebtintherstplace.Ina
numberofpoorercountries,hugedebtswereamassedby
theirresponsiblespendingofdictatorsinthepast.They
havenowbeenoverthrown,yetthenewgovernmentand
thepeopleofthatcountrystillarerequiredtopaythe
priceforthedictatorsactions.Thisisclearlyunfair.
This thinking has dangerous implications on an international level. Governments are always changing in
democracies, but nations are expected to honor their
debts.Acrucialelementinlendingmoneyisthepromisethatthedebtwillberepaid.Ifeverynewgovernment
could decide that it was not responsible for its predecessors debts, then no one would ever lend money to
acountry.Developingcountriesinparticularstillneed
loanstoinvestininfrastructureprojects.Cancelingdebt
nowwouldmakelendersfarlesslikelytoprovideloans
ongoodtermsinthefutureandwouldretardeconomic
growthinthelongterm.
All poor countries need is the chance to help themselves.Whiletheireconomiesaredominatedbytheneed

to repay debt, it is impossible for them to truly invest
ininfrastructureandeducation.Bycancelingdebt,we
would give them a fresh start and the opportunity to
buildsuccessfuleconomiesthatwouldsupplytheneeds
ofgenerationstocome.
Reform must come rst. Corrupt and incompetent

governmentsandeconomicsystemscripplemanypoor
countries.Cancelingdebtwouldthereforemakenodifference,itwouldbetheequivalentofgivingaone-time
paymenttodictatorsandcrooks,whowouldsiphonoff
theextramoneyandbecomerichwhilethepeoplestill
suffer.Evenworse,dictatorsmightspendmoremoney
onweaponsandpalaces,thusreincurringpossiblyeven
greaterdebt.Acountrysgovernmentmustbeaccountable and its economy stable before debt reduction or
cancellationisevenconsidered.
Thedevelopedworldhasamoraldutytothedeveloping
worldbecauseofthehistoricalbackgroundofdevelopingworlddebt.Intherushtoinvestinthe1970s,many
banksmadehastyloans,pouringmoneyintopointless
projectswithoutproperlyexaminingwhethertheywould
ever make a prot. Because of these bad investments,
some of the worlds poorest countries are so burdened
with debts that they can now no longer realistically
expecttopaythemoffandareinsteadsimplyservicing
the interest. An important parallel may be made with
bankruptcy:Ifanindividualisunabletorepayhisorher
debts,heorsheisdeclaredbankruptandthenallowedto
makeafreshstart.Thesamesystemshouldbeusedwith
countries. If they are unable to repay their debts, they
shouldbegiventheopportunitytostartagain.Acountry making contributions to the world economy is far
betterthanacountryindebtslavery.Atthesametime,
bankswouldbediscouragedfrommakingbadloansas
theydidinthe1970s.
Theparallelwithbankruptcycannotworkonanational
scale.First,whenanindividualisdeclaredbankrupt,most
assetsandpossessionsareseizedtopayasmuchdebtas
possible.Thisiswhybanksndbankruptcyanacceptable
option.Innationalterms,thiswouldmeanthetotalloss
ofsovereignty.Foreigngovernmentsandbankswouldbe
abletoseizecontroloftheinfrastructureortheresources
ofthebankruptcountryatwill.Nogovernmentcould,
orshould,everacceptthis.Second,thedifferenceinscale
isvitallyimportant.Whereasthebankruptcyofasingle
individual within a country is unlikely to cause major
problemsforthatcountryseconomy,thebankruptcyofa
nationwouldsignicantlyaffecttheworldeconomy.The
economicplansofbanksandnationscurrentlyincludethe
interestpaymentsondevelopingworlddebt;ifthissubstantialrevenuestreamweresuddenlycutoff,economic
repercussionscouldbecatastrophic.Evenifthisdebtrelief
wouldbehelpfultothebankruptcountriesintheshort
term,aworldeconomyinrecessionwouldbeinnobodys
bestinterest.
|83
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldenddevelopingworlddebt.
ThisHousewouldkillthedebt,notthedebtors.
ThisHousewouldbreakthechainsofdebt.
WebLinks:
InternationalMonetaryFund:DebtInitiativefortheHeavilyIndebtedPoorCountries(HIPCs).<http://www.imf.org/external/
np/hipc/hipc.htm>
OffersinformationonIMFprogramsandprogressforHIPCs.
Jubilee2000Coalition.<http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/>
Research,analysis,news,anddataoninternationaldebtandnancepresentedbyanadvocacygroupdedicatedtoendingdeveloping
worlddebt.
WorldBank:HIPC.<http://www.worldbank.org/hipc>
Detailedinformation,includingprogressreportsandcountrycases,onworlddebtandWorldBankdebtreliefinitiatives.Includes
linkstoscholarlyarticlesontheissue.
FurtherReading:
Dent,Martin,andBillPeters.TheCrisisofPovertyandDebtintheThirdWorld.Ashgate,1999.
OCleireacain,Seamus.ThirdWorldDebtandInternationalPublicPolicy.Praeger,1990.
DNADATABASEFORCRIMINALS
DNA evidence is playing an increasing role in criminal cases both to convict the guilty and to clear the innocent. The federal government and the states are building interlinked computerized databases of DNA samples. Initially these samples were taken from people convicted of sex crimes and a few other violent offenses, but recently, there have been moves to include all convicted criminals. Some ofcials,
such as former attorney general Janet Reno, have recommended expanding the database to include all individuals arrested. Some police
ofcials, including former NYC police commissioner Howard Sar, want the database to include DNA from everyone. Many people
view extending the database beyond convicted criminals as an invasion of privacy and a violation of civil liberties.
PROS
CONS
DNA detection has considerable advantages over conventional ngerprinting. Fingerprints attach only to
hardsurfaces,canbesmeared,orcanbeavoidedbyusing
gloves.Comparisonofevenaclearprintfromacrime
scenewithaprintinthenationaldatabaserequiressignicantscienticexpertise.Scientistscanbuildanaccurate DNA prole from very small amounts of genetic
data,andtheycanconstructitevenifithasbeencontaminatedbyoil,water,oracidatthecrimescene.The
accused should appreciate a ngerprinting technique
thatisbothobjectiveandaccurate.
Although DNA detection might have advantages over

ngerprintdusting,thetestisneverthelessfallible.Environmentalfactorsatthecrimescenesuchasheat,sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. DNA
evidencemustbestoredinsterileandtemperaturecontrolledconditions.Criminalsmaycontaminatesamples
by swapping saliva.There is room for human error or
fraudinanalyzingsamples.Theaccuracyofanygenetic
prole is dependent upon the number of genes examined.Thesmallerthenumber,thegreaterthepossibility of error. In 1995 an 18-month investigation was
launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was
drylabbing or faking results of DNA comparisons.
EvenacompleteDNAprolecannotindicatethelength
of time a suspect was present at a crime scene or the
dateinquestion.Thecreationofadatabasecannotbea
panaceaforcrimedetection.
PROS
CONS
TheuseofaDNAngerprintisnotanaffronttocivil
liberties.TheprocedurefortakingasampleofDNAis
lessinvasivethanthatrequiredfortakingabloodsample.
Thepolicealreadypossessavastvolumeofinformation;
the National Crime Information Center Computer in
the United States contains les relating to 32 million
Americans. A forensic DNA database should be seen
in the context of the personal information that other
agencieshold.Insurancecompaniescommonlyrequire
an extensive medical history of their clients. Mortgage
lendersusuallydemandafullcreditreportonapplicants.
Many employers subject their employees to random
drug testing. If we are prepared to place our personal
informationintheprivatesector,whycanwenottrust
ittothepolice?Lawenforcementofcialswillusethe
DNAsampleonlyinthedetectionofacrime.Inshort,
theinnocentcitizenshouldhavenothingtofear.
DNAngerprintingwouldhavetobemandatory,otherwisethoseliabletocommitcrimewouldsimplyrefuse
toprovideasample.Individualsconsenttopasspersonal
informationtomortgageorinsuranceagencies.When
citizens release information to outside agencies they
receiveaserviceinreturn.Inbeingcompelledtogivea
sampleofDNA,theinnocentcitizenwouldreceivethe
scantbenetofbeingeliminatedfromapoliceinvestigation. Moreover, the storage by insurance companies of
geneticinformationremainshighlycontroversialbecause
ofthepotentialabuseofthatinformation.Finally,creationofthedatabasewouldchangetheattitudeofgovernmenttowarditscitizens.Everycitizen,somefromthe
momentoftheirbirth,wouldbetreatedasapotential
criminal.
The creation of a DNA database would not require a

disproportionateinvestmentoftimeorpublicresources.
The requisite computer and laboratory technology is
already available.The United States has developed the
Combined DNA Index System. The expense of samplingtheentirepopulationofmostcountrieswouldbe
substantialandisunlikelytobeoffsetbyanysubsequent
saving in police resources, but this is part of the price
forjustice.Popularsupportforlawandordersuggests
thatthepublicputsaveryhighpremiumonprotection
fromcrime.
TheinitialandcontinuingexpenseofaDNAdatabase
wouldbeagrossmisapplicationofnitepublicresources.
Publiccondenceinthecriminaljusticesystemwillneitherbeimprovedbyrequiringindividualstogivetime
andtissuetothepolicenorbythecreationofabureaucracydedicatedtoadministeringthedatabase.Thefunds
wouldbebetterspentonrecruitingmorepoliceofcers
anddeployingthemonfootpatrol.
Personswhocreateviolentcrimesareunlikelytoleave
conventionalngerprints.However,theNationalCommissionontheFutureofDNAEvidenceestimatesthat
30%ofcrimescenescontaintheblood,semen,orsaliva
oftheperpetrator.DNAdetectioncanidentifytheguilty
evenwhenthepolicehavenoobvioussuspects.
Themostseriousviolentcrimes,notablyrapeandmurder,
aremostcommonlycommittedbyindividualsknownto
the victim. When the suspects are obvious, DNA detectionissuperuous.Moreover,itisharmfultosuggestthat
crimescanbesolved,orcriminalsdeterred,bycomputer
wizardry.UnlesstheDNAisusedtoidentifyageneticcause
foraggression,violentcrimeswillcontinue.
ADNAdatabaseisnotintendedtoreplaceconventional
criminal investigations. The database would identify
potential suspects, each of whom could then be investigated by more conventional means. Criminal trials
frequentlyfeatureexpertspresentingscienticevidence.
Thejurysystemisactuallyabastionagainstconviction
onaccountofcomplicatedscienticfacts.Ifthegenetic
dataandassociatedevidenceisnotconclusiveorisnot
presented with sufcient clarity, the jury is obliged to
ndthedefendantnotguilty.O.J.SimpsonwasacquittedofthemurdersofNicoleBrownSimpsonandRon
Thereisaseriousriskthatofcialswillusegeneticevidencetotheexclusionofmaterialthatmightprovethe
suspectinnocent.Moreover,thereisthepossibilitythat
notonlythepolice,butalsothejury,willbeblindedby
science.Itseemsunlikelythatjurieswillbeabletocomprehend or, more importantly, to question the genetic
informationfromthedatabase.Theironyisthatforensic
evidencehasclearedmanywronglyconvictedindividuals
butmightnowservetocreatemiscarriagesofitsown.
|85
PROS
CONS
GoldmaninspiteofcompellingDNAevidencelinking
himtothesceneofthecrime.
TheincreaseduseofDNAevidencewillminimizethe
riskoffuturewrongfulconvictions.AnFBIstudyindicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the
initialsuspectin25%ofsexualassaultcases.Moreover,
forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence
thathasexistedfordecadesandthusassistinreversing
previousmiscarriagesofjustice.
We do not need a database to acquit or exclude nonoffenders.Whenthepolicehaveidentiedasuspectthey

ought to create a DNA prole and compare it to the
crime scene data. Likewise, a DNA sample should be
takenifthereisconcernthatanindividualwaswrongly
convictedofacrime.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldhaveacriminalDNAdatabase.
ThisHousewouldgiveawayitsDNA.
ThisHousewouldcatchacrookbyhisgenes.
WebLinks:
FromCrimeScenetoCourtroom.<http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/judicature/article9.html>
A1999essaystressingthebenetsofandproblemsinvolvedintheCombinedDNAIndexingSystem(CODIS)bythe
executivedirectoroftheNationalCommissionontheFutureofDNAEvidence.
HowStuffWorks.<http://www.howstuffworks.com/dna-evidence.htm>
DetailedexplanationofDNAngerprintingforthelayperson.
Genelex,DNAProlers.<http://www.genelex.com/paternitytesting/paternitybook5.html>
DetaileddiscussionoftheuseofDNAevidenceinthecourtroom.
NationalCommissionontheFutureofDNAEvidence.<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dna/>
PartofthelargerNationalInstituteofJusticeWebsite,thissectionfurnishesinformationtolawenforcementproviderson
howtomaximizethevalueofforensicDNAevidence.
ShadowArticle,Anti-DNADatabase.<http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/dna.htm>
DetailedessayoutliningthereasonsforopposingabroadforensicDNAdatabase.
FurtherReading:
Rudin,Norah,andKeithInman.IntroductiontoForensicDNAAnalysis.2nded.CRCPress,2001.
Sheindlin,Gerald.GeneticFingerprinting:TheLawandScienceofDNA.Routledge,1996.
DRILLINGINTHEARCTICNATIONALWILDLIFE
REFUGE
In 2002, the US Congress rejected a motion that would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on grounds
that the area was ecologically sensitive. Oil developers and environmentalist have never had a more highly charged and symbolic debate to
engage in. Supporters of drilling claim that growing foreign dependence on oil threatens American security and that drilling in ANWR
would help reduce that dependence. Opponents of drilling maintain that US dependence on foreign oil is inevitable and that drilling in
ANWR would not signicantly reduce dependence.
PROS
CONS
An oil pipeline runs through ANWR and the same

argument(ecology)wasusedtoattempttoopposethat
pipelines construction; however, the pipeline actually
increased caribou numbers. Perhaps keystone species
arenotaskeyashasbeensupposed.
Drillingwoulddisruptecologicallysensitiveareas.Alaska
hascaribouherdsthatmovednorthtoANWRseasonally,anddrillingcarriestheriskofdivertingandpotentiallyreducingtheherd.Sourceshavealsorevealedthat
otherkeyspeciesliveonAlaskasshoreline.
Substantialamountsoftimeandenergyareneededfor
drilling(insomecasesyears).Ifwedonotputtheexplorationanddrillingstructureinplacenow,theywontbe
athandintimesofcrisis.
Drillingwouldundercutavitalreservethatwemayneed
inthefuture.TheUSiswithoutlong-termrecourse,it
isdependentonforeignoil;intimesofcrisis,however,
drilling in ANWR could regulate prices for a limited
time.Soweshouldnotdrillnow,weneedtoholdthose
reservesforanemergency.
Consumption is inevitable. Proponents of renewable

energyhavenotmadeclearhowopeningANWRwould
delayatransitiontorenewableenergy.OpeningANWR
couldspeedupthetransitionbymakingtheUSmore
dependentonforeignoilinthefuture(oncetheANWR
reservesweredepleted)andthusgivemoreofanincentivetoconvert.
Oil development is unjustied because it further exacerbatestheproblemsofconsumption.Themorewerely

uponfossilfuels,thelongerwedelaytheinevitable:the
vitalshifttorenewableenergy.Otheractionshouldbe
taken to limit fuel consumption, such as an increased
useofhybridcars.
Proposeddevelopmentmayneedtobespreadout,but
drilling can be made seasonal to avoid disruptions to
animal migration. Caribou herds move into ANWR
duringspecicandpredictabletimes,thusdrillingcan
bescheduledtoreducetheimpactontheherds.
Proposedlimiteddevelopmentwillstillintrudehundredsofmilesintopristineareas.Alaskadoesnthavea
major reserve under ANWR; rather, ANWR contains
several reserves. Thus, even with minimal development,thedamagewouldcoverthousandsofacres.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsmeasurestoallowoildevelopmentinANWR.
ThisHousebelievesecologyshouldbevaluedoverdevelopment.
ThisHousemaintainsthatlimiteddevelopmentintheANWRisjustied.
WebLinks:
ANWR.<http://www.anwr.org/>
Thisintroductory-levelWebsiteprovidesjusticationsforoildevelopment,givingup-to-dateinformationonthestatusofprospects
fordrillingintheArctic.Offerslinkstofactsheetsandvariousotherinformationinsupportofdrilling.
|87
DOEFossilEnergyStrategicPetroleumReserve.<http://www.fossil.gov/program/reserves/spr/index.shtml>
Government-sponsoredneutralsiteprovidesabasichistoryandanalysisofStrategicPetroleumReserves(SPR)andwhatfunction
theyserve.Containsquickfactsandanup-to-datestatusofSPRs.
SavetheArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge.<http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/>
Thissiteprovidesadetailedanalysisoftheissuesinvolved.
FurtherReading:
Hiscock,Bruce.TheBigCaribouHerd.BoydsMillsPress,2003.
HouseCommitteeonResources,HearingsonArcticCoastalPlainLeasing,104thCong.,1stsess.,August3,1995.
DRUGSINSPORTS
Over the past decades, the Olympic Games have focused the worlds attention on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. Delegations have quietly withdrawn on the eve of the Games, and Olympic champions such as sprinter Ben Johnson have been stripped of
their medals as a result of testing positive for banned drugs. During 2002, major league baseball players Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti
alleged that a large percentage of players used steroids to enhance their performance. Their allegations led to demands for mandatory drug
testing for professional baseball players; professional football and basketball players are routinely tested for drugs.
The use of steroids has not been conned to professional athletes. Young athletes have died as a result of steroid use, leading to bans on
performance-enhancing drugs in high school and college programs. Nonetheless, doubts remain about the effectiveness of these tests and the
fairness of some of the resulting bans. Some people argue that the whole approach is deeply awed.
PROS
CONS
Usingperformance-enhancingdrugsisanissueoffreedomofchoice.Ifathleteswishtotakedrugsinsearch
ofimprovedperformances,letthemdoso.Theyharm
nobodybutthemselvesandshouldbetreatedasadults
capable of making rational decisions on the basis of
widelyavailableinformation.Weshouldnotforbidthem
performance-enhancing drugs even if such drugs have
long-termadverseeffects.Wehaventoutlawedtobacco
andboxing,whichareprovenhealthrisks.
Once some people choose to use these drugs, they

infringe on the freedom of choice of other athletes.
Athletes are very driven individuals who go to great
lengthstoachievetheirgoals.Tosome,thechanceofa
goldmedalintwoyearstimemayoutweightherisksof
serious long-term health problems. We should protect
athletesfromthemselvesandnotallowanyonetotake
performance-enhancingdrugs.
Whatisthedistinctionbetweennaturalandunnatural
enhancement? Athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements,exercises,equipment,clothing,trainingregimes,
medicaltreatments,etc.,toimprovetheirperformance.
There is nothing natural about taking vitamin pills
or wearing whole-body Lycra suits. Diet, medicine,
technology,andevencoachingalreadygiveanarticial
advantagetothoseathleteswhocanaffordthebestofall
theseaids.Asthereisnoclearwaytodistinguishbetween
legitimateandillegitimatearticialaidstoperformance,
theyshouldallbeallowed.
Wheretodrawthelinebetweenlegitimateandillegitimateperformanceenhancement?Difcultthoughthat
maybe,weshouldnonethelesscontinuetodrawaline:
rst,toprotectathletesfromharmfuldrugs;second,to
preservethespiritoffairplayandunaidedcompetition
betweenhumanbeingsattheirpeakofnaturaltness.
Eatingabalanceddietandusingthebestequipmentare
clearlyinadifferentcategoryfromtakingsteroidsand
growthhormones.Weshouldcontinuetomakethisdistinctionandaimforgenuinedrug-freeathleticcompetitions.
Legalizingperformance-enhancingdrugslevelstheplay- Legalizationisverybadforathletes.Theuseofperforingeld.Currently,suspicionaboutdrugusesurrounds mance-enhancingdrugsleadstoserioushealthproblems,
PROS
CONS
everysportandeverysuccessfulathlete.Thosecompeti- includingsteroidrage,thedevelopmentofmalechartors who dont take performance-enhancing drugs see acteristics in female athletes, heart attacks, and greatly
themselves as (and often are) disadvantaged.There are reducedlifeexpectancy.Somedrugsarealsoaddictive.
notestsforsomedrugs,and,inanycase,newmedical
and chemical advances mean that cheaters will always
beaheadofthetesters.Legalizationwouldremovethis
uncertaintyandalloweveryonetocompeteopenlyand
fairly.
Legalizingthesedrugswillprovidebetterentertainment
forspectators.Sporthasbecomeabranchoftheentertainment business, and the public demands higher,
faster,strongerfromathletes.Ifdrug-useallowsathletes
to continually break records or makes football players
biggerandmoreexcitingtowatch,whydenythespectators what they want, especially if the athletes want to
giveittothem?
Spectatorsenjoythecompetitionbetweenathletesrather
thanindividualperformances;acloseraceisbetterthan
ano-contestinaworldrecordtime.Similarly,theyenjoy
displaysofskillmorethansimplerawpower.Inanycase,
whyshouldwesacricethehealthofathletesforthesake
ofpublicenjoyment?
Currentrulesareveryarbitraryandunfair.Forexample,
the Olympics forbids athletes from using cold medicines,eveninsportswherethestimulantsinthesemedicineswouldhaveminimaleffectsonperformance.There
isalsothepossibilitythatsomepositivetestsaresimply
theresultofusingacombinationoflegalfoodsupplements. Cyclists legally have heart operations to allow
increasedcirculationandthusimproveperformance,but
theywouldbebannediftheyweretouseperformanceenhancingdrugs.
Whataboutthechildren?Evenifperformance-enhancing drugs were legalized only for adults, how would

youcontroltheproblemamongchildren?Teenageathletestrainalongsideadultsandsharethesamecoaches.
Manywouldsuccumbtothetemptationandpressureto
use drugs if these were widely available and effectively
endorsed by legalization. Young athletes are unable to
makefullyrational,informedchoicesaboutdrugtaking,
and the health impact on their growing bodies would
beevenworsethanforadultusers.Legalizationofperformance-enhancing drugs would also send a positive
messageaboutdrugcultureingeneral,makingtheuse
ofrecreationaldrugswithalltheiraccompanyingevils
morewidespread.
Inmanycountriesbansonperformance-enhancingdrugs
failtostandupincourt.Thelegalbasisfordrugtesting
andthesubsequentbarringoftransgressorsfromfurther
participation is open to challenge, both as restraint of
trade and invasion of privacy. Sports governing bodies
oftenghtandlosesuchcourtcases,wastingvastsums
ofmoney.
Legalization discriminates against poor nations. Far

from creating a level playing eld, legalization would
tiltitinfavorofthoseathletesfromwealthycountries
with advanced medical and pharmaceutical industries.
Athletesfrompoorernationswouldnolongerbeableto
competeontalentalone.
Ifdrugswerelegal,theycouldbecontrolledandmonitoredbydoctors,makingthemmuchsafer.Athleteson
drugstodayoftentakefarmorethanneededforperformanceenhancementbecauseofignoranceandtheneed
for secrecy. Legalization would facilitate the exchange
ofinformationondrugs,andopenmedicalsupervision
willavoidmanyofthehealthproblemscurrentlyassociatedwithperformance-enhancingdrugs.
Reform is preferable to surrender. The current testing

regime is not perfect, but better research, testing, and
funding,plussanctionsagainstuncooperativecountries
andsportscouldgreatlyimprovetheghtagainstdrugs
insports.
|89
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldlegalizetheuseofperformance-enhancingdrugsforathletes.
ThisHousewouldwinatallcosts.
ThisHousebelievesyourpharmacistisyourbestfriend.
WebLinks:
SportsSupplementsDanger.<http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detail.jsp?CONTENT<>cnt_
id=59279&FOLDER<>folder_id=18151&bmUID=992904313175>
Overviewofissuessurroundingtheuseofsportssupplements.
FurtherReading:
Kuhn,Cynthia,ScottSchwartzwelder,andWilkieWilson.Pumped:StraightFactsforAthletesaboutDrugs,Supplements,andTraining.
Norton,2000.
Yesalis,Charles,andVirginiaS.Cowart,TheSteroidsGame.HumanKinetics,1998.
DRUGTESTINGINSCHOOLS
The right of schools to randomly test students for drugs has been debated in the courts for years. In a landmark 1995 decision Vernonia
SchoolDistrictv.Acton, the US Supreme Court ruled that schools could test student athletes for drug use. Three years later the US
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) extended the right to test all participants in extracurricular activities, but in 2000 the Indiana Supreme Court banned such testing where the student concerned was not suspected of taking
drugs. In 2002 the US Supreme Court ruled that drug testing was permissible for students involved in competitive extracurricular
activities. Does societys desire to combat a growing drug problem override the right to privacy?
PROS
CONS
Druguseamongteenagersisaclearandpresentproblem.Currentmeasurestotackledrugsatthesource(i.e.,
imprisoningdealersandbreakingthesupplychain)are
notsucceeding.Itisespeciallyimportanttoprotectteenagersatanimpressionableageandatthetimewhentheir
attitude to education greatly affects their entire lives.
Somesacriceofhumanrightsisnecessarytotacklethe
drugproblem.
Ourjusticesystemisbasedontheprinciplethataperson
isinnocentuntilprovenguilty.Toenforcerandomdrug
testing(therebyinvadingtheprivacyofstudentswhoare
notsuspectedofdruguse)istoviewthemasguiltyuntil
proven innocent. Nothing justies the sacrice of the
humanrightsofinnocentpeople.
Studentswhodonottakedrugshavenothingtofear.
Innocentstudentsdohavesomethingtofeartheviolationofprivacyandlossofdignitycausedbyadrugtest.
Thepurposeofrandomdrugtestingisnotsomuchto Othermethodsofpreventingdrugabusearelessinvacatchoffendersbuttopreventallstudentsfromoffend- sive. These include encouraging extracurricular activiingintherstplace.

ties,fosteringbetterrelationswithparents,tacklingthe
problemsofpovertyandsafety,andsoon.
Peer pressure is the primary cause of experimentation
with drugs. Discouraging drug use among athletes,
model students, etc., sends a powerful message to the
entirestudentbody.
Teenagers,especiallydrug-takingteenagers,areattracted
byrebellionandthechanceofbeatingthesystem.Draconian,BigBrotherstyletacticsofrandomdrugtesting
will only provoke resentment and encourage students
to break the law. Peer pressure increases as they unite
againstschoolauthorities.
PROS
CONS
Urine,hair,andbreathsamplescanbeusedtodetectuse Druguserswillonlyturntodrugsthataremoredifcult
of most common drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, totest,suchasdesignerdrugs,orusemaskingagents
heroin,andmethamphetamines.
beforebeingtested.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsrandomdrugtestinginschools.
ThisHousebelievesinastudentsrighttoprivacy.
WebLinks:
ReportedDrugUsebyPotentialTargetsofRandomSchoolDrugTestingPolicies.<http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/drug_stats/
athlete.html>
Shortessaypresentingevidencethatrandomdrugtestinginschoolsisunlikelytodetectmuchdruguse.
SubstanceAbuseResourceCenter.<http://www.jointogether.org/plugin.jtml?siteID=AMBIOMED&P=1>
Generalsiteofferinglinkstocurrentnewsondrug-relatedtopicsaswellasresourcesonissues,laws,andgovernmentpolicy.
FurtherReading:
Ligocki,KennethB.DrugTesting:WhatWeAllNeedtoKnow.Scarborough,1996.
ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTVS.ENVIRONMENT
The issue of economic development versus environmental conservation can also be seen as the First World vs. the Third World. Industrialized nations, ironically those that are most responsible for current environmental problems, fear that unregulated economic development in
the Third World will have disastrous long-term environmental effects on the planet. They point out that massive clearing of tropical forests
for farmland is threatening biodiversity and may impact world climate, while a reliance on heavy industry to fuel economic growth adds
more pollutants to the air, ground, and water. Developing countries counter that they must make industrialization and economic development a priority because they have to support their growing populations. Developing countries must address current problems; they cannot
afford to worry about the distant future.
PROS
CONS
Takingcareofthemillionsofpeoplewhoarestarvingis Wehavewastedanddestroyedvastamountsofnatural
moreimportantthansavingnaturalresources,mostof resources,andinsodoinghaveputEarthinjeopardy.
whicharerenewableanyway.
WemustpreserveEarthforfuturegenerations.
The industrialized worlds emphasis on protecting the
environmentshacklesdevelopingcountriesandcontributestoandwidensthegreatdividebetweentheFirstand
ThirdWorlds.Bylimitingthedevelopmentofprotable
butpollutingindustrieslikesteeloroilrening,weare
sentencingnationstoremaineconomicallybackward.
Noonewantstostopeconomicprogressthatcouldgive
millionsbetterlives.Butwemustinsistonsustainable
developmentthatintegratesenvironmentalstewardship,
socialjustice,andeconomicgrowth.Earthcannotsupportunrestrictedgrowth.
Economic development is vital for meeting the basic

needsofthegrowingpopulationsofThirdWorldcountries.Ifwedonotpermitindustrialization,thesenations
will have to implement measures to limit population
growthjusttopreservevitalresourcessuchaswater.
Unchecked population growth has a deleterious effect

onanynationandontheentireplanet.Limitingpopulationgrowthwillresultinahigherstandardoflivingand
willpreservetheenvironment.
|91
PROS
CONS
Obviously the world would be better if all nations

abidedbystrictenvironmentalrules.Therealityisthat
for many nations such adherence is not in their larger
interests. For example, closing Chinas massive Capital
IronandSteelworks,whichecologistspointtoasamajor
polluter,wouldcost40,000jobs.Theuniformapplicationofstrictenvironmentalpolicieswouldcreateinsurmountablebarrierstoeconomicprogress.
Nations are losing more from polluting than they are

gainingfromindustrialization.Chinaisaperfectexample. Twenty years of uncontrolled economic developmenthavecreatedserious,chronicairpollutionthathas
increased health problems and resulted in annual agriculturallossesofbillionsofdollars.Thus,uncontrolled
growthisnotonlydestructivetotheenvironment,itis
alsounsoundeconomically.
Rapidindustrializationdoesnothavetoputmorepressure on the environment.Technological advances have

made industries much safer for the environment. For
example, nuclear generating plants can provide more
energy than coal while contributing far less to global
warming. We are also exploring alternative, renewable
typesoffuel.
Technologicalprogresshasmadepeopletoocondentin
theirabilitiestocontroltheirenvironment.Injusthalf
a century the worlds nuclear industry has had at least
three serious accidents: Windscale (UK, 1957), Three
MileIsland(US,1979),andChernobyl(USSR,1986).
Inaddition,thenuclearpowerindustrystillcannotstore
itswastesafely.
The Green Revolution has doubled the size of grain

harvests.Thus,cuttingdownmoreforestsorendangeringfragileecosystemstoprovidemorespaceforcropsis
nolongernecessary.Wenowhavetheknowledgetofeed
theworldsincreasingpopulationwithoutharmingthe
environment.
TheGreenRevolutionisthreateningthebiodiversityof
theThirdWorldbyreplacingnativeseedswithhybrids.
Wedonotknowwhatthelong-termenvironmentalor
economic consequences will be. We do know that in
the short run, such hybrid crops can indirectly cause
environmentalproblems.Thefarmerusinghybridseed,
whichisexpensive,mustbuynewseedeachyearbecause
the seed cannot be saved to plant the following years
crops.Farmersusinghybridseedsinwhatoncewasthe
richestpartofIndiawentbankrupt.Asaresult,fertile
lands lay idle and untilled, resulting in droughts and
desertication.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatenvironmentalconcernsshouldalwaystakeprecedenceovereconomicdevelopmentinboththeFirstand
ThirdWorlds.
ThisHousebelievesthateconomicgrowth,evenattheexpenseofsomeenvironmentaldegradation,isjustiedbytheneedtofeed
therisingworldpopulation.
WebLinks:
CenterforInternationalEnvironmentalLaw.<http://www.ciel.org>
Offersareviewofmajorinternationalenvironmentalagreementsaswellasinformationontheimpactofglobalizationandfree
tradeonsustainabledevelopment.
InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.<http://www.iisd.org>
Describesinstituteactivitiesandoffersreportsandresearchmaterialsondifferentaspectsofsustainabledevelopment.
UnitedNationsEnvironmentalProgramme:DivisionofTechnology,IndustryandEconomics.<http://www.uneptie.org>
PresentsinformationonUNprogramsassociatedwithsustainabledevelopment.
FurtherReading:
Bartelmus,Peter.Environment,GrowthandDevelopment:TheConceptsandStrategiesofSustainability.Routledge,1994.
Cole,MatthewA.TradeLiberalisation,EconomicGrowthandtheEnvironment.EdwardElgar,2000.
Kageson,Per.GrowthVersustheEnvironment:IsThereaTrade-Off?Kluwer,1998.
Lomborg,Bjorn.TheSkepticalEnvironmentalist:MeasuringtheRealStateoftheWorld.CambridgeUniversityPress,2001.
ECONOMICSANCTIONSVS.ENGAGEMENT
Economic sanctions are one of the most controversial ways whereby the international community seeks to inuence a nations internal
policy and democratize countries. Sanctions helped end apartheid in South Africa, but the 40-year-old US embargo of Cuba has not
brought down its communist government. China has a terrible human rights record, nevertheless sanctions have not been imposed on it.
The question of whether to use trade to effect change is a subject of continuing debate.
PROS
CONS
Freetradebringsaboutdemocratizationinthreeways:It
permitsaowofinformationfromWesterncountries;
itraisesanationsstandardofliving;anditfacilitatesthe
growthofamiddleclass.Thesefactorsgenerateinternal
pressure and consequent political changeeconomic
freedom leads to political freedom. Free trade helped
bring about the downfall of communism in Eastern
EuropeandisbeginningtoincreasefreedomsinChina.
When the United States linked most favored nation
(MFN)statustoimprovementsinhumanrights,China
made only token gestures to improve its rights record
to maintain MFN status. Deep structural changes in
humanrightsinanycountrycomeonlywithunlimited
freetrade.
Mostdictatorialoligarchieswelcomefreetradeasitusuallyincreasestheirwealth.TheWestnolongerhasany
leverage over them once they have been accepted into
thefreetradearena.AlthoughtheinternationalcommunitychosenottoimposesanctionsonChinabecauseit
isavaluableeconomicandstrategicpartner,trade,specicallyMFNstatus,canstillbeusedtoforceChinato
improvehumanrights.Believingthatfreetradecanlead
todemocratizationisnave.Governmentsagainstwhich
sanctions are imposed will not permit the growth of a
middleclassorletwealthlterdowntothepeople.In
realityfreetradehasworsenedChineselivingstandards
byputtingdomesticindustriesoutofbusinessandforcingpeopletoworkformultinationalcorporationsthat
paylittle.
Sanctionsareineffective.Forexample,FranceandRussia
currently have openly breached international sanctions
againstIraqbecauseoftheircompletefailure.Sanctions
againstCuba,Haiti,andBurmahavealsoproveduseless
becausemanynationsdonotrecognizethem.Inaddition,oncesanctionsareinplace,thegovernmentofthe
country being sanctioned keeps all available resources,
ensuringthatsanctionsadverselyaffectonlythepeople.
InthecaseofIraq,sanctionsledtoterriblesuffering.
Sanctionsareeffectiveasalong-termtool.Theyworked
inSouthAfricaandtheyworkedintheformerRhodesia.Granted,theycanleadtomasssufferingofthevery
peopletheyaredesignedtohelp,astheydidtotheblack
populationofSouthAfrica.However,NelsonMandela
has said that the suffering was worthwhile because it
helpedendapartheid.
Sanctionsblocktheowofoutsideinformationintoa Sanctionssendastrongmessagetothepeopleofacouncountry, thus permitting dictators to use propaganda trythattheWesternworldwillnottolerateanoppressive

tostrengthentheirownposition.Peoplecannotbelieve regime.
suchpropagandaisfalsewhentherearenocompeting
externalclaims.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldputtraderelationsabovehumanrights.
ThisHousebelievesinfreetrade.
ThisHousewouldmakemoneynotwar.
ThisHousewouldengage,notestrange,nondemocraticnations.
|93
WebLinks:
CatoInstituteCenterforTradePolicyStudies.<http://www.freetrade.org/>
SiteadvocatingfreetradeincludesessaysonChina,theCubanembargo,andthefailureofunilateralUSsanctions.
USA*Engage.<http://usaengage.org/>
InformationoncurrentUSsanctionsandpotentialsanctionsbycoalitionofAmericanbusinessandagricultureopposingunilateral
USaction.
FurtherReading:
Crawford,Neta,andAudieKlotz,eds.HowSanctionsWork:LessonsfromSouthAfrica.Palgrave,1999.
Simons,Geoff.ImposingEconomicSanctions:LegalRemedyorGenocidalTool?PlutoPress,1999.
ELECTORALCOLLEGE,ABOLITIONOF
The presidential election of 2000 gave new prominence to the Electoral College. Although Al Gore received more popular votes than
George W. Bush, Bush won the election because his victory in Florida gave him a majority of electoral votes. To some observers, this outcome demonstrated clearly that the Electoral College should be abolished. They feel it is an anachronism that has outlived its usefulness.
To others, however, the result demonstrated that the Electoral College is both good and necessary, and that the system had worked as it was
designed to do.
PROS
CONS
Thepresidentshouldbethepersonchosenbythegreatest number of Americans, via the popular vote. The

ElectoralCollegeviolatesthismandateinprincipleand
sometimesinpractice.
The Electoral College ensures that the person elected

president has broad support throughout the country.
Withoutthecollege,candidatescouldwinbyappealing
onlytoheavilypopulatedurbanareas.
TheElectoralCollegewasestablishedatatimewhenthe
peoplewerenottrustedtochoosewisely;senators,too,
were initially not chosen by popular vote.The system
shouldbechangedtotrustthewisdomoftheAmerican
people.
TheprinciplebehindtheElectoralCollegeissimilarto
the principle that determines the composition of the
Senate,whereineverystateisdeemedequal,nomatter
itssize.Thecollegeisanintegralpartofthesystemof
federalism,whichgivesthestatesdistinctandimportant
rights.
The Electoral College system gives greater weight to

votescastinlightlypopulatedstates.Theresultisthat
avotecastforthepresidentbyaNewYorkercountsless
thanavotecastbyaNorthDakotan;thisinequalityis
inherentlyunfair.
The Electoral College forces candidates to campaign

broadly throughout the country to gain the electoral
votes of as many states as possible. If it is eliminated,
candidateswillspendalltheirtimecampaigninginthe
states with the greatest number of voters and ignore
smallerstates.
The lightly populated states that are privileged by the

Electoral College system are overwhelmingly white. In
effect, the system discounts the worth of votes cast by
minoritieslivinginurbanareasandexacerbatestheracial
imbalanceofpowerinthecountry.
Minority voters could be safely ignored by candidates

inanationalelectionthatdependedonlyonreceiving
apopularmajority.Butbecausethesevoterscandeterminewhowinsamajorityandtheelectoralvotesin
agivenstate,theirinuenceissignicantinthepresent
system.
Thecurrentwinner-take-allsystemeffectivelyeliminates Becausenocandidatecanwinthepresidencywithoutan
third-partycandidates,astheycannotwinenoughElec- absolutemajorityofelectoralvotes,theElectoralCollege
PROS
CONS
toralCollegevotestogainofce.Theresult?Theelec- promotesthestrengthofthetwo-partysystemandthat
toralprocessispredisposedtothestatusquo,andchange systempromotesthepoliticalstabilityofthecountry.
andprogressarediscouraged.
Too much latitude is given to electors in the present
system;insomestates,electorsarenotrequiredtocast
theirvotesforthecandidateswhohavewonthepopular
voteintheirstates.Electorsshouldnothavethepower
todisregardthewillofthepeople.
The Constitution designed the US government to

includeaseriesofchecksandbalances,andtheElectoral
Collegeispartofthatsystem.TheElectoralCollegeis
meanttolimitthetyrannyofthemajoritythatispossibleinunrestraineddemocracy.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportstheabolitionoftheElectoralCollege.
ThisHousevaluesthewillofthepeopleovertherightsofthestates.
WebLinks:
CenterforVotingandDemocracy:TheCaseAgainsttheElectoralCollege.<http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/electoral_college.
htm>
Websitearguesforabolition,withnewsitemsandlinkstoothersites.
TheElectoralCollege.<http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm>
TheWebsiteoftheFederalElectionCommissionexplainswhattheElectoralCollegeisandhowitworks,andoffersessaysin
favorofretainingtheElectoralCollege.
InDefenseoftheElectoralCollege.<http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-10-00.html>
ThinktankWebsiteoffersessayinfavorofretainingCollege.
FurtherReading:
Abbott,DavidW.,andJamesP.Levine.WrongWinner:TheComingDebacleintheElectoralCollege.Praeger,1991.
Hardaway,RobertM.TheElectoralCollegeandtheConstitution:TheCaseforPreservingFederalism.Praeger,1994.
ENVIRONMENTALLYLINKEDAID
Many parts of the developing world have begun industrializing without regard to the environmental consequences. In light of growing
environmental concerns, some individuals and groups have suggested tying aid to environmental goals including curbing emissions of
carbon dioxide and chlorouorocarbon. The international community would still give emergency aid in response to disasters, but it would
tie development aid to environmental standards set by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Countries with especially
low emissions would receive extra aid.
PROS
CONS
Thescienticcommunityisalmostunanimousinbelieving that emissions are seriously damaging the world

ecosystem. The most serious threat is climate change.
Theeffectsofglobalwarmingincludeincreasingdesertication and rising sea levels. In addition, the El Nio
phenomenonoccursmoreoften.Airpollutionhasalso
resultedinincreasedacidrainandagrowingholeinthe
ozonelayer.
Environmental pressure groups seriously overstate the

evidence for climate change. Even if climate change is
occurring,pollutionisnotnecessarilythecause.Itmay
result from natural variations, which the fossil record
indicateshaveoccurredinthepast.
|95
PROS
CONS
The industrialization of the small number of developedcountriescausedvirtuallyalltheproblemslaidout

above. If developing countries, which have about ve
times the population of the developed world, were to
industrializeunchecked,theeffectcouldbecatastrophic.
For example, rising sea levels would ood millions of
homesinlow-lyingareassuchasBangladesh.Increased
cropfailurewouldkillmanymorebystarvation.Developedcountriesmightbeabletoprotectthemselvesfrom
theseeffects,butdevelopingcountrieswouldnot.The
developingworldhasnotactedtopreventenvironmentaldisasterandsothedevelopedworldmustacttosave
literallybillionsoflives.
This is just a new form of imperialism. Developing

countries have the right to develop economically and
industrially just as developed countries have. Industrializationwillimprovethelivingstandardsofbillionsof
peoplethroughouttheglobe.Inaddition,industrializationwillleadtoeconomicstabilityfortheworldspoorestcountries.This,inturn,willincreasedemocratization
inthesenations.
TheUNcoulddesigninitialstandardssothatalldeveloping countries could meet the goals and receive aid.

If they spend this development aid wisely, developing
countriescouldindustrializeinanenvironmentallyclean
way. In the long run, the combined approach of extra
rewardsforsuccessfulcountriesandserioussanctionsfor
unsuccessfulcountriesshouldensuresuccess.
Developedcountriesarehypocriticalintryingtorestrict
emissions from developing countries when they do so
little themselves. The United States, which is still the
worlds biggest polluter, consistently refuses to ratify
environmental treaties because its own economic selfinterestdoesnotappeartobeservedbydoingso.What
right does the developed world have to preach to the
developingworldaboutemissions?
Developedcountriesshouldbeguardiansoftheplanet
expresslybecausetheyhaveaterriblehistoryofpolluting. They must prevent unhindered industrialization
elsewhere.
AskingtheUNEPtosetemissionstandardsisunfeasible
becausebothdevelopedanddevelopingcountrieswould
trytoinuencetheagency.Developedcountrieswould
lobbyforveryrestrictiveemissionstandardstodecrease
the threat from cheap imports. Developing countries
would demand standards so lax that they would have
noeffect.
Evenifenvironmentalistshaveexaggeratedtheirclaims,
the threat from environmental pollution is still great
enoughtorequireaction.Thepotentialbenetofacting
tosavetheplanetsecosystemfaroutweighsanydownside.(Wearenotconcedingthattheclaimsareexaggerated,merelythatitdoesnotmattereveniftheyare.)
Thisproposalhasseriousconsequencesforworldstability.First,developedcountrieswouldcertainlynotenforce
regulationsagainstChina(animportanttradingpartner
andthelinchpinofregionalstability),theworldsfastestgrowingpolluter.Second,thedevelopingcountries,
particularlythosethatfailtomeetthestandards,would
resentsuchoutsideintrusion.Inaddition,withholding
aid could cause economic collapse and the subsequent
riseofdictatorships.Roguenationsmightformalliances
thatthreatenedworldstability.Intheirrushtodevelop,
thesestateswouldincreasepollutionbecausedeveloped
countrieswouldhavenoinuenceoverthem.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldlinkaidtoemissionsreductions.
ThisHousebelievesthattheenvironmentmustcomerst.
WebLinks:
WorldBankDevelopmentEducationProgram.<http://www.worldbank.org/html/schools/depweb.htm>
Informationonsustainabledevelopmentforteachersandstudents.
WorldBank:EnvironmentallyandSociallySustainableDevelopment.<http://www-esd.worldbank.org/>
InformationonWorldBankinitiativespromotingsustainabledevelopment.
FurtherReading:
Bossel,Hartmut.EarthataCrossroads:PathstoaSustainableFuture.CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
Carty,Winthrop,andElizabethLee.IntheShadowoftheFirstWorld:TheEnvironmentasSeenfromDevelopingNations.Chicago
ReviewPress,1995.
Daly,Herman.BeyondGrowth:TheEconomicsofSustainableDevelopment.Beacon,1997.
Gupta,Avijit.EcologyandDevelopmentintheThirdWorld.Routledge,1998.
Miller,MarianA.L.TheThirdWorldinGlobalEnvironmentalPolitics.LynneRienner,1995.
ETHICALFOREIGNPOLICY
For centuries, the foreign policy of most Western nations was based on realpolitik, doing whatever necessary to forward the self-interest of
the nation. In the United States, which traditionally has seen itself as holding to a higher standard, tension has always existed between
realpolitik and a desire to act out of humanitarian concern or to preserve liberty. During the 1990s, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and
genocide in Africa forced Western nations to confront the question of ethics in foreign policy. Should nations whose self-interests are not
threatened intervene in other countries solely for humanitarian reasons?
PROS
CONS
Western governments must pursue an ethical foreign If ethical foreign policy means active intervention
policy.Thistranslatesintothephilosophythatimpelsus wheneverthereisamoralimperative,thenitisahopetoactwheneverthereisamoralimperativetodoso.
lessly nave notion. Governments are constrained by
practicalconcerns.Forexample,sellingarmstocertain
nationsmightbeunethical,butifthegovernmentstops
suchsales,citizenslosejobsandtheweaponsarepurchasedelsewhere.
Lobbyistsshouldnotinuenceforeignpolicy.Itshould Inarepresentativedemocracydiscountingthesegroups
be above special interests and should focus on doing isimpossible.Moreover,therightthingtodoforthe
whatisright.
nationmaybewhatspecialinterestsdemand.
Theargumentforethicalforeignpolicyisstrongestwhen
theWestconfrontsheinouscrimesinforeignlands,such
as genocide in Rwanda or ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.Inbothplaces,theWesthadaclearmoralimperativeforactiveinvolvementouractioncouldsavelives
andfreepeoplefromoppression.
Weconcedetheprinciplebutrejectthepractice.Intervening might make matters worse.We also have to be

mindful of broader concerns, like the situation in the
foreigncountryandwhatactionmightdotoourimage
inothernations.Takinganactiveandmoralisticstance
toward African problems, for example, may make the
Westlooklikeneo-imperialists.
Inmanycases,suchasthatofKosovointhe1990s,the
humanitarian imperative demands intervention: We
mustactbecauseifwedontpeoplewillsufferanddie.
Takingthepragmaticapproachbasedonacarefulassessmentofnationalinterestscostslives.
Interventionbeforeasituationisfullyassessedmaycost
more lives in the long run. Being starkly utilitarian is
horrible,butforeignpolicymustsolveproblemsforthe
longterm;itcannotbebasedonaknee-jerkreactionto
animmediatesituation.
|97
PROS
CONS
Ethicalforeignpolicymeansstandinguptoregimesthat The West is inconsistent in applying ethical values to

discriminateamongtheirpeople.Wemustsendaclear foreign policy. We intervened in Kosovo to prevent
messageaboutourvalues.
genocide,butwehavenotintervenedtopreventthepersecutionofminoritiesinRussiaorChina.Ourguiding
forceiswhatispossible,notwhatisprincipled.Whylie
aboutit?
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldhaveanethicalforeignpolicy.
ThisHousebelievespoliticsistheartofthenecessarynotthepossible.
WebLinks:
ForeignPolicy.<http://www.foreignpolicy.com>
Journalspecializinginanalysisandcommentonforeignpolicyissues.
ForeignAffairs.<http://www.foreignaffairs.org>
JournalsponsoredbytheCouncilonForeignRelations,exploringforeignpolicyissues.
FurtherReading:
Forsythe,DavidP.HumanRightsinInternationalRelations.CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.
Hitchens,Christopher.TheTrialofHenryKissinger.Verso,2001.
EUROPEANDEFENSEFORCE
In recent years, particularly in light of the wars in the Balkans during the late 1990s, members of the European Union (EU) have
debated the creation of a European Defense Force (EDF). Such a standing armed force would be drawn from EU members and operate under EU control, in contrast to NATO, which is dominated by the United States. Debates on the EDF often revolve around the
proposed role of NATO in the postCold War era. Note well: The signicance of the EDF may spread beyond the borders of the European Union.
PROS
CONS
The EU must have a defense policy independent of

NATO.WithitsoriginsintheColdWaranditsdominationbytheUnitedStates,NATOcarriesagreatdeal
of historical and geopolitical baggage. NATO cannot
easily intervene in Eastern Europe without incurring
Russiasdispleasure.TheEDFwillallowtheEUtodeal
with crises in Eastern and Central Europe more effectivelythancanNATObecausetheEUwillnothaveto
tiptoearoundRussia.
NATOhassuccessfullydefendedtheinterestsofWestern
Europefordecades.Whyrocktheboat?Whatproblem
couldaEuropeanDefenseForcesolvethatNATOcould
not? In any case, the EU will always have to consider
Russias sensibilities when engaged in Eastern Europe.
Far better to have Americas bargaining power and
geopolitical clout backing the EU in negotiating with
Russia. Creating a European Defense Force will marginalizeNATOandtheUnitedStates.Thiswillleadto
reducedUSengagementinEurope,whichmay,inturn,
diminishtheEUsinuencewithRussia.
TheEUhasachievedsignicantintegrationofandconvergenceinthepoliticalandeconomicspheres.IntegrationofdefensepolicyandtheestablishmentofaEuro-
EU members frequently disagree on political and economicissues.Memberinterestsareevenmoredivergent

onthethornyareaofdefensepolicy.Thisdifferencein
PROS
CONS
peanDefenseForcearethelogicalnextstep.
priorities will ultimately lead to deadlock because no

countrywishestoseeitssoldiersdyingonabattleeld
thatisnotstrategicallyimportanttoit.
NATOhasshowntheEUthatastandingmultinational NATOandtheproposedEDFaredesignedtoaddress
defenseforceispossible.TheproposedEDFcouldfollow very different concerns. NATO exists to deal with signicant situations in whichWestern European nations
itsexampleandcomplementit.
arelikelytoadoptacommondefensepolicy.Incontrast,
theEDFistargetedatsmallergeopoliticalincidentsthat
would be beneath NATOs notice. By their nature,
theseincidentswouldnothaveuniformeffectsonEU
members.ThereforetheEUisunlikelytoachieveconsensusonhowtodealwiththem.
Withthegrowingindustrialandeconomicmaturityof
theEUanditsmembers,theEUcouldnowaffordto
haveastandingdefenseforce.TheproposedEDFwould
alsocreateagreatmanyjobsforEuropeandefenseindustries.
EvenifweassumethattheEUcouldbearthemassive
costs of a standing military force, there are signicant
politicalandeconomicbarrierstoestablishingit.Among
thesebarriersare:HowwilltheEUdevelopacommon
defensepolicy?Willtheforcesmandatebeonlydefense
orwillitincludepeacekeeping?Whatisthenatureofits
command structure? Who will choose its supplies and
equipment?Whatlanguagewillitsmembersuse?These
questionsinvolvepoliticalandeconomicconsiderations
that are likely to result in continuous contention that
willultimatelyyieldastillbornEDF.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesinaEuropeanDefenseForce.
ThisHousebelievesthatEuropeshoulddefenditself.
WebLinks:
Janes:Defence.<http://www.janes.com/defence>
OffersnewsonEuropeandefenseconcerns.
FurtherReading:
Nye,Joseph.UnderstandingInternationalConicts.Longman,2002.
|99
EUROPEANFEDERALIZATION
The members of the European Union (EU) are currently debating the next step in the evolution of a European government. One suggestion is the creation of a federal structure similar to that of the United States. Under such a system, a European government would be
responsible for defense, foreign affairs, economic policy, agriculture, external trade, and immigration. The lowest appropriate authorityin
some cases the individual nations of the EUwould exercise power over areas such as culture, law and order, and education, as American
states do. Supporters of devolution want to take this one step further, devolving certain responsibilities to regional and local authorities, further weakening the nation-state.
PROS
CONS
AfederalEuropewouldbuildonthesuccessoftheEU.
Itwouldtamethenationalismthatcausedsomanyhorrors in the twentieth century and realize the vision of
itsfoundersforanever-closerunion.Whilenational
governments exist they will regard policy making as a
competitive business, damaging the potential prosperityofallofEuropescitizens.AfederalEuropeanstate
canbuildonthesharedhistoryandcultureofitsmemberstofurtherthecommongoodwhileaccommodating
regionaldifferences.
Nationalidentityanddifferencesremainfarmoreimportant than supposedly shared European values. Existing national governments operate on different models.
These recognize the historical, cultural, and economic
distinctivenessofeachnationandprovideanimportant
focusfortheloyaltyoftheircitizens.Thefurtherpower
isremovedfromthecitizens,themoredetachedtheyare
fromthedemocraticprocess,thelessaccountablepower
becomes, and the more likely government is to make
bothbaddecisionsanddecisionsbadly.Afederalsystem
candamagetheinterestoftensofmillionsofpeople.
Afederalsysteminwhichdecisionmakingoccursatthe
lowest appropriate level combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability. Citizens gain the
advantagesoflivinginaneconomically,militarily,and
politicallypowerfulstateandincreaseindividualopportunities for work, study, etc. At the same time, they
preservetheadvantagesoflivinginasmallerstate:connectiontothepoliticalprocess;respectforlocalcultural
traditions;andresponsivenesstodifferingeconomicand
physicalsituations.Thechecksandbalancesofafederal
system prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience
tolaws.
Forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go

is fraught with danger. An ill-advised dash to build a
federalEuropecouldraisedormantnationalistfeelings,
promotetheriseofpopulistpoliticianswithxenophobic
agendas,andendangerthestabilityoftheEU.AEurope
ofNations,notafederalizedgovernment,preservesthe
currentbenetsoftheEUwithouttherisksoffurther
unwantedpoliticalintegration.
A federal Europe is better equipped to promote the

interestsofitscitizensinternationallybecauseitwillhave
moreinuencethanthesumofitsindividualstatesdo
now.Furthermore,Europehasalottocontributetothe
worldintermsofitsliberaltraditionsandpoliticalculture,providingbothapartnerandanecessarybalanceto
theUnitedStatesinglobalaffairs.
A federal Europe may damage the security of its citizens. Russia would almost certainly view a new super
statecomposedofitstraditionalenemiesasathreat.A
EuropeanstatewouldresultinthecollapseofNATO,
makingcurrentNATOmembersoutsidetheEUmore
insecure.Inevitably,itwouldresultinrivalryratherthan
partnershipwiththeUnitedStates,whichcurrentlypays
adisproportionateamountofEuropesdefensecosts.
Thesuccessofotherfederalstatesinprovidingpeaceand
prosperity for their citizens while safeguarding democracypointstotheadvantagesofthismodel.TheUnited
States, Australia, and Canada have standards of living
thatmostEuropeanswouldenvy,whileIndiaisthebest
Europe is not Australia, which was settled by culturally homogeneous immigrants. Canadas relations with
Qubecshowthatculturalandlinguisticdifferencescan
bepoliticallydestabilizing.FederalstatessuchasBrazil
and the Soviet Union have seen dictatorship, human
PROS
CONS
exampleofalong-termdemocraticsuccessinthedevelopingworld.
rights problems, and retarded economic development.

EUmembersoftenhavenocommonalityofinterestsin
whatwouldbekeyfederalissues,includingdefenseand
foreignpolicy,agriculturalreform,andtrade.
Federalismallowsforregionalidentitiesinawaynational
statescannot.InafederalEuropeminoritygroupswould
not feel under threat from a dominant culture. Longrunningconictscouldberesolvedbecauseissuesofsovereigntywouldbelessrelevantwithinthenewpolitical
structure.
Existing states can decentralize successfully, as Britain

andFrancehaveshowedinthe1990sandasGermany
hasdonesince1945.SpainsproblemwithseparatistterroristsintheBasqueregionshowsthatevenagreatdeal
ofregionalautonomyfailstosatisfyextremists.
Nationalsovereigntyisincreasinglyirrelevantasaresult
of globalization. The global economy demands that
multinational corporations, which can pit national
governments against each other in search of economic
advantage,betamed.AfederalEuropewouldbepowerfulenoughtodemandhighstandardsofbehaviorfrom
suchcompaniesandcouldmakeagreaterdifferenceon
environmentalissueslikeglobalwarming.
Europeshouldbewider,notdeeper,initspoliticaldevelopment. Peace and prosperity can be most surely providedbytheaccessionofallEuropeanstatestotheEU.

Given the former communist and Soviet-dominated
pastofmanyofthesenations,theyareunlikelytoagain
give their independence away. The EUs focus on the
creation of a single currency in the 1990s has already
delayedenlargement.Itmaybelostaltogetherifdeeper
integrationbecomesthenewpriority.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldcreateaUnitedStatesofEurope.
ThisHousebelievesinafederalEurope.
ThisHousewouldpursueanever-closerunion.
ThisHousewouldgodeeper.
WebLinks:
TheBrugesGroup.<http://www.eurocritic.demon.co.uk/brughome.htm#Top>
BritishorganizationofferingarticlesandspeechesinoppositiontoacentralizedEUgovernment.
TheEuropeanMovement.<http://www.euromove.org.uk>
InformationabouttheEuropeanMovement,anorganizationcallingforamoredemocraticEUgovernmentaccountabletocitizens.
TheEuropeanParty.<http://www.europeanparty.org>
Informationontheparty,whichsupportsreformofthecurrentgoverningstructureoftheEU.
TheFederalTrust.<http://www.fedtrust.co.uk>
ProvidessummariesofmajorspeechesontheEUissuesincludingincreasedfederalization.
FurtherReading:
Brown-John,C.Lloyd,ed.Federal-TypeSolutionsandEuropeanIntegration.UniversityPressofAmerica,1995.
Siedentop,Larry.DemocracyinEurope.ColumbiaUniversityPress,2001.
|101
EXTREMISTPOLITICALPARTIES,BANNINGOF
Extremist political parties can be taken to mean either those on the extreme left or those on the extreme right. For a group to be considered extremist, usually the members must promote hate speech or condone the use of violence to promote political goals. In the past few
years a number of groups that have been labeled as extremist have received increased support in elections in many European countries.
PROS
CONS
Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It can be

restrainedspecicallyinthiscaseongroundsofharm.
Extremismashatespeechthatcausesharmtominorities
isajustiablereasonforcurbingfreespeech.
Wealreadyhavelawsthatregulatetheconductoffree
speechslander,libel,etc.Yetthebasicpremiseoffree
speech in a democracy must be protected at all costs,
elseweriskturningintothekindofsocietythatthese
extremistgroupssupport.
Privateandpublicthoughtandspeechareintrinsically
different.The former is to be preserved, but the latter
hasanimpactonotherpeoplethatcanbeharmful;itis
thisspeechweareseekingtorestrain.
Delineatingsuchadifferenceismisleadinganddangerous. If one is invited into someones home, does this

makewhatwouldbepublicspeechnowprivate?Inany
case,althoughpoliticiansinextremistpartiesmaypromoteintoleranceanddiscriminatorypolicies,veryrarely
dotheydirectlycallforviolentaction,sowhatimpact
areweseekingtoavoid?
Therecentriseinpopularityofright-wingextremistparties across Europe, exemplied by the success of JeanMarie Le Pen in the initial round of the 2002 French
presidentialelections,showsthatappealingtovoterson
extremistgroundscanbeasuccessfulstrategy.Wehave
adutytoactagainstathreattooursocietyintheform
ofextremism.
Whatriseinextremism?LePenachievedsuccesswhen
he moderated his extremist message; his success was a
resultofthefracturingoftheLeftinFrenchpolitics,and
hisFrontNationalPartywonnoseatsintheAssembly.
Thedraconianlawproposedwouldbeadisproportionateresponsetoalimitedthreat.
Merelybybeingallowedtoadvocatetheirviews,extremist parties are given a veneer of respectability.The fact

that the vast majority of people disagree is irrelevant.
Extremists cannot be allowed on the same democratic
ticket as respectable, pro-system groups, because their
merepresencetarnishesthesystem.
Nooneisdisputingthefactthatextremistviewsarerepellent,oftenshallow,andnotlogicallythoughtthrough.
Meetingtheirviewsandcombatingtheminopenand
honestdebatearethemosteffectivewaysofhighlighting
theawsintheirthinkingandsolutions.
Thosewhotalkofpartiesgoingundergroundiftheyare
bannedarewrong.Banningsuchextremepoliticalpartieswillmeanthatthevastmajorityofpeopleinanation
neverheartheirviews.Suchpartieswillnevergetanywherewithoutmasssupportandpublicity.
Suchpartiesbenetfromgoingunderground.Theycan
present themselves as martyrs and as being persecuted
bytheestablishment,whichisdenyingtheirchanceto
have a say. Such antistate rebellious sentiment will be
veryattractivetoacrosssectionofthedispossessedand
dispiritedinsociety.
Wehavetherighttomakeamoraljudgmentonsociety
anditsactions.Wecandeclarethingsabhorrentandnot
justiedindecentsociety.Suchafunctionisarolefor
governmentinmakinganylaws.Aremovalofthismoral
dimensionfromlawmakingwouldleadtoextrememoral
relativismandanarchy.
Moral judgments are ne, but the very strengthand

weakness of a democracylies in allowing anyone to
challenge it and mold it. If a democratic system regulatesitselfbydeclaringwhocanchallengeit,thenthat
democracybetraysitsverybasis.Categorizingapartyas
extremistorfarrightisverysubjective.Inaddition
to repellent views on race, these parties may advocate
policiesworthyofseriouspoliticaldebate.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbanextremistpoliticalparties.
ThisHousebelievesanopensocietymusthavetherighttoprotectitselffromitsenemies.
WebLinks:
EuropeanMonitoringCentreonRacismandXenophobia.<http://www.eumc.at/>
SitemaintainedbyanorganizationestablishedbytheEuropeanUniontocombatracism,xenophobia,andanti-Semitismin
Europe.
Searchlight.<http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/>
Sitemaintainedbyanorganizationformedtocombatracism,neo-Nazism,fascism,andotherformsofprejudice.
FurtherReading:
Fraser,Nicholas.TheVoiceofModernHatred:TracingtheRiseofNeo-FascisminEurope.OverlookPress,2001.
George, John, and Laird M. Wilcox. American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others. Prometheus,
1994
FEMINISM
Feminism is relatively difcult to dene, both because of the breadth of the movement and because it is so frequently caricatured by
its opponents. A fair description might be that it is a movement committed to the pursuit of equality for women. But the forms of
equality that feminists have pursued and their analysis of the inequality from which women have experienced have come in for sustained criticism.
PROS
CONS
Feminism has no more battles left to ght. Victories

suchasthefranchise,therighttoanabortion,andthe
righttoequalpaywereimportant.Butgiventhatsexual
equalityisnowenshrinedandprotectedinlaw,thereis
nothing left for the feminist movement to do in most
Western countries. Of course it still may be useful in
partsoftheworldwherewomenlackbasicdemocratic
andhumanrights.
Feminism has plenty more to achieve. Worldwide,

womendotwo-thirdsofallwork,earnone-tenthofall
income and own one-hundredth of all property.Twothirdsoftheworldsilliteratepeoplearewomen.Three
hundred million women have no access to contraception.Morethan80%oftheworlds50millionrefugees
and displaced people are women and children. Every
year,2milliongirlsunder16arecoerced,abducted,or
trafckedintothesexindustry.
Feminismpromotesanunnaturalequalitybetweenthe
sexes.Thereisnothingwrongwithsex-roledifferentiation. Men and women are biologically different, and
these differences are what have led to womens dominanceoftheprivatesphere,homelife,andchildrearing,
andmensdominanceofpubliclife,theworkplace,and
political authority. All of these are essential to a functionalsociety,andthedivisionoflaboronthebasisof
sexisanentirelysensibleprincipleofsocialorder.There
is a distinction between enshrining equality of pay,
democraticrepresentation,andopportunityinlaw,and
actively encouraging women to reject their traditional,
The suggestion that the male-female public-private

divideisbiologicalissuspect.Womenhaveshownthat
theyarejustascapableasmenofplayingacentralrolein
publiclife;menhaveshownthattheyarejustascapable
as women of looking after the house and bringing up
children. Feminists point out that claiming the traditionalmaledominationofthepublicsectortobenaturalandinevitableisaneffectivewayofjustifyingmale
power over women. Sweeping assertions that women
ndmotherhoodmorefulllingthancareersignoresthe
diversityinwomensgoals.
|103
PROS
CONS
and in many cases preferred, gender roles. In general,

womenaremorefullledbymotherhoodthanbycareer
success.
Many feminist campaigns, e.g., for afrmative action,
actually damage the women they claim to help. Feminists should recognize that in many professions the
unequal representation of women reects the fact that
relativelyfewwomenareinterestedintheseprofessions,
ratherthanthefactthatemployersdiscriminateagainst
women.Hiringwomenoverbetter-qualiedmencauses
resentment both among male competitors and among
womenwhodonotwanttofeelthattheyhaveanunfair
advantage. Campaigning for afrmative action underminestheprinciplethatwomencancompeteonequal
termswithmen.
Afrmative action campaigns reect the feminist contentionthatwomenhavefaceddiscriminationforyears

andwillcontinuetodosowithoutpro-activeinterventiontochangethewaythingsaredone.Therearevariousreasonswhymanymorementhanwomenchoose
certain professions, one of which is that male-dominated professions can be unpleasant ones for women
toworkinirrespective of their ability, a problem that
is likely to be self-perpetuating without intervention.
Menwhoresentlosingouttoequallyqualiedwomen
shouldrememberthatwomenhavebeenlosingoutto
menforyears.
Men also encounter unequal treatment based on their

sex.Forexample,courtsoftendiscriminateagainstsingle
fathersinchildcustodyandchildsupportcases.Thefear
ofbeingaccusedofsexismissowidespreadthatitoften
leadstounfairdiscriminationagainstmen.Wemustrecognizethatfeminismhasgonetoofar.
Therearetworesponsestothis.First,thediscrimination
men occasionally encounter is minor compared to the
discrimination women endure. Second, feminism possessestheresourcestoofferadistinctandusefulcritique
ofthecausesandconsequencesoftreatingthesexesdifferently,whetheritismenorwomenwhosuffer.Men
andwomenshouldjoinforcestoofferfeministresponses
to discrimination, not blame feminism when men
encounterdifcultiesintheworkplaceorinlife.
Feminism has only a small, privileged constituency of Youcannotdismissfeminismbecauseitoncerepresented

middle-class white women who can afford to worry anarrowconstituency.Thefeministmovementhaslong
about relatively insignicant issues like executive pay recognizedthatitmustbroadenitsoutreach.
andbodyimage.Meanwhilefeministsignoretheproblems women suffer across the world, such as poverty,
hunger,andracism.
Manywomennolongeridentifythemselvesasfeminists, Many of the women who dislike the label feminist

seeing the movement as a relic of the 1970s. Modern holdwhatwouldoncehavebeenseenasextremefemiwomen are capable of competing with men on equal nistviews,suchasthebeliefthatwomenarecapableof
termsandresentsuggestionsthattheyneedspecialtreat- competing with men on equal terms. Feminists have
always argued that women are just as capable as men;
ment.
theyhavecampaignedagainstlegal,cultural,andsocial
barriersthathaveworkedagainstwomenandthathave
preventedthemfromachievingequality.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatfeminismhasgonetoofar.
ThisHousebelievesthatwomenslibisanoutdatedconcept.
ThisHouseprefersfemininitytofeminism.
ThisHousewouldbepoliticallyincorrect.
WebLinks:
Anti-FeministPage.<http://jkalb.freeshell.org/web/antifeminism.php>
Siteopposedtofeminismwithlinkstorelatedresources.
FeminismandWomensStudies.<http://eserver.org/feminism/index.html>
Linkstositesongenderandsexuality,womensstudies,andotherfeministsites.
FeministMajorityFoundation.<http://www.feminist.org/>
Organizationdedicatedtowomensequality,reproductivehealth,andnonviolencethatutilizesresearchandactiontoempower
womeneconomically,socially,andpolitically.
FurtherReading:
Richard,JanetRadcliffe.TheSkepticalFeminist:APhilosophicalEnquiry.Penguin1994.
FLATTAX
The cry, No taxation without representation is a part of US history. From our earliest days as a colony, taxation was controversial. The
rst income tax law was passed in 1862 to support the Civil War. This was a graduated or progressive tax, meaning that the percent of
income paid in taxes depended on level of income. Over the next half-century the income tax was repealed and levied again multiple
times. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the federal income tax a permanent xture of American tax law. Since
its inception, the federal income tax has been graduated. Now, calls for a at tax are being heard in the United States. A at tax uses the
same percentage rate for everyone, whatever their income.
PROS
CONS
UScitizenswastetoomuchtimeandmoneyllingout
tax forms. Just lling out a standard 1040 form takes
over 13 hours. Overall, taxpayers spend 6.2 billion
hoursllingoutIRSformsandpaperwork.Ifthegovernmentpaidcitizensminimumwagetodotheirtaxes,
thatwouldamountto$32billionayear.Whenyouadd
inthecostoftaxprofessionals,thecostofcompliance
could be as high as $194 billion according to theTax
Foundation.Clearly,thesecostsaretoohighanddrain
toomanyresourcesfromtheeconomy.
Asking citizens to complete tax forms is a small price

topayforhavingagovernmentthatdoessomuchfor
itscitizens.Taxdollarspayformanythings:roads,the
military,socialprograms,andforeignaid,amongthem.
Formostcitizens,lingtheirtaxesisnotpleasant,but
recentlytheIRShasenactedmanypoliciesdesignedto
help taxpayers. It has a toll-free number for questions
andacomprehensiveWebsite.Thehighcostsoftaxprofessionalsareusuallytheresultofcompaniesandindividuals trying to nd ways to pay less in taxes. A at
taxwouldlimitordoawaywithdeductionsandcould
increasetaxesforthosewithlowerincomes.
The only homeowners who will be negatively affected

bytheattaxwillbetherich.Apaper,TheFlatTax
andHousingValues,writtenbyJ.D.Foster,TaxFoundationexecutivedirectorandchiefeconomist,saysthat
owners of homes currently priced at around $100,000
orbelowshouldactuallyseeasignicantincreaseinthe
valueoftheirhome.Fostersaysthatownersofhomesin
the$200,000rangesimilarlyhavelittletofearevenwith
apureattax,astheneteffectofthevariousproposed
tax changes seems to leave them with little hope of a
windfall,butlittlefearofasignicantloss.Onlyowners
ofhomesthatcostmorethanabout$300,000mayseea
modestdeclineinthevalueoftheirhome.
The current tax system allows homeowners to deduct

the interest they pay on their mortgages from their
income taxes. This creates an incentive for people to
become homeowners, thus strengthening the economy
andneighborhoods.Ifthisincentiveisremoved,fewer
peoplewillwanttopurchasehomes,andpeopleselling
homeswilllosemoney.
|105
PROS
CONS
Aattaxwouldincreaseprivacy.Inthecurrentsystem,
IRSemployeeshaveaccesstomanydetailsaboutapersonssavings,investmentsandassets,propertyholdings,
andretirementsavings.Corporationsalsomustdisclose
detailsoftheirbusinesses.Withaattax,allprotsfrom
assetswouldbelumpedtogether,andindividualassets
wouldnotneedtobelisted.Gettingridoftheestatetax
wouldmeanthatwhenpeopledie,theIRSwontneedto
gothroughtheirassets.
Citizens are protected by many federal laws that regulatetheprivacyoftheinformationprovidedtotheIRS.

Whenapplyingforloansorothernancialtransactions,
similartypesofinformationmustbeprovided.TheIRS
hasanexcellenttrackrecordonprivacy,especiallyconsidering the number of tax returns that are submitted
eachyear.
Theattaxwouldtreateveryoneequally.Thecurrent
tax system forces low-income individuals and families
topayalargerpercentageoftheirincomeintaxesthan
dotherich.Theattaxisdifferent.Itallowspeopleto
deductanallowancebasedontheirfamilysizefromtheir
income,andthentherestoftheirearningsaretaxedata
standardrate,nomatterwhattheirincome.Individuals
owetaxesonlyontheincomeabovethestandardallowance. People who are in the low- or middle-income
rangeswillreceivethelargestreductioninaveragetaxes
becausetheirpersonalallowancewillmakeupagreater
percentageoftheirincome.Somelow-incomeindividualsandfamilieswillpaynotaxesatall.
If this provision is added to the at tax package, then

poorpeoplewillliveoutsidetheincometaxsystem.In
manypeoplesminds,theywillbecomesecond-classcitizenswhocontributenothingtoourcountry.Graduated
taxationletspoorpeopledotheirsmallparttonance
the government. Without graduation, you could be
payingnotaxoneyear,andstartpaying17%onyour
raisethenextyear.
Thissystemwillreducethecoststothegovernmentand
makepeoplepaytheirfairshare.Itwillresultinpeople
keepingmoreoftheirhard-earnedmoneyandbeingable
tospendmoreonitemstheywantandneed.Studiesof
theattaxprojectalargeincreaseinpercapitaincome
ifitisimplemented.Consumerspendingwillstimulate
theeconomyandthiswillimprovetheUSeconomy.
The idea that cutting taxes for the rich will lead to
economic growth is fallacious. History has shown that
supply-sidepolicies,liketheattax,donotactuallyboost
theeconomy.Theattaxwillreducetheamountoftaxes
paidbybusinesses.EvenPresidentRonaldReagan,ahuge
proponentofsupply-sidepolicies,closedloopholesthat
businesses were using to avoid taxes. Economic theory
offersnoproofthatsupply-sidepolicieswork,andmany
historicalfactsindicatethattheeconomywouldbebetter
offwiththecurrenttaxsystem.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldadoptaattaxsystem.
ThisHousebelievesaattaxsystemwouldbebetterfortheUS.
WebLinks:
CitizensforTaxJustice.<http://www.ctj.org/index.html>
Sitemaintainedbyanorganizationadvocatingagreatervoiceforcitizensinthedevelopmentoftaxlaws;includesmanyarticles
opposingaswitchtoaattax,whichitmaintainswouldhurtmiddle-incomefamilies.
TaxFoundation.<http://www.taxfoundation.org>
Thesiteoffersalotofinformationregardingtaxpoliciesfromanorganizationthatsupportsaattax.
FurtherReading:
Armey,RichardK.TheFlatTax:ACitizensGuidetotheFactsonWhatItWillDoforYou,YourCountry,andYourPocketbook.Fawcett
Columbine,1996.
Hall,RobertE.,andAlvinRabushka.FlatTax.HooverInstitutionPress,1995.
Hall,RobertErnest,ed.FairnessandEfciencyintheFlatTax.AEIPress,1996.
Hicko,ScottE.TheFlatTax:WhyItWontWorkforAmerica.AddicusBooks,1996.
McCaffery,EdwardJ.FairNotFlat:HowtoMaketheTaxSystemBetterandSimpler.UniversityofChicagoPress,2002.
FREESPEECH,RESTRICTIONSON
Freedom of speech is one of the basic tenets of democracy. A fundamental right enshrined in the US Bill of Rights, the UN Declaration
of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of speech is, nevertheless, not an absolute. Most nations
have laws against sedition, libel, or speech that threatens public safety. Where a nation draws the line between protected and unprotected
speech is a continuing subject for debate.
PROS
CONS
Free speech is an inherently ambiguous concept that Thelimitstofreespeecharetooimportanttobedeterrequires denition and interpretation; it is the job of mined by government. If speech is to be regulated, it
governmentstoclarifytheseambiguities.
shouldbedonebyanindependentbody.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, the most
stringent protection of free speech would not protect
a man in falsely shouting re in a theater and causing
apanic.Weacceptlimitationsonfreespeechwhenit
maythreatenpublicsafety.Therefore,freedomofspeech
isneverabsolute.
The tyranny of the majority is a good reason to resist

governmentcensorship.Ahealthydemocracyrecognizes
that smaller groups must be heard; to guarantee that
theyhaveapublicvoice,norestrictionsshouldbeput
onspeech.
Speechleadstophysicalacts.Pornography,hatespeech, Societyisself-regulating.Thelinkbetweenspeechand
andpoliticalpolemicarelinkedtorape,hatecrimes,and actionisafalseone.Yes,peoplewhocommithatecrimes
insurrection.
are likely to have read hate literature, and people who
commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography.Butviewingpornographyorreadinghatespeech
does not necessarily lead to crime. In addition, exposinghatespeechandextremepoliticalpolemictosocietal
scrutinyincreasesthelikelihoodthatitwillbediscreditedanddefeated,ratherthanstrengthenedthroughpersecution.
Governmentmustprotectitscitizensfromforeignand Regardlessofthesituation,thepublichastherighttoa
internalenemies.Thus,governmentsshouldbepermit- freeexchangeofideasandtoknowwhatthegovernment
ted to curb speech that might undermine the national isdoing.
interestduringwar.
Someviewsareantitheticaltoreligiousbeliefs.Toprotect Wemustdefendtherightofthenonreligioustoexpress
thedevout,weshouldbanthistypeofoffensivespeech. theirviews.
Weneedtoprotectchildrenfromexposuretoobscene, Weallagreethatgovernmentmustprotectchildren,but
offensive,orpotentiallydamagingmaterials.
that does not mean that government should have the
righttocensorallmaterial.
|107
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldrestrictfreedomofspeech.
ThisHousewouldmuzzlethepress.
ThisHousewouldcensortheInternet.
ThisHousewouldbanbooks.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion.<http://www.aclu.org>
Offersinformationandresourcesonawidevarietyofrightsissues.
BannedBooksOnline.<http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/banned-books.html>
On-lineexhibitofbooksthathavebeentheobjectofcensorshiporattemptedcensorship.
FirstAmendmentCyberTribune.<http://w3.trib.com/FACT/>
ResourcewithlinkstohundredsofsitesdealingwithFirstAmendmentissues.
FurtherReading:
Curtis, Michael Kent. Free Speech, The Peoples Darling Privilege: Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History. Duke
UniversityPress,2000
Eastland,Terry.FreedomofExpressionintheSupremeCourt.RowmanandLittleeld,2000.
Hensley,ThomasR.,ed.BoundariesofFreedomofExpressionandOrderinAmericanHistory.KentStateUniversity,2001.
Irons,Peter,andHowardZinn.APeoplesHistoryoftheSupremeCourt.Viking,1999.
Kennedy,Sheila,ed.FreeExpressioninAmerica:ADocumentaryHistory.Greenwood,1999.
FREETRADE
Economists and politicians have praised the virtues of free trade for over 200 years. By allowing everyone equal access to all markets, the
theory goes, you guarantee the most efcient allocation of resources and the cheapest prices for consumers. Can such a theory work in practice? Specically, could it help the least-developed countries achieve a better quality of life? Western rhetoric says it can and points to international institutions like as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank that foster free trade and help these nations.
However, as long as the West continues to protect its own agriculture and industries from the international market, its position is arguably
hypocritical.
PROS
CONS
Interlocking trade relationships decrease the likelihood

ofwar.Ifanationisengagedinmutuallybenecialrelationships with other countries, it has no incentive to
jeopardize these relationships through aggression.This
promotespeace,whichisauniversalgood.
Free trade does not promote peace. Trading countries

have gone to war against each other. This argument
mightapplytoagood-naturedtradingrelationship,but
notnecessarilytoonethatisjusttarifffree.
A tariff-free international economy is the only way to

maintain maximum global efciency and the cheapest
prices.Efcientallocationoftheworldsresourcesmeans
lesswasteand,therefore,moreaffordablegoodsforconsumers.
Internationaleconomicsisntassimpleasincreasingthe
efciency of global resource allocation above all else.
Tariffrevenueisaperfectlylegitimateandusefulsource
of government income. Without tariffs governments
cannotprotectthejobsoftheircitizens.
Freetrademightleadtodomesticlayoffs,buttheuniversalgoodofefciencyoutweighsthis.Weshouldnot
subsidize uncompetitive industries; we should retrain
workersforjobsinotherelds.Subsidizinginefciency
isnotsoundeconomicpractice.Moreover,thejobswe
subsidizeintheWestaremoreneededinthedeveloping
Jobsecurityisalegitimateconcernofgovernments.The
destructionofjobsiscleartestimonyagainstfreetrade
servingauniversalgood.Freetradesupportersfailto
factorinthepoliticalramicationsofjoblosses.Astarkly
utilitarian understanding of universal good may dictatethatjobsocktothedevelopingworld,butpolitical
PROS
CONS
world,towhichtheywouldinevitablyowiffreetrade considerationsmaydictateamorelocalizeddenitionof
wereobserved.
thegood.
Thegrowthofthedevelopingworldisauniversalgood
becauseimprovingthequalityoflifeofmillionsofpeople
isclearlyamoralimperative.Freetradehelpscountries
bymaximizingtheircomparativeadvantageinfreetrade
circumstances.
Defendingpure,unadulteratedfreetradeisapointless
exercise.Textbookideasarealwaysmediatedbypractical
constraints.Inreality,theconditionsdevelopingcountries must meet just to join the not quite free trade
WTOarestringentandmaycosttheequivalentofthe
nationsentireannualhumanitarianbudget.Poornations
have social and development programs that must take
priorityovertradeissues.
Free trade permits developing countries to gain ready

access to capital in liberalized international nancial
markets. This gives them the opportunity to nance
projectsforgrowthanddevelopment.
If capital ow were rational, it would be benecial. In

practice,liberalizedcapitalowcandestabilizedevelopingeconomies,whicharepronetospeculationbasedon
investorwhimratherthaneconomicfundamentals.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesfreetradeservesauniversalgood.
ThisHousebelievesfreetradeisgoodforthedevelopingworld.
WebLinks:
InternationalMonetaryFund(IMF).<http://www.imf.org>
GeneralsiteprovidingstatisticsandbackgroundontheIMF;offersinformationontradeandmonetaryissuesandlegalissues
involvingtrade;andpresentsevaluationsofIMFprograms.
TheWorldBankGroup.<http://www.worldbank.org>
Broadsitelinkingtodevelopmentstatistics,documentsandreports,programs,research,andWorldBankpublications.
WorldTradeOrganization(WTO).<http://www.wto.org>
OffersgeneralinformationontheWTO,internationaltradeandtradeagreements,andWTOprograms.
FurtherReading:
Bhagwati,JagdishN.FreeTradeToday.PrincetonUniversityPress,2002.
Das,Bhagirathlal.WorldTradeOrganisation:AGuidetotheFrameworkforInternationalTrade.ZedBooks,1999.
Irwin,Douglas.FreeTradeUnderFire.PrincetonUniversityPress,2002.
Schott,Jeffrey.ProspectsforFreeTradeintheAmericas.InstituteforInternationalEconomics,2001.
Wilkinson,Rorden.MultilateralismandtheWorldTradeOrganisation:TheArchitectureandExtensionofInternationalTradeRegulation.Routledge,2001.
|109
GAYADOPTION
At present, US states are divided on the issue of gay adoption. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York have
approved the practice, while Arkansas, Florida, and Utah, among others, have outlawed it. In 2000, Mississippi passed a law not only
banning gay and lesbian couples from adopting children but also forbidding Mississippi to recognize gay adoptions from other states.
Civil rights groups are currently challenging bans on gay adoption in federal courts. In February 2004 a federal appeals court upheld the
Florida ban, saying the law did not violate the Constitution and that the legislature, not the courts, was the proper forum for the debate.
PROS
CONS
Societyischanging,andthetraditionalideaofthenuclear
familywithmarriedmotherandfatherisnolongerthe
onlyacceptablealternative.Manystatesarebeginningto
awardlegalrightstogaycouplesbecausethestabilityof
suchrelationshipsisnowrecognized.Suchcouplescan
provideastableandlovingupbringingforchildren.
Thetraditionalnuclearfamilyisstilltheideal.Whereits
breakdownisinevitable,aclosesubstitute,withmaternal
andpaternalinuences,istheonlyalternative.Evolution
andnaturehaveshownthatthenaturaldevelopmentof
the young is aided by both these inuences. Research
publishedintheUniversityofIllinoisLawReviewin1997
foundthatchildrenraisedinhomosexualhouseholdsare
signicantlymorelikelytobegaythemselves.
Nature has shown in many species that, when one or Whileexceptionsoccur,thenorminnatureisthatboth

bothparentsdie,anuncleorauntfrequentlytakeson mother and father nurture offspring. To legally allow
thechild-rearingrole.
adoption by gay couples is to encourage what is an
unnaturalupbringing.
Some babies (both human and of other species) are
bornwithapredispositiontohomosexuality,andtheir
upbringing will not affect their sexuality. Attempting
to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in
greatmiseryformany.Weshouldembraceallgaypeople
fullywhichmustincludecelebratinggayrolemodels,
especiallyasresponsibleparents.
A childs primary role models are his or her parents.

Bringing a heterosexual child up in a gay household
givesthechildadistortedviewofaminoritysexuality,
justasagirlbroughtupbytwomenwouldfailtobenet
fromafemaleinuence.
Inmanycaseswhereoneofthepartnersisthebiologicalparent,gaycouplesarecurrentlyresponsiblyrearing
children.Allowingadoptionbytheotherpartnermerely
conferslegalrightsonanalreadysuccessful,ifinformal,
familymodel.
Whilethelawshouldnotpenalizegayrelationships,it
also exists to encourage the nuclear family as the ideal
forchildraising.Legalprohibitionofgayadoptionisa
naturalsteptowardthisideal.
Homophobia is wrong and must be fought wherever

encountered.Onlythroughthefullinclusionofgaysin
societyandallitsinstitutionscanwehopetoovercome
prejudice.
Homophobiclanguageandbehaviorisstillcommonin
society.Placingachildtooyoungtohaveanopinionof
hisowninthecareofagaycoupleexposeshimtothis
prejudiceandsubjectshimtoridiculeorviolence.Whateveridealwemighthave,thepsychologicalandphysical
welfareofthechildmustcomerst.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldallowgaycouplestoadoptchildren.
ThisHousewouldexplodethenuclearfamily.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion:GayandLesbianRights.<http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/hmgl.html>
Providesinformationongayrightsandthestatusoflegalissuesfacingthegaycommunity.
ChildrenofLesbiansandGaysEverywhere.<http://www.colage.org/>
Siteofferingsociologicalinformationongayfamiliesforchildrenofgayparents.
FurtherReading:
Savage,Dan.TheKid:WhatHappenedWhenMyBoyfriendandIDecidedtoGoGetPregnant:AnAdoptionStory.Plume,2000.
Sullivan,Ann.IssuesinGayandLesbianAdoption.ChildWelfareLeagueofAmerica,1995.
Tasker,Fiona,andSusanGolombok.GrowingUpinaLesbianFamily:EffectsonChildDevelopment.GuilfordPress,1998.
GAYCLERGY
Debates over the ordination of gays have dominatedand dividedmajor American Protestant groups for years. Most denominations formally oppose the ordination of gays. In practice, however, many church leaders follow a dont ask, dont tell policy. Some church leaders
who have openly ordained gays have been dismissed from their posts. American Roman Catholics debated the issue during 2002 as a result
of the sex abuse scandal that engulfed the church. In 2003 the debate again came to the fore when the Episcopal Church consecrated its
rst openly gay bishop. The move threatened to split the denomination.
PROS
CONS
Leviticusalsopermitspolygamy,banstattoos,andprohibits the wearing of clothes made of blended textiles.

MostChristiansacceptthatpartsoftheBiblereectthe
societalattitudesofthetimeandarenotrelevanttoday.
TheonlyNewTestamentcommentsabouthomosexualitycomefromPaul;Jesusdoesnotaddresstheissue.
The Bible considers homosexuality a grievous sin

(Genesis18:20);acapitalcrime(Leviticus20:13);and
punishablebyexclusionfromtheKingdomofHeaven
(1 Corinthians 6:910). Christiansespecially the
clergymust accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. Christian ministry is therefore incompatible with
homosexuality. Jesus was a radical teacher who overturned Jewish tradition where he thought it necessary.
His silence on homosexuality indicates that he saw no
needinthiscase.
Scientistsarenowcondenttheyhaveisolatedthegay
genethatmakesindividualshomosexual.Sincescience
ispartofnature,homosexualitymustbepartofGods
plan.
Whilehomosexualitycertainlyhasageneticcomponent,
theexistenceofagaygenehasnotbeenproven.Also,
genescreateonlypredisposition;ifoneidenticaltwinis
gay,theprobabilitythattheothertwinwillbegayisonly
52%.Geneticpre-dispositionstoalcoholismandpedophiliahavealsobeenfound,butsocietydoesnotaccept
theseconditionsasnormal.
Condemninghomosexualityassexoutsidemarriageand
therefore adultery is unfair because most denominations do not recognize same-sex unions. Were they to
doso,gayscouldenjoysexwithinlovingrelationships,
sanctiedbythechurch,justasheterosexualsdo.Jesus
mainteachingwasclear:LoveyourGodandloveyour
neighbor.Youcannotequatehomosexualbehaviorwith
adultery; the former causes pain and has a victim (the
betrayedpartner),thelattercanbeapurelylovingrelationship.
The Bible and Jesus strongly condemn sex outside of

marriage.AlthoughJesusspenttimeinthecompanyof
adulterers,helovedthesinner,notthesinandordered
themtoceasetheirbehavior.Hisresponsetohomosexualswouldhavebeenjustasunequivocal.
|111
PROS
CONS
Priests have a responsibility to represent the members

of their congregations. A large number of Christians
are gay, and they can receive better spiritual direction
fromgayministersthanfromheterosexualswhodonot
understandtheirlifestylesorrelationships.
Priests act as representatives of God for members of

theircongregation.Somepeopleopposewomenpriests
because,whilewomenarechildrenofGodandpartof
thechurch,theycannotrepresentJesusbecausehewas
male.The same applies to gays; they cannot represent
Jesusbecausehewasheterosexual.
Over the centuries, the church has revised its stand

onsocialissuesasitseekstoreinterpretandre-explain
Godsmessageofloveintermsofmodernsociety.The
acceptance of homosexuality and ordination of openly
gaypriestsisanecessarynextstep.
Thechurchisnotapoliticalinstitution,changingand
catering to the views of the electorate. It acts as the
curator of Gods word and maintains its principles no
matter how unfashionable. Christianity will survive in
anincreasinglysecularagebymaintainingaclear,consistentmessage.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesintheordinationofgayclergy.
ThisHousecallsforarepresentativeclergy.
WebLinks:
BeliefNet.<http://www.beliefnet.com>
Multi-faithsiteofferinginformationonvariousreligionsandonreligiousissues.
ReligiousTolerance.Org:TheBibleandHomosexuality.<http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm>
Summarizestheconservativeandliberalinterpretationsofbiblicalpassagesthatmightrelatetohomosexuality.
WhatDoestheBibleSayAboutSexualityandHomosexuality?<http://www.christianity.com/CC/article/
0,,PTID4211|CHID102753|CIID234127,00.html>
Articleonthetopicfromaconservativeperspective.
FurtherReading:
Didi,Herman.TheAntigayAgenda:OrthodoxVisionandtheChristianRight.UniversityofChicagoPress,1997.
Kader,Samuel.OpenlyGay,OpenlyChristian:HowtheBibleReallyIsGayFriendly.Leyland,1999.
Keith,Hartman.CongregationsinConict:TheBattleoverHomosexuality.RutgersUniversityPress,1996.
Siker,Jeffrey.HomosexualityintheChurch:BothSidesoftheDebate.WestminsterJohnKnox,1994.
GAYMARRIAGE
American society increasingly supports equal rights for gays and lesbians in areas such as housing, employment, and public accommodations. Yet national polls consistently show that public opinion does not support granting homosexuals the right to marry or to formally register their unions with the state. In 2000 Vermont became the rst state to grant gay and lesbian couples marriage-like status, but 30 states
have passed laws specically blocking recognition of same-sex unions. In contrast, the Netherlands passed a law permitting gay marriages
in 2000. After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage in November 2003, conservatives called for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. The courts February 2004 ruling that government could not deny
full marriage rights to gay couples and the decision of several local ofcials to issue marriage licenses to gays gave further impetus to the
conservative call. In May 2004 Massachusetts began issuing wedding licenses to gays.
PROS
CONS
Therefusalofgovernmentstopermitgaystomarryis While contemporary society should reject discriminaoneofthelastareasofdiscriminationagainstgays.The tion in general, some forms of discrimination can be
stateshouldpermitgaycouplestomarryasameansof objectivelyjustied.Societyhasalwaysviewedmarriage
PROS
CONS
professingtheirlovetoandforeachother.Societalviews as a heterosexual institution, the religious and/or civil

unionbetweenamanandawoman.
oughttochangewiththetimes.
Permittinggaycouplestomarrywouldenablethemto Manyofthenancialbenetsthatmarriedcouplesenjoy
takeadvantageofthevariousnancialbenetsaccorded arenotdesignedtoencouragemarriagepersebuttopromotetheconventionalfamily.
toheterosexualmarriedcouples.
We must modify religious attitudes to reect changes Historically marriage has been a religious institution.
insociety.Manyreligiousviewsarenolongerjustiable Becausemostmajorworldreligionsfrownonhomosex(e.g.,thenotionthatwomenareinferiortomen).Con- uality,theywouldndgaymarriageunacceptable.
versely, if religious institutions oppose gay marriage as
againsttheirbeliefs,theyshouldacceptcivilmarriages.
Marriageisnotmerelyaninstitutionforraisingchildren. Historicallysocietyhasviewedchildrearingasthemajor
Manymarriedcouplesdonothavechildren.Inaddition, purposeofmarriage.Becausegaycouplesareunlikelyto
thenumberofsingle-parentfamiliesisincreasing.Inany havechildren,theyhavenoneedformarriage.
case,manycountriespermitgaysinglesandcouplesto
adopt.Advancesinmedicalsciencealsoenablegaycouplestohavechildrenthrougharticialinseminationand
theuseofsurrogatemothers.
A registered union is an alternative to gay marriage.
However,thisarrangementisunacceptablebecausegay
couplesstillwouldnotenjoythesamerightsasmarried
heterosexualcouples.Moreover,registeringwouldimply
thatgaycoupleshadaninferiorstatustomarriedheterosexualcouples,thusleadingtodiscrimination.
Finland,Sweden,Denmark,Belgium,andSpainpermit
theregisteredunionofgaycouples.Registeredcouples
areentitledtojointinsurancecoverageandenjoyinheritanceandtenantsrights.Registrationmakesnoincursions into the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Consequentlyitshouldproveacceptabletothereligious
sectionsofsociety.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldallowgaycouplestomarry.
ThisHousewouldgivehomosexualsequalrights.
ThisHousebelievesthatdiscriminationcanneverbejustied.
WebLinks:
LegalGayMarriagesintheNetherlands.<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_922000/922024.stm>
BBCstoryontheDutchparliamentspassageofabillgivinggaymarriagethesamelegalstatusasheterosexualmarriage.
RainbowGuide.Com.<http://www.rainbowguide.com>
Offersnewsonavarietyofissuesofinteresttogaysandlesbians.
FurtherReading:
Lehr,Valerie.QueerFamilyValues:DebunkingtheMythoftheNuclearFamily.TempleUniversityPress,1999.
Lewis,Ellen.RecognizingOurselves:CeremoniesofLesbianandGayCommitment.ColumbiaUniversityPress,1998.
McNeill,JohnJ.Freedom,GloriousFreedom:TheSpiritualJourneytotheFullnessofLifeforGays,Lesbians,andEverybodyElse.Beacon,
1996.
Warner,Michael.TheTroublewithNormal:Sex,PoliticsandtheEthicsofQueerLife.HarvardUniversityPress,2000.
|113
GAYSINTHEMILITARY
In 1993 President Bill Clinton attempted to remove the long-standing ban on gays in the US military but was forced to compromise
in the face of powerful military and congressional opposition. The Clinton administration reached a compromise known as Dont Ask,
Dont Tell. While the ban remained, the compromise permitted gays to serve if they did not disclose their sexual orientation or engage in
homosexual behavior. The military was also prohibited from trying to discover the sexual orientation of its personnel. The United States is
the only NATO country to maintain such a ban. The United Kingdom had a ban until January 2000, when it changed its policy after
the European Court of Human Rights declared it illegal.
PROS
CONS
No one now can realistically doubt that gay men or

women are as hard working, intelligent, or patriotic
as heterosexuals. Only sheer bigotry would deny the
opportunitytojointhemilitary(andsufferitspervasive
homophobia)tothosewhowanttodoso.
This debate is about soldiers defending their country

whilesharingclosequarters.Theireffectivenessdepends
onmutualtrustanduncomplicatedcamaraderie.Sexual
relations or tension between soldiers, no matter the
gender,underminethisbond.
Muchoftheargumentagainsttheadmissionofgaysis
basedonhomophobia,whichisencouragedbycontinuedsegregation.Permittingstraightsoldierstoseehow
effectivegayscanbewillreduceprejudice.
Notallgayapplicantswillhaveavocationalcallingto
themilitary.Adisproportionatenumberofgays,lesbians,andbisexualsmayapplybecausethehighconcentration of individuals of one gender in military units
makes them a fruitful source of sexual partners. Using
the military for this purpose will provoke even more
homophobia.
Many other professions require a bond of trust and Themilitaryisaspecialcase.Itsmembersworkinlife-orintense living conditions among employees. Gays are deathsituationswhereanymentaldistractioncouldbe
notbarredfromanyofthem.
fatal.Menandwomenarentsentintocombattogether;
whyshouldgaysandheterosexualsbe?
Ifthearmedforcesacceptedgays,theywouldnothaveto Closetedhomosexualsruntheriskofblackmail,which
remaininthecloset,thusreducingtheriskofblackmail. couldhaveimplicationsfornationalsecurity.
Inanycasethisriskisdiminishingassocietyincreasingly
acceptshomosexuality.
Gaysandlesbiansfrequentlycometotermswiththeir
sexualityintheirlateteensorearlytwenties,whichmight
belongaftertheyhadenlisted.Abanwouldrequirethe
ringofpersonnelwhohadjoinedingoodfaith.Thisis
discriminationatitsworst.
Theproblemisnotsomuchtheconceptofabanbutthe
halfheartedenforcementofit.Ifabaniswellpublicized
andifpeopleunderstandthatencouragingsexualinterestamongmilitarypersonalisinappropriate,thengays
arenotbeingmisled.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldnotadmitgaysintothearmedforces.
ThisHousebelievesthatthemilitaryandsexualitydonotmix.
WebLinks:
TheBanonGaysintheMilitary:Links.<http://www.california.com/~rathbone/links001.htm>
LinkstohistoryofDontAsk,DontTellpolicy,articlesongaysinthemilitary,andresourcesforgays.
IssuesandControversies:GaysintheMilitary.<http://www.facts.com/icof/i00062.htm>
Offerscomprehensiveoverviewofissuefrom1992to1998.
FurtherReading:
Eidsmoe,John.GaysandGuns:TheCaseagainstHomosexualsintheMilitary.VitalIssuesPress,1993.
Halley,Janet.Dont:AReadersGuidetotheMilitarysAnti-GayPolicy.DukeUniversityPress,1999.
Herek,Gregory.OutinForce:SexualOrientationandtheMilitary.UniversityofChicagoPress,1996.
Wells-Petry,Melissa.Exclusion:HomosexualsandtheRighttoServe.RegneryPublishing,1993.
GENEPATENTING
The pioneering research of the Human Genome Project has given us the ability to isolate our genes. This has engendered hope that
scientists may be able to use genetic research to treat or cure disease. By the end of the twentieth century, the US Patent Ofce had
granted more than 1,500 patents on fragments of human DNA. The patents are not on DNA in its natural state, but on the process
of discovering and isolating certain strings of DNA, and on DNA developed in the laboratory. But legaland ethicalquestions arise
when commercial companies attempt to patent genetic research. Many people fear that these companies are coming close to patenting the
building blocks of life itself.
PROS
CONS
Companiesengagedingenomicresearcharelegallyenti- Genesaretheverybasisofhumanlife,andtoclaimthat
tled to patent genes, so why should they be prevented anyone has the right to be regarded as the owner of
fromdoingso?
aparticulargeneshowsabasicdisregardforhumanity.
Patentingtreatmentsbasedongeneticresearchismorallyacceptable,butpatentinggenesisnot.
Ifcompaniesarenotallowedtopatenttheproductsof
their research, other companies will exploit their ndings. Without the safeguards that a patent provides,
companies will end their research because they see no
futureprot.
Mostgeneticresearchisnotconductedbyprivatecompanies. The publicly funded Human Genome Project

has contributed, by far, the greater amount of knowledgeinthisarea.Patentingstiesresearch.Weneedto
banpatentinginordertoprotectthepublicinvestment
ingenomeresearch.
An inventor must be able to protect his or her invention.Privatecompanieswillcontinuegenomicresearch

becauseitpromisestobeextremelylucrative.Competitorswillbewillingtopayroyaltiestothepatentholder
for use of the material because they, too, can foresee
futureprot.
Factsdonotsupportthiscontention;theMyriadCompany, which holds patents on isolating BRCA 1 & 2,

genesconnectedwithbreastcancer,preventedtheUniversityofPennsylvaniafromusingatestforthesegenes
thatwassubstantiallycheaperthanthecompanysown
screening procedure. Companies are putting private
prot before public good. Instead of protecting their
research investment, companies have a moral duty to
facilitatethedevelopmentofinexpensivetreatmentsand
screeningprocedures.
Patents are granted for a limited time in the United

States, 17 years. Companies need this time to recoup
theirinvestments.Ifanothercompanywishestopursue
a project in a patented area, it can always consult the
patentowner.
Patenting discourages research because scientists fear

costly lawsuits by patent holders. Medical and biotech
patent holders frequently exploit their monopolies,
chargingwhattheylikefortheirdrugsandtreatments.
It was only after immense public protest, for example,
thatcompaniescutthepricesoftheirAIDSmedicines
forAfricancountries.
|115
PROs
CONS
Prothasprovedtobethemostpracticalmeansofpromoting medical advances. It is unrealistic and ill conceivedtocriticizeanincentivethathasbroughtussuch

benets.
The Human Genome Project makes its research readilyavailabletoensurethefreeowofinformationand

stimulatefurtherresearch.Theonlybarrierstogenetic
researchshouldbethoseofconscience.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldallowthepatentingofgenes.
ThisHousebelievesthatgenesareinventions.
WebLinks:
Celera.<http://www.celera.com/>
Biotechcompanysiteincludesstatementofitsmissioningenomicresearch.
TheNationalHumanGenomeResearchInstitute(US).<http://www.genome.gov/>
ExcellentsourceofresearchonallaspectsoftheHumanGenomeProject.
FurtherReading:
Matare,Herbert.Bioethic:TheEthicsofEvolutionandGeneticInterference.Bergin&Garvey,1999.
GENETICALLYMODIFIEDFOODS
The development of genetically modied (GM) foods has precipitated an ongoing debate among consumers, environmentalists, scientists, and even economists. On the one hand, genetic modication has improved crop characteristicsyield, resistance to disease, pests,
or drought, etc.and has contributed to global health. Recently, scientists announced the development of golden ricerice genetically
modied to produce greater levels of vitamin Awhich can help prevent a variety of diseases in developing countries. On the other hand,
the procedure has raised a number of concerns including the long-term risks to humans and the environment. Economists also point out
that because biotechnology companies often patent GM crop varieties, farmers will become increasingly dependent on monopolies for seed.
PROS
CONS
Geneticmodicationisunnatural.Thereisafundamentaldifferencebetweenmodicationviaselectivebreeding
andgeneticengineeringtechniques.Theformeroccurs
over thousands of years and so the genes are changed
muchmoregradually.Withchangeoccurringsorapidly,
wenowhavenotimetoassessthelong-termeffectsof
theseproductsonhumanhealthandtheenvironment.
Geneticmodicationisentirelynatural.Theprocessof
crop cultivation by selective breeding, which has been
performed by farmers for thousands of years, leads to
exactly the same kind of changes in DNA as modern
modication techniques do. Current techniques are
justfasterandmoreselective.Infact,giventwostrands
ofDNAcreatedfromthesameoriginalstrand,oneby
selective breeding and one by modern modication
techniques, it is impossible to tell which is the naturalstrand.Thechangesresultingfromselectivebreeding have been just as radical as current modications.
Wheat, for example, was cultivated through selective
breedingfromanalmostno-yieldrice-typecropintothe
super-cropitistoday.
PROs
CONS
IntroducingtheDNAofonespeciesintothegenesof Itisperfectlynaturalandsafetointroducegenesfrom
another is wrong. This attempt to play God is short- oneorganismintoanother.Wemustrememberthatall
DNA is made up of the same four fundamental molsightedandunnatural.
ecules regardless of which organism the DNA came
fromoriginally.DNAfromallorganismsisverysimilar.
HumanDNAis99%thesameaschimpanzeeDNAand
about50%thesameasgrassDNA.Consequently,the
additionofgenesfromoneorganismintotheDNAof
anotherislikeusingLEGOstocreateastructure.Indeed
such processes occur all the time in nature in sexual
reproduction.
TestingGMfoodisoftendifcult.Biotechnologycompanies are often unwilling to submit their results for
peerreview.Furthermore,insomecountriesgovernment
agenciesareoftenunwillingtostopGMfoodstuffsfrom
reaching the shelf because of the clout the companies
havewiththegovernment.
Thisdebateshouldbedecidedonthebasisofhardfacts,
not woolly assertions and environmental sentiment.
Until scientic tests show that GM food poses a risk
toagricultureorhealth,itshouldnotbebanned.GM
foodsundergoextensivetestingbeforetheyareplacedon
themarket.Thistestingtakestwoforms:peerreviewby
otherscientistsandtestingbythefoodstandardsagenciesinthecountriesinwhichtheproductistobemarketed. For example, in the United States all GM food
mustbetestedfornineyearsbeforebeingreleasedonto
themarket.
GMfoodsarepotentiallydangerous.Humanhealthisat
riskbecause,despiteextensivetesting,scientistscannot
anticipatealltheproblemsthatmightoccurwhenfood
is modied. This risk will increase as biotechnology
companies introduce more modications. GM foods
also present a danger to the environment. The use of
thesecropshasresultedinfewerstrainsplanted.Ifdisease wipes out a few these strains, the result could be
catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of
cropswipesouttheorganismsthatfeedonthem.Furthermore,pollenproducedfromGMcropscanaccidentally fertilize unmodied crops, polluting the natural
genepool.Thiscross-pollination,inturn,makeslabelingfoodsimpossible.Thusconsumerswillnotbeableto
choosewhethertopurchaseGMcrops.
ThefearsaboutGMfoodarearesultofmediascares
about frankenfood. Few deaths have been directly
attributed to genetic modication, and scientists are
takingallreasonableprecautionstoensuretheseproductsaresafe.Theneedformanydifferentstrainsisnot
anargumentagainstGMcrops.Scientistsandfarmers
cannotproduceandplantmanydifferentstrains.Furthermore, scientists have no evidence that cross-pollinationofGMwithnon-GMvarietiesisharmful
GM food will not help solve hunger in developing

countries.Theprobleminsuchcountriesisnotoneof
food production but of distribution (due to wars, for
example),theemphasisoncashcropsratherthanstaple
crops (to pay off the national debt), and deforestation
and desertication. In addition, many GM strains are
infertile,forcingfarmerstobuyseedannuallyfromcompaniesthatcanchargewhatevertheywantbecausethey
haveapatentonthestrain.
The possible benets from GM food are enormous.

Modicationsthatrenderplantslessvulnerabletopests
leadtolesspesticideuse,whichisbetterfortheenvironment. Other modications increase crop yield, which
leadstolowerfoodprices.Thistechnologyisparticularly
importantfordevelopingcountries;itcanhelpfarmers
growcropsinaridsoil.Moreimportant,itcanhelpprevent diseases as the introduction of golden rice has
shown.
|117
PROs
CONS
Yes,banningGMfoodwoulddecreaseconsumerchoice.
However,governmentshavetherightandobligationto
intervenetopreventharmtoboththepopulationand
the environment. Besides, the number of consumers
whoactuallywantGMfoodistiny.
BanningGMfoodresultsinfewerchoicesfortheconsumer.ScientistscanpreventcrossbreedingbetweenGM
andnon-GMplantssothatfoodscanbeproperlylabeled
andconsumersmaintaintheirfreedomofchoice.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbangeneticallymodiedfood.
ThisHousebelievesthatgeneticallymodiedfoodsarenotinthepublicinterest.
ThisHousewouldnoteatfrankenfood.
WebLinks:
GeneticallyModiedWorld:UnpalatableTruths.<http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/gmworld/gmfood/gmfood.html>
Site,sponsoredbyNewScientist,presentsinformationinoppositiontothecultivationandsaleofGMfoods.
ScopeForum.<http://scope.educ.washington.edu/gmfood/>
Curriculumsite,maintainedbytheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley,presentingtheprosandconsofGMfoodaswellaslinks
toothersources.
Shiva,Vandana.ReithLectureonPovertyandGlobalisation.<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm>
TranscriptofalectureontheimpactofgeneticallymodiedseedsonIndianfarmers.
FurtherReading:
Conway,Gordon,andVernonW.Ruttan.TheDoublyGreenRevolution:FoodforAllintheTwenty-FirstCentury.ComstockPublishing,1999.
Lappe,Marc,BrittBailey,andMareLappe.AgainsttheGrain:BiotechnologyandtheCorporateTakeoverofYourFood.LPC,1998.
Nottingham,Stephen.EatYourGenes:HowGeneticallyModiedFoodIsEnteringOurDiet.2nded.ZedBooks,2003.
Ticciati,Laura,andRobinTicciati.GeneticallyEngineeredFoods.McGraw-Hill/ContemporaryBooks,1999.
GENETICSCREENING
Francis Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 during his work on the genetic basis of intelligence. Literally meaning good breeding, the term referred to the restructuring of the characteristics of the human race through selective mating (and subsequent reproduction)
of the higher echelons of society. Some people, including Theodore Roosevelt, embraced the idea at the turn of the nineteenth century, but
it lost favor as a result of its association with Nazi Germany, which took the idea to its extreme. Today, as a result of advances in biotechnology, we can screen fetuses to determine their predisposition to certain congenital disorders. In 2000, a baby boy, Adam Nash, was born
after having been genetically screened as an embryo, from several embryos created by in vitro fertilization by his parents. They chose that
embryo because tests showed that it was genetically healthy and the baby would be able to act as a bone marrow donor for his sister, who
had a genetic disease. The case sparked heated moral debate.
PROS
CONS
Testingembryoniccellscanhelptoidentifypotentially
debilitating illnesses or inherited disorders. It can also
determinethesexofababy,allowingparentswhocarry
a sex-linked genetic disorder to have children without
passingonthedisordertotheirchildren.Itiseminently
Embryonic testing could become a slippery slope for

futureexploitationoftheprocess.Itmustnotdevelop
intothewidespreadabuseofscreeningtocreatedesigner
babieschosenforaestheticorotherqualitiesconsidered
desirable.Thisismorallywrong.
PROS
CONS
sensibletousethistechnologytoensurethatchildrenare
ashealthyaspossible.
We have a duty to give a child the best possible start
in life, and if the technology is available to determine
whetherababywillhaveageneticdiseasesuchasHuntingtonsweshoulduseit.Thisisnotacaseofengineeringachild.
Are we not presuming that those born with physical

or mental defects or genetic predispositions to certain
diseasesdonotenjoyaqualityoflifeashighandalife
as fruitful as those born without?To suggest that they
bebredoutofsocietyispresumptuousandabhorrent.
Moretothepoint,manydefectivegenesconferadvantages of a different nature, e.g., the sickle cell anemia
alleleprotectssomewhatagainstmalaria.
Whenanumberofembryosarecreatedthroughinvitro
fertilization,theembryosnotchosenafterscreeningmay
be offered up for adoption. Human life will not be
thrownaway,andchildlesscouplescanbenet.
The proposition holds sinister overtones of treating

embryoslikecommodities.Evenmoremorallydubious
is the idea of disposing of those embryos that do not
conformtotherequirementsofhealth.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldchooseitsbabies.
ThisHousewouldgeneticallyengineeritschildren.
ThisHousecallsformoregeneticscreening.
WebLinks:
Bioethics.<http://library.thinkquest.org/29322/mainpage1.htm>
Broadsiteonbioethics,offeringinformationonmedicaldevelopmentsandethicalproblems.
CenterforBioethics.<http://www.med.upenn.edu/~bioethic>
MaintainedbytheUniversityofPennsylvania,thesiteprovideslinkstoresourcesinbioethics.
FurtherReading:
Andrews,LoriB.FuturePerfect.ColumbiaUniversityPress,2001.
Chadwick,Ruth,DarrenShickle,andHenkTenHave.TheEthicsofGeneticScreening.Kluwer,1999.
Rothman,BarbaraKatz.TheBookofLife:APersonalGuidetoRace,NormalityandtheImplicationsoftheHumanGenomeProject.
Beacon,2001.
|119
GLOBALIZATIONANDTHEPOOR
Globalization is the process that spreads economic, political, social, and cultural activity across national boundaries and increases the integration of internationally dispersed activities. Foreign media often focus on the spread of American culture (characterized as fast food restaurants, Hollywood movies, etc.), but academic debates center around more fundamental economic issues. While globalization may have
beneted industrialized nations and transnational corporations (TNCs), has the trend eroded global and national solidarity and increased
the poverty and isolation of developing nations?
PROS
CONS
Globalization marginalizes the poor. It is a means of

exclusion, deepening inequality and reinforcing the
division of the world into core and periphery. It is a
new form of Western imperialism that dominates and
exploitsthroughTNCcapitalandglobalgovernanceby
institutions such as the World Bank and the InternationalMonetaryFund(IMF).
Globalizationiserodingthedifferencesbetweendeveloped and developing nations, sometimes called the

North-Southdivide.Itisaprogressiveforceforcreating
globalprosperity.Throughfreetradeandcapitalmobility, globalization is creating a global market in which
prosperity, wealth, power, and liberal democracy are
beingdiffusedaroundtheglobe.
Globalizationhasintensiedglobalandnationalinequality.Theeconomicandsocialgapswithincountriesand
betweencountriesarewidening,withtherichbecoming
richer and the poor becoming poorer. Globalization is
an uneven process causing world fragmentation.Trade
has also seen increasing inequality. Because of increasing globalization the value of world trade is 17 times
greaterthan50yearsago,butLatinAmericassharehas
fallenfrom11%to5%andAfricasfrom8%to2%.The
termsoftradehaveincreasinglymovedagainstdevelopingnations.
Globalizationhasincreasedworldprosperity,andorganizational efforts to stabilize the world economy have

shownsignicantprogress.Byhistoricalstandardsglobal
povertyhasfallenmoreinthelast50yearsthaninthe
previous 500, and the welfare of people in almost all
regionshasimprovedconsiderablyduringthepastfew
decades. Globalization will bring about the end of the
ThirdWorld.Thefallinthedevelopingnationsshare
ofworldtradeisduetointernaleconomic,social,and
politicalconditionsinindividualcountries.
Globalizationexploitsdevelopingnationsandtheirpoor GlobalizationpromotesdevelopmentbyspreadingtechthroughTNCs.Globalizationisaeuphemismfortrans- nology and knowledge to poor nations. The poorest

nationalization, the spread of powerful companies to nationsarethosecountriesbypassedbyglobalization.
areasthatbestsuitcorporateinterests.
Increasedglobalintegrationmeansthatpoorercountries
becomemorevulnerabletoworldnancialmarkets.The
EastAsianeconomiccrisisofthe1990s,adirectresult
ofglobalization,increasedandintensiedpoverty.The
crisisshowsthateventhestrongestdevelopingstatesare
at the mercy of global economic forces that serve the
interests of the dominant capitalist powers. Globalizationalsoresultedinthespeedytransitionofthecrisisto
theotherEastAsiancountriesthecontagioneffect
withdevastatinghumanconsequences.Thebenetsof
theglobalmarketaccruetoarelativelysmallproportion
oftheworldspopulation.Thestrongerbecomestronger
andtheweakbecomeweaker.
Globalization has brought about huge benets. The

emergenceofasingleglobalmarket,freetrade,capital
mobility,andglobalcompetitionhaspermittedthediffusion of prosperity, wealth, and power. Globalization
hasopenedupnewopportunitiesandistheharbingerof
modernizationanddevelopment.Itwastheforcethatled
tothesuccessfuldevelopmentofEastAsiaanditseconomic miracle. Far from making developing nations
morevulnerable,increasedglobalintegrationmeansthat
better organizational structures are in place to address
worldpolitical,economic,andsocialproblems.
PROS
CONS
Globalization is a form of disempowerment. Outside

interference from the World Bank and the IMF has
weakenedtheeconomiesofpoornationsandconstrained
development. International negotiations to reduce and
eliminateforeigndebthaveledtoincreasingexportsof
capitalanddeeperindebtednessindevelopingnations.
The policies of institutions such as the IMF and the

WorldBankhavereinforcedtheglobalmarket.Outside
intervention allows the dissemination of effective economicmanagementstrategiestolessdevelopedareas.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatglobalizationmarginalizesthepoor.
ThisHousebelievesthatglobalizationwillbringabouttheendoftheThirdWorld.
ThisHousebelievesthatglobalizationisaeuphemismfortransnationalization.
WebLinks:
GovernmentReport:MakingGlobalisationWorkforthePoor.<http://www.dd.gov.uk>
Britishgovernmentreportonglobalizationanddevelopingnations.
PovertyandGlobalisation.<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm>
PartoftheBBClectureseries,RespectfortheEarth.Lectureemphasizestheimpactofglobalizationonfoodproducers,particularlywomen.
FurtherReading:
Allen,Tim,andAlanThomas.PovertyandDevelopmentintothe21stCentury.OxfordUniversityPress,2000.
Dicken,Peter.GlobalShift:TransformingtheWorldEconomy.GuilfordPress,1998.
WorldBank.Enteringthe21stCentury:WorldDevelopmentReport1999/2000.WorldBank,2000.
GLOBALWARMING
Since the 1980s, a growing body of evidence has suggested that industrialization is affecting Earths climate. As a result, in 1997 the
industrialized nations of the world agreed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol has come under
attack from both sidesmany environmentalists feel that it does not really address the threat of global warming, while many in industry
feel it is an unnecessary burden. Although the United States signed the agreement, in 2001 President George W. Bush announced that
the United States would abandon its commitment to the protocol as it was not in the nations best economic interests. Global warming is a
particularly difcult issue because it demands a worldwide response. Many developing nations are understandably angered that a problem
that seems to have been created by the rich, developed nations will have the most impact on the Third World. A global consensus remains
far off.
PROS
CONS
Overthepast100years,humankindhasbeenburning
increasing quantities of fossil fuels to provide energy.
Thishasreleasedlargevolumesofgasesintotheatmosphere,particularlyCO2.Atthesametime,theworlds
remaining large forests, which help absorb CO2, are
beingrapidlyfelled.Overall,thelevelsofcarbondioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 30% during
Scientistshavenotyetprovedconclusivelythathumankindiscausingglobalwarming.Althoughaveragetemperatures rose during the twentieth century, temperatures actually dropped slightly between the 1930s and
the1970s.Thiswasnotassociatedwithareductionin
fossilfuelconsumption;emissionsactuallyincreasedover
thisperiod.Ifthegreenhousegasesareresponsiblefor
|121
PROS
CONS
the last century. When in the atmosphere, CO2 and

othergasesarethought to cause a greenhouse effect:
They allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat
emittedbytheEarth,trappingitandleadingtoglobal
warming.Weatherrecordsseemtosupportthistheory.
Averagetemperatureshaveincreasedby0.6Csincethe
nineteenth century; the four hottest years since accuraterecordshavebeenkepthaveallbeeninthe1990s.
Unusual weather patterns such as oods and droughts
have also been on the increase, with the uncharacteristically strong El Nio events of recent years causing
widespreaddisruption.TheIntergovernmentalPanelon
ClimateChange(IPCC),aninternationalbodysetupto
studypossibleglobalwarming,hasconcludedthat...
thebalanceofevidencesuggeststhatthereisadiscerniblehumaninuenceonglobalclimate.
globalwarming,howdoyouaccountforthis?Accurate
recordssimplydonotcoveralongenoughperiodtobe
useful.TheEarthsaveragetemperaturevariesnaturally
throughtime,andwehavefewgoodexplanationsofthe
IceAges.Indeed,therewasaminiIceAgearound400
years ago, during which the RiverThames in England
repeatedlyfrozeoverinwinter.Thiswasfollowedbyan
intensebutnaturalperiodofglobalwarming.Wedo
nothaveenoughinformationtosaythatcurrenttrends
arenotsimplyanaturalvariation.
Computermodelspredictthatcontinuedglobalwarmingcouldhavecatastrophiceffects.Changesintemperaturecoulddevastatewildlifewhenlocalvegetationdies
off. Patterns of disease could change. Already isolated
casesofmalariahavebeenreportedfarnorthoftraditionaldangerzonesaswarmerweatherallowsthemosquitoesthatcarrythediseasetospread.Mostimportant,
aportionofthepolaricecapsmightmeltandleadtoa
riseinsealevel,whichhasalreadyincreasedbybetween
10and25cminthelast100years.Giantcrackshave
beenfoundintheLarseniceshelfinAntarctica,which
suggestthatitisbreakingapart;asection48mileswide
and 22 miles long drifted free and melted as early as
1994.If,asexpertsbelieve,temperaturesriseafurther
3C over the next century, low-lying areas and even
entire countries, such as Bangladesh, could disappear
underthewaves.
Again, our computer models for predicting climate

changearefarfromreliable.Weatherisahugelycomplexsystemthatweareonlybeginningtounderstand.
It is affected by many factors, including solar activity,
volcaniceruptions,oceancurrents,andothercyclesthat
wearegraduallydiscovering.Veryslightchangesinthe
computermodelresultinimmensedifferencesinpredictions.Somescientists,forexample,havesuggestedthat
globalwarmingcouldactuallycauseadropinsealevelas
rainfallpatternsandoceancurrentsshift.Indeed,renementsinthemodelsusedbytheIPCChavecausedit
tomodifyitspredictions.In1990,theIPCCestimated
thatby2100theaveragetemperaturewouldriseby3C
andtheseawouldrisebyabout65cm;in1995,itrevised
itsestimatesto2Cand50cm.Themoreresearchthat
takesplace,thelesscatastrophicglobalwarmingseems
tobe.Themediaalwaysreportthepredictionsofdoom
mostwidely.
Technology has now reached the point where we can

continuetoincreasestandardsoflivingwithoutburning
fossilfuels.Renewablesourcesofenergy,suchaswind
or solar power, are ripe for development, but have yet
to see the levels of investment needed to make them
trulyeffective.Moreefcientuseofenergyisalsovital.
Encouragingthedevelopmentofelectriccarsorpromotingbetterinsulationofhousescouldmakeasubstantial
differenceinCO2levelsinthelongrun.
Ofcoursegreaterenergyefciencyisimportant.However,mostalternativefuelsaresimplynoteffective.They
canalsocausetheirownproblems.Nuclearpowercreatesunacceptableradioactivewaste;hydroelectricpower
projects,suchastheThreeGorgesdaminChina,lead
totheoodingofvastareasandthedestructionofthe
localenvironment;solarandwindpoweroftenrequire
thecoveringoflargeareasofnaturalbeautywithsolar
panelsorturbines.Environmentalistsoftenpaintanidealisticviewofrenewableenergythatisfarfromtheless
romanticreality.
Global warming is a worldwide catastrophe waiting to Theevidenceforglobalwarmingisnotstrongenough

happen.Theemissionofgreenhousegasesaffectsevery- tomeritthiskindofresponse.Thechangesoverthepast
one.Itis,therefore,vitalthattheentireworldrespond centurymaycertainlyhavebeenpurelynatural.Environ-
PROS
CONS
now.The targets set by the Kyoto Protocol will barely

scratchthesurfaceoftheproblem.Thedevelopedworld
agreed to only minimal reductions in carbon dioxide
emissions,andnoagreementwasreachedinvolvingthe
developingworld,whichisproducingagreaterpercentage of greenhouse gas emissions every year. Gases like
CO2remainintheatmosphereforcenturies.Ifwewait
untilwecanseetheresultsofglobalwarming,itmaybe
toolate.Thedamagewillhavebeendone.Wemustact
now,andwemustactglobally.Developedcountriesmust
doalltheycantoreducetheiruseoffossilfuels.They
mustassistdevelopingnationstodothesame,bysharingtechnologyorperhapsthroughemissionstrading,
allowingpoorercountriestoselltheirquotaofpollution
inreturnforhardcash.Internationalpressuremustbe
exerted against those countries that do not cooperate,
evenifthisslowseconomicgrowth.Thepoorestregions
oftheworldwouldsuffermostfrommoredroughtsand
oodsandrisingsealevels.Howeverdifcultitmaybe
intheshortterm,suchactionsnowmaysavemillionsof
livesinthefuture.
mentalistsinthedevelopedworldcanaffordtheluxury
ofdemandinggovernmentactionbecausereducingpollutionwillhaveaminimalimpactontheirtechnologybasedeconomies.Thoseinthedevelopingworldarenot
solucky.Industrializationisakeypartofbuildingsuccessfuleconomiesandbringingprosperitytotheworlds
poorestpeople;heavyindustryisoftentheonlyareain
which developing nations can compete. Global action
ongreenhousegasemissionswouldsustaintheinequalitiesofthestatusquo.Thedevelopingworldwouldhave
todependonmultinationalcorporationstoprovidethe
technologyneededtokeeppollutionlevelslow,orelse
they would have to stop expanding their economies.
Having apparently caused the problem through the
industrialization that made them powerful, developed
countrieswouldbepullingtheladderupbehindthem,
deprivingothercountriesofthechancetogrow.Thisis
simplyunacceptable.Inthemodernworld,oneofour
rstprioritiesmustbetohelpthepoorestpeopleachieve
theprosperitytheyneedtosupportthemselves.Thecurrentevidenceforglobalwarmingdoesnotbegintomerit
endangeringthisgoal.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatKyotodidntgofarenough.
ThisHousecallsforurgentactiononglobalwarming.
ThisHousefearsaglobalgreenhouse.
ThisHousebelievesthatglobalwarmingdemandsglobalaction.
WebLinks:
GlobalWarmingCentral.<http://www.law.pace.edu/env/energy/globalwarming.html>
SitemaintainedbyPaceUniversitySchoolofLawofferscurrentnews,documents,andresourcesonglobalwarming.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.<http://www.ipcc.ch>
Offersreportsassessingscientic,technical,andsocioeconomicinformationrelatedtohuman-inducedclimatechange.
KyotoProtocol.<http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/>
FulltextoftheKyotoProtocol.
WorldMeteorologicalOrganization.<http://www.wmo.ch>
UNorganizationprovidesinformationonmeteorologicalissuesaswellasastatementonthestatusoftheglobalclimate.
FurtherReading:
Drake,Frances.GlobalWarming:TheScienceofClimateChange.EdwardArnold,2000.
Gelbspan,Ross.TheHeatIsOn:TheClimateCrisis,theCoverUp,thePrescription.Perseus,1998.
Houghton,John.GlobalWarming:TheCompleteBrieng.CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.
|123
GOD,EXISTENCEOF
This is the Big question, the ultimate metaphysical debate. It has occupied the worlds best minds for centuries. Followers of many religions have offered proofs of the existence of God. Below are arguments from within the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions.
PROS
CONS
The world is so magnicent and wonderful, so full of

varietyandbeautythatitisinconceivablethatitcould
havecomeaboutpurelybychance.Itissointricatethata
conscioushandmusthavebeeninvolvedinitscreation.
Therefore,Godexistsasthecreatoroftheworld.
You cannot infer from the variety and beauty of the

worldthatGodwasthecreator.TheconceptionofGod
containsmanyextraattributesthatarenotnecessaryfor
aworldcreator.Justbecausetheworldisbeautifuland
varieddoesnotmeanitwasconsciouslydesigned.Why
cantbeautyhappenbyaccident?
Ifyousawawatchlyingonthesand,youwouldthink
that someone must have made the watcha watchmaker. Similarly, we human beings are so complicated
andamazingthatwemustconcludethatwehadaconsciousmaker.
Thedifferencebetweenawatchandhumansisthatthe
watchservesapurposetotelltime.Therefore,seeing
somethingsoperfectlyservingapurposesuggestsdesign.
Whatpurposedoweserve?Wedont,wejustexist.And
evenifweweredesignedforapurpose,theearlierargument applies: A purposeful designer isnt necessarily
God.
Onlyhumanbeingsarecapableofrationalthought.That Theargumentfromprobabilitydoesnotwork.Itrelies
wearehereatallisamazing.Oneinnitesimalchange ontherebeingsomethingspecialaboutus.Whatisso
intheworldandlifewouldnothaveevolved.Getting specialaboutus?Wearerationalsowhat?
something so amazing, on such long odds, smacks of
intention.
Godmustbeperfectifheexists.Butathingthatexistsis Thisontologicalargumentcanberebuttedbyrejecting
moreperfectthanathingthatdoesntexist.Butnothing theideathatexistenceisaperfection.Somethingeither
canbemoreperfectthanGod.SoGodmustexist.
existsoritdoesnt.Theargumentisadisguisedconditional.YousayifGodexiststhenhemustbeperfect,
andifhemustbeperfecthemustthereforeexist.But
allthisrestsontheinitialifGodexists.IfGoddoesnt
exist, we dont have the problem and the argument
doesntwork.
Everythingintheuniversehasacause.Itisinconceivable
thattimeisonelongchainofcauseandeffectwithout
beginning,butitmustbebecausewecannotconceiveof
something happening uncaused.Therefore, God exists
astheuncausedrstcause.
Thecosmologicalargumentdoesntwork.Forastart,an
uncausedrstcausestilldoesntnecessarilyhaveallthe
attributesitwouldneedtobecalledGod,e.g.,omnipotence,benevolence,andomniscience.Moreimportant,
anuncausedrstcauseisjustasincomprehensibletous
asanendlesschainofcauseandeffect.Youarejustshiftingtheincomprehensiononestageback.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatGodexists.
ThisHousebelievesthatreportsofGodsdeathhavebeengreatlyexaggerated.
WebLinks:
Counterbalance.<http://www.counterbalance.com>
ContainssummaryofdebateabouttheexistenceofGodfromthecosmologicalstandpoint.
TheExistenceofGodandtheBeginningoftheUniverse.<http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html>
AnacademicpaperemployingthecosmologicalargumentfortheexistenceofGod.
FirstThings:TheJournalofReligionandPublicLife.
<http://switch2.netrics.com/cgi-bin/likeit.cgi>
LinkstoarticlesfromthejournaldealingwithvariousargumentsontheexistenceofGod.
NewAdvent.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm>
DetailedessayonaRomanCatholicWebsite,outliningthevariousproofsfortheexistenceofGod.
FurtherReading:
Hume,David.DialoguesConcerningNaturalReligion.Newed.Routledge,1991.
Yandell,Keith.PhilosophyofReligion:AContemporaryIntroduction.Routledge,1999.
GREENHOUSEGASES:TRADINGQUOTAS
A number of methods have been proposed to reduce the emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. The
European Union has always favored taxing heavy polluters, while the United States has supported Tradable Pollution Quotas (TPQs).
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol laid the foundation for TPQs. Under this agreement developing countries are exempt from the emission
standards and cannot take part directly in pollution trading. Each country in the TPQ plan is initially permitted to produce a certain
maximum amount of each polluting gas. Countries that want to exceed their quotas can buy the right to do so from other countries that
have produced less than their quota. Furthermore, countries can also sink carbon (by planting forests to remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere) to offset some of their pollution quotas. Interestingly, two usually opposing groups are against TPQs. Industries claim that
they go too far and that such stringent regulation is unnecessary. Environmentalists maintain that they are too lax.
PROS
CONS
Thescienticcommunityagreesthatsomethingmustbe
donetocurbemissionsofgreenhousegasesthatmaybe
thecauseofglobalwarming.Thepossibleconsequences
of global warming include crop failure, mass ooding,
andthedestructionofentire ecosystems with the possiblelossofbillionsoflives.Otherconsequencesofpollutionincludeacidrainandtheenlargementofthehole
intheozonelayer.
Theenvironmentallobbyhashugelyoverestimatedthe
claims for pollution damaging the environment. The
fossilrecordindicatesthatclimatechangehasoccurred
frequentlyinthepast,andthereislittleevidencelinking
climatechangewithemissions.
TheTPQplanistheonlypracticalwaytoreduceemissionsofgreenhousegasesglobally.Itwillguaranteethat
globallevelsofthesegasesarekeptbelowstricttargets
and is more realistic than expecting heavy polluters to
cuttheiremissionsovernight.
TheTPQplanensuresmorepollutioninthelongrun
thaniflimitswerestrictlyenforcedforeachcountryand
punitivetaxesimposedonthoseexceedingtheirquotas.
WithoutTPQs,theenvironmentwouldbenetfurther
ifacountrykeptwellbelowitsemissionsquota.AdoptingtheTPQplanmeansthatthisbenetislostbecause
the right to this extra pollution is bought by another
country.
Emissionsareaglobalproblem.Theemissionofthemain Statingthatitdoesnotmatterwherepollutionisprogreenhousegas,carbondioxide,forexample,affectsthe ducedissimplisticandcompletelyuntrueformanygases,

entire planet regardless of where the gas is produced. whichdoaffecttheregioninwhichtheyarecreated.Fur-
|125
PROS
CONS
ThisvalidatestheuseofTPQs,whichacttolimitthe
total amount of each polluting gas globally.TPQs are
muchmoreeffectivethanthealternativeoftaxingemissions,becauserichcompaniesorcountrieswillbeableto
paythetaxandstillpollute.
thermore,topermitdevelopingcountriestoindustrialize, they have been exempted from the protocol.This

seriouslyunderminesitsefciency.Furthermore,iftaxes
onpollutionweresethighenough,bigcompanieswould
stoppollutingbecauseitwouldbeprohibitivelyexpensive. In addition, the introduction ofTPQs will make
laterreductionsinglobalemissionsmuchharder.Once
tradinginTPQshasstarted,countriesthathavebought
extraemissionrightswouldcertainlynotvoluntarilygive
themuptohelpreduceglobalemissionsfurther.
TPQsaretriedandtested.TheUnitedStateshasused
them successfully since they were introduced in 1990.
Therefore,wehavegoodreasontoexpectthemtosucceedonaglobalscale.
TPQshavehadsomesuccessintheUnitedStates,but
theyfailedinEuropefortworeasons.First,theEuropean
planswerepoorlyconceived,aswastheKyotoProtocol.
Second,whereastheAmericansolutiontopollutionwas
always trading emissions, the main European solution
was,andstillis,toproducenewtechnologytocleanthe
emissions.ExtendingtheTPQplantotheentireglobe
will slow the technological developments needed to
reducegreenhousegases.
Progress in the eld of emission control is remarkably

difcult because of the opposition from the industrial
lobby, most notably in the United States, which sees
such restrictions as harmful to its economy.TPQs are
the one method of control acceptable to these lobby
groupsand,moresignicant,totheUSgovernment.As
theworldsbiggestpolluter, the United States must be
includedinanymeaningfultreaty.Therefore,TPQsare
theonlypracticalwayforward.
TheKyotoProtocollacksacomprehensiveenforcement
mechanism and is thus ineffective. In addition, assessingtheeffectthatanindividualcountryscarbonsink
ishavingontheatmosphereisimpossible.Thismerely
createsaloopholethatallowsacountrytoabusetheprotocolandproducemorethanitsquotaofgases.
TPQscauselessdamagetoaneconomythananyother
emission control regime. Individual companies and
countriescantradeTPQsonthefreemarketuntilthey
havestrucktherightbalancebetweenthecostofpaying
topolluteandthecostofcleaninguptheirindustry.
TPQswillhitemploymenthard.Evendevelopedcountries are not so rich that they can simply buy enough
quotas to avoid pollution; neither can they afford to
install the expensive cleaning technology. Growth will
consequentlydeclineandwiththatdeclinewillcomea
dropinlivingstandardsindevelopedcountries.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbuytherighttopollute.
ThisHousesupportstradablepollutionquotas.
ThisHousebelievesthatKyotogotitright.
WebLinks:
TheCleaner,GreenerProgram:EmissionsTrading101.<http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/environment/introduction.htm>
Introductiontoemissionstrading.
GreenhouseGasEmissionsTradingAfterKyoto:InsightsfromUNCTADsResearch&DevelopmentProject.<http://www.
ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/unctad.htm.
Examinationoftheprincipallegal,institutional,andorganizationalissuesinvolvedinaninternationalgreenhousegastrading
system.
FurtherReading:
Grubb,Michaeletal.KyotoProtocol:AGuideandAssessment.RoyalInstituteofInternationalAffairs,1999.
Victor,DavidG.TheCollapseoftheKyotoProtocolandtheStruggletoSlowGlobalWarming.PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.
GUNCONTROL
The issue of gun control has divided American society for years. Supporters insist that tighter measures are needed to curb crime and
to prevent tragedies like the recent wave of school massacres where students used guns to kill other students and teachers. Opponents
insist that they have the constitutional right to carry guns, and that people, not guns, cause crime. Long considered a uniquely American
problem, gun control has become an issue in many European nations as a result of incidents including the school massacre in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002.
PROS
CONS
Theonlyfunctionofagunistokill.Themoreinstru- Prohibitionisnottheanswer.Banninggunswouldnot
mentsofdeathandinjuryweremovefromoursociety, makethemdisappearormakethemanylessdangerous.
thesaferwewillbe.
Citizenshavetherighttoownweaponstoprotectthemselves, their families, and their property. Many people
alsoneedgunsforotherreasons;farmers,forexample,
needthemtoprotecttheirstockandcrops.
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens Guns dont kill people; people kill people. Restricting
inevitablyleadstomanyunnecessaryandtragicdeaths. gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer.
Legallyheldgunsendupinthehandsofcriminals,who Mostcrimesinvolveillegalweapons.
would have greater difculty in obtaining weapons if
theywerelessprevalent.Gunsalsoendupinthehands
ofchildren,leadingtotragicaccidentsandterribledisastersliketheColumbinemassacre.
Shootingasasportdesensitizespeopletothelethalnature
ofallrearms,creatingagunculturethatglamorizesand
legitimizes unnecessary gun ownership. The minority
whoenjoybloodsportsshouldnotbeallowedtoblock
theinterestsofsocietyasawholeinguncontrol.
Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people. Sportsmen have the right to continue their
chosen leisure activity. Spending on guns and ancillary
equipment puts large sums into the economy. Hunters
alsoputfoodonthetable.
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings.

Noamountofpropertyisworthahumanlife.Keeping
rearmsinthehomeforprotectionleadstoaccidental
deaths. And, perversely, criminals may be more likely
tocarryweaponsiftheythinktheyareindangerfrom
homeowners.
Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their

familiesintheirownhomes.Would-berapistsandarmed
burglarswillthinktwicebeforeattemptingtobreakinto
ahousewhereownersmaykeeprearms.
Thereisacorrelationbetweentheleniencyofacountrys Acountryismoreabletodefenditselfifmanyofitscitigunlawsanditssuicideratenotbecausegunowners zensareprocientwithrearms.Somecountriesrequire

aredepressive,butbecausethemeansofquickandeffec- adultcitizenstomaintainweaponsandperiodicallytrain
|127
PROS
CONS
tivesuicideisathand.Thestateshoulddiscourageand in their use. Of course, such widespread ownership of

restricttheownershipofsomethingthatwastessomany weaponsisalsoasafeguardagainstdomestictyranny.
lives.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousecallsforstrictercontrolsongunownership.
ThisHousebelievesthereisnorighttobeararms.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU):GunControl.<http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html>
ArticleexplainingtheACLUsstandonguncontrol.
GuidetoGunLaws,GunControlandGunRights.<http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/gunlaw.htm>
Thesite,maintainedbytheLegalEducationNetwork,offersresourcesonallsidesoftheguncontroldebate.
Hodgdon.<http://www.hodgdon.com/liberty/gcn.htm>
SiteoutlinesacampaignforstricterguncontrolintheUnitedKingdom.
NationalRieAssociationofAmerica.<http://www.nra.org/>
Americasmostpowerfulpro-gunlobbyoffersinformationoncampaignstolimitguncontrol.
FurtherReading:
Bruce,JohnM.,andClydeWilcox,eds.TheChangingPoliticsofGunControl.RowmanandLittleeld,1998.
HATESPEECHONCAMPUS
Over the past few decades, a number of American colleges have reported incidents of verbal abuse and hate speech directed against minorities and homosexuals on their campuses. In response, many schools have adopted codes prohibiting speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic,
or offensive to religious groups.
PROS
CONS
Therightsweenjoycomewithresponsibilities.Minoritieshavearighttobefreefromverbalabuseandfear.
If such rights are not informally respected, the college
administration has the right and obligation to adopt
codesprohibitingoffensivespeech.
Free speech is one of our basic rights and should be

upheld at all costs. College administrations may abuse
these speech codes, using them to silence those whom
they consider disruptive. Upholding the right to hate
speech will protect the free speech of everyone. Collegesshouldoutlawhatecrimes,nothatespeech.While
wemayabhorsuchviews,itwouldbewrongtocensor
them.
Theconstantrepetitionofhatespeechpromotesoffensive racial stereotypes. If children and youths grow up

without hearing such views, they will mature without
thebigotedattitudesengenderedbyconstantlyhearing
hatespeech.
Stereotyping is a result of the underrepresentation of

minorities among students, faculty, and administrators
onmostcampuses.Universityauthoritiesshouldrecruit
moremembersoftheseminorities.
Adoptingaspeechcodesendsastrongmessage.Itshows Codes can often lead to resentment that can cause a

minoritiesthattheauthoritiessupportthemand,thus, backlashagainstminorities.
PROS
CONS
will help in minority recruitment. It also shows bigots

thattheirviewswillnotbetoleratedandhelpsmarginalizeandpunishthem.
Minoritystudentscannotlearninanenvironmentoffear Ensuringfreedomofspeechisespeciallycriticalinuniandhatred.Ifallstudentsaretoachievetheirpotential, versities.The needs of education are served best in an
theymustbeallowedtoworkwithoutharassment.
environmentinwhichfreethoughtandfreeexpression
areactivelyencouraged.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldcensorhatespeechoncampus.
ThisHousemaynotagreewithwhatyousay,butwilldefendtothedeathyourrighttosayit.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU):HateSpeechonCampus.<http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp16.html>
SectionofthebroadACLUWebsiteexplainingitsstandonhatespeechoncampus.
FurtherReading:
Fiss,Owen.TheIronyofFreeSpeech.HarvardUniversityPress,1996.
Heumann,Milton,ThomasW.Church,andDavidP.Redlawsk.HateSpeechOnCampus:Cases,CaseStudies,andCommentary.
NortheasternUniversityPress,1997.
Shiell,Timothy.CampusHateSpeechOnTrial.UniversityPressofKansas,1998.
HEALTHCARE,UNIVERSAL
The provision of health care to the citizens of the United States has been a contentious issue for decades. Currently, some people are covered under government health plans through programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP (Childrens Health Insurance Program).
But more than 40 million people in the United States do not have health insurance. The health statistics for the uninsured are far worse
than the statistics for those with insurance. Almost every industrialized country has a system of universal health care. These systems are
single-payer programs: The government is the single payer for health care services. Citizens of those countries pay for their own health
insurance, but they do not pay as much as we do in the United States. The cost of insurance is income-sensitive, so you pay more if your
income is higher. Some believe that the United States should move to a system of universal health care so all our citizens can have access
to quality medical care. Others say there are better ways to x the system.
PROS
CONS
Withuniversalhealthcare,peopleareabletoseekpreventivetreatment.Forexample,inarecentstudy70%
ofwomenwithhealthinsuranceknewtheircholesterol
level while only 50% of uninsured women did. Ultimately,peoplewhodonotgetpreventivehealthcarewill
getcareonlywhentheirdiseasesandillnessesaremore
advancedandtheircarewillcostmore.
Universalhealthcarewillcausepeopletousethehealth
caresystemmore.Iftheyarecovered,theywillgotothe
doctorwhentheydonotreallyneedtoandwillbecome
heavierusersofthesystem.Asseeninothercountries,
this heavier utilization results in delays and ultimately
therationingofcare.
|129
PROS
CONS
Health insurance premiums are very high. Even

employer-subsidized programs are expensive for many
Americans. These plans often have high co-payments
ordeductibles.Forthosewithoutinsurance,arelatively
minor illness can be nancially ruinous. Incremental
plans like the ones currently in existence, which cover
onlyindividualswhomeetcertainageorincomecriteria,
willneverprovidetrueuniversalcoverage.EventheChildrensHealthInsuranceProgram,whichwasintendedto
extend health insurance benets to more children, has
notbeenabletomeettheneedsofournationschildren.
SinceCHIPwasenacted,thenumberofuninsuredchildrenhasincreased.
Manyprogramsarealreadyavailablewherepeoplecan
getcare.Manyemployersofferhealthinsuranceplans.
Health insurance plans can be purchased by individuals with no need to rely on an employer. Low-income
individualsqualifyforMedicaidandseniorsqualifyfor
Medicare.EligiblechildrenbenetfromtheChildrens
HealthInsuranceProgram.Healthinsuranceisanecessityand,likeothernecessities,peoplemustpayfortheir
fairshareandnotexpectthegovernmenttoprovidefor
them.
Thecurrentsystemofhealthmaintenanceorganizations
(HMOs) has destroyed the doctor-patient relationship
andpatientchoiceofhealthcareproviders.Patientsnd
thattheirdoctorsarenotontheirnewplanandareforced
toleavedoctorswithwhomtheyhaveestablishedatrustingrelationship.Also,patientsmustgetapprovaltosee
specialists and then are permitted to see only selected
doctors.Doctorsusuallycantspendenoughtimewith
patientsintheHMO-controlledenvironment.Patients
wouldhavemanymorechoicesinauniversalhealthcare
system.TheHMOsthatputprotsbeforepeoplewould
becomeobsolete.
Withgovernmentcontrolofhealthcare,ceilingsoncosts
willbeplacedandmanydoctorswillnotberewardedfor
their long hours and important roles in our lives.The
roadtobecomingadoctorislongandhard;withoutthe
monetary rewards in place, good people will not enter
theeldofmedicine.Currentdoctorsmayndthatthey
donotwanttocontinuetheircareersinagovernmentcontrolled market.The American Medical Association
doesnotendorseagovernment-controlled,single-payer
universalhealthcaresystem.
TheUnitedStatesasawholespends14%ofGDPon
healthcare.Thisincludestheamountspentbythefederal government, state governments, insurance companies,andprivatecitizens.Manystudieshaveshownthat
asingle-payersystemwouldcutcostsenoughtoenable
everyone in the United States to have access to health
care without the nation spending any more than currently.Medicare,agovernment-administeredhealthcare
program,hasadministrativecostsoflessthan2%ofits
totalbudget.
The US government cannot afford to fund universal

health care. Other universal social welfare policies like
Social Security and Medicare have encountered major
problems with funding. We should not add another
huge government-funded social program. The nations
thatprovideuniversalhealthcarecoveragespendasubstantialamountoftheirGDPontheservice.
Inthecurrentsystemtheemployeeandtheemployees
family often depend on the employer for affordable
healthinsurance.Iftheemployeeloseshisorherjob,
the cost to get new health insurance can be high and
is often unaffordable. Even with the current federal
lawsrelatedtotransportabilityofhealthinsurance,the
coststotheemployeearetoohigh.Withasinglepayer,
universalhealthcaresystem,healthinsurancewouldno
longerbetiedtotheemployerandemployeeswouldnot
havetoconsiderhealthinsuranceasareasontostaywith
agivenemployer.
Thecurrentsystemofofferinggroupinsurancethrough
employers covers many Americans with good quality
healthinsurance.Thegroupplanconceptenablesinsurancecompaniestoinsurepeoplewhoarehighriskand
lowriskbymixingthemintothesamepool.Theissues
of transportability of coverage are covered by federal
lawsthatmandatethatemployersmustcontinuetooffer
health insurance to qualied employees for at least 18
monthsaftertheemployeeleavesthecompany.These
laws give employees time to nd new insurance or to
ndanewjobiftheyleaveorlosetheirjob.Theselaws
mandatethatformeremployeeswillnothavetopaysub-
PROS
CONS
stantiallymoreforhealthinsurancethanemployeeswho
continueemployment.
Universalhealthcarewouldreducetheburdenonhuman
resourcespersonnelincompanies.Currently,theymust
comply with many federal laws related to provision of
healthinsurance.Withasingle-payersystem,theseregulations would not apply and the costs of compliance
wouldbeeliminated.
Human resources professionals will still be needed to

complywiththemanyotherpersonnelregulationsmandated by the federal government. Instead of employeesbeingabletoexercisecontrolovertheirhealthcare
choicesandworkwithpeopleintheircompany,patients
willbeforcedtodealwiththenameless,facelessmembersofthegovernmentbureaucracy.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldadoptauniversalhealthcaresystem.
ThisHousebelievesthatuniversalhealthcareismoreimportantthannancialconcerns.
ThisHousebelievesthatitisimmoralthatUScitizensdonothaveequalaccesstohealthcare.
WebLinks:
AmericanMedicalAssociation.<http://www.ama-assn.org/>
TheAmericanMedicalAssociation(AMA)wasfoundedmorethan150yearsagotoadvocateforphysicians.TheAMAcontributestopolicymakingthroughlobbyingandbyprovidinginformationtopolicymakersandthepublic.ThissitehasasearchfeaturethatcanbeusedtondinformationontheAMAspositiononuniversalhealthcare.
KaiserFamilyFoundationCommissiononMedicaidandtheUninsured.<http://www.2kff.org/docs/links/>
Thissiteoffersmanyarticleswithvariedperspectivesontheissueofhealthinsuranceandtheuninsured.Thefoundationisan
independentvoiceandsourceoffactsandanalysisforpolicymakers,themedia,thehealthcarecommunity,andthegeneral
public.
The100%Campaign.<http://www.100percentcampaign.org/>
Thissiteisforthe100%CampaigninCalifornia.Thegoalofthecampaignistohave100%ofthestateschildrenenrolledin
sometypeofhealthcoverage.Itoffersinformationaboutwhyhealthinsuranceissoimportantforchildren.
FurtherReading:
Anders,George.HealthAgainstWealth:HMOsandtheBreakdownofMedicalTrust.HoughtonMifin,1996.
Churchill,LarryR.Self-InterestandUniversalHealthCare:WhyWell-InsuredAmericansShouldSupportCoverageforEveryone.HarvardUniversityPress,1994.
Woolhandler,Stefe,andDavidHimmelstein,M.D.BleedingthePatient:TheConsequencesofCorporateHealthcare.CommonCouragePress,2001.
|131
HUMANCLONING
The cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997 generated worldwide reaction. The United States imposed a moratorium on human cloning
and a ban on federal funding for cloning research, which will be reviewed every ve years. Congress has rejected bills making human cloning lawful as well as those demanding its prohibition. The opposition of international organizations to human cloning is clear. The European Parliament, the Council of Europe, UNESCO, and the World Health Organization (WHO) have passed resolutions asserting
that human cloning is both morally and legally wrong.
PROS
CONS
Thetechnologyisunsafe.Thenucleartransfertechnique Cloning is no different from any other new medical

thatproducedDollyrequired277embryos,fromwhich technology.Researchisrequiredonembryostoquantify
only one healthy and viable sheep was produced.The andreducetheriskoftheprocedures.
otherfetuseswerehideouslydeformed,andeitherdied
orwereaborted.Moreover,wedonotknowthelongtermconsequencesofcloning.
CloningisplayingGod.Itisnotmerelyinterventionin
thebodysnaturalprocesses,butthecreationofanew
and wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction.
Philosophersandclericsofmanyfaithsopposehuman
cloning.Theycautionthatthefailuretoproducescientic reasons against the technology does not mean we
shoulddenyourstronginstinctiverevulsion.
ThisargumentassumesthatweknowGodsintentions.
Moreover, every time a doctor performs lifesaving surgeryoradministersdrugsheischangingthedestinyof
the patient and could be seen as usurping the role of
God.Furthermore,weshouldbeverywaryofbanning
somethingwithoutbeingabletosaywhyitiswrong.
Reproductive cloning injures the family. Single people

willbeabletoproduceoffspringwithoutapartner.Once
born, the child will be denied the love of one parent,
mostprobablythefather.Severaltheologianshaverecognizedthatachildisasymbolicexpressionofthemutual
loveofitsparentsandtheirhopeforthefuture.Thissign
ofloveislostwhenachildslifebeginsinalaboratory.
This argument is wholly unsuited to the modern age.

Society freely allows single people to reproduce sexually. Existing practices such as sperm donation allow
procreation without knowledge of the identity of the
father.Surelyamotherwouldprefertoknowthegenetic
heritageofherchildratherthanacceptspermfroman
unknownandrandomdonor?Itmightbebetterforthe
childtobebornintoahappyrelationship,butthehigh
ratesofsingleparenthoodanddivorcesuggestthatthis
isnotalwayspossible.
Many churches and secular organizations, including Whenpeopleresorttotalkinginemptyabstractterms

WHO,viewreproductivecloningascontrarytohuman abouthumandignityyoucanbesurethattheyhaveno
dignity.
evidenceorargumentstobackuptheirposition.Whyis
sexualintercoursetobeconsideredanymoredignied
thanareasoneddecisionbyanadulttousemodernsciencetohaveachild?
Cloningwillleadtoeugenics.Whenpeopleareableto
clonethemselvestheywillbeabletochoosethekindof
person to be born.This seems uncomfortably close to
theNaziconceptofbreedingaraceofAryansuperhumans,whileeliminatingthoseindividualswhosecharacteristicstheyconsideredundesirable.
Eugenics is much more likely to arise with developmentsingenetherapyandgenetictestingandscreening

than in human cloning. Clones (people with identical
genes)wouldbynomeansbeidenticalineveryrespect.
Youneedonlytolookatidenticaltwins(whosharethe
samegenes)toseehowwrongthatassumptionis,and
howdifferentthepersonalities,preferences,andskillsof
peoplewithidenticalgenescanbe.
PROS
CONS
Cloningwillleadtoadiminishedsenseofidentityand
individuality for the resultant child. Instead of being
consideredasauniqueindividual,thechildwillbean
exactcopyofhisparentandwillbeexpectedtosharethe
sametraitsandinterests.Hislifewillnolongerbehis
own.Thisisanunacceptableinfringementoftheliberty
andautonomythatwegranttoeveryhumanperson.The
confusionoftheoffspringislikelytobecompoundedby
thefactthattheparent,fromwhomheiscloned,will
begeneticallyhistwinbrother.Thereisnowayofknowing how children will react to having such a confused
geneticheritage.
Childrenproducedbyreproductivecloningwillnotbe
copiesoftheirparents.Differentenvironmentalfactors
willmeanthatchildrenwillnotbeemotionallyormentallyidenticaltothepeoplefromwhomtheyarecloned.
Youwouldhavetoapplythesameobjectiontoidentical
twins.Asmallproportionofidenticaltwinsdo,indeed,
sufferfrompsychologicalproblemsrelatedtofeelingsof
alackofindividuality.However,clonedchildrenwould
be in a better position than traditional twins because
theywillbemanyyearsyoungerthantheirgenetictwins,
whoare,ofcourse,theirparents.Therefore,theywillnot
suffer from comparisons to a physically identical individual.
Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity in the human Anyreductioninthediversityofthehumangenepool

population. The natural process of evolution will be will be so limited as to be virtually nonexistent. The
halted,andhumankindwillbedenieddevelopment.
expenseandtimenecessaryforsuccessfulhumancloning mean that only a small minority will employ the
technology.Thepleasureofprocreationthroughsexual
intercoursesuggeststhatwholepopulationswillchoose
whatsnaturalratherthanreproduceasexuallythrough
cloning.
Humanreproductivecloningisunnecessary.Thedevelopmentofinvitrofertilizationandthepracticeofsperm
donationallowheterosexualcouplestoreproducewhere
one partner is sterile. In addition, potential parents
mightbettergivetheirlovetoexistingbabiesratherthan
attempt to bring their own offspring into an already
crowdedworld.
The desire to have ones own child and to nurture it

is wholly natural.The longing for a genetically related
childexistedlongbeforemodernreproductivetechnologyandbiotechnology,butonlyrecentlyhasmedicine
beenabletosometimessatisfythatlonging.
Cloningtreatschildrenascommodities.Individualswill
beabletohaveachildwithdesiredcharacteristicsasa
symbolofstatus,ratherthanbecausetheydesiretoconceive,love,andraiseanotherhumanbeing.
Theeffortrequiredtocloneahumansuggeststhatthe
child will be highly valued by its parent or parents.
Furthermore, we should not pretend that every child
conceivedbysexualprocreationisborntowhollywellintentionedparents.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbanhumancloning.
ThisHousewouldnotmakeamini-me.
ThisHousewouldnotreproduceitself.
WebLinks:
AmericanLifeLeague.<http://www.all.org>
Pro-lifeorganizationoffersinformationonavarietyofreproductivetopics.
TheEthicsofReproductiveandTherapeuticCloning.<http://www.wits.ac.za/bioethics/genethics.htm>
Academicarticlearguingthatthereisnoethicalreasontopreventresearchinreproductivecloning.
HumanCloningFoundation.<http://www.humancloning.org>
Offersresources,books,andessaysinsupportofhumancloning.
|133
FurtherReading:
Burley,Justine,ed.TheGeneticRevolutionandHumanRights.OxfordUniversityPress,1999.
Harris,John.Clones,GenesandImmortality:EthicsandtheGeneticRevolution.OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
Nussbaum,Martha,andCassSunstein.ClonesandClones:FactsandFantasiesaboutHumanCloning.Norton,1998.
HUMANORGANS,SALEOF
Advances in surgical and diagnostic techniques have substantially increased the success of organ transplant operations. In 2002, a total of
24,890 organs were transplanted in the United States. However, in the preceding decade, the gap between the number of available organs
and the number of patients requiring a transplant increased signicantly. The sale of human organs can be considered as a possible solution to the crippling shortage. The black market trade in human organs is already thriving. Entrepreneurs offer the opportunity for British
patients to receive privately nanced transplant operations in India and Malaysia, and Americans go to China, which has sold the organs
of executed prisoners. In 1983, Dr. Barry Jacobs requested that the US government create a fund to compensate the families who donate
the organs of deceased relatives. Dr. Jacobs also proposed setting up a business that would buy kidneys from living donors for transplantation, but the proposal ran into popular opposition. In 1984, Congress passed the National Organ Transplantation Act, which prohibits the
sale of human organs from either dead or living donors.
PROS
CONS
The seriously ill are entitled to spend their money on

saving their lives. It is preferable that some individualsreceiveorgans,andsurvive,thanthattheydie.The
wealthywillnotbethesolebeneciariesofapolicyof
organ purchase. For each successful kidney transplant
operation, valuable hours on a dialysis machine will
open up.The expense of palliative care for individuals
requiringatransplantwillbeeliminated.
A single kidney has a black market price of $20,000.

Consequently,thesaleoforganswillhighlightandsupportthemostegregiousdiscriminationbetweenrichand
poor.Thosewhocannotaffordtopurchaseanorganwill
havenoopportunitytoreceiveone.Whatfamily,ifprepared to donate the organs of a relative, would decide
to decline a payment of tens of thousands of dollars?
Donated organs will disappear.The poor will die and
onlytherichwillsurvive.
Thedonorofanorgan,orhisfamily,willbenetconsiderablyfromthesale.Bothakidneyandapieceoflivercan
beremovedwithoutsignicantharmtotheindividual.
Anyassertionthatanindividualcannotmakeareasoned
decision to donate or sell these organs is patronizing.
Thefamilyofarecentlydeceasedindividualalsoought
tobeabletosavethelifeofanotherandsimultaneously
receiveremuneration.
The black market works in one directionfrom the

ThirdWorldtotheFirst.Therelativeabsenceofregulationandthecomparativevalueoftherewardsmeanthat
healthyindividualsinAsiaandAfricafallvictimtoscavengingorganmerchants.Thenancialrewardsmakethe
decisiontosellanorganoneofcompulsionratherthan
consent.Wherecolonialistsrapedtheland,theneocolonialistsurgeonstealsfrombodies.
Legalizingorgansaleswilleliminatethecorruptionthat
hasledtoreportedexecutionsandsubsequenttheftsof
organs. A successful transplant operation is dependent
uponmedicalknowledgeofthedonor.Theblackmarket
cannotberegulated,butitspurposewouldbedefeated
onceorgansalesbecamelawful.
Thesaleoforganswillleadtoappallinghumanrights
violations.Chinesejudicialofcialsarereportedtoexecute prisoners for their body parts.The lawful sale of
organswouldlegitimizehumansacrice.
PROS
CONS
Thetransplantsurgeon,thenursingstaff,andeventhe Puttingapriceonthehumanbodyinvitesonlyexploitapharmaceuticalcompaniesproducingtheanti-rejection tionbytheunscrupulous.

drugs receive payment for each operation performed.
Whyshouldthedonoroftheorgans,arguablythemost
importantactorinanytransplant,notalsoreceiveremuneration?What is remarkable is that a lifesaving treatmentshouldapparentlyhavenonancialvalue.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldlegalizethesaleoforgans.
ThisHousewouldhaveaheartwithapricetag.
ThisHousewouldbuybodyparts.
WebLinks:
MoreFactsaboutOrganDonationandTransplantation.
http://www.inil.com/users/paulh/FACTS.HTM
Ausefulfactsheet,withstatisticsonorgandonationandtransplantation.
TheLivingBank.<http://www.livingbank.org/main.html>
SitemaintainedbythelargestdonoreducationorganizationintheUnitedStates,itoffersinformationdesignedtoencourage
organdonation.
OrganDonation.<http://www.organdonor.gov/>
Providesinformationandresourcesonorgandonationandtransplantissuesandpromotesorganandtissuedonationawareness.
UnitedNetworkforOrganSharing.<http://www.unos.org/>
TheWebsiteoftheorganizationthatmaintainstheUSorgantransplantwaitinglist,itprovidesawidevarietyofresourceson
transplantationandtransplantationissues,includingbioethicalconcerns.
FurtherReading:
Chabot-Long,Lynn.AGiftofLife:APageFromtheLifeofaLivingOrganDonor.JeLynnPublications,1996.
Green,Reg.TheNicholasEffect:ABoysGifttotheWorld.OReillyandAssociates,1999.
HUMANRIGHTS:EXISTENCEOF
The concept of human rights is central to modern Western culture. But what does human rights mean? Do we have such rights, and if
we do, why are they needed? The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 in response
to the savage inhumanities of World War II. This document sets out a declaration of fundamental entitlements including the political
and civil rights common to Western democracies as well as economic, social, and cultural rights that Western nations have not historically
considered fundamental. However, the document includes no enforcement mechanism, and states are obliged only to move towards a
realization of these rights. Thus, while important steps have been made toward an international understanding of rights, there is a long
way to go.
PROS
CONS
Bytheirnatureandbirth,humanbeingspossesscertain
inalienablerights.AsArticleIoftheUDHRstates,All
human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights.
Do animals have the same inalienable rights by virtue

oftheirnatureandbirth?Isntthisclaimabitarbitrary?
Why should everyone have a right just because they
areborn?
|135
PROS
CONS
Thesimplesharingofacommonhumanityestablishes
human rights. We extrapolate from this humanity the
norms that secure the basic dignity with which we all
wanttolive.
Thisargumentisarbitraryandnebulous.Itbasesfundamental human rights on extrapolating from feelings.

Howaccuratecanthisbe?Furthermore,isntthisjusta
wishlistofwayswewanttobetreated?Adesiretobe
treatedinacertainwaydoesntgiveonetherighttobe
sotreated.
Desires are not what grounds human rights. What

humanrightsarebasedonistheuniversalneedforbasic
securityinourbodies,ourpossessions,andourrelationshipswithinsociety.Thissecurityisntjustdesirable;it
is vital. Human rights are those things that rationally
assurethesevitalrequirements.ThomasHobbesrecognizedthatallpeoplebenetfromthissecuritybecause
human beings are equal in their capacity to harm one
another.
Ifhumanrightsarerequirementsofreason,thenwhydo
weseesomuchambiguityandconfusionoverwhatthey
are?Thereishugedebateoverwhatrightswehave,and
manypeoplecannotagreethatwehavebasiceconomic
ordevelopmentrights.Thisseemsoddifhumanrights
arerationalrequirementsthatarevitaltolife.
Our understanding of human rights has evolved over

several hundred years.The rights contemporary Westernsocietiesconsiderbasicaremoreextensivethanthose
found in past societies because these Western societies
haveahigherstandardofliving.Peopleoftenmustexperiencethelackofsomethingtoappreciatehowvitalit
isthisistrueofhumanrights.
This is a very subversive trail to start down. These

requirementsofreasonarebothsubjectiveanddependent on specic circumstances. Does that mean that
humansreallydonthaveinalienablerights,butinstead
transformacceptedstandardsoflivingintoactualrights?
Inthatcase,twoculturescouldhaveradicallydifferent
butvalidinterpretationsofaspecichumanright.Can
thisbeasatisfactorybasisforconcreteandactualrights?
Humanrightsarenotmeanttobesubjecttoarticial,
academic analysis. They are practical guides to life,
standardsofhowweshouldbeabletolive.Theyarean
objectivestandardthatpeoplecanusewhencallingon
theirgovernmentsforjustice.
This all suggests that human rights can be extremely

useful.However,somethingcanbeuseful,indeednecessary,withoutitbeingyourright.Noneofthesearguments establishes that human beings have inherent
rights.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesinfundamentalhumanrights.
ThisHousebelievesrightsareright.
WebLinks:
AmnestyInternational.<http://www.amnesty.org/>
Providesinformationoncontemporaryhumanrightsissues.
HumanRightsWeb.<http://www.hrweb.org/>
Generalsiteofferinganintroductiontohumanrights,biographiesofindividualsimportantinthehumanrightsmovement,documentsrelatingtohumanrights,andlinkstootherresources
UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights.<http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html>
Textofthedocument.
UniversityofMinnesotaHumanRightsLibrary.<http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/>
Siteprovideslinkstoover7,000documentsonhumanrights.
FurtherReading:
Paine,Tom.CommonSense,theRightsofManandOtherEssentialWritingsofThomasPaine.NewAmericanLibrary,1988.
Savic,Obrad.ThePoliticsofHumanRights.Verso,2000.
HUMANRIGHTS:IMPOSITIONBYFORCE?
During the 1990s the international community intervened to end massive human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia. But less dramatic infringements of human rights continue. China regularly cracks down on pro-democracy activists, Tibetans, and Christian groups,
while civilians disappear in Colombia. How should those concerned about human rights address the issues? Intervention, whether by
military force, through peacekeeping forces, or by diplomatic means, might curtail human rights abuses, but it poses practical and moral
problems.
PROS
CONS
AsgoodinternationalSamaritans,wemustinterveneto
halthumanrightsviolations.The1948GenocideConventioncallsoncountriestoundertaketopreventand
topunishgenocide.
Using force to uphold human rights is hypocritical.

Forceinevitablyinvolvesinfringingoneright(tolifeor
property)forthesakeofanother.Forexample,IndonesianinterventioninEastTimorinvolvedtheimposition
ofmartiallaw:AmnestyInternationaldescribedthisas
complaintandcurebeingthesame.
Because all people have the same rights, countries

with the best human rights records have the authority
to impose their standards on other nations. Certainly,
whenonecountryperceivesabreachofhumanrightsas
itunderstandsthem,itmustuseforcetoupholdthese
rights.
WecannotassumethatWesternideasofhumanrights
extend throughout the world. Buddhism, for example,
places more emphasis on human nature and on the
effectsofindividualsactionsthanuponrights.Inany
case,whichcountryhasthebesthumanrightsrecord?
TheUnitedStatesoftentakestheinitiativeinlaunching
intervention,butmanynationsseeitsuseofthedeath
penaltyasahumanrightsviolation.
Carefulplanningcanminimizethemilitaryviolationof
human rights. It is possible to hit military bases, runways,bridges,andsoonwithoutkillingasinglecivilian
ordestroyinganyonespersonalproperty.
Thisistotallyimpossible.Despitetremendousincreases
in the accuracy of weapons over the past decade, the
USstillhitcivilianswhenbombingIraq.Theonlysafe
answerisnottobomb.
Forceneednotmeanviolence.Throughoutitshistory
theUnitedNationshasdeployedpeacekeepingmissions
to stop violence and protect human rights. Individual
nations, too, have carried out successful campaigns. If
Britain had not deployed troops in Northern Ireland
over the past decades, unchecked sectarian violence
wouldhaveclaimedthousandsmorelives.
The international community deploys peacekeeping

forcesonlyintheaftermathofviolence.Evenpeacekeepingforceshaveviolatedindividualrightsandresortedto
violence.
Thenationsthatarepartytointernationalhumanrights Gunsandunstablepeaceareavolatilecombination;in
conventionshavearesponsibilitytoseethatothercoun- these situations even the smallest incident can lead to
triesacceptthesenobleideals.
humanrightsviolations.
Forcedoesnotnecessarilyinvolvethemilitary.Diplo- Sanctions harm diplomatic relations well before they
maticpressure,includingsanctions,canforceoppressive effect any change. No substantial evidence has been
regimestorespecthumanrights.
offeredontheefcacyofsanctions.InternationalsanctionsagainstIraq,forexample,havenotledtoimproved
humanrights.Instead,theyhaveincreasedthesuffering
ofthecivilianpopulation.
Anationcanoverthrowacruelregimeonlywithinternationalsupport.
Nationsdonotneedoutsideinterventiontoremovean
oppressivedictator.In2000,forexample,VojislavKos-
|137
PROS
CONS
tunice won the presidential elections that helped oust

SerbiandictatorSlobodanMilosevic,inpart,becausehe
didnotsidewithWesternpowers.HadtheWestintervenedmoreforcefullytooustMilosevic,hemighthave
clungtopowerlonger.
Forceistheonlywaytosendaclearmessagethatthose Militaryinterventionneverprovidesalastingsolutionto
whoinfringeonhumanrightsareinthewrong.
humanrightsabuses.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewoulduseforcetoupholdhumanrights.
WebLinks:
AmnestyInternational.<http://amnesty.org>
InformationonAmnestyInternationalanditscampaignsforhumanrightsaswellascurrentnewsonpotentialhumanrightsviolations.
HumanRightsWatch.<http://www.igc.org/hrw>
Informationonhumanrightsbyissueandgeographicalarea.
UnitedNationsOfceoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR).<http://www.unhchr.ch>
InformationontheoperationsoftheOHCHRanditscampaignsforchildrensrights,womensrights,andgeneralhumanrights.
Includeslinkstoinformationonkeyhumanrightsissues.
FurtherReading:
Forsythe,David.HumanRightsinInternationalRelations.CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.
Gray,Christine.InternationalLawandtheUseofForce.OxfordUniversityPress,2001.
Koh,Harold,andRonaldC.Slye,eds.DeliberativeDemocracyandHumanRights.YaleUniversityPress,1999.
Robertson,Geoffrey.CrimesAgainstHumanity:TheStruggleforGlobalJustice.NewPress,2000.
IMMIGRATION,RESTRICTIONSON
In the last half of the twentieth century, the world saw dramatic population movements. Many people emigrated to escape war or religious
persecution, but a large proportion moved from developing countries to Western nations for economic reasons. Some were actively recruited
as cheap labor. Immigration policies vary from country to country, but no nations door is completely open. Should immigration be
restricted, and if so, to what extent; and do the industrialized nations have a moral obligation to the people of developing nations?
PROS
CONS
Laborisincreasinglymobileinthisageofglobalization.
People looking for work naturally move from areas of
underemployment and poverty to regions with higher
standardsoflivingwhereworkersareindemand.
Economic migrants leave developing countries not

because they cannot nd jobs but because they want
higherincomes.Thiscancauseabraindrainthathasa
negativeeffectondevelopment.
Thehigherrealwagesthatmigrantworkersearnabroad
andsendtotheirfamiliesathomearegainsforamigrants
homecountry.Insomecountriestheseremittancesarea
signicantpartofthenationsincome.
Workersmovewiththeirfamilies,sothereisnobenet
to the home country. Often the workers children and
oldparentsbecomeaburdenonthehostcountrystaxpayers.Frequentlytheseworkersareillegal.Theirwill-
PROS
CONS
ingnesstoworkforlowwageslowersthewagesoflocal
workers and contributes to unemployment in the host
country.
Many economists agree that immigration can be the
magicbulletthatwillovercometheanticipatedshortage of workers caused by the aging of populations in
Europe.Replacementmigration,asitiscalled,could
also help developing countries, whose populations are
growingrapidly.IftheEuropeanUnionclosesitsdoors,
these people will still come to its shores, but they will
come illegally. Individuals with no legal status have
muchlesstolosethanthosewhoareinacountrylegally;
thusenforcingahostcountryslawsbecomesthatmuch
moredifcult.
Thinkingthatimmigrationcanmiraculouslysolvelabor
problemsfortheEuropeanUnionisfartoosimplistic.
Onceimmigrantsaresettled,theytendtoadoptthefertility patterns of the country in which they are living.
They decide not to have many children, and they get
oldtoo!
Internationalmigrationcanbringnecessaryknowledge
and technologies to countries. For instance, the huge
migrationfromEuropetotheUnitedStatesinthelate
nineteenthcenturycontributedtoAmericangrowthand
development.NotonlyAmerica,butalsoAustraliaand
NewZealandemergedoutofimmigrantow.
Immigrants boosted the American economy only

because the United States had a huge open market in
whichopportunityabounded.However,economicrealities have changed since the nineteenth century.Today,
opportunity is limited by intense global competition.
Furthermore, the immigrants that now come to the
United States andWestern Europe do not try to integrateintotheirhostculture,astheydidinthepast.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatrichcountriesshouldenforceimmigrationlegislation.
TheHousebelievesthatinternationalimmigrationisbenecialtoallconcerned.
WebLinks:
WorldImmigration.<http://www.world-immigration.com>
Broadsitedealingwithavarietyofissuesassociatedwithinternationalimmigration.
ImmigrationIssues.<http://immigration.about.com>
In-depthguidetoimmigrationworldwide.Includesinformationonthecurrentcontroversyaswellaslinkstogroupsopposing
massimmigration.
FurtherReading:
Brettell,Caroline,andJamesFrankHollield,eds.MigrationTheory:TalkingAcrosstheDisciplines.Routledge,2000.
Martinez,Ruben.CrossingOver:AMexicanFamilyontheMigrantTrail.MetropolitanBooks,2001.
Stalker,Peter.WorkersWithoutFrontiers:TheImpactofGlobalizationonInternationalMigration.LynneRienner,1999.
|139
INTERNATIONALCRIMINALCOURT
In 1998, the Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court (ICC) with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. US President Bill Clinton authorized the signing of the statute in December 2000 but said the treaty
was signicantly awed and recommended that the US Senate not ratify it. Congress and the Bush Administration have been even
more hostile. In November 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law an act prohibiting the use of funds of several federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Commerce, and Justice, for cooperation with the ICC. Congress passed a bill restricting use of
Defense Department funds the following month. Despite US opposition, the Tribunal came into force on July 1, 2002.
PROS
CONS
TheICCwillleadtopoliticalprosecution.Itwillsubject
Americanservicemembersandseniormilitaryandpoliticalstrategiststocriminalchargesformilitaryactionsthat
arelegitimateandnecessary.AnynationcanasktheICC
prosecutortoinvestigateanissue,andtheprosecutorhas
thepowertoinvestigateexpropriomotu.TheUNSecurityCouncilcannotoverrideorvetohisactionsordecisions.Politicalprosecutionisevidentinthepreliminary
investigationbytheInternationalCriminalTribunalfor
theFormerYugoslavia(ICTY)intotheNATObombing
ofKosovoandtheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia.The
prosecutorchosetoinvestigateacampaignthathadbeen
undertakenwithclinicalprecision,thathadreceivedthe
supportoftheSecurityCouncil(althoughafterthefact),
and that had been directed against a military carrying
out a brutal policy of genocide. This grim precedent
suggeststhataprosecutorwillnothesitatetoinvestigate
other good faith and successful military actions across
theglobe.
TheUSshouldhavenothingtofearifitbehaveslawfully.
Moreover,determiningifaviolationofinternationallaw
(bytheUSoranyothernation)hastakenplaceshould
beeasyastheICCprosecutorconcernshimselfonlywith
thegravestoffenses.TheUScertainlywouldnotapprove
a strategy of genocide or systematic mass violations of
humanrightsthatwouldcomeunderthejurisdictionof
theICC.Theprosecutorspowerisalsolimitedbythe
requirementthatheobtaintheapprovalofthreejudges
before issuing an arrest warrant or initiating proceedings. A preliminary investigation could benet the US
becauseitwouldenddoubtsaboutthejustiabilityofits
actions.TheUSacceptedthejurisdictionoftheICTY
prosecutorbecauseitdidnotexpectitsforcestocommit
thecrimestheyweredeployedtoprevent.
The US holds a unique position in maintaining internationalpeaceandsecurity.Itmightbeappropriatefor

othercountriestoconsenttothejurisdictionoftheICC
becausetheydonothavethesameresponsibilitiesand
risks. US armed forces have responded to many more
situationsduringthe1990sthanduringthewholeof
the ColdWar. More than ever, the world looks to the
UStoensurepeaceandsafety.USmilitarydominance
increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue
regimes are incapable of defeating the US militarily,
theyarelikelytochallengetheUSintheICC.Thiswill
damage US interests far more than any conventional
militaryactionandwillresultinUSreluctancetointervene in the future. The indispensable nation must be
permittedtodispensewiththeICC.
TheverypreeminenceoftheUSdemandsthatitadhere
to the rule of international law. A nation can commit
warcrimeswhileconductingamilitarycampaigntoprotecthumanrightsandsavelives.TheICCcandemand
thattheUS,oranyotherstate,pursueitslawfulendsby
lawfulmeans.Moreover,victimsofgrosshumanrights
violations do not care who the perpetrator is. Other
nationswithsignicantmilitarycommitmentsoverseas,
suchastheUKandFrance,haveratiedtheRomeStatutewithouthesitation.Thesestatesaccepttheprinciple
that nations intervening in another state to uphold or
establishhumanrightsmustrespectthosesamehuman
rights.
TheRomeStatutehascreatedthenovelcrimeofaggression, which increases the likelihood of political prosecution. One state could accuse another of aggression
for intervening to protect human rights. Governments
ThisobjectiontotheICCispurelyhypotheticalbecause
theICChasnotyetdenedaggression.Inaddition,
thecrimeofaggressionisnotnovel.Interveninginthe
domesticaffairsofasovereignstateiscontrarytonorms
PROS
CONS
carrying out a policy of genocide could request that a

nationbeprosecutedforpreventinggenocide.Moreover,
by a quirk of the statute, a state that refuses to accept
ICC jurisdiction can nevertheless request the prosecutionofforeignnationalsforcrimesallegedlycommitted
initsterritory.ThusYugoslavPresidentSlobodanMilosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO
forces for activities during Operation Allied Force but
could have prevented an investigation of the Bosnian
Serbarmyinthesameterritory.
of conventional and customary law. The UN Charter

prohibits both the unauthorized use of force against
anotherstateandinterventioninitsdomesticjurisdiction.TheUSshouldratifytheRomeStatutesothatits
negotiators can play an active role in the Assembly of
State Parties, which is currently working on drafting a
denitionofthiscrime.
The ICC will not deter war crimes or genocide. The

Third Reich accelerated its campaign to exterminate
JewswhenitbecameclearthattheAllieswouldbevictorious.Similarly,MilosevicandtheBosnianSerbarmy
conductedacampaignofgenocideinKosovowhilethe
ICTYwassittinginTheHague.Warcriminalsdonot
commitgrosshumanrightsviolationsbasedonreason.
Theexistenceofacourt,howeverwellintentioned,will
havenoeffectonthosestatesthatwouldcommitsuch
crimes.
You cannot claim that the ICC will not deter atrocities when such an institution has never before existed.
Moreover, the offenders must be apprehended, tried,
andpunished.Retributionandprotectionofsocietyare
objectivesnotonlyfordomesticcriminaljusticesystems
butalsoforthenewinternationalsystem.
ICCexpenseswillbecrippling.Cautiousestimatessug- The ICCs budget might seem excessive, but no price

gest an operating budget of $100US million per year. shouldbeputonjusticeforthousandsofvictimsofheiThe costs of the ICTY and the international criminal nouscrimes.
tribunal for Rwanda spiraled out of control, and the
latterleftalegacyofmisadministrationandinternalcorruption.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthattheUnitedStatesshouldnotsupporttheInternationalCriminalCourt.
ThisHousebelievesthatthecreationoftheICCisacrime.
WebLinks:
TheCoalitionforanICC.<http://www.iccnow.org/index.html>
Country-by-countryreportonthestatusoftheRomeStatute.
CrimesofWarProject.<http://www.crimesofwar.org/>
Providesup-to-dateinformationonpossibleviolationsofhumanrightsandwarcrimesaswellasthestatusofhumanitarianlaw
andjustice.
ICCResourcesattheUniversityofChicagoLibrary.<http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/icc.html>
BibliographyofWebandprintresourcesontheICC.
FurtherReading:
Goldstone,RichardJ.ForHumanity:ReectionsofaWarCrimeInvestigator.YaleUniversityPress,2000.
Gutman,Roy.CrimesofWar:WhatthePublicShouldKnow.Norton,1999.
Schabas,WilliamA.AnIntroductiontotheInternationalCriminalCourt.CambridgeUniversityPress,2001.
|141
INTERNETCENSORSHIP
The Internet (World Wide Web) is the fastest growing and largest tool for mass communication and information distribution in the world.
In the last 10 years concern has increased about the Internet disseminating content that is violent and sexual, that gives bomb-making
instructions, that abets terrorist activity, and that makes available child pornography. In response, some have called for censorship. But even
if censorship of the Internet can be morally justied, practical problems with regulation arise.
PROS
CONS
Althoughdemocraticnationsvaluefreedomofspeech,
allputsomerestrictionsontheright.Suchrestrictions
usuallysurroundhard-coreandchildpornography,but
somenationsrestricthatespeechaswell.TheInternet
should be no exception to these basic standards.Truly
offensivematerialisnodifferentbecauseitispublished
ontheWeb.
Censorship is usually evil. Governments should avoid

it wherever possible. Child pornography is an extreme
example;sufcientlegislationisalreadyinplacetohandle
thosewhoattempttoproduce,distribute,orviewsuch
material.Otherformsofspeechmaywellbeoffensive,
buttheonlywayasocietycancountersuchspeechisto
beexposedtoitandhaveitoutintheopen.Without
suchfreedom,thesegroupsaredrivenundergroundand
cantakeontheaspectofmartyrs.
Censorship is tailored to the power of the medium.

Accordingly, a higher level of censorship is attached
to television, lms, and video than to newspapers and
books:Werecognizethatmovingpicturesandsoundare
more graphic and powerful than text, photographs, or
illustrations. Videos are normally more regulated than
lmsseenintheatersbecausetheviewerofavideohas
control of the mediumthe power to rewind, view
again,anddistributemorewidely.TheInternet,which
increasinglyusesvideoandsound,shouldberegulated
accordingly.
Thedistinctionbetweencensorshipofprintandbroadcast media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Print

mediaarecomparativelyunregulatedbecausetheyarethe
primarymeansofdistributinginformationinsociety.In
thenearfuture,theInternetmaybecomethisprimedisseminator.ThustheInternetmustbeallowedthesame
protectionsnowenjoyedbyprintmedia.WhenEnglish
philosopher John Stuart Mill considered freedom of
speech and the Founding Fathers of the United States
spokeintheConstitutionoffreedomofthepressthey
were concerned about the primary and most powerful
organofinformationdistributionatthattime,theprint
press. Nowadays they would more likely be concerned
withpreventingcensorshipofthebroadcastmediaand
theInternet.
TheInternetwouldbehardtocontrol,butwemustnot
usethatasanexcusenot to try. Preventing the sale of
snuffmoviesorhard-corepornographyisextremelydifcult,butsomegovernmentsdosobecausetheydeem
it important. A more intractable issue is the anonymitythattheInternetprovidespornographersandcriminals.Asiancountrieshaveexperimentedwithrequiring
citizenstoprovideidenticationbeforepostingcontent
ontheWeb.Ifuniversallyadopted,sucharequirement
couldbearelativelysimplewayofenforcinglawsagainst
trulyoffensiveandharmfulcontent.
Even allowing for the extreme problems surrounding

curtailment of freedom of speech, Internet censorship
would be more or less impossible. Governments can
attempttoregulatewhatisproducedintheirowncountriesbutregulatingmaterialoriginatingoutsidenational
borderswouldbeimpossible.Whatisthepointinthe
USremovingalldomesticlinkstohard-corepornographywhensuchmaterialfromtheUKorSwedencould
bereadilyaccessedanddownloaded?Individualscould
alsoproducebannedmaterialandstoreitinanoverseas
domain.Truefreedomofspeechrequiresanonymityin
somecasestoprotecttheauthor.Governmentsthathave
introducedIDrequirementsforInternetusealsodeny
manybasicrightstotheircitizens.TheInternetallows
citizenstocriticizetheirgovernmentanddistributenews
PROS
CONS
andinformationwithoutreprisalfromthestate.These
freedomsclearlycouldnotsurviveInternetIDrequirements.
Inmanycountriesproducinglibelousmaterialormaterial that incites racial hatred incurs multiple liability.
Where the author or publisher cannot be traced or is
insolvent,theprinterscanoftenbesuedorprosecuted.
TherelativelysmallnumberofInternetserviceproviders
(ISPs)shouldbemadeliableiftheyassistintheprovisionofdangerousorharmfulinformation.
Internetserviceproviders(ISP)arecertainlythewrong
peopletodecidewhatcanandcannotbeplacedonthe
Internet.Bigbusinessalreadycontrolsfartoomuchof
this new technology without also making it judge and
juryofallInternetcontent.Inanycase,thesheerbulk
ofinformationISPsallowtobepublishedissuchthat
reviewing it all would be impossible. Were ISPs to be
held liable for allowing such material to be displayed,
theywouldinevitablyerronthesideofcautiontoprotecttheirnancialinterests.Thiswouldresultinamuch
moreheavilycensoredInternet.
The issues at stake in this debateprotection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred, etc. are all
internationalproblems.Ifaglobalsolutionisrequired,
itcanbeachievedbyinternationalcooperationandtreaties. All societies consider censorship justied where
harm is caused to others by the speech, words, or art.
Alltheexamplescitedaboveareclearlycausingharmto
variousgroupsinsociety.Byacombinationoftheinitiativeslistedabove,wecouldlimitthatharm.
ManyISPshaveshownthemselvestoberesponsiblein
immediately removing truly offensive content where
theyhavebeenalertedtoit.Whatisrequiredisself-regulationbytheindustry,nottheimpositionofarbitrary
anddraconianrestrictionsonInternetcontentanduse.
Parentscaninstallsoftwarethatwilllteroutoffensive
sitesandsitesinappropriateforchildren.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldcensortheInternet.
ThisHousecallsforNetlters.
ThisHousewouldlimitfreedomofspeech.
WebLinks:
ACLU(AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion):CyberLiberties.<http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html>
ProvideslinkstoresourcesandinformationoncampaignsagainstInternetcensorship.
ElectronicFrontierFoundation.<http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html>
OfferssummariesofissuesinvolvingInternetcensorshipaswellasinformationonfairuseandprivacyontheNet.
Furtherreading:
Peck,Robert.Libraries,theFirstAmendmentandCyberspace:WhatYouNeedtoKnow.AmericanLibraryAssociation,1999.
Wallace,Jonathan,andMarkMangan.Sex,Laws,andCyberspace:FreedomandCensorshipontheFrontiersoftheOnlineRevolution.
Holt,1997.
|143
IRAQ,INVASIONOF
In 2003 the Bush administration ordered the US invasion of Iraq, justifying its action on its belief that Saddam Hussein was hiding
weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorists. Those beliefs proved unfounded. George Bushs decision to go to war engendered
international controversy and was a crucial issue in the 2004 presidential campaign.
PROS
CONS
TheBushadministrationwasjustiedinthinkingthat Therewerenoweaponsofmassdestruction.TheintelliSaddamHusseinpossessedweaponsofmassdestruction. gencereportswerewrong.Saddamactedagainsthisown

He had used chemical weapons against both Iran and bestinterestsinrefusingtocooperate.
the Kurdish minority in Iraq. Moreover, he refused to
cooperate with weapons inspectors despite threats of a
USinvasion.GeorgeBushcouldlogicallyassumethathe
refusedtocooperatebecausehehadsomethingtohide.
In addition, intelligence reports suggested that he had
weapons.
Husseins regime wass a sponsor of a number of international terrorist groups. We may still nd evidence
linkingSaddamtoAlQaeda.Iraqwastheonlycountry
nottocondemntheSeptember11attacks,andoneof
its agents twice met with Mohammed Atta, a leading
hijacker.Attheveryleast,theregimeprovidedencouragement,funding,andlogisticalsupportforgroupsthat
are intent on killing civilians and overthrowing legitimategovernments.
To date there is no concrete evidence linking Saddam

Hussein to Al Qaeda. The US State Department lists
othercountriesassponsorsofterror,sowhywasIraqsingledoutasatargetforinvasion?MostofthegroupsIraq
wassaidtohavebackedareviolentlyopposedtoIsrael,
butmanyintheMiddleEastwouldseethemasfreedom
ghtersratherthanterrorists.Inthiscontext,endingany
Iraqisupportforterroristswouldhavelittleornoimpact
onterroristoperationssuchasSeptember11.
RemovingHusseinrelievedtheterriblesufferingofthe What guarantee do we have that any successor regime

Iraqi people. Husseins regime was a dictatorship that willbebetter?Thecountrycoulddevolveintocivilwar,
usedbrutalmethodstosilencedissentandmaintainits continuingthesufferingoftheIraqipeople.
holdonpower.UNsanctionsexceptedfoodandmedicine, but Hussein deliberately withheld these from his
people to score propaganda points. His attacks on the
KurdsofnorthernIraqandtheMarshArabsandShiite
MuslimsofsouthernIraqamountedtogenocide.
Saddamsregimewasagreatthreattoregionalstability.It
hadbegunwarsagainsttwoofitsimmediateneighbors
(Iran and Kuwait), threatened a third (Saudi Arabia),
launchedunprovokedmissileattacksagainstIsrael,and
calledonthepeopleoftheArabworldtoriseupagainst
their own governments. Because of the strategic and
economicimportanceoftheMiddleEast,regionalinstabilityisadirectthreattoglobalsecurity.Clearlyalasting and workable peace settlement between Israel and
the Palestinians was impossible while Iraq remained a
threat.
Thegreatestthreattoregionalstabilityisthelikelihood
thatIraqmightbreakuponcetheUSpullsout.NeighboringnationswouldbedrawnintoanIraqicivilwarin
support or opposition to particular factions (e.g., Iran
in support of Shiite Muslims, Turkey against the creationofanindependentKurdishstate)orinanattempt
tocontrolIraqsoilwealth.OutrageintheArabworld
againstUSimperialismmightalsodestabilizeanumber
offragileregimesintheMiddleEast,furtherthreateningtheregionandmakingpeacebetweenIsraelandthe
Palestiniansevenhardertoachieve.
PROS
CONS
Overthrowing Hussein has deterred other rogue states

from attempting to develop weapons of mass destructionandsupportingterrorism.LibyanleaderMuammar
Quadda has renounced weapons of mass destruction
andiswillingtocooperatewiththeUNindismantling
hiscovertnuclearbombprogram.
GiventhattheUnitedStatesisfriendlywithsomeother
statesthathaveignoredinternationalarmscontroltreaties, the invasion of Iraq has not sent a clear message.
Instead, the invasion has made the United States even
morehatedandgeneratedmoreterroristoutragessuch
astheMadridbombings.Thegreatestglobaldangeris
that the international coalition against terror will fall
apartasaresultBushsIraqpolicy.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievestheinvasionofIraqwasjustied.
ThisHousesupportstheoverthrowofSaddamHussein.
ThisHousebelievestheIraqinvasionwasanecessarypartofthewaronterrorism.
WebLinks:
Aljazeera.<http://english.aljazeera.net/>
Arabviewsonthewar.
TheCaseforToughActionAgainstIraq.<http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,610552,00.html>
BackgroundarticleintheBritishObserversupportingtheoverthrowofSaddamHussein.
IraqUpdate.<http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/>
USStateDepartmentsitepresentingcurrentinformationonUSpolicyonIraq.
IraqWarDebate20022004.<http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/iraqwar.html>
Linkstoawidevarietyofresourcesontheissue.
WarReport.<http://www.comw.org/warreport/>
BackgroundarticlesandcurrentinformationonthewarinIraq.
FurtherReading:
Blix,Hans.DisarmingIraq.Pantheon,2004.
Butler,Richard.TheGreatestThreat:Iraq,WeaponsofMassDestruction,andtheCrisisofGlobalSecurity.PublicAffairs,2001.
Farouk-Sluglett,Marion,andPeterSluglett.IraqSince1958:FromRevolutiontoDictatorship.I.B.Tauris,2001.
MacKey,Sandra.TheReckoning:IraqandtheLegacyofSaddamHussein.Norton,2002.
Woodward,Bob.PlanofAttack.Simon&Schuster,2004.
|145
ISRAELANDTHEPALESTINIANS,USPOLICYTOWARD
Since it was founded in 1948, the state of Israel has been in conict with the Arab nations that surround it, and with the Arab people
living within its own bordersand the United States has been part of that conict. The United States was one of the rst countries to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli government, and for more than 50 years it has supported Israel militarily, economically, and diplomatically. The United States has also been instrumental in negotiating diplomatic agreements between Israel and the Arab world. The central
issue in the conict today is the creation of a Palestinian state that would give autonomy to the Arabs living under Israeli rule (primarily
on the West Bank of the Jordan River). Israel has been reluctant to create this state, which Palestinians regard as their right. Although
the United States has voiced support for a Palestinian state, many observers see the Bush administrations failure to denounce Israels assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi and its support for Israel maintaining some settlements in occupied territory as openly siding
with Israel.
PROS
CONS
USpolicyintheMiddleEasthasbeenconsistentlyon
thesideofIsrael.TheBushadministrationstilttoward
Israelwasevidentsinceitcametoofce.GeorgeBush
hasrefusedtomeetwithYasirArafatbecauseheviews
thePalestinianleaderasanobstacletopeace.
Donotforgetthatformostofitshistory,IsraelsneighborssaidthatIsraelhadnorighttoexistandmustbe
destroyed.USsupporthasbeencriticaltoIsraelssurvival.
American policy in the Middle East has been guided

bypolitics,notprinciples.Ontheonehand,presidents
have responded to the pressure from Jewish voters to
supportIsrael.Ontheother,policytowardArabstates
hasbeenshapedlargelybyeconomicneeds:TheUShas
been friendly to countries with large oil reserves, e.g.,
SaudiArabia,buthasignoredpoorerArabs,e.g.,thePalestinians.
Throughouttheworld,theUnitedStatesiscommitted
tothedevelopmentofopen,democraticsocieties.Israel
is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East
andsharesmanyofAmericaspoliticalvalues.Itdeserves
Americansupport.
TheUShasclaimedthatitsupportsIsraelbecauseitis
the only democracy in the regionbut such support
ofdemocracyhasnotbeenarmlyheldprincipleand
not acted on in other parts of the world.The US has
knowingly supported corrupt and unjust authoritarian
regimesinArabcountrieswhentheiroilpoliciesfavored
America.
TheUShasalwaysactedasanimpartialbroker,seeking
concessionsfrombothsides.TheUShasuseditsinuencetohaveIsraelconsiderArabdemandsandtohave
ArabnationsandnegotiatorsconsiderIsraelsdemands.
TheUShasbeeninconsistentintheapplicationofits
moralprinciples.IthasroutinelycondemnedPalestiniansandotherArabsforterroristactions,butitgranted
immediate recognition to the state of Israel, which
engagedinaterroristcampaignagainsttheBritish.
The US has acted in good faith with the Palestinian

people, but negotiations have faltered because their
leader,YassirArafat,iscorrupt,duplicitous,andunstable.In2000,Arafatrejectedthebestsettlementhecould
havewonfromIsrael.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsUSsponsorshipofaPalestinianstate.
ThisHousewouldvaluedemocracymorethanvotesandoil.
WebLinks:
ForeignPolicyinFocus.IsraelandPalestine.<http://www.foreignpolicy-nfocus.org/briefs/vol6/v6n04israel.html>
WebsiteofathinktankwithoutwallsishighlycriticalofUSpolicy.
GreatDecisionsGuides:MiddleEast.<http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_nfo2490/newsletter_info.htm>
TheWebsiteoftheForeignPolicyAssociationprovidesdozensofdocumentsandlinksrelatingtoissuesthathaveshapedUS
policy.
Israel/MideastBriengs:FiveBasicTalkingPointsonIsrael.<http://www.ajc.org/Israel/IsraelMideastBriengsDetail.
asp?did=208&pid=1436>
TheWebsiteoftheAmericanJewishCommitteeoffersapro-IsraeliperspectivethatislargelysupportiveofUSpolicy.
FurtherReading:
Friedman,ThomasL.FromBeiruttoJerusalem.Anchor,1990.
Peters,Joan.FromTimeImmemorial:TheOriginsoftheArab-JewishConictoverPalestine.JKAPPublishers,2001.
Said,EdwardW.TheEndofthePeaceProcess:OsloandAfter.Knopf,2001.
IVORYTRADING
The African elephant population decreased from about 1.2 million in 1979 to approximately 600,000 in 1989, in part as a result of
intense poaching to supply the international ivory trade. In 1989 the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) banned ivory trading. This resulted in population increases in some countries. In 1997 the ban was eased
for Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, giving them a one-time opportunity to sell their stockpiled ivory to Japan, the center of ivory
demand. The ivory was sold in 1999; in 2000, African nations agreed to a two-year freeze on sales, but in 2002, South Africa
announced that it would apply for permission to sell its stockpiles beginning in 2003. South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana received permission from CITES to sell government ivory stocks beginning in 2004. At the same time, conservation groups were reporting increased
activity in the ivory market, with the markets in China, Thailand, Burma, and Nigeria larger than in the early 1990s.
PROS
CONS
TheelephantpopulationsofsouthernAfricanstatesare
growingrapidly,placingastrainuponthenationalparks
in which they live. This has necessitated government
cullsthathaveresultedinlargestockpilesofivory(also
acquired from animals that died naturally) that these
nationsarecurrentlyunabletosell.RelaxingtheCITES
banontradingivory,subjecttocarefulregulation,would
bringmuch-neededcashtotheenvironmentalprograms
of these impoverished countries, helping them to safeguardthelong-termsurvivalofAfricanelephants.
Elephantsarehighlyintelligentanimals;tokillthemfor
theirivoryisunethical.Liftingthebanwouldlegitimize
theviewthathumankindcanexploittheminanyway
convenient.
A trading ban does not choke off demand for ivory.

Instead, it raises the price to exorbitant levels, encouraging poaching. Japan is emerging from the economic
problemsthatdepresseddemandduringthe1990s,and
Chinas growing prosperity is creating a new market.
Consequently the illegal trade will generate higher
prots in the future. Legitimate, regulated sales would
undercuttheillegalmarketanddrivethepoachersout
ofbusiness.
Atpresentdemandforivoryislowandshrinking;prices
areactuallylowerthanbefore1989.Liftingthetrading
banwouldrenewinterestinivoryartifactsandincrease
the size of the market, thus raising their price. Higher
prices present a long-term threat to elephants and
encouragecontinuedpoaching.Inanycase,povertyin
Africaissoseverethatevenadropinpricewillnotstop
thepoachers.
|147
PROS
CONS
Poaching has been effectively eliminated in southern

Africa through effective management of game parks.
Thedevelopmentofecotourismalsogiveslocalpeoples
anincentivetoprotectwildlifeasalong-termeconomic
resource.Tosustainthisapproach,parksmustgenerate
greaterincomefromtheirelephantpopulations.Realistically,statescandothisonlybysellingstockpiledivory.
Ifothercountrieshaveapoachingproblem,theyshould
followtheexampleofSouthAfricaandBotswanarather
thanseektoharmthesuccessfulconservancyprograms
inthesestates.
Although elephant populations in southern Africa are

viable and increasing, this is not the case elsewhere in
Africa.NorisittrueofthewildAsianelephantpopulationsofSouthAsia.Testingcannotrevealwherecarved
ivoryoriginatedorthesubspeciesfromwhichitcame.
Consequently, lifting the trading ban would enable
poacherstosellivorymoreeasily,thusincreasingtheir
protsandtheirmotivationtokillmoreelephants.The
widespreadcorruptioninAfricaandpartsofAsiaallows
poacherstomasktheillegaloriginsoftheirivory,which
theypassoffaslegallyobtained.
Ivoryisexpensivetoobtain(throughcullsormonitoring
ofveryelderlyanimals)andstore.Italsodegradesover
time.Therefore,commonsensetellsustoallowitssale
on a permanent, controlled basis, rather than through
one-offschemessuchasthesaletoJapan.
Storagecostsanddepreciationareproblemsonlyifivory
isstoredinthehopeofeventualsale.Kenyasgameconservancy burns the ivory it obtains from culls or conscatesfrompoachers,avoidingbothoftheseproblems
andshowingitscommitmenttoendingallpossibilityof
renewedtrade.
AccordingtotheSouthAfricangovernmentproposalto
lift the ban in 2000, The experimental export of raw
ivoryin1999fromBotswana,NamibiaandZimbabwe
(conductedunderrigorousCITESsupervision)wassuccessfulinallrespectsandtookplaceunderintenseinternationalscrutiny.Itcancategoricallybestatedthatno
ivory,otherthantheregisteredstocks,wasexportedto
Japan.
TherelaxationofCITEScontrolscoincidedwithavefoldupsurgeinpoachinginKenyaandasimilarincrease
inIndiabecausecriminalsassumedthatthebanwould
soonbelifted.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldallowtradeinivory.
ThisHousewouldsavetheelephants.
ThisHousebelievesconservationmustjustifyitselfeconomically.
WebLinks:
ConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpeciesofWildFaunaandFlora(CITIES).<http://www.cites.org/>
ProvidesinformationonCITESandCITESprograms,thetextoftheCITESconvention,andlinkstoresourcesonendangered
species.
InternationalFundforAnimalWelfare.<http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/>
Linkstoinformationonthestatusofelephantsandprojectstosavethem.
FurtherReading:
Pearce,David,ed.Elephants,EconomicsandIvory.Earthscan,1991.
Snugg,Ike.ElephantsandIvory:LessonsfromtheTradeBan.InstituteofEconomicAffairs,1994.
MANDATORYSENTENCING:THREESTRIKES
Early in the 1980s, national legislators became concerned that the criminal justice system had become inconsistent across the country.
Similar crimes were being punished with dramatically different sentences, even though the same laws applied. Accordingly, Congress
began to craft rules for mandatory prison sentences in federal cases; these rules were intended to ensure that similar crimes would be punished in similar ways, no matter where these cases were tried. Many state legislatures drafted parallel rules for lower courts. Over time,
mandatory sentences in state courts evolved to include three-strikes rules: If a newly convicted felon had a criminal record of two prior
felony convictions, the judge was obligated to impose the maximum sentence for the third crime. (There are some variations in the laws
from state to state.) There has been growing concern, however, that the punishments imposed by three-strikes laws are not simply too
severe, but also unconstitutional. In 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld the three-strikes law adopted in California in 1994.
PROS
CONS
One of the fundamental principles of criminal justice

isthatthepunishmentshouldtthecrime.Thatprincipleisabrogatedwhenalifesentenceisautomatically
imposedforathirdfelonywhetherthatfelonyisserious and violent, or minor and non-violent. Because
there is only one sentence possible for many kinds of
crimes,itfollowsthatthesentencedoesnotnecessarily
correspondtothegravityoftheoffense.
Itisaprimaryobligationofthecriminaljusticesystem
to establish clear and certain penalties for crime. The
three-strikeslawsoffersuchclarity,andtheirmandatory
naturemakespunishmentcertain.Theselawsprevent
inconsistencyinthecriminaljusticesystem.
Itoftenhappensthatthethirdfelonythatis,theone
thattriggerstheautomaticsentenceisrelativelyminor.
Forexample,alifesentencehasbeenimposedonsomeonefortheattemptedshopliftingofvideotapes.Alife
sentence for such a crime is cruel and unusual, and,
assuch,isforbiddenbytheEighthAmendmenttothe
Constitution.
Historically,judgeshaveabusedthediscretionthatthey
have been given by the criminal justice system. Too
often,judgeshaveimposedlightsentencesoncriminals,
even when those criminals have been repeat offenders.
Themandatorysentencesimposedbythree-strikeslaws
ensurethatrecidivistsarepunishedappropriately.
Historically,judgeshavehaddiscretionarypowerswhen
sentencing criminals; this practice recognizes that sentencing should take into account the circumstances of
thecrime,thecharacterofthecriminal,andtheamount
ofharmcausedbythecrime.Mandatorysentencesrob
judges of those discretionary powers that are properly
theirs. Indeed, mandatory sentences are imposed, in
effect,bythelegislativebranchthusviolatingtheindependenceofthejudiciaryandtheseparationofpowers
outlinedintheConstitution.
Thefundamentalpurposeofthecriminaljusticesystem
istoprotecttherightsandthesafetyoflaw-abidingcitizens.Butthesecitizensarenotprotectedbyrevolving
doorjustice,whichallowscriminalsbackonthestreet
after repeat offenses. Three-strikes laws remove repeat
offendersfromsociety,andpreventthemfromcommittingfurthercrimes.
Defendersofthethree-strikeslawsclaimthattheselaws
haveapowerfuldeterrenteffect,andreducetheoccurrenceofcrime.Statisticsshow,however,thatrecidivism
hasnotbeenreducedbythepresenceofsuchlaws,and
thegeneralreductionincrime,whenandwhereithas
occurred, is due to effective policing, rather than to
harshsentencing.
Sincethree-strikeslawshavebeenintroducedacrossthe
nation, crime has dropped dramatically. The reason
forthisdeclineisobvious:Convictedrecidivistsarenot
freetocommitmorecrimes,andfelonswithoneortwo
strikesontheirrecordsaredeterredbythepunishment
thattheyknowwillfollowathirdoffense.
|149
PROS
CONS
Thethree-strikeslawsare,ineffect,expostfactolaws:
thatis,criminalsentencescantakeintoaccountasrst
andsecondstrikescrimesthatwerecommittedbefore
thelawwaspassed.Moreover,theimpositionofmandatorymaximumsentencesbecauseofpasthistoryconstitutes double jeopardy: Criminals are being punished
againforcrimesforwhichtheyalreadyservedtime.
Opponents of three-strikes laws claim that these laws

give criminals no chance to rehabilitate and redeem
themselves.Butstudieshaveshownthatrehabilitation
ishighlyunlikelyforrecidivists.Someonewhohascommittedthreefeloniesisnotlikelytoreform;rather,itis
thedestinyoftherecidivisttokeepcommittingcrimes.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldrestorediscretioninsentencingtothejudiciary.
ThisHousewouldmakethepunishmenttthecrime.
WebLinks:
FamiliesAgainstMandatoryMinimums.<http://www.famm.org/index2.htm>
Websiteofanadvocacygroupthatopposesawiderangeofmandatorysentences,notjustthethree-strikeslaws.Includesreviews
oflitigationandbriefswrittenfortheSupremeCourt.
FamiliestoAmendCaliforniasThree-Strikes.<http://www.facts1.com/>
WebsiteofanadvocacygroupthatfocusesspecicallyonCalifornialaws.IncludeshistoryandlinkstokeytextsandotherWeb
sites.
Lungren,Dan.ThreeCheersforThreeStrikes:Californiaenjoysarecorddropincrime.
<http://www.policyreview.org/nov96/backup/lungren.html>
DanLungrenwasattorneygeneralofthestateofCaliforniawhenhewrotethisessayindefenseofthestatesthree-strikeslaw.
FurtherReading:
Reynolds,Mike,BillJonesandDanEvans.ThreeStrikesandYoureOut:APromisetoKimber:TheChronicleofAmericasToughest
Anti-CrimeLaw.QuillDriverBooks,1996.
Shichor,David(editor),andDaleK.Sechrest,ThreeStrikesandYoureOut:VengeanceAsPublicPolicy.SagePress,1996.
Zimring,FranklinE.,SamKaminandGordonHawkins.CrimeandPunishmentinCalifornia:TheImpactofThreeStrikesandYoure
Out.InstituteofGovernmentalStudiesPress,1999.
MARIJUANA,LEGALIZATIONOF
The debate about the legalization of drugs, particularly that of soft drugs like marijuana, could be characterized as pitting freedom of the
individual against a paternalistic state. Advocates of legalization argue that marijuana is not only less harmful than legal substances like
alcohol and tobacco, but also has been proven to possess certain medicinal properties. Those opposed argue that the legalization of marijuana will act as a precursor to increased addiction to hard drugs and will necessarily lead to an increase in the crime rate.
PROS
CONS
Althoughmarijuanadoeshavesomeharmfuleffects,it
is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol
and tobacco. Research by the British Medical Associationshowsthatnicotineisfarmoreaddictivethanmarijuana. Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and
cigarettesmokingcausemoredeathsperyearthandoes
marijuana.Thelegalizationofmarijuanawillremovean
Unlikealcoholandtobacco,marijuanahasaninherently
dangerous hallucinatory effect on the mind. Furthermore,manyindividualsaddictedtomarijuanaresortto
crimetofundtheiraddiction.Thelegalizationofmarijuanawillleadtothedrugbecomingmorereadilyavailable, which in turn will mean that many more people
will gain access to it and become addicted.The crime
PROS
CONS
anomaly in the law whereby substances that are more ratewillinevitablyrise.DatafromtheNetherlandsshow

dangerousthanmarijuanaarelegal,whilethepossession that the decriminalization and eventual legalization of
anduseofmarijuanaremainsunlawful.
marijuanadidleadtoanincreaseincrime.
In recent years, scientists and medical researchers have
discovered that marijuana possesses certain benecial
medicinal qualities. For instance, marijuana helps to
relievethesufferingofpatientswithmultiplesclerosis.
The latest research that was conducted by the ComplutenseUniversityinMadridindicatesthatmarijuana
has the potential to kill some cancerous cells. Governments should acknowledge such ndings and legalize
marijuana.
TheUShassupportedscienticresearchintothemedicalbenetsofmarijuana.Althoughevidencemayshow
that marijuana may have some medicinal benets, we
should exercise caution about legalizing it because its
use also has harmful side effects. More important, the
legalizationofmarijuanawillgiverisetoahostofsocial
problems.Thenegativesoflegalizationfaroutweighits
benets.Wecanthussafelysaythatthepresentapproach
representsthemostsensibleandevenhandedresponseto
theissueathand.
Individuals should be given the freedom to lead their

livesastheychoose.Ofcourse,suchfreedomisnotabsolute, and laws should intervene to limit this freedom,
especiallywhentherightsofothersareinfringed.Inthe
caseoftheuseofmarijuana,itisavictimlesscrime
only the user experiences the effects of the substance.
Thestateshouldnotact paternalistically by legislating
againstsomethingthatharmsonlytheactualuser.
The state is justied in introducing legislation to preventindividualsfromcausingharmtothemselves.For

instance,manycountrieshavelawsrequiringthewearingofseatbeltsincars.Moreover,theuseofmarijuana
does lead to medically and socially harmful outcomes
thataffectothermembersofsociety.
Where is the empirical evidence that the use of marijuana will certainly lead users into more dangerous
narcoticsubstances?Thereisnone.Undeniably,alarge
numberofpeopleusethedrugdespiteitbeingillegal.
Ratherthanturnawayfromthisproblem,thegovernmentshouldfacereality.Thelegalizationofmarijuana
willenablethegovernment to regulate its use, thereby
protectingitsmanyusersfromharmfulabuseofthesubstance.
Thelegalizationofmarijuanawillleadtousersmoving
on to harder drugs like morphine and cocaine. This
would ultimately bring about an increase in social ills
aswellastheneedtospendmoregovernmentfundson
rehabilitationprograms.
Presently,organizedcrimesellsmarijuana.Thelegalizationofmarijuanawillhelpfacilitatethesaleofthedrug
inestablishmentslikeAmsterdamscoffeehouses.This
willshiftthesaleofmarijuanaawayfromthecriminal
underworld.Severingthecriminallinkwillensurethat
theusersnolongerneedtocomeintocontactwithorganizedcrime.
The same criminal elements that now sell marijuana

might,whenthedrugislegalized,diversifyandsetup
coffee houses themselves. Legalization will do nothingtoseparatethesaleofmarijuanafromthecriminal
underworld. Conversely, it will give criminals a legitimatebasefromwhichtocontinuetheiractivities.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatmarijuanashouldbelegalized.
ThisHousesupportsthelegalizationofdrugs.
ThisHouseadvocateschangeinourpresentdrugpolicy.
WebLinks:
OfceofNationalDrugControlPolicy.<http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov>
ProvidesinformationonUSgovernmentdrugpolicy,statisticsondruguse,newsstoriesandpublicationsfromananti-legalization
perspective.
|151
LegaliseCannabisAlliance.<http://www.lca-uk.org>
OrganizationsupportingthelegalizationofmarijuanainGreatBritain.
NationalOrganizationfortheReformofMarijuanaLaws.<http://www.norml.org/>
Informationonmarijuanafacts,laws,andmedicalusefromtheoldestUSorganizationsupportinglegalization.
FurtherReading:
Brown,David.Cannabis:TheGenusCannabis.TaylorandFrancis,1998.
Matthews,Patrick.CannabisCulture:AJourneythroughDisputedTerritory.TrafalgarSquare,2000.
MINORITYLANGUAGES
Throughout human history, numerous languages have lived and died with their speakers. With the rise of nation-state ideology,
centralized governments, unied education, and mass media, languages are becoming extinct at a much faster pace than before. Arguments for preserving linguistic diversity as part of the global human heritage and culture seem to be inherently in conict with efforts
to build unied states and with increased globalization. Many of the languages that are considered oppressively imposed majority
languages in certain countries are themselves a minority language when viewed from an international perspective, their own existence
threatened by global languages.
PROS
CONS
Anylanguageisareectionofhumancultureandisan
invaluable cultural artifact. Humanity suffers a great
loss when languages become extinct. Linguistic diversitydeservesnolessprotectionandcarethandoesracial
diversityorbiodiversity.
In the course of human progress languages naturally

disappear;itisnormal.Historyisrepletewithexamples
ofeventhegreatestlanguagesdyingoutandnewones
comingtoprominence;thisevolutionhasnothingtragic
about it. English, the predominant international language,mayitselfbreakapartintoseverallanguagesjust
asLatindid.
Currentlyabout100languagesenjoythestatusofofcialorstatelanguages,promotedthroughnationaleducationsystems.Thisisverydisadvantageousforminority
languages. Minority languages deserve ofcial protection. No language should be a victim in the name of
statehood.
Existenceofmanylanguageswithinonestateisdestructive and hinders its development. A healthy state and

national ideology are impossible without a single language. Support of minority languages is potentially
dangerousbecauseofthethreatposedtonationalunity.
Onlythroughonelinguafrancaweremodernindustrial
statesabletoreachtheirlevelofeconomicdevelopment.
Unitymeansprogress.
Thespreadanddominationofgloballanguagesarethe
legacyofcolonialism;theselanguagesareanexampleof
culturalimperialism.Deprivingminoritiesoftheirlinguisticrightsisdenyingtheirrighttoanidentity.
Otherthanthemothertongue,thespeakerhasachoice
andarighttospeakthelanguagehepleases.Globalization supports multilingualism. As in any evolutionary
process, humans discard languages that are no longer
usefulandadoptthosethataremostpracticalforthem.
The death of minority languages negatively reects on Theadoptionofwidespreadlanguagesbringsmanyecothe intellectual linguistic capacity of humans. Because nomic gains and results in more efcient communicalanguage is the means of developing the intellect, less tionandeducationprograms.Historically,thosenations
PROS
CONS
linguistic diversity equals less intellectual diversity. thatwereabletounifytheirlanguagewerealsoableto

Moreover, each extinct language contained irrecover- reachthegreatestlevelofdevelopment.
ableinformationthatcouldhavegreatlycontributedto
humanknowledgehaditsurvived.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsprotectionofminoritylanguages.
ThisHousewouldnotgivespecialstatustominoritylanguages.
ThisHouseagreesthatthereshouldbeonlyoneofciallanguage.
WebLinks:
LanguageRights.<www.linguistic-declaration.org/index-gb.htm>
UniversalDeclarationofLinguisticRightsrepresentsamovementforequalrightsforalllanguagecommunities.
U.S.English.<http://www.us-english.org>
AmericannongovernmentalorganizationlobbyingtomakeEnglishtheofciallanguageoftheUnitedStates.
WorldLanguages.<http://www.ethnologue.com>
Acomprehensiveresourceonlanguagesoftheworld,withadatabaseof6,500languages.
FurtherReading:
Crowley,Terry.AnIntroductiontoHistoricalLinguistics.OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
Crystal,David.LanguageDeath.CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.
Pennycook,Alastair.TheCulturalPoliticsofEnglishAsanInternationalLanguage.Addison-Wesley,1996.
Skutnabb-Kangas,Tove,RobertPhillipson,andMartRannut,eds.LinguisticHumanRights:OvercomingLinguisticDiscrimination.
MoutondeGruyter,1995.
MINORITYSCHOOLS
In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. In the decades that followed, school
systems took stepsoften unwillinglyto obey that ruling, sometimes busing students considerable distances to achieve integration. Even
so, de facto segregation has remained common, largely because of demographic patterns. In recent years, however, sentiment has grown for
a new kind of de jure segregation, one that is deliberate rather than accidental: it has been argued that black males in particular are better
served educationally in all-black (and all-male) schoolsand that public school systems should provide such an option. Opponents of
single-race schools are skeptical about the purported benets of such institutions, and they reject any system, however well intentioned, that
violates the judicial ban on segregation.
PROS
CONS
The civil rights movement fought segregation because

schoolsforblackswereinferiortowhiteschools;thereal
issue was the quality of the education black students
received. If studies show that black students will be
bettereducatedinall-blackschools,thenschoolsystems
mustacttoservethesestudents.
Constitutionalprinciplesarefundamentalandnotopen
to negotiation. Segregation in public institutions is
unconstitutionalandpermittingitinschools,forwhateverreason,willjustifyotherkindsofsegregationthat
arelesswellintentioned.
Even though the state requires mandatory education, TheConstitutionrespectstherightoffreeassociationin

theConstitutionrespectstherightoffreechoiceandfree theprivatesector,butthepublicsectorisdistinctlydif-
|153
PROS
CONS
association. Catholics, for example, are free to attend

churchschoolswithall-Catholicpopulations,andgirls
cangotoprivateschoolsthatserveonlygirls.Theresult
is that students are allowed to attend the schools that
servethembest.Butthisshouldnotbeaprivilegegiven
onlytothosewhocanaffordprivateschooling.Public
schoolstudents,too,deserveoptionsthatservethem
andthoseoptionsshouldincludesingle-sex,single-race
schools. Equality under the law does not mean sameness.
ferent.Citizensareguaranteedaccesstopublicservices,
irrespectiveofrace,sex,orcreed.Thestatecannotcreate
schoolsthat,bydesign,excludeanypartofthepopulation.
Societybenetsfromsingle-raceschools.Studentswho
attendsuchschoolsperformbetteracademicallybecause
the schools give them a proud sense of their cultural
identityandadisciplinedsenseofresponsibility.These
qualitieswillmakethembettercitizensaftertheyleave
theschoolsystem.
Thelogicbehindsingle-sex,single-raceschoolsispatronizingandself-defeating.ItassumesthatAfrican-American males cannot learn when there are white students

present or when there are girls present.Would anyone
suggest that white students are incapable of learning
whenblacksarepresent?Theassumptionthatblacksare
incapablebreedsafeelingofinferiority,notpride.
Integration does not necessarily represent the blendingofdisparateculturesintoauniedwhole;often,it

meansthedominanceofoneculture.African-American
studentslearnindistinctiveways,andtheyshouldnot
be forced into schools that promote white culture and
whitelearningstyles.
Society must respect the cultural identity and cultural

heritageofallofthepeoplewhomakeupAmerica.This
mayrequiresomereformsinthewayschoolscurrently
operate.Neverthless,wemustaspiretocommonunderstandings and common ways of doing things. A fragmented,atomizedcountrycannotfunctionorprosper.
We must not endorse schools that promote a sense of
separationratherthanasenseofunity.
Aftergraduation,eitherincollegeorintheworkforce,
AfricanAmericanswillhavetofunctionasmembersofa
minority.Itisimportantforthem,whilestillinschool,
to have a majority experiencethat is, to be part of
a community in which they are regarded as the norm
ratherthantheexception.
The working world is not segregated; indeed, one of

the most dominant characteristics of American society
isitsdiversityethnic,racial,andreligious.Oneofthe
primarypurposesofschoolingistopreparestudentsfor
theworkingworld;preparingthemwithafaultymodel
makesnosense.Iftheworldatlargeisnotsegregated,
theschoolshouldnotbeeither.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsthecreationofsingle-racepublicschools.
ThisHousewouldservepublicschoolstudentsinthebestwayspossible.
ThisHousebelievesinseparatebutequal.
WebLinks:
EducationResourcesInformationCenter:Article1.<http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed334340.html>
EssayonschoolprogramsforblackAmericanmales.
Balkin,JackM.IsthereaslipperySlopeFromSingle-SexEducationtoSingle-RaceEducation?JournalofBlacksinHigher
Education.<http://www.jbhe.com/features/37_balkin.html>
Articleinoppositiontosingleraceschools.
Smith,Stacy.VoluntarySegregation.PhilosophyofEducationYearbook.<http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/96_
docs/smith_s.html#fn20>
Articleinsupportofvoluntarysegregationinschools.
FurtherReading:
Fordham,Signithia.BlackedOut:DilemmasofRace,Identity,andSuccessatCapitalHigh.UniversityofChicagoPress,1996.
Hale,JaniceE.LearningWhileBlack:CreatingEducationalExcellenceforAfricanAmericanChildren.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,
2001.
Howard,GaryR.WeCantTeachWhatWeDontKnow:WhiteTeachers,MultiracialSchools.TeachersCollegePress,1999.
Murrell,PeterC.,Jr.African-CenteredPedagogy:DevelopingSchoolsofAchievementforAfricanAmericanChildren.StateUniversityof
NewYorkPress,2002.
MONARCHY,ABOLITIONOF
Although the United Kingdom has perhaps the best-known monarchy in the world, it is far from unique. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the
Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain also function as constitutional monarchies, as do Japan and Thailand. Hereditary rulers in Africa and
the Middle East (e.g., Morocco, Jordan, Lesotho, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) still retain a great deal of real power. Are these heads of state
anachronisms who should be swept away in the spirit of true democracy, or do they have much to commend them at a time when the leaders of many new republics still struggle to nd popular legitimacy?
PROS
CONS
Theconceptofmonarchyisundemocratic.Ifthemonarch retains any signicant political powers, these are

unjustiable.Whyshouldtheopinionofoneperson,in
ofcebyaccidentofbirth,beabletoinuencetheoutcomeofelectionsorofpoliticaldecisionmaking?Monarchy may also be used to prop up other unjustiable
elementswithingovernment,forexampletheHouseof
LordsintheUK.
Constitutional monarchy is a very effective political

system.Ahereditaryheadofstateactsasanimportant
elementofcontinuitywithinademocraticsystem.The
real powers of European monarchs are negligible. (In
theoryaBritishrulercanvetoanactofParliament,but
nonehasdonesosincetheearlyeighteenthcentury.)As
guresabovethepoliticalconictsoftheday,monarchs
retainanimportantsymbolicroleasafocusfornational
unity. In Britain their right to advise, encourage and
warn the prime minister has acted as a check against
overlyradicalpolicies.InSpain,KingJuanCarlosactuallyfaceddownamilitarycoupinthe1980s.
The concept of monarchy is also inegalitarian. Even if

themonarchyretainslittleornopoliticalpower,itspresencesustainsthetraditionalclasssystem,sendingamessagethattheclassyouarebornintomattersmorethan
what you make of yourself. This can stie aspirations
and lead to a culture of deference that does not value
the entrepreneur or individual ability and initiative. A
systemofroyalhonorsmaybeusedtotieachieversinto
the traditional social structures, making radical social
andpoliticalchangelesspossible.
Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nations heritage, a

livingreminderoftheeventsandpersonalitiesthathave
shapedit.Assuchitisapowerfulfocusforloyaltyanda
sourceofstrengthintimesofcrisis,aswellasareminder
ofenduringvaluesandtraditions.Separatingthepositionsofheadofstateandheadofgovernmentalsomakes
greatpracticalsense:Themonarchundertakesmuchof
the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the
primeministerfreetofocusmoreongoverning.
Thecostsofmonarchyareunjustiable.Typicallymonarchs and their immediate family receive substantial

amountsofmoneyfromthestatetomaintainluxurious
lifestyles.Thestatealsospendsagreatdealtomaintain
and run palaces and other royal residences, which are
seldom accessible to the general public that supports
themthroughtaxes.Securitycostsarealsoveryhigh.
Monarchyishighlycost-effectivewhencomparedtothe
expenseofmaintainingapresidentwithalargestaffand
equallystringentsecurityrequirements.Royalresidences
areheldintrustforthenationandwouldincurthesame
upkeepcostswhetheramonarchinhabitedthemornot.
Monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated
withroyaltyandthroughitsroleinpromotingtradeand
industryabroadonroyalvisits.
|155
PROS
CONS
Royalfamilieshavebecomenationalembarrassments.In
anageofmassmedia,monarchiesarenolongerableto
maintainthemystiquethatoncesetthemapartfromthe
commonfolk.Insteadkings,queens,princes,andprincessesarerevealedtobemortal,fallible,andsometimes
foolish.Astheirwardrobes,squabbles,andfailingmarriageshavebecomeconstantsourcesofmediascrutiny,
anyremainingrespectformonarchyasaninstitutionhas
waned.Howmanypeopletravelingabroadliketond
theirheadofstate,andbyextensiontheirwholecountry,
asourceofamusement?
Monarchy is preferable to an elected presidency. Presidentsinevitablyareassociatedwithpartisanpoliticsand

thuscannotrepresentthenationasmonarchscan.Public
trustofpoliticiansissinkingtonewlowsinallcountries,
anotherreasonwhyanelectedpresidentfailstoprovide
afocusfornationalfeeling.Constitutionalmonarchyis
also a more effective system of government because it
vests real power clearly in the hands of democratically
accountableleaderswithamandatetogovernbutavoids
allthedangersofpoliticalgridlockthatcanresultfrom
conictbetweenelectedbranchesofgovernment.
Monarchsnolongerclaimdivinerighttorule.Forcenturiesthemainjusticationofroyalauthoritywasareligiousone.RomanCatholicrulershadtheirlegitimacy
supported by the Pope; Protestant rulers often headed
their own state churches. In both cases the monarchs
rightfulauthoritywaspreachedinchurcheverySunday,
whiletherulerinturnprotectedasinglenationalchurch.
Today societies include many faiths, and many people
havenoreligionatall.Hardlyanyonebelievesthemonarch has a spiritual right to exercise authority. Indeed,
those whose religion differs from that of the monarch
(oftenethnicminorities)maybealienatedbytheprivilegesgrantedaparticularfaith.
Monarchs can both form and lead public opinion.

Although above party politics, modern monarchs have
provedabletoraiseimportantandsometimesunpopularissuesthatwouldotherwisehavebeenignored.For
example,intheUKPrinceCharleshaslegitimizeddiscussionofenvironmentalissuesandstimulatedalively
debateaboutthepurposeofarchitecture,whilePrincess
Dianas work with AIDS sufferers helped shift public
opinion.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldabolishthemonarchy.
ThisHousewouldstormthepalace.
ThisHousewouldratherbefreecitizensthanloyalsubjects.
WebLinks:
AustraliansforConstitutionalMonarchy.<http://www.norepublic.com.au/>
Australianorganizationopposingthecreationofarepublicandsupportingthecontinuationofaconstitutionalmonarchy.
TheCentreforRepublicanDemocracy.<http://www.centreforcitizenship.org>
ArticlesinsupportofaBritishrepublicfromaradicalpointofview.
Republic.<http://www.republic.org.uk/>
OfferspolicystatementsandarticlesinsupportofanelectedheadofstateforGreatBritain.
FurtherReading:
Freedland,Jonathan.BringHometheRevolution:TheCaseforaBritishRepublic.FourthEstate,1999.
Winterton,George.MonarchytoRepublic:AustralianRepublicanGovernment.OxfordUniversityPress,1995.
MULTICULTURALISMVS.INTEGRATION
One of the biggest questions facing societies today is how to deal with a culturally diverse citizenry. Different religions and traditions exist
side by side in many cities. Historically, the United States has had a continuing debate about how completely immigrants should adopt the
dominant language and culture. Facing growing immigrant communities determined to retain their identity, Europe has had to address the
issue. On one side are those who want to enforce a certain degree of integrationa basic knowledge of the national language, the national
history, and civil customs. On the other are those who believe that a multicultural society is strong enough to accommodate numerous cultures within it and that it might even gain from the diversity this entails.
PROS
CONS
Multiculturalism is clearly better; how can you expect If you decide that you want to live in a country, you
peopletogiveuptheirheritage?Immigrantsdonotleave havetorespectitstraditions.Expectingnewcitizensor
acountrytoleavetheirculturalidentitybehind.
residents to conform to certain national norms is not
unreasonable.
If a society claims to be tolerant of personal choice, it Whatsomepeoplecallsocialengineering,integrationists
must respect the choice of immigrants to retain their callensuringthatsocietyisasharmoniousandconictheritage.Anythinglesssmacksofsocialengineering.
freeaspossible.Ifdifferencebreedscontempt,thenthe
leastdifferencethebetter.
Clinging to an idea of monolithic, national identity is
anachronistic. The nation-state model for society is
crumbling and is being outstripped by transnational
models,suchastheEuropeanUnion.Asaresult,thereis
lessemphasisonnationalidentity.Suchexclusivenationalismisdestructive,andhistoryshowsittobeso.
Wetotallyrejectthenotionofthedemiseofthenationstate.Itisstilltheprimarymodeofnationalidentity.As
UShistoryhasshown,anationcanabsorbmillionsof
immigrantsandyetmaintainedauniqueidentity.
Perpetuating a national identity inevitably leads to the

alienation of those who for religious or other reasons
choosenottoconform.Ifthenationalidentitydoesnot
includethewearingofaturban,headdress,orrobe,then
those who do wear these garments are excluded from
themainstream.Suchexclusiongivesrisetothenotion
oftheotherandleavesthoseperceivedastheother
opentophysicalassault.
There is a middle point between denying anyone the

righttopracticetheirreligionopenlyanddenyingany
sort of national identity or conformity. A shared sense
ofbelongingandpurposeisvitalfornationalcoherence
and serves the nation and the nations peoples well in
times of war. In addition, we want everyone to cheer
theirfavoriteballteam.
We should embrace the fact that people can support

boththeiroldandnewnations.Itshowsthatwehave
moved beyond the divisive national stereotyping that
causes conict. The more tolerance of difference and
embraceofothercultureswecanachieve,thelessconicttherewillbe.
This is nave and presumes, arrogantly, that we have

movedbeyondthepointwhereweareatriskfromenemies.Astheriseinextremismanditssupportfromsome
ofourowncitizensshow,wehavebeentooliberal.We
have forgotten why nationhood is important and why
weallneedtofeelacommunalbelongingandafnity
withthebasicvaluesofoursociety.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbemulticultural.
ThisHousebelievesinmulticulturalism.
ThisHousebelievesthatthenation-stateisdead.
|157
WebLinks:
AustralianGovernmentImmigrationWebsite.<http://www.immi.gov.au/multicultural/>
Australiangovernmentpolicyonmulticulturalism.
Diversity&Multiculturalism:TheNewRacism.<http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/>
CritiqueofmulticulturalismbytheAynRandInstitute.
FurtherReading:
Barry,BrianM.CultureandEquality:AnEgalitarianCritiqueofMulticulturalism.HarvardUniversityPress,2002.
Kymlicka,Will.MulticulturalCitizenship:ALiberalTheoryofMinorityRights.OxfordUniversityPress,1996.
Kymlicka,Will,andWayneNorman,eds.CitizenshipinDiverseSocieties.OxfordUniversityPress,2000.
Miller,David.CitizenshipandNationalIdentity.PolityPress,2000.
NATIONALTESTING
Responding to mounting concerns that the American educational system was failing its students, Congress passed the No Child Left
Behind Act (2001), which mandates that states develop annual assessments (tests) of learning and skills mastered. The scores on these
state tests are then compared with those from a sampling of state students who have taken the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The intent is to use the results of these tests to chart national academic progress and provide extra help for schools and
students who are falling behind. Education in the United States has historically been the responsibility of states and localities; this measure
vastly expands federal oversight of education. Many advocates believe this approach to improving the nations schools is wrong and will not
accomplish its objective. Others argue that the only way to know how schools and students are performing is to measure them against other
schools and other students in other states.
PROS
CONS
A national curriculum for most core subjects already

existswithoutschoolboardsandlocalcommunitieseven
realizingit.Mosthighschoolstudentsarepreparingfor
standardizedcollegeentranceexamsandthereforestudy
whatisneededtodowellonthesetests.Also,onlyafew
textbookcompaniesproducetextsforhighschoolstudents.Whenlocalitiesselectoneofthesetextbooks,they
are, in effect, agreeing to what amounts to a national
curriculum.Besides,studentsacrossthecountryshould
learnthesameskills.
The mandate for a national test makes every locality teach the same curriculum. Each state and locality should be able to determine its own curriculum as
schoolsacrossthecountryareverydifferentandshould
beabletomakedecisionsatthelocallevelonwhatwill
be taught within their classrooms. Requiring national
testing removes the traditional rights of localities to
adapttocommunitystandardsanddesireswhenmaking
curriculumdecisions.
Aslongasschoolboardsandlocalitiesfollowthenational
curriculum,studentsuccessonthetestwillfollow.Drillingandteachingtothetestoccuronlywhenschools
make a decision to test without altering their curriculums. Students undeniably need to have certain basic
skills and subject mastery when they graduate. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress and the
state-developed assessments will test those; the school
dayaffordsplentyoftimeforstudentstolearnthebasics
and still participate in additional activities and attend
classesthatgobeyondthebasics.
Mandatinganationaltestwillresultinteachersteachingtothetests.Studentswillfacedaysoflearninghow
totaketestsattheexpenseoflearningskillsandknowledgethatwillhelpthembecomegoodcitizensandcontributeinmeaningfulwaystosociety.Theywillbecome
goodtesttakersbutwillmissoutonthejoyoflearning
forlearningssake.Subjectslikeartandmusicthatare
notcoveredonthestandardizedtestscouldbecut.Our
childrenseducationwouldbecomenarrowlyfocusedon
ayearlytest.
PROS
CONS
TheentirereasonthatpubliceducationinAmericawas
founded was to develop a more productive workforce.
Althougheducationbyitselfisaworthygoal,ultimately
whatwewantforourchildrenisforthemtobesuccessfulindividualswhoareabletoearnalivingwhenthey
graduatefromhighschoolorcollege.Focusingonword
choices that may also be used in the business world is
justadistracter,usedbyopponentsofnationaltestingto
shiftthedebateawayfromwhatreallyneedstohappen
inournationsschools.
Using a national test to determine if schools and studentsareworkingoversimplieseducation.Advocatesof

nationaltestingusetermsthataremorespecictobusiness,asifchildrenaresimplywidgetscomingoutatthe
endofanassemblyline.Proponentsofnationaltesting
usetermslikesettingobjectives,gettingresults,and
thebottomlinewhentalkingaboutournationschildren.Wecannotlettheunethical,corrupt,andprotdrivenworldofbusinessencroachintoournationsclassrooms.
Inasocietywhereeducationissoimportanttosuccess,
wemustmakesureourschoolsareperformingforour
nationschildren.Theprimaryreasonfornationalstandards and assessment is to make schools and teachers
accountableforwhatgoesonintheclassroom.Ifschools
andteachersaredoingagoodjob,theyhavenothingto
fearaswemovetoanationalsystemofaccountability
throughassessment.
Usinganationaltesttodetermineifstudentsaremastering material is unfair and will drive good teachers out

of our classrooms, making existing problems worse. A
better alternative is a broad-based assessment, which
looksatmultiplemeasuresofwhatastudenthaslearned.
Insteadoftestingastudentononeday,amultiple-measureassessmentusesteacherevaluations,teacher-created
tests, and student demonstrations that occur over the
entireschoolyear.Thiswouldespeciallybenetstudents
whoarenotgoodtesttakers.
Developing acceptable national standards is not easy,

but other countries have demonstrated that creating
good standard tests that motivate students and teachersispossible.Excellenceiscreatedbybringingtogether
the right people, examining textbooks, and looking at
standardsalreadyputinplacebymanynationalteachers
associations.IntheUnitedStates,thequalityofeducationthatstudentsreceivedependsonwhatstate,county,
and town they live in and even in what part of town
theyreside.Thisviolatestheprincipleofequalitythatis
fundamentaltothevaluesofourcountry.Ifallteachers
areexpectedtoachievethesamestandards,thequalityof
educationforallchildrencangoup.
Theideaofnationalstandardsmayseemlikeagoodone
untilyoustarttoactuallytrytocreatethestandardsthat
teachersmustteachto.Agreeingwhatmustbetaughtis
difcultenoughinalocalsetting;nationallysuchagreementisprobablynotachievable.Whichhistoricgures
should all students learn about? What parts of history
aremostimportant?Also,goodstandardsaredifcultto
craft.Standardsareeithertoovaguesothetestmakers
andteachersdonotknowwhatmaterialtofocuson,or
they are too detailed so that teachers and students are
overwhelmedbythesheernumberofsubjectsthatmust
bemastered.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbannationaltesting.
ThisHousebelievesthatnationalstandardsaremorevaluablethanlocallydevelopedcurriculums.
ThisHousebelievesthatnationalstandardswillhaveadetrimentaleffectoneducation.
ThisHousebelievesthatnationalstandardspromoteequalityineducation.
WebLinks:
EducationCommissionoftheStates(ECS).<http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issues.asp?am=1>
Offersawealthofinformationaboutthepracticalimplicationsofnationaltesting.
NationalEducationAssociation(NEA).<http://www.nea.org/accountability>
Sitemaintainedbythemajornationalorganizationthatopposednationalstandards;currentlyfocusesontheimplementationof
theinitiative.
PBSFrontline:TestingOurSchools.<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools>
ThiscompanionWebsitetothePBSshowFrontlinepresentsabalancedoverviewoftheissueofnationaltesting.
|159
FurtherReading:
Ohanian,Susan.OneSizeFitsFew:TheFollyofEducationalStandards.Heinemann,1999.
Oreld,Gary,andMindyKornhaber,eds.RaisingStandardsorRaisingBarriers?:InequalityandHighStakesTestinginPublicEducation.CenturyFoundationPress,2001.
Tucker,MarcS.,andJudyB.Codding.StandardsforOurSchools:HowtoSetThem,MeasureThem,andReachThem.Jossey-Bass,
1998.
NATION-STATES
The question of whether the nation-state has a viable future in the world of globalization becomes especially important with a growing
number of challenges to the very idea of sovereignty. As such, the question is not simply globalization: good or evil?, but whether the
current international order (largely based on a nation-state framework dating to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648) can survive in a globalized world. In this debate, the nation-state is dened as a stable entity with inviolable borders that encompass its culture and economy and
contains a population that has a sense of national identity. It has an equal standing to all nation-states before international law regardless
of its size and power.
PROS
CONS
Perceiving the world as a collection of distinct nationstates is still viable as a construct of the world order.
Nation-states remain formidable and will be able to
resist the tide of globalization for centuries. Human
nature wants to remain separate and equal, maintaininganidentityandmarkinganddefendingcertainterritory. No amount of internationalization can destroy
thesystemthathasworkedsuccessfullyforalmost400
years.
In the near future the present framework of nationstateswillbereplacedbyloosefederationsofcountries,

regionalorganizations,enormoustransnationalcorporations,andinternationalorganizations.Politicsbasedon
nationalidentitywilldiewhentechnologyandcultural
andeconomicadvancescreateglobalsocialandcultural
cohesion.Globalizationistoostrongtoresist,andany
nationthattriestodosowillbepushedtothemargins
oftheworldorder.
What we are seeing is not globalization but grow- Globalization is getting stronger. In fact, the dominaing regionalism, which people fear may challenge the tionoftheworldorderbyonesuperpowerthreatensthe
nation-state.
nation-state.
No viable alternative to the current order exists. The
nation-state is the best system available for preserving
cultures and institutions. Depriving people of their
nationalidentityforthesakeofglobalizationisaviolationofhumanrights.
GrowingfederalismandregionalisminareaslikeEurope
haveprovedthathumanscanovercometheirparochial
concerns.Thiscombinationoffederalismandregional
government is likely to be replaced by global governmentinthefuture.
Ongoing secessionist movements are evidence that no

amount of unication can keep transnational countriesintact.Numerousethnicandnationalgroupsare
ghtingfortheirownnation-states,andthistrendwill
continue.
The system of nation-states is outdated. It generates

conict and cannot guarantee global order.The ideologyofthenation-statejustiesviolenceinthenameof
thenationandthusrunscountertohumanitysgoalsof
globalpeaceandsecurity.Forcingpeopletoremainloyal
totheirnationsoftenresultsinhumanrightsviolations.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatthenation-statesystemdoesnotdescribethecurrentinternationalorder.
ThisHouseshouldendorsenation-statesagainstglobalization.
ThisHouseholdsthatnation-stateshavenofuture.
WebLinks:
AdvancedResearchontheEuropeanisationoftheNation-State(ARENA).<http://www.arena.uio.no>
Provideslinksaswellasanannotatedlistofjournalarticlesandbooksonnationalism.
TheGlobalist.<http://www.theglobalist.com>
Dailyonlinemagazineonkeyissuesbeforetheglobalcommunity.
TheNationalismProject.<http://www.nationalismproject.org>
Providesessays,articles,bibliographies,bookabstractsandreviews,andlinkstonationalism-relatedinformation.
Nations,States&Politics.<http://www.scholiast.org/nations>
ResearchprogramonthechangesinEuropewithaprimaryfocusontheroleofthenation-state.
FurtherReading:
Friedman,ThomasL.TheLexusandtheOliveTree:UnderstandingGlobalization.Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2000.
Gould,Carol,andPasqualePaquino,eds.CulturalIdentityandtheNation-State.RowmanandLittleeld,2001.
Holton,R.J.GlobalizationandtheNation-State.Macmillan,1998.
Huntington,SamuelP.TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofWorldOrder.SimonandSchuster,1996.
Soros,George.GeorgeSorosonGlobalization.PublicAffairs,2002.
NUCLEARVS.RENEWABLEENERGY
Since the mid-1980s, nuclear power has been a major source of electricity in the United States. Yet the future of nuclear power in the
United States and the rest of the world is uncertain. The US Department of Energy predicts that the use of nuclear fuel will have
dropped dramatically by 2020, by which time over 40% of capacity will have been retired. Currently, there are no plans to build further
reactors in the United States. Yet the use of nuclear energy continues to engender contentious debate, as experts predict that we may be
running out of fossil fuels. There is much public fear about nuclear energy, fueled by accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile
Island, and concern about disposal of nuclear fuel. But are there viable alternatives?
PROS
CONS
Currently,themajorityoftheworldselectricityisgenerated using fossil fuels. Although estimates vary greatly

abouttheworldssupplyoffossilfuels,someestimates
suggestthatoilcouldbeexhaustedwithin50yearsand
coalwithin25years.Thuswemustndanewsource
of energy. We must start to convert to nuclear energy
now so there is not a major crisis when fossil fuels do
runout.
Estimatesofhowlongfossilfuelresourceswilllasthave
remainedunchangedforthelastfewdecades.Predicting
whenthesefuelswillbedepletedisvirtuallyimpossible
because new deposits may be discovered and because
therateofusecannotbepredictedaccurately.Inadditionsomeexpertsestimatethattheworldhas350years
of natural gas. We have no current need to search for
anewpowersource.Moneyspentonsuchexploration
would be better spent on creating technology to clean
theoutputfrompowerstations.
Nuclear energy is clean. It does not produce gaseous

emissionsthatharmtheenvironment.Granted,itdoes
produceradioactivewaste,butbecausethisisasolidit
canbehandledeasilyandstoredawayfrompopulation
centers.Burningfossilfuelscausesfarmoreenvironmentaldamagethanusingnuclearreactors,evenifwefactor
in the Chernobyl catastrophe. Consequently, nuclear
energyispreferabletofossilfuels.Furthermore,asnew
Evenapartfromthesafetyissues,nuclearpowerpresents
anumberofproblems.First,itisexpensiveandrelatively
inefcient.Thecostofbuildingreactorsisenormousand
thepriceofsubsequentlydecommissioningthemisalso
huge.Thenthereistheproblemofwaste.Nuclearwaste
canremainradioactiveforthousandsofyears.Itmustbe
storedforthistimeawayfromwater(intowhichitcan
dissolve)andfarfromanytectonicactivity.Suchstorage
|161
PROS
CONS
technologies,suchasfastbreederreactors,becomeavail- isvirtuallyimpossibleandseriousconcernshavearisen
able, they will produce less nuclear waste. With more overthestateofwastediscardedevenafewdecadesago.
investment, science can solve the problems associated
withnuclearenergy,makingitevenmoredesirable.
Unfortunately,thenuclearindustryhasabadreputation
forsafetythatisnotentirelydeserved.Theoverwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely
andeffectively.Thetwomajornuclearaccidents,Three
MileIslandandChernobyl,werebothinoldstylereactors, exacerbated in the latter case by lax Soviet safety
standards.Weareadvocatingnewreactors,builttothe
highest safety standards. Such reactors have an impeccablesafetyrecord.Perhapsthebestguaranteeofsafety
in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency
within the industry. Many of the early problems were
causedbyexcessivecontrolduetotheoriginofnuclear
energyfrommilitaryapplications.Asaciviliannuclear
industrydevelops,itbecomesmoreaccountable.
The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record. At

ThreeMileIslandwewereminutesawayfromameltdown,andatChernobyltheunthinkableactuallyhappened.Theeffectsonthelocalpeopleandtheenvironment were devastating. The fallout from Chernobyl
can still be detected in our atmosphere.True, modern
nuclearreactorsaresafer,buttheyarenotperfectlysafe.
Disasterisalwayspossible.Nuclearpowerstationshave
had a number of minor accidents.The industry has
toldusthattheseproblemswillnothappenagain,but
time and time again they recur. We have to conclude
thattheindustryistoodominatedbytheprotmotive
toreallycareaboutsafetyandtooshroudedinsecrecyto
beaccountable.Inaddition,thenuclearindustryhashad
a terrible impact on those living around power plants.
Therateofoccurrenceofcertaintypesofcancer,such
as leukemia, is much higher in the population around
nuclearplants.
Wemustexaminethealternativestonuclearenergy.For
thereasonsexplainedabove,wecanruleoutfossilfuels
immediately.Wealsoseeenormousproblemswithother
formsofenergy.Themostefcientsourceofrenewable
energyhasbeenhydroelectricpower.However,thisusuallycreatesmoreproblemsthanitsolves.Buildingalarge
damnecessarilyoodsanenormousregionbehindthe
dam,displacingtensofthousandsofpeople.Damsalso
causeenormousdamagetotheecologyandincurenormous social and cultural costs. Solar energy has never
liveduptoexpectationsbecauseitishugelyinefcient.
Windenergyisonlymarginallybetter,withanunsightly
windfarmthesizeofTexasneededtoprovidetheenergy
forTexasalone.Thegreatironyisthatnotonlyaremost
renewablesourcesinefcientbutmanyarealsoecologicallyunsound!Theoppositiontobuildingwindfarmsin
certainareashasbeenjustasstrongastheoppositionto
nuclearpowerbecausewindfarmsdestroythescenery.
Although alternative energy is not efcient enough to

servetheenergyneedsoftheworldspopulationtoday,
itcould,withinvestmentinallthesemethods,bemade
efcientenoughtoservehumankind.Wearenotadvocatingablanketsolutiontoeveryproblem.Manydam
projectscouldhavebeenreplacedbysolarpowerhadthe
technology been available. In addition, most countries
usually have at least one renewable resource that they
can use: tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries,hotrocksforvolcanicregions,etc.Consequently,
any country can, in principle, become energy self-sufcient with renewable energy. The global distribution
of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than for
fossilfuels);accordingly,theuseofnuclearpowergives
countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economicpower.UraniumcouldconceivablybecomesubjecttothesamekindofmonopolythattheOrganization
ofPetroleumExportingCountrieshasforoil.Thispreventscountriesfromachievingself-sufciencyinenergy
production.
The nuclear industry is a major employer. It creates Suggestingthatnuclearpoweristheonlyemployment

numerous jobs and, with investment, will create even provider is completely fatuous. Energy production
will always provide roughly the same number of jobs.
more.
If spending on the nuclear industry were redirected to
renewable energy, then jobs would simply move from
theonetotheother.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldlooktotheatom.
ThisHousewouldgonuclear.
WebLinks:
GreenpeaceNuclearCampaign.<http://www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/>
Informationontheorganizationscampaignsagainstnuclearfuelsandweapons.
FurtherReading:
Berinstein,Paula.AlternativeEnergy:Facts,Statistics,andIssues.OryxPress,2001.
Blair,Cornelia,NancyR.Jacobs,andJacquelynF.Quiram.Energy:AnIssueofthe90s.InformationPlus,1999.
Makhijani,Arjun,andScottSaleska.TheNuclearPowerDeception:U.S.NuclearMythologyfromElectricityTooCheaptoMeterto
InherentlySafeReactors.Apex,1999.
NUCLEARWEAPONS,ABOLITIONOF
The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 forever changed the face of war, and the half-century of Cold
War that followed was dominated, above all, by the threat of nuclear destruction. The Soviet Union and the United States raced to produce increasingly powerful arsenals, eventually resulting in their ability to destroy the world several times over. This nuclear arms race
led to the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, a stalemate in which both sides knew that the use of their weapons would totally
annihilate one another and potentially the whole world. The end of the Cold War changed the global situation substantially. The fear of
nuclear war between superpowers was replaced by the fear of nuclear proliferation, particularly by rogue states and terrorist groups.
PROS
CONS
Nuclearweaponsaremorallyrepugnant.Overthepast
50years,wehaveseenamovementtowardlimitedwarfareandprecisionweaponsthatminimizetheimpacton
civilians.Nuclearweaponshavemassive,indiscriminate
destructivepower.Theycankillmillionsandcausecatastrophicharmtotheworldenvironment.
The use of nuclear weapons would indeed be a great

tragedy;butso,toagreaterorlesserextent,isanywar.
Thereasonformaintaininganeffectivenucleararsenalis
topreventwar.Thecatastrophicresultsofusingnuclear
weaponsdiscourageconict.TheColdWarwasoneof
themostpeacefultimesinhistory,largelybecauseofthe
nucleardeterrentsofthetwosuperpowers.
Theideaofaso-callednucleardeterrentnolongerapplies.
DuringtheColdWar,peacewasmaintainedonlybya
balanceofpower;neithersuperpowerhadanadvantage
largeenoughtobecondentofvictory.However,abalance of power no longer exists. With the proliferation
ofnuclearweapons,someroguestatesmaydevelopthe
abilitytostrikeatnationsthathavenonuclearweapons.
Wouldthemajornuclearpowersthenstrikebackatthe
aggressor? The answer is unknown. In addition, most
of the emerging nuclear threats would not come from
legitimate governments but from dictators and terroristgroups.Wouldkillingthousandsofcivilianseverbe
acceptableinretaliationfortheactionsofextremists?
Thedeterrentprinciplestillstands.DuringthePersian
GulfWar,forexample,thefearofUSnuclearretaliation
was one of the factors that prevented Iraq from using
chemicalweaponsagainstIsrael.Asimilarfearmaypreventroguestatesfromusingnuclearweapons.Moreover,
althoughthecitizensofthecurrentnuclearpowersmay
opposetheuseofforceagainstcivilians,theiropinions
would rapidly change if they found weapons of mass
destructionusedagainstthem.
Bymaintainingastrategicdeterrent,thecurrentnuclear Thenucleargenieisoutofthebottleandcannotbeput
powersencouragetheproliferationofweaponsofmass backin.Theidealofglobalnucleardisarmamentisne
|163
PROS
CONS
destruction. Countries believe that being a member of

the nuclear club increases their international status.
Also,nationsatoddswithacountrywithnuclearcapability feel that they must develop their own capability
to protect themselves.Therefore, nuclear powers must
taketheleadindisarmamentasanexamplefortherest
oftheworld.
intheorybutitwillnotworkinpractice.Nationswill
not disarm if they fear a rogue state has secret nuclear
capability. Without the threat of a retaliatory strike, a
roguenuclearstatecouldattackothersatwill.
Nuclearweaponscanfallintothewronghands.Thisis
particularly true in Russia, which controls the former
Sovietarsenal.Themilitaryisdisastrouslyunderfunded;
nuclearexpertsandofcersaccustomedtoahighstandardoflivingarenowndingthemselveswithoutpay,
sometimesforyears.Atthesametime,othernationsand
extremistgroupsarewillingtopaysubstantialsumsfor
their services and for access to nuclear weapons. Only
destroyingtheweaponswillendthedangerofsomeone
stealing a weapon or extremists taking over a nuclear
base.
Whilenuclearweaponscanbedismantled,theycannot
beeasilydestroyed.Specialfacilitiesareneededforstorage.Inaddition,dismantlingmissilesdoesnotdestroy
the weapons-grade plutonium that forms their warheads.Plutoniumisthemostvaluablepartofthemissile,hencetheriskoftheftdoesnotdecreaseandmay,
infact,increase.Securityatplutoniumstoragefacilities
isofteninadequate;moreover,stealingarelativelysmall
quantityofplutoniumisrelativelyeasy.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldabolishnuclearweapons.
ThisHousewouldbanthebomb.
WebLinks:
Abolition2000.<http://www.abolition2000.org/>
Linkstositesofferinggeneralinformationinsupportofglobaleliminationofnuclearweapons.
FederationofAmericanScientists:NuclearForcesGuide.<http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html>
Maintainedbyanorganizationofscientistsadvocatingeliminationofnuclearweapons,thesiteoffersin-depthinformationonthe
statusofnuclearproliferation,terrorism,andweaponsofmassdestruction.
FurtherReading:
Athanasopulos,Haralambos.NuclearDisarmamentinInternationalLaw.McFarland,2000
NUCLEARWEAPONSTESTING
Efforts to stop the testing of nuclear weapons have been made for nearly as long as nuclear technology has existed. The 1963 Limited Test
Ban Treaty banned tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and beneath the sea. While the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty included
a statement of intent to work toward the total ending of nuclear testing, a complete moratorium became feasible only when the Cold War
ended. USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 and US president George H. W. Bush in 1992 declared unilateral moratoriums
on testing and were followed by other nuclear powers. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) of 1996, which ruled out any
nuclear tests, has not been ratied by the 44 nations needed to put it into effect. Non-ratiers include the United States, China, and
India, although major nuclear powers like Russia and the United Kingdom have committed themselves to its strictures.
PROS
CONS
TheCTBTisthebestwaytostopthedevelopmentand
proliferationofmore,andmorecomplex,nuclearweapons.The treaty not only limits the technical developmentofweaponsbutalsoreducestheextenttowhich
theycanbedisplayed,thusreducingtheirvalueasabargainingchipandasymbolofpower.TheCTBTmeans
fewerweaponsinfewercountriesandisthereforeavaluablewayofreducingnucleartensions.
TheCTBTisamisguidedattempttofreezethecurrent
nuclearpowerbalance.Itwillonlycurtailthosenations
thatpresentnorealthreattoglobalstability.Infact,by
restrictingthesecountries,thetreatycanmakethereality
ofMutuallyAssuredDestructionlessclearandactually
encouragerecklessnessbylessstablenuclearpowers.
Nuclearexplosionshaveamassiveenvironmentalimpact
and cause massive harm. Large areas are irradiated by
theblastsandthelong-termeffectsofradioactivematerialsthrownintotheatmospherebytheexplosionsare
uncertain.Nucleartestsofteninvolvemovingpeopleoff
theirownlands(aswiththeFrenchtestsinPolynesiain
1995)andinvolvethedestructionofhabitats.Although
informationisscanty,theundergroundtestsconducted
inChinaaresuspectedtohavecausedearthquakes.
Overttestingbynuclearpowershappensinonlythemost
desertedandenvironmentallystableareas,forexample,
SiberiaandthedesertsofNevadaandwesternAustralia.
Thus, their environmental impact is not just minimal
butmuchlessthanthatofsecretteststhatmighttake
placetocircumventthetreaty.
The CTBT can be effective in stopping the testing of

nuclearweapons.Thetreatyincludesspecicmeasures
of redress and gives scope for wider action. Moreover,
voluntary commitments to curtail nuclear testing do
holdmoralforce.TheFrenchgovernmentwaitedforthe
end of a one-year moratorium before resuming testing
in1995.
TheCTBTistoothlessandunenforceable.Itsonlyspecicmeasureisexpulsionfromthetreatyrightsandobligations; it is likely to affect only stable nations whose

nuclear armories pose the least threat. Effectively this
treatyputsthetoolofnucleartestinginthehandsofthe
leastscrupulousofthenuclearpowers.
Verication of the test ban is now possible; the ComprehensiveTestBanOrganizationinViennaisincharge

of the international monitoring system, a network of
stations throughout the world that can take seismic,
hydro-acoustic, and infrasound measurements in all
environments.Thesestationscanalsomeasureradionuclidelevelsindebris.Thetreatyalsoprovidesarightof
inspectionbetweensignatorieslikethoseincludedinthe
US-USSRweaponsreductiontreaties.
Vericationcanneverbeperfect,thusuncertaintyand
mistrustwillalwaysbepresent.Ifnationsperformcovert
tests,notonlyaretheymorelikelytobeconductedin
amoredangerousenvironment,butsuchtestswillalso
increase international tensions because of the uncertainty about the source of the resulting nuclear pollution.Further,theareasinwhichtestingwasbannedby
theLimitedTestBanTreatyaremorelikelytobeusedif
testsareconductedsecretly.
|165
PROS
CONS
TheCTBTdoesnotthreatenexistingnucleararsenals.
Otheraspectsofnuclearweaponslikeguidancesystems
andmissilescanstillbetested;besides,computermodelingnowdoesmuchoftheworkfortestingexplosions.
RussiaandBritainhavebothratiedtheCTBT;neither
hasanyintentionofrelinquishingitsstatusasanuclear
power.
Computer modeling works only if it is based on data

fromrealexplosions.Thelessrealdata,thelessreliable
computermodeling.Asnewtechnologiesdevelop,modelingwillbecomeincreasinglyunsatisfactory.Moreover,
itisexactlytheunexpectedeffectsthatareimportantin
thetests.Theynotonlyallowustoensuretheweapons
are working but also yield data that have been found
highlyusefulinthepeacefulnuclearindustriesthatare
specicallyprotectedintheNon-ProliferationTreaty.
Voters in the United States, for example, overwhelmingly favor the CTBT.World opinion in all but a few
roguestatesstronglyfavorsbanningnucleartesting,thus
showingsignicantsupportandcreatingpoliticalimpetusforsigningthetreaty.
TheCTBTisapoliticaldeadduck.Politicalsupportis
nonexistent(provedbythefactthatmanyofthenations
involved in its development have not ratied it). A
treaty that has none of the support necessary to come
intoforceisclearlynotoneworthcommittingtimeand
energyto.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbannucleartesting.
ThisHousewouldratifytheComprehensiveNuclearTestBanTreaty.
ThisHousewouldbanthebomb.
WebLinks:
CoalitiontoReduceNuclearDangers.<http://www.clw.org/coalition/index.html>
Providesinformationonawidevarietyofissuesinvolvingnuclearweapons.
ComprehensiveNuclearTestBanTreatyOrganization.<http://www.ctbto.org/>
SummarizesthecurrentstatusoftheCTBT.
PhysiciansforSocialResponsibility.<http://www.psr.org/home.efm?id=security>
OffersdetailedessayontheUSresponsetotheCTBT.
USStateDepartmentBureauofArmsControl.<http://www.state.gov/t/ac/>
InformationoncurrentUSpolicyanddiplomaticnegotiationsonavarietyofarmscontrolissues.
FurtherReading:
Arnett,Eric,ed.NuclearWeaponsaftertheComprehensiveTestBan:ImplicationsforModernizationandProliferation.OxfordUniversityPress,1996.
Lambers,WilliamK.NuclearTestBanTreaty:ABetterShieldThanMissileDefense.BillLambers,2001.
Pande,Savita.CTBT:IndiaandtheNuclearTestBan.SouthAsiaBooks,1996.
OLYMPICDREAM,DEATHOFTHE
The Olympic ame is still burning, but is it an illusion? The ancient Olympic Games had as their motto faster, higher, stronger, but
perhaps a new triad should replace it: drugs, commercialization, corruption. The question is probably whether any of these has suffocated
athletes desire to compete for the glory of sport.
PROS
CONS
Theuseofperformance-enhancingdrugsiswidespread
at the Olympics and makes the victories of those who
takethemmeaningless.Newdrugsareverydifcultto
detect, but the Olympic authorities are doing little to
addresstheproblem.
Weshouldhavesomesympathyforathletes.Veryoften,
theteamscoachcompelsthemtotakedrugs.Thereare
storiesofChineseswimmerseatingsteroid-lacednoodles.
TheInternationalOlympicCommittee(IOC)ConferenceinFebruary1999recommendedthatcoachestake
theOlympicoathaswellasathletes.Olympicauthorities are embracing new techniques to detect drugs. A
new mass-spectroscopy unit was installed for the rst
timeatthe1996AtlantaGames.AnIndependentAntiDoping Agency was established in Sydney in 2000 as
wasatestingtechniquethatcandetectifanathletehas
taken growth hormones up to six months earlier.The
battle is being won: 12 cases of doping in 1984; two
in1996.TheIOCiscomingdownhardonthosewho
takedrugs:Ithasintroducedatwo-yearbanfortherst
offense.
The man who revived the Olympics at the end of the

nineteenth century, Baron de Coubertin, insisted that
educatingthepublicinthespiritoffairplayandinthe
importance of taking part rather than winning were
just as important as the Games themselves.Today, the
GamesareplayedbyDreamTeamsofhighlytrained
athletesindividualswecanwatchwithawebutnever
hopetocopy.
TheOlympicmovementgivesconsiderablefundingto
community sports programs to teach fair play. Meanwhile,DreamTeamsareessentialtofulllingthebasic
Olympicaims:faster,higher,stronger.Surelywatching
theGamescanonlybeagoodthingbecausethecompetitiongivesyoungathletesagoaltowardwhichthey
canwork.
ThemassivecommercializationoftheGameserodesthe
ideaofparticipationforitsownsake.Withsomuchprize
moneyatstake,winningatallcostsistheinevitableaim.
Thesponsorsandtheirheavyhands,e.g.,interrupting
televisioncoverageofaneventforacommercial,seem
moreimportantthanthesport.Corporatesponsorship
concentratesonathletesfromtherichestcountries.The
USteams,forexample,benetfromhugefundingand
canthustraintofarhigherlevelsthancanthoseofdevelopingcountries.Thispreventscompetitiononanequal
footing,onefeatureoftheOlympicdream.
TheOlympicsoffernomonetaryprizes,yettheOlympicsarestillthecompetitiontowin.Afewcommercial
breaksincoverageisasmallpricetopayforbillionsof
people to be able to see the Games.The sponsors do
nothavesignicantcontrolovertheGames.TheIOC
has the stronger hand and a wide choice of sponsors.
Without any sponsorship, many poor countries could
notsendteams.Sponsorshipisthekeytobeginningthe
processofputtingallcountriesonanequalfooting.
The Olympics have been hijacked so many times for

political purposes that competition for the glory of
sportcannothelpbuthavebeensmothered.The1972
Munichdisasteristhemosthorrifying:Palestinianterrorists killed nine Israeli athletes. Yet the Games were
Why should we expect the Olympics to transcend the

muchgravermattersofworldpolitics?TheGamesmay
beanexcellentwaytobringathletesofdifferentnationalitiestogether,buttheOlympicscannotdotheworkof
theUnitedNationsaswell.Aboycottwastheonlyreal
|167
PROS
CONS
only temporarily suspended. Are those who play the

GameslessimportantthanthespectacleoftheGames?
When the US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games to
protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the idea of
sportforitsownsakewasdevaluedstillfurther.
optionopentotheUSin1980.TheUNhadcondemned
theUSSRsinvasionofAfghanistan,andapproximately
80% of the American people were demanding a boycott.
TheIOCandmanynationalOlympiccommitteeslack
integrity.ThiskillstheGamesspirit.Forexample,several of the judges who selected Nagano for the 1998
WinterOlympics,Sydneyforthe2000Olympics,and
SaltLakeCityforthe2002WinterOlympicsareknown
tohavetakenbribesfromthewinningcitiesandfrom
someoftheothercompetingcitiesaswell.
Whatevergoesoninthecommitteescannotaffectthe
Olympicdreamitselfthatiscarriedontheshoulders
of the athletes. It is possible to be faster, higher, and
strongerwherevertheGamesareheld,somoneymatters
aredetachedfromtheOlympicdream.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthattheOlympicdreamisdead.
ThisHousebelievesthatthebattleagainstdopinginsportisbeinglost.
ThisHousewantstowinatallcosts.
WebLinks:
InternationalOlympicCommittee.<http://www.olympic.org>
OfcialWebsiteoftheOlympicGamesprovidesinformationontheGamessince1896andonfutureGames.
FurtherReading:
Jennings,Andrew,andClareShambrook.TheGreatOlympicSwindle:WhentheWorldWantedItsGamesBack.Simon&Schuster,
2000.
Lensky,Helen,andVardaBurstyn.InsidetheOlympicIndustry:Power,PoliticsandActivism.StateofNewYorkUniversityPress,
2000.
Schaffer,Kay,andSidonieSmith,eds.TheOlympicsattheMillennium:Power,PoliticsandtheGames.RutgersUniversityPress,
2000.
OVERPOPULATIONANDCONTRACEPTION
Despite scientic advances, no amount of technological innovation will solve the problem that Earth has only nite resources. Attention has therefore turned to the question of population growth; preserving the environment would be far easier if natural resources were
shared among fewer people. Environmental degradation will accelerate if the rate of global population increase is not slowed. Over the
years, much debate has been heard about whether widespread use of contraception is the solution to the population explosion in the
developing world.
PROS
CONS
Populationisamajorproblemtoday;theworldpopulationof6billionisexpectedtoreachmorethannine
billion by 2050. Given the strain on global resources
and the environment today, an environmental disasterisclearlywaitingtohappenasthepopulationtime
bombticksaway.Whilereproductionisafundamental
humanright,rightscomewithresponsibilities.Wehave
a responsibility to future generations, and population
controlisonemethodofensuringthatnaturalresources
willbeavailableforourdescendants.
Many population forecasts are exaggerated and do not

take into account the different phases of population
growth.Anationspopulationmaygrowrapidlyinthe
early stages of development, but with industrialization
and rising levels of education, the population tends to
stabilize at the replacement rate. Even if the quoted
gure of 10.7 billion by 2050 is true, this is likely to
remain steady thereafter, as the developing nations of
todayachievematurity.Developednationscanusealternative methods to solve the environmental and social
problems arising from overpopulation. All available
optionsshouldbeexhaustedbeforemakingthedrastic
decisiontocurbreproductiverights.
Contraceptionisaneasyanddirectmethodofslowing Implementing widespread contraception presents techpopulationgrowth.Thepopularityandsuccessofcon- nicaldifculties.Thecostcanbeprohibitive,especially

traceptioninthedevelopedworldistestamenttothis.
whenconsideredonanationalscale.Largenumbersof
trainedworkersarerequiredtoeducatethepubliconthe
correctuseofcontraceptives.Evenwithaninvestmentin
training,birthcontrolmethodsmaybeusedincorrectly,
especiallybytheilliterateanduneducated.
Contraceptioncanreducefamilysize.Withsmallerfamilies,agreaterproportionofresourcescanbeallocatedto
eachchild,improvinghisorheropportunitiesforeducation,healthcare,andnutrition.
Manyagriculturalfamiliesneedtohaveasmanychildren
aspossible.Childrensfarmworkcancontributetothe
familyfoodorbeasourceofincome.Inanundeveloped
nation without a good social welfare system, children
aretheonlysecurityforoldage.Furthermore,havinga
largenumberofchildrenusuallyensuresthatsomereach
adulthood;childmortalityisveryhighinthedeveloping
world.Untilthechildmortalityrateisreduced,families
willnotusecontraception.
Contraceptionempowerswomenbygivingthemreproductive control. Delaying pregnancy gives opportunitiesforeducation,employment,andsocialandpolitical

advancement.Birthcontrolcanthereforebealong-term
investment in political reform and offers some protectionofwomensrights.
Womenmaynothavethechoicetousecontraceptives.
Inmanydevelopingnations,malesdominateinsexual
relationshipsandmakethedecisionsaboutfamilyplanning.Religiouspressuretohaveasmanychildrenaspossible may also be present. Birth control may not even
besociallyacceptable.Arewomensrightsadvancedby
contraception?Wedontreallyknow.Inreality,contraception typically is one element of a national populationcontrolpolicy.Suchpolicies(e.g.,Chinasone-child
|169
PROS
CONS
policy),whenconsideredasawhole,oftenviolatewomensrights.
Contraceptioncanhelpsavethelivesofwomeninthe
developing world. The lack of obstetric care and the
prevalence of disease and malnutrition contribute to
a high rate of mortality among pregnant mothers and
theirnewbornchildren.Thisriskcanbeover100times
thatofmothersindevelopedcountries.
Whilebirthcontrolshouldbeapriorityofmanydevelopingnations,suchnationsoftenneedtoaddressother,
more pressing, issues. Providing basic health care and
proper sanitation can improve the health of an entire
family,inadditiontoreducingchildmortality(oftena
majorreasonforparentswantingtohavealargenumber
of children). Spending on such infrastructure and servicesisafarbetterlong-terminvestmentthanproviding
contraception.
Supportingcontraceptionisaneasywayforthedevelopedworldtohelpthedevelopingworldcopewiththe
population crisis and the consequent stiing of development.Contraceptives,comparedtomonetaryaid,are
lesslikelytobemisdirectedintothepocketsofcorrupt
ofcials.
Contraceptionisacontroversialissueinbothdeveloped
anddevelopingnations.Somereligionsprohibitit.This
canreducethesuccessofbirthcontrolprogramsinthe
developing world and diminish the political appeal of
(andthusfundingfor)pro-contraceptionpoliciesinthe
developedworld.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportscontraceptionindevelopingnations.
ThisHousewouldcappopulationgrowthinthedevelopingworld.
ThisHousebelievesthattherearetoomanypeople.
ThisHousebelievesthatthereisntenoughroom.
WebLinks:
OverPopulation.Com.<http://www.overpopulation.com/>
Extensivesitewithinformationonawidevarietyofpopulationissues.Includesagoodoverviewessayontheoverpopulationcontroversy.
PopulationReferenceBureau.<http://www.popnet.org/>
Providesacomprehensivedirectoryofpopulation-relatedresources.
TheUnitedNationsPopulationInformationNetwork.<http://www.un.org/popin/>
OfferslinkstopopulationinformationontheUNsystemsWebsites.
FurtherReading:
Cohen,Joel.HowManyPeopleCantheEarthSupport?Norton,1995.
Zuckerman,Ben,andDavidJefferson,eds.HumanPopulationandtheEnvironmentalCrisis.JonesandBartlett,1996.
OVERSEASMANUFACTURING
In the new era of globalization, American companies often locate their manufacturing operations in countries outside the United States.
Many countries are eager to attract American industries and the employment they bring; overseas factories usually can be run at substantially lower costs largely because wages for foreign workers are much lower than wages for American workers. The treatment of these
foreign employees has engendered many questions and raised many issues. Their working conditions may not be safe; they may be asked to
work unreasonable hours; they may be paid less than a living wage. In some parts of the world, many factory workers are school-age children. Increasingly, the public is putting pressure on American corporations to improve the treatment of their foreign workers and to provide
the same kind of safeguards that protect American workers.
PROS
CONS
Companies build factories overseas for one primary

reason: Foreign workers are cheaper. When companies
aredrivenbytheprotmotive,theyhaveanincentive
topayaslittleaspossibleandtoskimponequipment
andproceduresthatwouldprovidecomfortandsafety
toworkers.Workersneedtobeprotectedfromcorporationsthatcaremoreaboutprotsthanpeople.
Manufacturersknowthatmistreatingworkersdoesnot
pay in the long run.They know that a healthy and a
happyworkforceisgoingtobemoreproductiveandgive
their operation long-term stability. Certainly manufacturerscareaboutthebottomline,anditispreciselythat
concernthatmotivatesthemtotreattheirworkerswell.
SomeforeigngovernmentsaresoeagertoattractAmericaninvestmentthattheyfavormanagementoverlabor.
Theydonotprotecttheirowncitizenswithstronglabor
laws,andtheydonotguaranteeworkerstherighttoform
unions.Workersareatthemercyoftheiremployers.
The presence of American companies has a direct benetontheeconomiesoftheirhostcountries.Workersare

taughtskillsandexposedtonewtechnology.Moreover,a
strongindustrialeconomyhasbeenprovedtobethebest
waytoliftpeopleoutofpoverty.Intime,foreignworkers
willachievewagesandworkingconditionscomparableto
thoseenjoyedbyAmericanworkerstoday.
American companies located in foreign countries have

noincentiveformakingcommitmentstothelocalcommunity.Iftheworkersbecometooexpensive,orifthe
companiesareforcedtospendmoneytoimproveconditions,theysimplypulloutandmovetoanothercountry
withcheaperworkersandlowerstandards.
Wages may be low compared to US standards; however,thecostoflivinginthesecountriesisalsolow.It

is absurd, therefore, to expect American companies to
paythestandardminimumUSwageinacountrywhere
thatwagehas10timesthebuyingpowerthatithasin
America.
Because they have no union protections, workers are

oftenaskedtoworkabsurdlylonghours,withnoextra
pay for overtime, and in dangerous conditions with
hazardousmaterials.Theyfearthatiftheycomplain,or
refusetoworkwhendemanded,theywillberedand
replacedbysomeonewhoisdesperateforajob.
Activistsliketosaythatfactoryjobsinforeigncountries
areintolerableandundesirable,butthefactsdonotsupportthatassertion.Peopleareeagertoworkinafactory,
whentheiralternativeismakinglessmoneyforafullday
of backbreaking agricultural work.To the workers, jobs
in American factories represent opportunities to gain a
higherstandardofliving.
ChildlaboriscondonedinmanycountrieswhereAmerican companies do business, but American companies

should refuse to take part in this abuse.There is little
hopeforthefutureofcountrieswhereachildmustprovidelabor,insteadofgettinganeducation.
TheAmericanobjectiontochildlaborisfoundedonthe
idealisticnotionthatchildrenshouldbeinschool.But
inmanycountrieswherethefactoriesoperate,universal
schoolingisnonexistent,andthechildwhoisthrownout
ofafactoryjobgoesbackonthestreet.Inmanycases,
the child who does not work in a factory will simply
worksomeplaceelse;inpoorfamilies,itisexpectedthat
anyonewhoisabletoworkwillearnawagetosupport
thefamily.
|171
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewillnotbuymaterialsmadeinforeignsweatshops.
ThisHousewouldforceAmericancompaniestoletforeignworkersunionize.
WebLinks:
EndingSweatshops.<http://www.sweatshops.org/>
ThisWebsiteissponsoredbytheactivistorganizationCo-opAmerica.Itdiscussessweatshopconditionsinforeigncountriesand
encouragescitizenstotakeactiontoeliminatethem.
SweatshopsfortheNewWorldOrder.<http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3639>
Thisessay,fromtheFoundationforEconomicEducation,arguesthatAmericanprotestsaboutforeignfactoriesareillinformed.
FurtherReading:
Featherstone,Liza,etal.StudentsAgainstSweatshops:TheMakingofaMovement.VersoBooks,2002.
Moran,TheodoreH.BeyondSweatshops:ForeignDirectInvestmentandGlobalizationinDevelopingNations.BrookingsInstitution,
2002.
Varley,Pamela,andCarolynMathiasen,eds.TheSweatshopQuandary:CorporateResponsibilityontheGlobalFrontier.Investor
ResponsibilityResearchCenter,1998.
PACIFISM
Pacism has a long history in the United States. Although their numbers have been small, pacists have opposed every American war from
the Revolution to the Iraq War. Occasionally their voices have contributed to policy changes, as was the case in the Vietnam War. The
debate between nonviolent objection and the use of force to achieve a goal brings up issues like morality vs. practicality: Is violence ever
constructive; and, does pacism in the face of a threat serve to increase or diminish evil. The debate also contrasts the lives lost in war with
the liberty that might be lost if war is avoided and thus raises the difcult issue of sacricing lives to preserve a principle.
PROS
CONS
Violenceisneverjustiedunderanycircumstances.Life Wearenotarguingthatviolenceisofitselfagoodthing.
issacred,andnocauseorbeliefallowsapersontotake We are saying that when others are using violence to
thelifeofanother.
endanger principles as fundamental as human rights,
peoplehaveadutytostandupagainstthem.Nottodo
sowouldmerelyalloweviltospreadunchecked.
Neithersideinawaremergesasavictor.Warrarelysettlesissues.(Forexample,WorldWarIcreatedtheconditions that led to World War II.) War always creates
sufferingonbothsides.Oftentheinnocentsuffer,asin
thecaseoftherebombingofDresdenorthedropping
oftheatomicbombonHiroshimainWorldWarII.
Disputesdosometimespersistafterwars,butoftenwars
can lead to the resolution of some issues. For example, World War II prevented fascism from taking over
Europe,andthePersianGulfWarledtoSaddamHusseinswithdrawalfromKuwait.Inthesecases,thefailure
toactwouldhaveledtotheoppressionofmillionsand
permittedanaggressortotriumph.
Pacistsbelievethatviolencebegetsviolence.Pacistsdo
nothavetoretreatcompletelyfromworldanddomesticaffairs.DuringWorldWarI,conscientiousobjectors
stoodupagainstthemilitarism and cynical diplomacy
thathadledtotheconict.Inmanycountriestheywere
executedfortheirbeliefs.
Pacismisaluxurythatsomecanpracticebecauseothers
ght. Pacists claim moral superiority while enjoying
thelibertyforwhichothershavedied.Wefoughtboth
worldwarstocombataggressionandinjustice.Wedid
ourmoraldutyinresistingtyranny.
PROS
CONS
Whenwarisinevitable,pacistscanprotestthecruelties
of war, such as torture, attacks on civilians, and other
contraventionsoftheGenevaConvention,inanattempt
tocurbviolencesexcesses.
Thistypeofprotestisnottruepacism,whichrejects
waroutright.Byadmittingthatwarissometimesinevitable, you are acknowledging that sometimes people
cannotsitbyanddonothing.
Greatreligiousleaders,suchasJesusandGandhi,have
alwaysadvocatedpacism.TheybelievethatHewho
livesbythesworddiesbythesword.Forthousandsof
yearsthewisestthinkershavebelievedthatviolencedoes
notendsuffering,butmerelyincreasesit.
Inpractice,mostworldreligionshaveadoptedviolence,
in the shape of crusades or holy wars, to serve their
ends. And does not the Bible advocate an eye for an
eye?Whenanaggressorendangerslibertyandfreedom,
humanitymustuseviolencetocombathim.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbepacist.
ThisHouserejectsviolence.
ThisHousewouldturntheothercheek.
WebLinks:
TheGoodWarandThoseWhoRefusedtoFightIt.<http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thegoodwar/american_pacism.html>
PBSWebsiteprovidingoverviewofpacisminAmericanhistory.
Pacism.<http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pacism.htm>
Philosophicaldiscussionofpacism.
TheParadoxofWarandPacism.<http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/clark.html>
HistoricaldiscussionofpacismfromaChristianpointofview.
FurtherReading:
Cooper,Sandi.PatrioticPacism:WagingWaronWarinEurope,1815-1914.OxfordUniversityPressonDemand,1991.
McCarthy,Colman.AllofOnePeace:EssaysonNonviolence.RutgersUniversityPress,1994.
PARENTALRESPONSIBILITY
Parental responsibility means different things in different contexts. Most countries have laws making parents or anyone biologically connected to a child responsible for the childs welfare. But in some countries, such the United States and Canada, state and local authorities
have gone further. In an effort to stop the rise of juvenile crime, they have taken the more debatable step of holding parents legally responsible for the actions of their children.
PROS
CONS
Legalrequirementsforparentalaction,particularlythose
thatincludesanctionsfornonaction,provideanincentive for parents to act responsibly. If parents are liable
for their inaction or the inappropriate actions of their
children,theyaremorelikelytomakesuretheirchildren
aresupervisedandwellcaredfor.
Thecausesatthecoreofjuveniledelinquency,abusive
familiesandchildneglectarenotnecessarilythekindof
problemsthatcanbesolvedbytheleverageofcriminal
orcivilsanctions.Ininstanceswhereparentsareabsent
orneglectful,deepsocialproblemsareoftenthecause.
Problems such as alcoholism, poverty, poor education,
poor health and poor health care, and family histories
|173
PROS
CONS
ofabusecanlockafamilyintoanegativecyclethatcontinuestoperpetuatebehaviorsthatothersmightviewas
irresponsible.Thereisadangerthattheproposedsanctionswillmakefamiliestrappedinsuchproblemsafraid
toseekhelpfromsocialservicesforfearofpunishment.
Minorchildrenshouldnotbeheldlegallyaccountable
fortheiractionsnorshouldtheybeobligatedtoprovide
forthemselvesuntiltheyhavereachedtheageofmajority.Governmentshaveestablishedlawsdrawingdistinctions between adults and juveniles for a reason.These
governments believe that juveniles make mistakes and
are not necessarily mature enough to be fully responsible for or completely aware of the consequences of
theiractions.Parents,andthecommunityatlargehave
aresponsibilitytoraisechildrentoactappropriatelyin
society.Ifsocietyormorespecicallyparentsfailinthe
task,itisnotreasonableforthechildrentobecharged
withsoleresponsibilityfortheiracts.
While generally true, there are instances where the

amountofinuenceofparentsoverachildslifeisnegligible.Somechildrenrunawayfromhomeorforcibly
separate themselves from their parents of their own
accord. On occasion, juveniles commit crimes so heinous, and so unexpected, that no reasonable person
wouldthinkthattheparentswereultimatelyresponsible.
Therearealsosignicantdifferencesbetweenculturesas
towhatageconstitutesadulthood.Theageofmajorityvariessignicantlyamongthenationsoftheworld.
WhilemanyWesterncountriesconsideran18-year-old
anadult,otherculturesseethebeginningsofadulthood
intheearlyteenageyears.Adulthoodcanalsobeseenas
aphased-inprocessacontinuumofincreasingresponsibility, with driving, leaving school, voting, drinking,
havingsex,gettingmarriedwithoutparentalpermission,
joiningthearmedforces,andstandingforpublicofce
consideredasmilestones.Thus,multinationalorglobal
accordsonparentalresponsibilityorchildrensrightsare
potentiallyproblematic.
Laws that enshrine parental responsibility improve

familylife.Asparentsareencouragedtotakeresponsibilityfortheirchildren,andsuchresponsibilitybecomes
aculturalnorm,familieswilldevelopcloserbonds,marriageswillbecomestronger,andtheproblemsofbroken
familieswilldecrease.
Thisargumentstemsfromtwoawedassumptions:rst,
that parents who are separated or divorced cannot act
responsibly and, second, that doing the right thing
necessarilyequateswithpositivefamilyvalues.Aparent
mayplayaveryactiveroleinthelivesofherorhischildren, yet still have a horrible marriage or mentally or
physicallyabusethechildren.Aparentwhoisnotmarriedtoachildsotherparentmaystillplayanactiveand
valuableroleinthelifeofthechild,eveniftheparents
donotliveinthesamehome.
Parental responsibility laws help compel parents who

are delinquent in their support of a child to become
involvedat least on a nancial level. This can also
discourageirresponsiblemenfromindulginginpromiscuous and reckless sexual behavior, and thus possibly
fatheringanumberofchildrenbydifferentmothers.
Decadesoflegalexperienceincountriesthatorderchild
supportfromseparatedordivorcedparentshavedemonstratedthatparentswhowanttoseverties(nancialor
otherwise)candoso,eitherbydefaultingonpayments
or hiding from the law. These laws may even have a
negativeeffectbyfosteringresentmenttowardthechild
orotherparentwithintheparentcompelledtoprovide
support.Childsupportordersmayalsoharmanysubsequentchildrenanestrangedparentmayhavebyimpoverishingasecondfamilyinfavoroftherst.
Childrenarelesslikelytoengageinactsofdelinquency Childrenpronetoengageinactsofseriousjuveniledeliniftheyfeelthattheirparentsarelikelytobeheldlegally quencyarerarelyinterestedinthefeelingsoforeffects
PROS
CONS
responsiblefortheiractions.
of their actions on parents. In fact, the worst juvenile

delinquentsareprobablymorelikelytoactoutifthey
believe,rst,thattheactionwillresultinharmtothe
parentstheyseektorebelagainstand,second,thattheir
parentswillbeheldresponsibleinplaceofthem.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesparentsshouldbeheldcriminallyliablefortheillegalactivitiesoftheirchildren.
ThisHousebelievesparentsshouldbeheldcivillyliablefortheillegalactivitiesoftheirchildren.
ThisHousebelievesthat,onbalance,parentsaremoreresponsiblefortheactionsofchildrenthanthechildrenarethemselves.
ThisHousebelievesaninternationalconventiononchildwelfareshouldbeadopted.
WebLinks:
TheGreatYoungOffendersActDebate.<http://www.lawyers.ca/tgyad/debates/sep2000.htm>
OnlinedebateovertheOntario,Canada,ParentalResponsibilityAct.
NationalConferenceof(U.S.)StateLegislatures.<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/schoolviolence/LEGIS73.htm>
Overviewofparentalresponsibilityinjuvenilejustice.
OfceofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention.<http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_d.html>
SitesummarizesparentalresponsibilitylawsintheUnitedStates.
FurtherReading:
Bainham,Andrew,etal.WhatIsaParent?:ASocio-LegalAnalysis.InternationalSpecializedBookServices,1999.
vanBueren,Geraldine,ed.InternationalDocumentsonChildren.MartinusNijhoff,1998.
Wyness,Michael.Schooling,Welfare,andParentalResponsibility.RoutledgeFalmer,1996.
POLITICIANSANDSPECIALINTERESTS
Political dialogue in America is frequently peppered with accusatory references to special interests. These special interests are organized
groups that play active political roles, either through making contributions to parties and candidates, or through lobbying government ofcials in an attempt to inuence legislation and public policy. Some special interest groups act in their economic self-interest (e.g., manufacturers associations, unions, farmers groups); some special interest groups act on behalf of particular segments of society (e.g., National
Organization for Women, NAACP, AARP, American Indian Movement); some special interest groups are dedicated to public causes or
policies (e.g., Sierra Club, National Rie Association, American Civil Liberties Union, National Right to Life Committee). Many of
these groups have millions of dollars at their disposal. The question is whether this money corrupts the political system, that is, are legislators more concerned with pleasing donors and lobbyists than they are with responding to the will of average citizens?
PROS
CONS
Nopersonwhoisnanciallydependentonsomeoneelse
istrulyfreetoservethepublicgoodinadisinterested
way.Whenapoliticiandependsonhugesumsofmoney
contributedbyanorganization,hisorhervoteisinevi-
If a politician were dependent on only one source of

funding,undueinuencemightbeapossibility.Butso
many special interest groups are active in Washington
that politicians get contributions from dozens, if not
|175
PROS
CONS
tablyinuencedbythewishesofthatorganizationrather hundreds, of them. The inuence of any one group,

thanbywhatisbestforthecountry.
therefore,isnegligible;evenacontributionof$10,000
is only a drop in the bucket when campaigns cost
millions.
Thesizeofcontributionshasbecomesolargethatdonors
certainlyexpectsomekindofpayback.Amanufacturers
association will not give $100,000 away just as a gestureofgoodwill;itexpectstoseeitsconcernsfavorably
addressedinlegislation.
Accusations of undue inuence are often vague and

unsupported by facts. Watchdog organizations like to
make statistical correlations between donations and
votes,butthatisnotrealevidencethatvoteshavebeen
bought. Dont forget that actually buying votes is a
crimeandisvigorouslyprosecuted.
For generations, lawmakers have recognized that the

powerofspecialinterestscanleadtocorruption;more
than50yearsago,forexample,Congressforbadeunions
fromactingtoinuencefederalelections.Butthecreation of political action committees (PACs) and the
proliferationofsoftmoneyhaveallowedspecialinterest
groupstoviolatethespiritofthelawwhileobeyingits
letter.
Special interests are condemned for having too much

inuence, but the causal logic of the accusers is fundamentally awed. When the National Abortion and
Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) makes
contributionstopoliticians,itdoesnotbuythevotesof
legislatorswhowouldhavevoteddifferentlyonreproductive issues. Rather, NARAL gives money to candidateswhohavealreadyindicatedtheirsupportforpoliciesinlinewithNARALsposition.
Money purchases access to politicians, who are more

willingtomaketimefordonorsthanforaveragecitizens.
Accessleadsnaturallytoinuence.Theaveragecitizenis
shortchangedbythecurrentsystem,whichfavorscashrichorganizations.
Peoplewhowanttokillspecialinterestgroupsareusually
thinkingofgroupsthatsupportapositiontheyoppose.
Specialinterestgroupsspanthepoliticalspectrumand
represent many points of view. Indeed, the variety of
groups with competing interests is an indication of a
healthyandvigorouspoliticalsystem.
Organizationsoftenspendhundredsofmillionsofdollars to lobby politicians. They would not spend such

sumsiftheydidnotthinksuchexpenditureswereeffectiveinhelpingthemgetwhattheywant.Again,money
clearlyisshapinglegislation.
Individuals should organize themselves into groups to

represent themselves more effectively. Congress passes
lawsthataffectthedailylivesofteachers,forexample;
surely,teachershavetherighttohavetheirvoicesheard
throughtheirunionswhenthoselawsaredrawnup.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldchangecampaignnancelawstoallowcontributionsfromindividualsonly.
ThisHousewouldlobbyCongresstoadvanceitsinterests.
WebLinks:
MissingthePointonCampaignFinance.<http://www.claremont.org/writings/precepts/20020321ellmers.html>
AnessayfromtheClaremontInstitutefortheStudyofStatesmanshipandPoliticalPhilosophythatarguesthatthefearofspecial
interestgroupshasbeenexaggerated.
MoneyandPolitics:WhoOwnsDemocracy?<http://www.networkdemocracy.org/map/welcome.shtml>
AprojectofInformationRenaissanceandNationalIssuesForumsResearch,thisWebpagediscussestheprosandconsofvarious
proposalstochangetheroleofmoneyinpolitics.
YourGuidetotheMoneyinU.S.Elections.<http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp>
WebsiteoftheCenterforResponsivePoliticsprovidesdataaboutcampaigncontributionsbydonorandbyrecipient.News
alertsaginstanceswherecontributionsmayhaveinuencedcongressionalvoting.
FurtherReading:
Drew,Elizabeth.TheCorruptionofAmericanPolitics:WhatWentWrongandWhy.OverlookPress,2000.
Elder,Larry.Showdown:ConfrontingBias,Lies,andtheSpecialInterestsThatDivideAmerica.St.MartinsPress,2002.
Judis,JohnB.TheParadoxofAmericanDemocracy:Elites,SpecialInterests,andtheBetrayalofthePublicTrust.Routledge,2001.
Phillips,Kevin.WealthandDemocracy:APoliticalHistoryoftheAmericanRich.BroadwayBooks,2002.
POLYGAMY
Polygamy is the state or practice of having two or more mates at the same time. Both the Bible and the Koran condone it, but most
religions now ban the practice. In most countries, including all Western ones and some Islamic ones, polygamy is illegal, although some
Muslim states (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and traditional African societies do allow it. In the United States, polygamy is associated with the
Mormon church, which approved the practice until 1896, when church leaders agreed to abandon it in hopes of winning statehood for
Utah. Yet some fundamentalist Mormon splinter groups still engage in polygamy. Although polygamy can involve both the union of one
man with more than one woman (polygyny) and the union of one woman with more than one man (polyandry), the focus of contemporary debate is polygyny and its effects on women and children.
PROS
CONS
Thelawshouldrecognizefreedomofchoice.IfIwantto
marrymorethanoneperson,whyshouldthestatestop
me?Ifmypartneragreestotheadditiontothefamily,
thenwhyshouldthestatepresumetosayitknowsbetter?
Wehavearighttoprivacyandarighttononinterference
inourfamilylife.
These rights are countered by the damage polygamy

doestowomenandfamilies.Polygamyharmschildren,
who are presented with confusing signals about role
models and family life. It also reduces a womans freedom:Womenoftendonothaveasayinwhetherthe
husbandtakesanotherwife.
Theadditionofextraparentalguresdoesnotnecessarilyunderminefamilyunits.Rather,moreproviderscan
makegreatercontributionstothehome.Oftenthereis
love,notjealousy,betweenwiveswhoarehappytohave
others share their work. Hierarchies exist in monogamous familiesbetween husband and wife, between
siblings.Thattheycanexistinpolygamousmarriagesis
not a strong argument against such unions, which are
capableofproducingstablehomes.Somemarriagesare
good, some badthats true of both monogamy and
polygamy.
A polygamous family will develop a hierarchy, with a

headwifedominatingtheothers.Whyencourageand
institutionalizetheverythingthatleadstothebreak-up
ofthemajorityoffamilyunitsnamely,jealousyand
sexual encounters with others? It is true that jealousy
existsoutsidemarriagesandinmonogamousmarriages,
butwhysetupasituationinwhichitisguaranteed?
Theideathattheindividualcanloveonlyonepersonis
false,aproductofaparticulartime,place,andculture.
Polygamyhasbeenthenorminmanysocietiesthroughouthistory.Polygamyisnotaboutfreedomtofornicate
with anyone; it is about cementing relationships with
individualsonewantstospendtherestofoneslifewith,
justasinmonogamousmarriages.
Marriageisaboutdevotiontoanother,thegivingofoneselfwhollytothatperson,grantinglovetothemtothe
exclusionofallothers.Howcouldonehavesucharelationshipwithmorethanoneperson?Itisnotpossibleto
lovemorethanoneperson.Polygamy,therefore,necessarilyinvolvestheexploitationofatleastonepartyand
the denigration of the relationship that exists between
theothers.
Polygamy reduces the desire for adultery by providing Adultery is based on a desire for someone outside the
alternativesforsexualexplorationwithinthefamilyunit. home. Adultery still occurs in polygamous societies.
|177
PROS
CONS
Thisreducesthestrainsonfamilylifeandminimizesthe Indeed,polygamyencouragesadulterybecauseitdilutes
likelihoodofbreakdownanddivorce.
theideaofdelitytooneperson,substitutingthelegitimacyofintercoursewithmany.
Ofcourseanindividualshouldnotbelongtoanother.
Butthisattackdisplaysatbestalackofunderstanding
abouttheculturesofothersandatworstveiledracism.
Weshouldnotstoppeoplefrompracticingtheirfaithsin
thiscountry.PolygamyisacceptablewithintheMuslim
faith.Whyshouldnotthevalidityofsuchmarriagesbe
recognized?
Legalizingpolygamywouldlegitimizetheideaofwomen
asobjectsbelongingtotheirhusbands.Thisisexactlythe
thinkingwewanttodiscourage.WhilepolygynousmarriagesaretechnicallypossibleintheMuslimworld,they
areveryrarebecausetherequirementthatallwivesbe
treatedfairly(Koran4:3)isalmostimpossibletomeet.
Itisnotpossibletoloveonepersonasmuchasanother,
impossibletogiveonepersonasmuchthoughtortime
asanother.TheverylowrateofpolygynyinIslampoints
totheproblemsinnateinpolygamy.
Thisisacheapslur.Polygamydoesnotnecessarilycreate
other offenses. You cannot say something should be
illegal because theres a theoretical link to other illegal
things.Forcedmarriageisanissueinsomemonogamous
societies.We agree that society needs to decide how it
wantstohandlethatoffense,butthatquestionisentirely
separatefromtheissueofallowingpolygamy.
Once allowed, polygamy will facilitate forced marriagesandincreasethepotentialforincestasmenmarry

closerelativestokeepthemwithintheclosedcommunitystructurepolygamysooftencreates.Indeed,where
polygamy is found, a wealth of other offenses follows.
Childabuse,rape,welfarefraud,andincestareallstaples
of the polygamous communities in the United States.
Just as important, polygamy encourages the broader
exploitationofwomen.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldlegalizepolygamy.
ThisHousebelievesmonogamyisnottheonlyway.
ThisHousebelievesthatthreeisntacrowd.
WebLinks:
Multi-faithAttitudestoPolygamy.<http://www.polygamy.com/>
Sitepromotingpluralmarriage.
TapestryofPolygamy.<http://www.polygamy.org>
Utah-basedorganizationformedtoghttheabusesofpolygamyandsupportformerpolygamouswivesandfamilymembers.
FurtherReading:
Altman,Irwin,andJosephGinat.PolygamousFamiliesinContemporarySociety.CambridgeUniversityPress,1996.
Barash,DavidP.,andJudithEveLipton.MythofMonogamy:FidelityandIndelityinAnimalsandPeople.OwlBooks,2002.
Chapman,Samuel.Polygamy,BigamyandHumanRightsLaw.XlibrisCorporation,2001.
Gordon,SarahBarringer.TheMormonQuestion:PolygamyandConstitutionalConictinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.Universityof
NorthCarolinaPress,2002.
Tracy,Kathleen.TheSecretStoryofPolygamy.Sourcebooks,2001.
PORNOGRAPHY,BANNINGOF
Most adult pornography is legal in the United States, where it is protected by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Nevertheless, many campaigns to restrict it have been mounted. Initially such suggested restrictions were based on moral grounds, but in recent
years womens groups have urged a ban because some studies have shown that pornography contributes to violence against women.
PROS
CONS
Pornography debases human interactions by reducing

love and all other emotions to the crudely sexual. Sex
is an important element in relationships, but it is not
thebeallandendallofthem.Pornographyalsodebases
thehumanbodyandexploitsthoseluredintoit.Italso
encouragesunhealthy,objectifyingattitudestowardthe
oppositesex.Pornographyisnotavictimlesscrime.The
victimistheveryfabricofsocietyitself.
Freedomofspeechisoneofourmostcherishedrights.
Censorshipmightbejustiedwhenfreespeechbecomes
offensive to others, but this is not the case with pornography. It is lmed legally by consenting adults for
consentingadultsandthusoffendsnoone.Pornography
injuresnooneandisalegitimatetooltostimulateour
feelingsandemotionsinmuchthesamewayasmusic,
art,andliteraturedo.
Pornography helps to reinforce the side of our sexual

identity that sees people as objects and debases both
theirthoughtsandbodies.Wehaveseenevidenceofthis
in the way pictures of seminaked women (hardly ever
men)areusedinadvertising.Societysacceptanceofpornographyleadstotheobjecticationofwomenandthus
directlytosexualdiscrimination.
Pornographyisalegitimateexplorationofsexualfantasy,
oneofthemostvitalpartsofhumanlife.Psychologists
haveconrmedtheimportant,ifnotdriving,rolethat
sexualimpulsesplayinshapingourbehavior.Repressing
or denying this part of our personalities is both prudish and ignorant. Consequently, pornography should
beavailableforadultstovarytheirsexlives.Indeed,far
fromcorrodingthefabricofsociety,pornographycan
helpmaintainandstrengthenmarriagesbylettingcouplesfullyexploretheirsexualfeelings.
Societys apparent tolerance of legal pornography

encouragesillegalforms,suchaschildpornography.Are
we to allow pedophiles the legitimate sexual explorationoftheirfeelings?Theoppositioncannotlethuman
impulsesoverridesocietalrulesthatprotectchildren.
This is not true; no slippery slope scenario exists.

People interested in child pornography will obtain it
regardlessofitslegalstatus.Humansexualityissuchthat
mereexposuretoadultpornographydoesnotencourage
individualstoexplorechildpornography.
Manyrapistsareobsessedwithpornography.Itencourages them to view women as objects and helps justify

theircontentionthatwomenarewillingparticipantsin
theact.Indeed,feministshaveproposedthatpornographyisrapebecauseitexploitswomensbodies.Pornographyservesonlytoencouragebrutalsexcrimes.
Sadly, rape will exist with or without pornography.

Rapists may use pornography, but pornography does
not create rapists.The claim that pornography is rape
isinvalid.Ourlegalsystemdependsonthedistinction
between thought and act that this claim seeks to blur.
Pornography is a legitimate form of expression and
enjoyment. Government should not censor it in the
interestsofsexualrepressionandprudery.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievespornographydoesmoreharmthangood.
ThisHousewouldbanpornography.
ThisHousebelievesthatpornographyisbadforwomen.
|179
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion.<http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm>
Informationoncourtchallengestocensorship,includingargumentsinsupportofabroadunderstandingoffreedomofspeech.
PornographyasaCauseofRape.<http://www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html>
Summaryofscholarlybookshowingtherelationshipbetweenpornographyandviolenceagainstwomen.
FurtherReading:
Cornell,Drucilla.FeminismandPornography.OxfordUniversityPress,2000.
Juffer,Jane.AtHomeWithPornography:Women,SexandEverydayLife.NewYorkUniversity,1998.
Strossen,Nadine.DefendingPornography:FreeSpeech,Sex,andtheFightforWomensRights.NewYorkUniversityPress,2000.
PRIESTLYCELIBACY,ABOLITIONOF
One of the requirements set by the Roman Catholic church for priests is that they remain celibate. Celibacy is the renunciation of sex and
marriage for the more perfect observance of chastity. This vow of celibacy has been propelled to the forefront of public discussion by the
recent accusations that the church conspired to protect priests accused of child molestation. The vow of celibacy is seen by some as a cause
of the pedophilia that seems to be rampant within the Catholic church in America. The Vatican has not changed its stance on celibacy in
the wake of the controversy, but some within the church have called for the elimination of the vow of celibacy.
PROS
CONS
Until1139,priestsintheWesternchurchwerepermittedtomarry.TheBibledoesnotmandatecelibacyand,
infact,St.Peter,therstpope,wasmarried.Thetrue
history and traditions of the Roman Catholic church
includetheoptionforprieststomarry.
The earliest church fathers, including St. Augustine,

supportedthecelibatepriesthood.Inthefourthcentury,
church councils enacted legislation forbidding married
menwhowereordainedfromhavingconjugalrelations
withtheirwives.Wedonotknowifanyoftheapostles,
other than Peter, were married, but we do know that
they gave up everything to follow Jesus. More important,Jesusledacelibatelife.
ThenumberofpriestsinAmericaisonthedecline,and
manyparishesarewithoutapriest.Theprohibitionon
marriage pushes some men away from the priesthood.
Therequirementofcelibacydrasticallyreducesthepool
fromwhichthechurchcanselectpriestsandmeansthat
thechurchisnotalwaysgettingthebestandthebrightest.
Protestantchurches,whichdonotrequirecelibacy,also
are having problems recruiting clergy. Worldwide, the
numberofnewpriestsisincreasing.Onlythedeveloped
worldhasseenadeclineinpriestlyvocations.Arecent
studyshowedthatvocationswereontheriseindioceses
intheUSthatwereloyaltotheteachingsofthechurch,
includingpriestlycelibacy.
Protestantclergysuccessfullybalancetheirworkinthe
church and their families. Were priests permitted to
marry and have families, their families could serve as
examplestoothers.Inaddition,marriagecanprovidea
priestwithincreasedsocialsupportandintimacy.
Acelibatepriestcandevoteallhistimetohisparishioners.Amarriedpriestmustspendtimewithhisfamily.
Protestantclergyhavebalancedtheirworkforthechurch
with their family responsibilities only with difculty.
ManywivesandfamiliesofProtestantclergyreportfeelingsecondtothecongregation.
PROS
CONS
Priestlycelibacyisoutdated.Itsetsthepriestapartfrom Thepriestissetapartfromtheworld.Hehasaunique
role: He represents Christ to his parishioners. Just as
theworldandtheexperiencesofhisparishioners.
JesusledalifeofchastitydedicatedtoGod,apriestmust
offerhislifetoGodspeople.
Celibate priests can never experience the intimate and
complicated marital relationship.They lack credibility
when conducting marital and family counseling. Marriedpriestscanbetterservetheirparishionersbecauseof
theirmaritalandfamilyexperiences.
The celibate priest has a unique understanding of the

power of self-control and the giving of the self, which
are key ideas in marriage.The priest is married to the
churchandcancounselcouplesandfamiliesusingthat
knowledge.
The prospect of celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional

mentothepriesthood.Theyhopethatbytotallydenying their sexuality, they will not engage in pedophilia,
but unfortunately they often cannot overcome their
deviantdesires.Permittingprieststomarrywouldbring
menwithhealthysexualdesirestothepriesthood.
Celibacyandpedophiliaarenotconnected.Sexualabuse
also occurs in religions where clergy are permitted to
marry.Studieshaveshownthatsexualabusersaccount
forlessthan2%ofRomanCatholicclergy,agurecomparabletoclergyinotherdenominations.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldpermitprieststomarry.
ThisHousewouldhavetheVaticanstoprequiringpriestlycelibacy.
ThisHousebelievesthatamarriedpriestisabetterpriest.
WebLinks:
CelibacyoftheClergy.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm>
Offersadetailedarticleonthehistoryandtheologyofpriestlycelibacy.
HowtoRefuteArgumentsAgainstPriestlyCelibacy.<http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/Hudson/celibacy.html>
Clearpresentationofargumentsagainstcelibacy,withrefutations.
LetsWelcomeBackMarriedPriests.<http://www.uscatholic.org/1999/02/sb9902.htm>
Article,writtenbyamarriedformerpriest,arguesagainstpriestlycelibacy.
FurtherReading:
McGovern,Thomas.PriestlyCelibacyToday.FourCourtsPress,1998.
Schoenherr,RichardA.GoodbyeFather:TheCelibateMalePriesthoodandtheFutureoftheCatholicChurch.OxfordUniversity
Press,2002.
Stickler,AlphonsoM.TheCaseofClericalCelibacy:ItsHistoricalDevelopmentandTheologicalFoundations.IgnatiusPress,1995.
Stravinska,M.J.,ed.PriestlyCelibacy:ItsScriptural,Historical,SpiritualandPsychologicalRoots.NewmanHousePress,2001.
|181
PRIVACYVS.SECURITY
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which gave new rights and powers to law
enforcement agencies. For example, the act gives the FBI greater latitude in wiretapping and in the surveillance of material transmitted
over the Internet. Legislators have also proposed national identication cards, facial proling systems, and tighter restrictions on immigration. All of these measures are aimed at protecting Americans from further terrorist attacks. But this increased security comes at a cost: The
government will be able to gather more information about the private actions of individuals. To some observers, this invasion of privacy is
unwarranted and represents an attack on fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
PROS
CONS
The primary function of government is to secure the

general welfare of its citizens. Security is a common
goodthatispromisedtoallAmericans,anditmusttake
primacyoverindividualconcernsaboutprivacy.
TherighttoprivacyunderliestheFourthAmendmentto
theConstitution,whichprohibitsunreasonablesearch
andseizure.Whenthegovernmentcollectsandshares
informationaboutitscitizens,itisconductinganelectronicversionofsuchprohibitedsearches.
Electronic surveillanceof nancial transactions, for

exampleisanessentialtoolfortrackingtheactionsof
terrorists when they are planning attacks.The government cannot stand by and wait until criminal acts are
committed;itmuststopattacksbeforetheyhappen.
Any proposal that increases the power of government

agenciesshouldbedismissed.Historically,government
agencies (e.g., the IRS) have abused their power over
citizens. Increased power means a greater potential for
abuse.
Tighter security controls at airports and borders will Tighter security controls can be used to target specic
helppreventdamageandlossoflife.Inadditiontotheir ethnicandreligiousgroupsinawaythatisunfairand
deterrenteffect,theywillenableofcialstostopattacks discriminatory.
astheyarehappening.
Tighterimmigrationlawsandmorerigorousidentica- Preventive measures affect the innocent as well as the
tionproceduresforforeignersenteringthecountrywill guilty.Thisisespeciallytrueinthecaseofforeignnationreducethepossibilityofterroristsenteringthecountry. als:Tighterimmigrationcontrolsmayexcludeforeigners
whose presence in America would be benecial to the
country.
Therighttoprivacyisbynomeansabsolute,andAmericans already allow the government to control some of
theirprivateactions.(Thegovernmentcanrequiredriverstowearsafetybelts,forexample.)Anyintrusionson
privacyforthesakeofsecuritywouldbeminimal,and
fundamentalrightswouldstillberespected.
Historyhasshownthattheinvocationofnationalsecurityhasoftenledtotherestrictionoffundamentalrights.
Forexample,Japanese-Americancitizenswereinterned
duringWorldWarIItoincreasesecurity.Weshouldnot
allowthegovernmenttotakeevensmallstepsinadirectionthatcanleadtosomethingworse.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsthecreationofanationalidentitycard.
ThisHousewouldgivethegovernmentmorepowerintimeofwar.
WebLinks:
Privacilla.org.<http://www.privacilla.org>
AWebsitedevotedtogatheringinformationonprivacyissuesandlinkstoprivacyWebsites.
Privacyvs.Security:ABogusDebate?<http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2002/tc2002065_6863.htm>
InaninterviewforBusinessWeek,DavidBrin,authorofTheTransparentSociety,arguesthattheconictbetweenprivacyandsecurityisafalsedichotomy.
Privacyvs.SecurityintheAftermathoftheSeptember11TerroristAttacks.<http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/briengs/
privacy.html>
FromtheMarkkulaCenterforAppliedEthicsatSantaClaraUniversity,thisWebsiteoffersaframeworkforassessingtheconictbetweenprivacyandsecurity.Includeslinkstoothersites.
FurtherReading:
Alderman,Ellen,andCarolineKennedy.TheRighttoPrivacy.Vintage,1997.
Brin,David.TheTransparentSociety:WillTechnologyForceUstoChoosebetweenPrivacyandFreedom?PerseusPublishing,1999.
Etzioni,Amitai.TheLimitsofPrivacy.BasicBooks,2000
PRIVATELIVESOFPUBLICFIGURES,REVEALING
The extent to which the media should be free to publish the details of the private lives of public gures is debated whenever the press gives
extensive coverage to the misdeeds of stars or politicians. Many nations have strict laws protecting personal privacy, but in the United
States the press is usually free to publish what it wants unless the article is libelous. The arguments below apply primarily to public ofcials, but are also applicable to celebrities like lm stars and sport gures.
PROS
CONS
Thepeoplehavearighttoknowaboutthoseinpower.
Theirsalariesarepaidforbythepeople,whetherthrough
taxes,inthecaseofpoliticiansandcivilservants,orby
revenue generated by lms, CDs,TV, etc., in the case
of celebrities.The decisions of politicians affect many
aspects of peoples lives; in exchange, the people have
therighttomakeinformedjudgmentsaboutthekind
ofleaderstheywant.Anyattempttorestrictwhatmay
bereportedaboutpublicgurescouldeasilybecomea
conspiracytomanipulatevotersortokeeptheminthe
dark.
People will always be fascinated about intimate details

ofthepowerfulandfamous.Nevertheless,publicgures
havethesamerighttoprivacythattherestofusenjoy.
Norshouldpublicguresbeheldtohigherstandardsof
personalbehaviorthantherestofsocietybyasensationalistpress.Ifthepressfocusedonthepoliciesandpublic
actionsofpoliticians,ratherthantheirpersonalfoibles,
democracywouldbebetterserved.
All elections are to a greater or lesser extent about the

character of politicians. Unless the voters know about
politicians private lives, they will not be able to make
informed decisions at the polling booth. For example,
many would think that a politician who betrayed his
wifebyhavinganaffairwasequallycapableofbreaking
hispromisesandlyingtohiscountry.
Private morality and eccentricities are not automaticallyrelatedtosomeonesabilitytodoajobwell.Many

great political leaders have had messy personal lives,
while others, with blameless private lives, have been
judged failures. If modern standards of press intrusion
and sensationalism had been applied in the past, how
manyrespectedleaderswouldhavereachedorsurvived
inofce?
Ifinvestigativejournalistsarepreventedfromscrutiniz- Such close press scrutiny actually places public gures

ing the private lives of public gures, then corruption under considerable strain, making both poor perforandcrimewillbemucheasiertohide.
manceinofceandpersonalproblemsmorelikely.
Where is the dividing line between public and private Continualprobingintotheprivatelivesofpublicgures
behavior?Drawinguprulestolimitthepresswillmean actuallyharmsdemocracy.Veryfewpotentialcandidates
|183
PROS
CONS
thatsomequestionablebehaviormayneverbereported.
For example, President Franois Mitterrand of France
hidhiscancerfromtheFrenchelectorateforyears.Was
thisapublicoraprivatematter?Healsohadamistress
and illegitimate daughter, who secretly accompanied
himonsomeofhisforeignvisitsatstateexpense.Again,
wasthisaprivateorapublicmatter?
havespotlessprivatelives.Theprospectofercepress
scrutinywilldetermanyfromseekingpublicofceand
denythepublictheirtalents.Thosewhodorunforofce
willtendtobeunrepresentativeindividualsofapuritanicalnature,whoseviewsonsex,familylife,drugs,etc.,
maybeskewedandintolerant.
Manypoliticianspointouttheirfamilyvaluesandpublicize aspects of their private lives when it is to their

advantage.Ifthepublicimagetheyseektocreateisat
variancewiththeirownpractice,suchhypocrisydeserves
tobeexposed.
Whenpoliticiansusetheirpersonalmoralityandfamily
lives to win elections, they have chosen to make them
a public issue.This does not justify intrusion into the
privacyofthosepoliticianswhodonotparadetheirpersonallivesinacampaign.
Publicguresseekelectionorfameknowingthatitwill
bringattentiontotheirprivatelives.Constantscrutiny
isthepriceoffame.Manycelebritiesactivelyseekmedia
exposuretoadvancetheircareers.Oncesuccesshasbeen
boughtinsuchafashion,complainingofpressintrusion
into those few aspects the star would prefer to remain
hiddenishypocritical.
Many public gures achieve celebrity status largely by

accident;itisaby-productoftheirpursuitofsuccessin
theirparticulareld.Theydonotwishtoberolemodels
andclaimnospecialmoralstatus,sowhyshouldtheir
privatelivesbesubjectedtopublicscrutiny?
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatpublicgureshavenorighttoprivatelives.
ThisHousedemandstherighttoknow.
ThisHousecelebratesthepowerofthepress.
FurtherReading:
Collins,Gail.ScorpionTongues:Gossip,Celebrity,andAmericanPolitics.Morrow,1998.
Wacks,Raymond.PrivacyandPressFreedom.Gaunt,1995.
PROSTITUTION,LEGALIZATIONOF
Prostitution has long been opposed on moral grounds, but recently concerns about sexually transmitted diseases, particularly AIDS, and
about the violence that surrounds prostitution have contributed to renewed demands to stop the selling of sex. Criminalizing prostitution
has not worked, and some nations have moved to regulate or legalize it to protect prostitutes and monitor the conditions under which they
work. In Singapore and Denmark, selling sex is legal; the Dutch city of Amsterdam and the Australian state of New South Wales have
no laws for or against prostitution. Nevada has made prostitution lawful in a limited number of licensed brothels. This arrangement also
has enjoyed notable success in the Australian state of Victoria.
PROS
CONS
Prostitutionisanissueofindividualliberty.Thecontrol
of ones own body is a basic human right. We do not
imposelegalpenaltiesonmenandwomenwhochoose
tobepromiscuous.Whyshouldtheexchangeofmoney
suddenlymakeconsensualsexillegal?
Prostitutesdonothaveagenuinechoice.Theyareoften
encouragedorforcedtoworkinthesexindustrybefore
theyareoldenoughtomakeareasoneddecision.Many
have their reasoning impaired by an unhappy family
background,previoussexualabuse,ordrugs.Theymay
PROS
CONS
be compelled to enter prostitution by circumstances

beyondtheircontrol,suchassubstanceaddictionorthe
necessitytoprovideforafamily.
Prostitution has existed in all cultures throughout history. Governments should recognize that they cannot
eradicate it. Consequently they should pass legislation
that makes prostitution safer, rather than persist with
futileanddangerousprohibition.
Governments have a duty to protect the moral and

physical health of their citizens. Legalizing prostitutionwouldimplicitlyapproveadangerousandimmoral
practice. Prostitution is never a legitimate choice for a
younggirl.
Prostitutes have performed a valid social function for

thousandsofyears.Prostitutionactuallyhelpsmaintain
marriagesandrelationships.Apurelyphysical,commercial transaction does not jeopardize the emotional stabilityofarelationship.InItaly,forexample,visitinga
prostitutedoesnotviolatethelawagainstadultery.
Prostitution harms the fabric of society. Sexual intercourseoutsideofmarriageorarelationshipofloveshows

disregard for the sanctity of the sexual act and for the
otherpartnerinarelationship.Emotionalcommitment
isinextricablylinkedtophysicalcommitment.
Many libertarian feminists believe that prostitution

reects the independence and dominance of modern
women.The majority of prostitutes are women. Once
the danger of abuse from male clients and pimps is
removed,thecapacityofwomentocontrolmenssexual
responsesinananciallybenecialrelationshipisliberating.Furthermore,manycampaignersfortherightsof
prostitutes note that the hours are relatively short and
theworkwellpaid.Prostitutesarepaidforservicesother
womenmustprovidewithoutcharge.
Feministsoverwhelminglyopposeprostitution.Theradicalfeministschoolthatemergedinthe1990ssupports
theideathatprostitutionleadstotheobjecticationof
women.Menwhousewomensbodiessolelyforsexual
gratication do not treat them as people.This lack of
respectdehumanizesboththeprostituteandtheclient
anddoesnotrepresentavictoryforeithersex.
Some studies suggest that prostitution lowers the incidenceofsexcrimes.
Howcanyouprovethatsomeindividualswhovisitprostituteswouldotherwisehavecommittedviolentoffenses?
Psychological therapies that recommended the use of
prostitutes have been widely discredited. The number
ofreportedattacksonprostitutesandtheconsiderably
greaternumberofsuchcrimesthatgounreportedsuggestthatprostitutesarethevictimsofthemostserious
crimes.InVictoria,whereprostitutionislegal,tworapes
ofprostitutesarereportedeachweek.
Legalization would improve the sexual health of prostitutesand,asaresult,thatoftheirclients.Thesexual

transactionwouldoccurinacleanandsafeenvironment
ratherthanonthestreet.Inareaswhereprostitutionis
legal,prostituteshaveregularhealthchecksasacondition of working in the brothels. Furthermore, the use
ofcontraceptioniscompulsoryandcondomsarefreely
available.
Moresexualhealthproblemsareinevitable.Whenprostitutionislawfulandsociallyacceptable,agreaternumber
of men will use prostitutes. Medical studies show that
thecondomisonly99%effective.Moreover,duringthe
period between each health check, a prostitute could
contract and transmit a sexually transmitted disease.
Consequently,thelegalizationofprostitutionwillresult
inthetransmissionofmorepotentiallyfataldiseases.
Legalizing prostitution would break the link between

prostitutes and pimps. Pimps physically abuse prostitutesandoftenthreatengreaterviolence;theyconscate
part,ifnotall,oftheirearnings,andoftenencouragethe
ThelegalizationoftheBunnyRanchinNevadadidnot
prevent the majority of prostitutes from continuing to
workoutsideofthelicensedbrothelandremaindependentonpimps.Licensedbrothelsareexpensiveforpros-
|185
PROS
CONS
womentobecomeaddictedtodrugs.Providingasecure titutestoworkinandforclientstovisit.Alegalbusiness
environmentinwhichtoworkfreesmenandwomenof has to pay for rent, health checks and security; prostipimps.
tutesworkingoutsidethesystemneednotworryabout
suchexpenses.Someprostitutesuseprivateapartments,
whileothersworkonthestreet.Legalizingprostitution
willnotremovethestreetmarketorthedangersassociatedwithit.Thedangerousstreetenvironmentisaconsequenceofeconomics,notlegalcontrols.
Licensed brothels will improve the quality of life for
peoplewholiveandworkinareascurrentlyfrequented
byprostitutes.Regulationscanrequirebrothelstolocate
inareasawayfromhomesandschools.
Prostituteswillcontinuetoworkonthestreetsandare
unlikely to work near the competition offered by the
licensed brothels. Furthermore, will local governments
wanttocreateghettosofprostitutionincertainareas?
Existing legal prohibitions against prostitution do not

work.Prostitutesareregularlyarrestedandned.Topay
thenes,theymustprostitutethemselves.Thelawsbanningprostitutionarecounterproductive.
Merely because some individuals break a law does not

meanthatthelawitselfisatfaultorthatitshouldbe
abolished.Theeasewithwhichprostitutescanreturnto
worksuggeststhatpenalsanctionsshouldbemoresevere
ratherthanremovedaltogether.
Legalizing prostitution would give governments economicbenets.Ataxonthefeechargedbyaprostitute

and the imposition of income tax on the earnings of
prostituteswouldgeneraterevenue.
An economic benet cannot offset social harms that

resultfromthelegalizationofcertainprohibitedactivities. Otherwise we would encourage governments to
becomeinvolvedinotherunlawfultradesincludingtrafckingindrugs.Moreover,sexworkersareunlikelyto
declare their true earnings from what is a condential
relationship between the worker and client. Thus the
amountofrevenuegeneratedislikelytobeslight.
The problem of a high concentration of sex tourists

in a small number of destinations will disappear once
alargernumberofcountrieslegalizeprostitution.Supportingthismotion,therefore,willreducetheproblem
ofsextourism.
Legalizing prostitution would render the country in

questionadestinationforsextourists.RelaxedlegalcontrolsonprostitutioninThailand,thePhilippines,andin
theNetherlandshavemadethesecountriesattractiveto
theseundesirableindividuals.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldhavelotsmoresex.
ThisHousewouldlegalizebrothels.
ThisHousewoulddecriminalizeprostitution.
FurtherReading:
Chapkis,Wendy,JillPoesner,andAnnieSprinkle.LiveSexAct:WomenPerformingEroticLabor.Routledge,1997.
Ivison,Irene.FionasStory.LittleBrown,1997.
REFERENDA
In contemporary democracies decisions are made by elected representatives. If governments or citizens believe that an issue should have a
fuller demonstration of public will, they call or petition for a referendum. Referenda are questions put to a popular vote. They can have
the full force of law or they can be advisory. The frequency with which governments use them varies from nation to nation. There have
been approximately 1,000 referenda in history; half of them in Switzerland. The United States has never had a national referendum, but
some states, e.g., California, use them frequently.
PROS
CONS
Governing involves establishing long-term goals. Once

thepeopleelecttheirrepresentatives,thevotersshould
permitthemtoenacttheirplatforms.Oftenlegislationis
unpopularinitiallybutbecomesacceptable,evenpopular,inthelongrun.Suchlegislationwouldneversurvive
a referendum. If people dont like what their governmentisdoing,theycanvotethepoliticiansoutofofce.
Governmentsjobistolead,nottofollow,especiallyon
sociallegislationthatinitiallymayhavelimitedsupport.
Weveseendramaticexamplesofthisduringthe1950s
and 1960s, when the US federal government forced
desegregationinoppositiontosouthernwhiteopinion.
Freakish results can be avoided by requiring a certain Freakish results can occur if no turnout threshold is
percentage(say30%)oftheelectoratetocastavotefor requiredforareferendumtobevalid.Ifthethresholdis
areferendumtobevalid.
toohigh,noreferendumwilleverbevalid!
The people should have their say as often as possible.
Referenda were uncommon in the past because they
weredifculttoorganize.Nowthattechnology(i.e.,the
Internet) makes this task easier, we should utilize it to
furtherthespiritofdemocracyandincreasetheinvolvementofthepeople.Switzerlandisanexampleofanation
thatusesfrequentreferendaefciently.
People are apathetic about politics because their voice

is heard only at the voting booth. Frequent referenda
wouldstimulateinterestinpoliticsbecausepeoplewould
actuallygetasayindecisions.
Peoplearecurrentlyboredwithpolitics.Thelastthing
theywantistovotemoreoften.Thiswillleadonlyto
greater apathy and even lower turnouts. California is
a classic example of frequent referenda failing to draw
noticeableinterest.
In many cases legislatures decide on the wording of a

referendum, but countries could establish an independentbodythatwouldtakeoverthistaskandoverseethe
process.Itcouldbedonebythebodythatoverseesgeneralelections.Inmostdemocraciestheseauthoritiesare
acknowledgedasfairandunbiased.
Referendaareveryarticial.Thegovernmentcancontrol the timing, which is a key factor in deciding the

outcome.The media, by playing an irresponsible role,
canfurtherdistorttheresult.Furthermore,howshould
the all-important wording of the question be decided?
Referendawasteahugeamountofmoney.
Many countries have party systems with little differ- Ifnoneofthepartiessupportapolicy,itisbecauseithas

encebetweenparties.Consequently,largesectorsofthe nosignicantsupportamongthepeople!
publicndtheirviewsunrepresented.Referendawould
bearemedy.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousecallsfortheincreaseduseofreferenda.
ThisHousewouldvoteonit.
ThisHousewouldgivepowerbacktothepeople.
|187
WebLinks:
DirectDemocracyCampaign.<http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/>
Informationinsupportofdirectdemocracy,asystemunderwhichthepublic,ratherthanrepresentatives,voteonissues.
ToCollecttheWisestSentiments.<http://www.vote.org/direct.htm>
ScholarlyessayonthereferenduminUShistoryaswellasargumentsforandagainstuseofthereferendum.
RELIGION:SOURCEOFCONFLICTORPEACE?
Religion has always been one of the most inuential forces in the world. It has been a force for peace, but it also has served as a cause,
if not a genuine reason, for some of the greatest wars. Today, with the growth of Muslim fundamentalism in Islamic areas, the Western
world views religious extremism as the great threat. The events of September 11, 2001, proved that such concerns were justied; however,
the war on terror led by the West caused resentment among those for whom Islam was a peaceful source of spiritual stability. So what is
religion today? Is it harmful or good? If it can be a source of conict, can it serve as an instrument of resolution as well?
PROS
CONS
Religionisastrongerforcethananymaterialincentives.
It is far better at directing behavior toward social bettermentthaneitherlawsorphysicalforce.Forexample,
both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., conducted
nonviolentprotestsbasedonreligiousvalues.
Religionisextremelydangerousbecauseitcanbeused
tojustifybrutalactions.TheInquisitioncarriedoutits
torture in the name of God. Hitlers followers, among
themtheso-calledGermanChristians,werealsobelievers in their Fhrer. Religion should never be involved
in politics because it can be used as an instrument of
controlortoachievearulersaims.
Theveryexistenceoftheocraticstates,e.g.,Iran,proves
thatreligioncanbealegitimatesourceofpoliticalpower.
Governmentsintheocraticstatesaremuchmorestable
than in secular countries because leaders are viewed as
appointedbyGod.Politicalstability,initsturn,leadsto
economicwelfare.
Theocratic states become totalitarian regimes because

they are based on obedience to a ruler who is seen as
Gods representative rather than on a democratic constitution.
Biblical commandments are the basis of Western ethicalandlegalsystems.Religionteachesustolerancefor

peopleofotherracesandreligions.Usuallybelieversare
morepeacefulandtolerantthannonbelievers.
Religions like Islam justify holy wars against the

unfaithful, meaning people of other religions. ReligiousconvictionslikethesepavedthewayfortheterroristattacksofSeptember11.
In the states where religion develops freely and people

have free access to places of worship, churches have
always served as a shelter for the poor. Some of the
greatestworksofartwerecreatedinthenameofGod.
Furthermore,WoodrowWilsonsuggestedthatastrong
afnityexistsbetweenreligiouscommitmentandpatriotism. Love of country, just like love of God, certainly
inspiresgooddeeds.
Religion has led to the creation of great art but it has

also led to its destruction. Remember the Talibans
destruction of the great Buddhas in Afghanistan? Still
worse,religioncanbeasourceofextremenationalism.
InIslam,Christianity,andJudaism,Godisdescribedas
mightywarrior,justking,orrighteousjudge.He
punishestheunjust,theunrighteous,andthedisobedient.The idea that a nation is the instrument of Gods
willhasledtowarandthesubjugationofpeopleviewed
asungodly.
PROS
CONS
Mostwarsarenotstartedbyreligion,althoughreligion Whetherreligionisagenuinereasonforwaroronlyits
often serves to justify them. Most wars are started for pretextisnotimportant.Whatisvitalisthatreligioncan
economicreasonsorforterritorialgain.
beandisoftenusedtomakepeopleghtinthename
ofhighidealstofurtheraimsofhatred.Thus,religion
causesmoreharmthangood.
Westernstatesgrewasaresultofreligionandreligious
philosophy. Western European and North American
societiesarestillbasedonProtestantidealsofdiligence,
thrift,andmoderation.
NorthAmericannationsemergedonlybecauseofeconomicfactors:theexistenceoffamineandoverpopulationinEuropeontheonehand,andthefreemarketsof
theUnitedStatesontheother.Therealitiesofcapitalism,notthetenetsofreligiousfaith,promptpeopleto
bediligentandthrifty.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatreligionisapositiveinuenceonpeople.
ThisHousebelievesthatchurchandstatemustbekeptseparate.
WebLinks:
UnitedStatesInstituteofPeace.<http://www.usip.org/religionpeace/index.html>
SitereportsontheInstitutesReligionandPeacemakingInitiativeandpresentsreportsonpeacemakingeffortsinreligiouswars.
OntarioConsultantsonReligiousTolerance.<http://www.religioustolerance.org>
Presentsinformationonvariousaspectsofreligionandincludesanextensivetableofallcontemporaryreligiouswarswithabrief
descriptionofeach.
FurtherReading:
Gopin,Marc.HolyWar,HolyPeace:HowReligionCanBringPeacetotheMiddleEast.OxfordUniversityPress,April2002.
Hunter,ShireenT.,andMarcGopin.TheFutureofIslamandtheWest:ClashofCivilizationsorPeacefulCoexistence?Praeger,1998.
Kepel,Gilles.Jihad:TheTrailofPoliticalIslam.TranslatedbyAnthonyRoberts.HarvardUniversityPress,2002.
Smock,DavidR.ReligiousPerspectivesonWar:Christian,Muslim,andJewishAttitudes.Rev.ed.UnitedStatesInstituteofPeace
Press,2002.
RELIGIOUSBELIEF:RATIONALORIRRATIONAL?
The majority of the worlds population is at least nominally committed to some religion. Despite the perception in some parts of the
Western world that religious belief is in terminal decline, or that economic and social development go hand-in-hand with secularization,
in many parts of the world religious belief is rmly entrenched, including in the United States, arguably the most developed nation on
Earth. Religion offers a fascinating topic for debate: the question of the existence of God; the social, moral, and political questions about
the effects of religious belief on individuals and communities both now and in the past.
PROS
CONS
Religious belief is completely irrational. God exists?

Wherestheproof?Thereisnone.Reportedmiracles,healings,etc.,areneverreliablyproved.Inanycaseeveryones
religiousexperiencesaredifferentandshowthepsychologicaldifferencesbetweenhumanbeingsratherthanproving
anyobjectivedivinereality.BeliefinGodissimplywish
fulllment.Alovingall-powerfulbeingwatchingoverus
wouldbenice,butthereisntany.
EvidencethatGodisarealityisgood.Thatweliveina
beautiful,orderlyuniverseinwhichhumanbeingsexist
and have special moral and spiritual awareness points
clearlytotheexistenceofadivinecreatoroftheuniverse.
Billionsofpeoplehavehadreligiousexperiences,allof
themrevealingtheexistenceofdivinereality.
|189
PROS
CONS
Theworldisfullofthesufferingandpainoftheinnocent.IfGodisgoodandallpowerfulthenwhyissuch
sufferingpermitted?EitherGoddoesnotexistorheis
notworthbelievinginbecausehedoesnotcareabout
humansuffering.
Mostsufferingandpaincanbeaccountedforbythefree
will that humans exercise. God made us free, and we
usethatfreedomforevilaswellasforgood.Asforillnessanddisease,itishardforustoknowthemindof
God,butitmaybethatthesetrialsareanecessarypart
ofaworldinwhichfreeandspiritualhumanbeingscan
evolveanddevelop.
Modernsciencehasshownreligiousbelieftobewrong.
From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists
havecontinuallyuncoveredthetruenaturalmechanisms
behind the beginning and evolution of the universe.
TheseleavenogapsforGodtoactin;sciencehasrevealed
aclosednaturalordergovernedbynaturallaws.Science
hasalsoprovedthatthereisnotasoul,butthatallour
mentalstatesaresimplycausedbybrainactivity.Accordingly,thereisnoreasontobelieveinlifeafterdeath,one
ofthemaintenetsofreligiousbelief.
Whataninaccuratecaricatureoftherelationshipbetween
scienceandreligion.Infact,mostofthegreatscientists
of history have been religious believers. The more we
learnaboutthephysicalworld,themoreitseemsthatan
intelligentGoddesignedittoproducehumanlife.The
physicalsideofrealitydoesnot,inanycase,precludea
spiritualdimension.Nordoesthefactthatthemindand
brainarecloselycorrelatedmeanthattheyarethesame
thing.
Religions through the ages, and still today, have been

agentsofrepression,sexism,elitism,homophobia,conict,war,andracialhatred.Theevilsforwhichreligion
is responsible in the social and political worlds easily
outweighwhateversmallpsychologicalcomfortreligious
beliefmaygive.
Religionmayhavebeentheoccasionforvarioussocial
andpoliticalwrongs,butitisnotthecause.Youcanbe
surethatifyoutookawayalltheworldsreligionspeople
wouldstillidentifythemselveswithnationalandpoliticalgroupsandgotowaroverterritory,etc.Equally,elitismandbigotryare,sadly,partsofhumannaturewithor
withoutreligion.Seriousandsincerereligiousbeliefisa
forceforgoodintheworld,promotinghumility,morality,wisdom,equality,andsocialjustice.Socialjusticeis
attheheartoftheChristiangospel.
Religioustraditionsandtheirrationalfervorwithwhich
people adhere to them divide humanity.They provide
aproliferationofincompatibleandcontradictorymoral
codesandvalues.Theonlyprospectforaglobalmorality is a secular one based on rational consensual views
and positions rather than on partisan, local, irrational
prejudices.Intheinterestofglobalharmony,weshould
discardreligiousbeliefs.
Weneedreligioustraditionstoprovideuswithmorals
and values in a rapidly secularizing age. Scientists and
politicianscannottellushowtodistinguishrightfrom
wrong.Weneedthemoralinsightofreligioustraditions,
which are repositories of many generations of spiritual
wisdom,toguideusinethicalmatters.
SampleMotions:
ThisHouserejoicesthatGodisdead.
ThisHousedoesnotbelieve.
ThisHousebelievesthatreligionhasdonemoreharmthangood.
WebLinks:
Counterbalance.<http://www.counterbalance.org>
AscienceandreligionsitesympathetictoChristianity.
TheSecularWeb.<http://www.indels.org/>
ContainsessaysandarticlessupportingametaphysicalphilosophyofnaturalismthatdeniestheexistenceofGod.
Theism,Atheism,andRationality.<http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html>
Philosophicalessayinsupportofatheisticworldview.
REPARATIONSFORSLAVERY
Reparations are compensation given to make amends for previous wrongs. In the United States, some people believe that the descendants
of slaves should be compensated for the wrongs of slavery. The historical facts behind the argument are universally agreed on. Europeans
shipped millions of Africans as slaves to North and South America. Once there, the slaves labor developed the colonial economies. The
prots from the slave trade and from slave labor greatly improved the material well-being of the colonies and sponsor states involved.
In 2002 descendents of slaves led a lawsuit seeking reparations from corporations they said had proted from slavery. A federal judge
dismissed the suit in 2004, saying the plaintiffs had established no clear link to the companies they targeted. Nevertheless, the ruling dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs would be allowed to le an amended complaint.
PROS
CONS
ThelegalprecedentbehindAfrican-Americandemands
for slavery reparations originates from US Army Field
Order 15 issued by Gen. WilliamTecumseh Sherman
in 1865. It stated that each freedman should receive
40acresoflandandadraftanimaltoworkthelandas
compensationfortheirenslavement.Bitternessoverthe
governmentsfailuretohonorthatorderexistsinblack
culture and contributes to racial hostility. Reparations
couldpossiblyreducesomeofthathostilityandleadto
betterracerelationsinAmerica.
Reparations are not historically justied. The call for

reparationsismerelythemergingofdemagogicappeals
topopulismbyAfrican-Americanleadersandtheoverly
litigiousnatureofAmericanculture.GeneralSherman
would have given property and tangible goods. Cash
paymentsandpropertytransferarenolongerjustied.
Ifthegovernmentwantstohelpdescendantsofslaves,
it should offer opportunities for economic development and education. Furthermore, should reparations
be decided on, how would they be determined? How
muchisan1865muleworthintodaysdollars?Should
thegovernmentexecutetheorderoradjustitbasedon
cost-of-livingchangesandeconomicchanges?Callsfor
reparations entrench perceptions of African Americans
asvictims,asureroadtolearnedhelplessness.
HistoricalprecedentsforreparationstoAfrican-AmericandescendantsofslavesarethepaymentbyGermany
to Israel for the Nazi Holocaust and the payments
madebytheUSfederalgovernmentforitsinternment
ofJapaneseAmericansduringWorldWarII.Inaddition, historical precedent for reparations exists in the
ongoingprovisionofsocialservicestoNativeAmerican
populationsinNorthAmerica.
Who should receive the payments? African Americans

orAfricansorboth?Thehistoricalprecedentscitedare
invalid. Germany was forced to make reparations to
IsraelbecauseGermanyhadcommittedacrimeagainst
humanity,genocide,againsttheJewishpeopleofEurope.
Genocideisdifferentfromslavery.Economically,slavery
mandatesbettertreatmentbecausetheslavespossessed
value on the open market. The Japanese Americans
in concentration camps were treated horribly by the
US government. However, they were also a very easily
denedandtrackedgroupofindividualswhocouldbe
monetarily compensated. The African-American slaves
are many generations away from their ancestors who
were actually slaves. Tracking down who is descended
from whom would be a huge, if not impossible, task.
Native Americans receive payments and social services
basedontheirtreatieswiththeUSgovernmentandthe
governments of the Indian tribes. The descendants of
African slaves have no nation-state or treaties with the
government.
|191
PROS
CONS
Slavery was deemed a crime against humanity in the

summerof2001attheUnitedNationsWorldConference Against Racism in South Africa.The designation
haslegalimplications.Mostimportant,thereisnostatuteoflimitationsforcrimesagainsthumanity,meaning
US institutions could be held liable for transgressions
datingtotherstinstanceofslavetradeintheAmericas
in1619inJamestown,Virginia.
TheUSgovernmentisnotaffectedbythisdesignation.
TheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt
hasnotbeenratiedbytheUS.Inaddition,theUShas
sovereignimmunityandcouldnotbesuedbyitsown
citizensinAmericancourts.Therstcaseseekingreparations,Catov.theUnitedStates(1995),wasdismissed
citingUSsovereignimmunity.
Africansshouldbepaidreparationsforslavery.Slavery
entrenched a violent and corrupt political system and
fostered a culture that accepted the commodication
ofhumanlife.Theharmsinictedbyslaveryhindered
Africasdevelopment,thusAfricansshouldreceivecompensationandreparations.
Allowing some harmed groups to receive reparations

fromthegovernmentwillencourageothertransgressed
groups to produce and present their own claims for
reparations.Reparationsclaimscouldconceivablybankrupt our government and torpedo our economy. Why
shouldtheUSgovernmentprovidereparations?Many
othernationsparticipatedintheslavetrade,including
Africannations.ManyArabnationsalsobenetedfrom
theinstitutionofslavery.SaudiArabiatradedandused
slaves for development extensively many decades after
theinstitutionofslaveryhadbeenabolishedintheWesternHemisphere.
Private corporations should pay reparations to descendants of slaves. Many private corporations held slaves
orsoldslavesandprotedgreatlyfromtheirparticipation in chattel slavery. In July 1998, Volkswagen AG
admitted to using the forced and unpaid (slave) labor
of15,000EasternEuropeansduringWorldWarIIand
announcedplanstosetupafundtocompensatethese
workers.
Private corporate liability lawsuits should be avoided.

Mergersandacquisitionsmakethenancialliabilitytoo
complicatedtotrace,thusonlyobviousandnancially
importantcorporationswouldbecaughtupinthisfolly.
Thinkonthisalso:Oneunfavorableandhalf-thoughtoutcourtrulingcouldderailthemanyseriouseffortsto
bringthisissuetopublicattentionanddiscussioninthe
UnitedStates.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldgivereparationstothedescendantsofslaves.
ThisHousebelievesthattheUSfederalgovernmentshouldprovidereparationsforitspartinthetransatlanticslavetrade.
ThisHousebelievesthatmoraland/ornancialatonementfortheracialsinsofthiscountrysfathersisdesirable.
WebLinks:
MillionsForReparations.<http://www.millionsforreparations.com>
ThisWebsite,maintainedbyanorganizationinfavorofreparations,hassomenewsandmagazineliteratureandsomepersonal
thoughtsaboutreparations.
WeWontPay.<http://www.wewontpay.com>
ThisWebsitehasthepersonaltestimonyofmorethan100Internetvisitorswhoallsoundoffaboutracism.Someoftheparticipantsarequaliedandcitesources;othersdonot.ThisisagreatWebsiteforteachingaboutsourcequalicationsandlogicalfallaciesinargument.
FurtherReading:
Horowitz,David.UncivilWars:TheControversyoverReparationsforSlavery.Encounter,2001.
Robinson,Randall.TheDebt:WhatAmericaOwestoBlacks.Plume,2001.
Winbush,RaymondA.,ed.ShouldAmericaPay:SlaveryandtheRagingDebateoverReparations.Amistad,2003.
SCHOOLUNIFORMS
Traditionally, students in American parochial schools and some private schools have worn uniforms. Only a smattering of public schools
had uniform policies until the mid-1990s, when Long Beach, California, mandated uniforms in an effort to stop school crime. The
apparent success of the measure combined with studies indicating that students in many schools with uniform policies performed better academically than those without, opened a oodgate of uniform adoption. President Bill Clinton even promoted uniforms in his 1996 State of
the Union message. To avoid legal challenges, school districts now make provision for students who cannot afford uniforms or for parents to
opt out of the uniform requirement.
PROS
CONS
Uniformshelpcreateastrongsenseofcommunity,thus
promoting discipline and helping raise academic standards. This is why educators frequently adopt them
whentryingtorevivefailingschools.
Uniforms suppress individualism and discourage students from accepting responsibility for aspects of their
ownlives.Theyencourageteacherstoviewstudentsas
agroupratherthanasindividualswithdifferentcharactersandabilities.Uniformswerebettersuitedtoanage
of rote learning and military-style discipline.They do
notbelonginmoderneducation,whichencouragesthe
imaginationandintellectualexplorationthatisbecomingincreasinglyimportantinthewidereconomy.Many
schools, indeed many countries, manage to maintain
highstandardsofdiscipline,community,andacademic
performancewithoutadoptinguniforms.
Wearinguniformsactsasasocialleveler;allstudentsare
equalintheeyesoftheschoolandofeachother.Ininstitutionswithoutuniformsstudentsareoftencompetitive
in dress and worry endlessly about their appearance.
Pupils without expensive, trendy clothes may become
social outcasts. Many parents prefer uniforms because
theysavemoney.
Studentsalwaysndwaystoteaseorbullyothersregardlessofwhatclothesareworn.Thefashion-consciouswill
ownthesamenumberofouttsregardlessofwhetheror
nottheycanwearthemtoschool;theywillchangethe
minuteclassesareover.Parentsoftenndsomeuniform
items,suchasjackets,veryexpensiveandcomplainthat
theycanneverbewornoutsidetheschool.
Uniforms have practical benets outside the school

building. If students are identied with a particular
institution,theymaybe more aware of their behavior.
Theymayactmoreconsideratelyofotherswhiletravelingtoandfromtheschool.Onorganizedtrips,teachers
ndkeepingtrackandmonitoringbehaviorofstudents
easier.
Uniformsmakestudentsveryidentiable.Theyemphasizethedivisionsbetweenschools,increasingthepossibilityofbullyingandghtsbetweenstudentsfromrival
institutions.
Uniforms prepare students for life after graduation, The business world is increasingly relaxed about dress
whenbusinesseswillexpectthemtoadheretocorporate codes,makingtheschoolsthatinsistonuniformsanachdresscodes.
ronistic.Adultswhoattendedschoolswithoutuniforms
donotappeartostruggleintheworkplace.
Uniforms make it easy for teachers to monitor dress
codes fairly. School administrators and students constantly battle about what clothing is appropriate in
schoolswithoutuniforms.
Oftenitistheuniformthatisinappropriatenotwarm
enoughinwinterortoohotinsummerlargelybecause
it is badly designed and cheaply produced. Girls complainaboutbeingforcedtowearskirtseveninthecoldestmonths.Somegroups,suchasconservativeMuslims,
mayopposespecicuniformstylesforculturalreasons.
|193
PROS
CONS
Studentswillalwaysattempttosubvertdresscodes,so
thestaffwillhavetobevigilantinanycase.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldintroduceschooluniforms.
ThisHousewouldcreateastrongerschoolethos.
ThisHousebelievessuccessfuleducationrestsonrmdiscipline.
WebLinks:
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU):AllDressedUpandNowheretoGo:StudentsandTheirParentsFightSchoolUniform
Policies.<http://www.aclu.org/features/f110499a.html>
SitesummarizingonecampaignagainstschooluniformswithlinkstoinformationonotherprotestsandACLUlegalaction.
ACLU:LitigationResultingfromMandatorySchoolUniformPolicies.<http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformLinksLitigation.
html>
LinkstoinformationonACLUchallengestodresscodesaswellassummariesofACLUstandsontheissue.
ACLU:PhillyAdoptsSchoolUniformPolicy.<http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/w050800a.html>
2000pressreleasepresentingopposingviewpointsonPhiladelphiasadoptionofschooluniforms.
U.S.DepartmentofEducation:ManualonUniforms.<http://www.ed.gov/updates/uniforms.html>
1996summaryofargumentsinsupportofschooluniforms,guidetoadoptinguniforms,andsampleschooldistrictpolicieson
uniforms.
SCHOOLVOUCHERS
Over the past decades, Americans have been increasingly concerned about the quality of public education, particularly in inner-city neighborhoods, where many public schools are failing. One of the most controversial suggestions for improving education for all children is to
establish school voucher programs. Although the specics of these programs vary with locality, all would distribute monetary vouchers to
parents who could then use them to help pay the cost of private, including parochial (religious), schools. Critics fear that vouchers would
further damage public schools and argue that they subvert the separation of church and state. Supporters say they will help the children
most in need.
PROS
CONS
Thecurrentpubliceducationsystemisfailingcountless
students,particularlyininner-cityneighborhoods.Inan
erawhereeducationisthekeytosuccess,thesechildren
arenotbeingprovidedwiththechancetodevelopthe
skillsnecessarytocompeteinthemodernworld.Vouchersgivepoorparentstheabilitytosendtheirchildrento
better schools.These children should not be sacriced
whilewewaitforpublicschoolreform.
TheAmericanpubliceducationsystemhasbeencentral
to American democracy. It has provided education for
allchildrenregardlessoftheirethnicbackground,their
religion,theiracademictalents,ortheirabilitytopay.It
has helped millions of immigrants assimilate and provided the civic education necessary for future citizens
tounderstandAmericanvalues.Establishingavoucher
systemissayingthatwearegivinguponpubliceducation.Insteadofgivingup,weshouldputoureffortsinto
reformingthesystem.
The competition for students will force all schools to Thecompetitionforstudentswoulddestroyinner-city

improve.Theywillhavetousetheirresourcestoeducate publicschools.Muchoftheirstudentbodywouldee
PROS
CONS
their students rather than squander them on bureaucraciesasmanydotoday.Eventually,theunsalvageable

schools will close and the others will grow stronger,
producinganoverallbetterlearningenvironment.The
marketwillregulatetheeducationproduced.
to better private schools, leaving inner-city schools

withlittletonofunding.Moststatesfundingofpublic
schoolsisdeterminedbynumberofstudentsenrolled.If
enrollmentlags,thentheschoolisnotaswellfundedas
itwasthepreviousyear.Ifenrollmentbooms,thenfundingincreases.Thus,evenifurbanschoolsaremotivated
toimprovetheywilllacktheresourcestodoso.
Themoneywouldhelpsomefamilies,andthatisworth
the risks. Not all students in nonperforming schools
will be able to attend a private school. However, after
thestudentswhocanaffordsuchanopportunityleave
nonperformingschools,moreresourceswillbeavailable
atthosenonperformingschoolstoeducatetheremaining students. Private schools would have no reason to
change admission standards or tuition, nor is there
reasontothinkthatagreatswellinprivateschoolenrollmentwouldresult.
The government vouchers are not monetarily substantialenoughtogivetruenancialaidtostudents.They

are not large enough to help poor students go to privateschools.Thevouchersmakeprivateeducationmore
affordable for people who could already afford it. In
addition,privateschoolsmaynotbewillingtoacceptall
studentswithvouchers.Theycouldalwaysraisetuition
or standards for admission, neutralizing any impact
voucherswouldhave.
Vouchers will eventually lead to a school system that

is liberated from bureaucrats and politicians, enabling
educatorsandparentstodeterminehowbesttoeducate
children.
Voucher programs would set up a school system that

isnotaccountabletothepublic.InvestigationsofcurrentprogramsinMilwaukee,Wisconsin,andCleveland,
Ohio, have found unlawful admissions requirements,
illegallyimposedfees,andevenfraud.
Noviolationoftheseparationofchurchandstatewould
occur.Nostudentwouldbeforcedtoenterareligious
school.Onlyfamiliesandstudentsinterestedinaprivate
orreligiouseducationwouldusethevouchers.Anystudentswhodesiredamoretraditionalcurriculumwould
beallowedtostudyinpublicschools.
Vouchers involve the indirect giving of public funds

to religious schools.This transfer of funds amounts to
aviolationofthedoctrineofseparationofchurchand
state.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatthegovernmentshouldceasetheuseofschoolvouchers.
ThisHouserecommendsthateducationalvouchersbeusedforprivateandparochialschools.
ThisHousebelievesthattheissuingofvouchersbythegovernmentisjustied.
WebLinks:
SchoolVouchers:TheWrongChoiceforPublicEducation.<http://www.adl.org/vouchers/vouchers_main.asp>
Ananti-school-voucherWebsitecontainingadetailedreportoutliningmanyreasonswhyvouchersareapoorpolicyoption.
VouchersandEducationalFreedom:ADebate.
<http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-269es.html>
ThisWebpagefromtheCatoInstitutepresentsadebateontheissueofvouchers.Alongwithbothsidesoftheargument,thesite
offerslinksandpolicyanalysis.
WhatAretheIssues:Vouchers?<http://www.pta.org/programs/ISSvouchers.htm>
ThePTAWebsiteprovidesexcellentbackgroundontheissuethroughvariouslinksandarticles.
FurtherReading:
Doerr,Edd,AlbertJ.Menendez,andJohnM.Swomley.TheCaseAgainstSchoolVouchers.Prometheus,1996.
Kilpatrick,DavidW.ChoiceinSchooling:ACaseforTuitionVouchers.LoyolaPress,1990.
Kolbert,Kathryn,andZakMettger,eds.JusticeTalking:SchoolVouchers.NewPress,2002.
|195
SCIENCE:THREATTOSOCIETY?
As the twenty-rst century dawns, science is extending the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding further than many people
feel comfortable with. Both cutting-edge technologies, such as cloning, and other more established procedures, such as in vitro fertilization,
have sparked moral outrage and accusations of playing God. The development of nuclear weapons is just one illustration of the possible
danger introduced by scientic advances.
PROS
CONS
SciencegiveshumanstheabilitytoplayGodandto
interfere in areas about which we know nothing. Scientistshavealreadycloned animals, and recently some
scientists announced that they will attempt to clone
humans. Such irresponsible and potentially dangerous meddling is taking place in the name of scientic
advancement.
TalkofplayingGod!Asidefromassumingtheexistence
ofadeitythatmanydonotbelievein,thetalkofplaying
Godimpliesaviolationofsetboundaries.Whatboundaries?Setbywhom?Thepropositionissimplyafraidof
thingsaboutwhichitknowsnothing.Theassertionthat
wearemeddlinginareaswedonotunderstandshould
bereplacedwithacallforbetterregulationofscientic
enquiry,notitsabolition.
Sciencehasgreatlyincreasedthecapabilityofmenand
womentokilleachother.Warsthatusedtobefought
face-to-face on the battleeld, with comparatively few
casualties,arenowfoughtfrommilesawayinanonymity.ThebuildupofnucleararsenalsduringtheColdWar
gave humanity the capability of obliterating the entire
world10timesover.Atcertaintimesinhistory,suchas
the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the world has stood on
thebrinkofdestruction.
Sciencedoesnotkill;humansdo.Wecannotblamesciencefortheawsinhumannature,andwecannotattribute suffering to science any more than to religion or

philosophy,bothofwhichhavecausedwars.Theexample given illustrates how science brings with it accompanying responsibility. Mutually assured destruction
ensured that neither the United States nor the Soviet
Uniondeployednuclearweapons.
Sciencehaspervertedthefundamentalbasisofhuman
relations.Thewordsocietyitselfcomesfromsocializationthe idea of interaction and communication.
With the Internet, television, and computer games,
humans are communing with a lifeless collection of
microchips,noteachother.
Sciencehasgreatlyincreasedtheabilityofpeopletocommunicate.Telephonesande-mailnowenablepeopleon
oppositesidesoftheworldtostayintouch.TheInternetallowspeopleunprecedentedaccesstoinformation,
anythingfromsportsscorestodebatingcribsheets.Any
study of preindustrial society will show that computer
gamesappeartohavetakentheplacepreviouslyheldby
recreationalviolence.
Scienceisdespoilingthenaturalworld.Powergridsruin
thecountryside,acidrainfromcoal-andgas-redpower
stationskillssh,andanimalsarecruellyexperimented
ontofurtherresearch.Notonlydoessciencegiveusthe
potentialtodestroyeachother,italsotakesamassivetoll
onournaturalsurroundings.
Modern medicines have more than doubled our life

expectancyandpreventedfatalchildhooddiseases.The
worlds population could not be fed without fertilizers
and pesticides to increase crop yields and machinery
toharvestthemefciently.Scienceandtechnologyare
essentialtomodernexistence.Wemustusethemwith
careandnotabusethem.Butcondemningscienceasa
menaceisludicrous.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesscienceisathreattohumanity.
ThisHousefearsscience.
ThisHousebelievesthatscientistsaredangerous.
WebLinks:
InstituteofScienceinSociety(ISIS).<http://www.i-sis.org.uk>
MaintainedbyISIS,anonprotorganizationworkingforsocialresponsibilityinscience,thesiteoffersinformationoncurrent
issuesinscience.
InternationalCenterforTechnologyAssessment.<http://www.icta.org>
Siteprovidesinformationontheorganizationsinitiativestoexploretheeconomic,social,ethical,environmental,andpolitical
impactsoftechnology.
ScientistsforGlobalResponsibility.<http://www.sgr.org.uk>
UK-basedorganizationpromotingtheethicaluseofscienceprovidesnewsonscienticissuesandinformationonitsinitiatives.
FurtherReading:
Collins,H.M.,andTrevorPinch.TheGolem:WhatYouShouldKnowAboutScience.CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
.TheGolematLarge:WhatYouShouldKnowAboutTechnology.CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
Peacocke,Arthur.PathsfromScienceTowardsGod.OneWorldPublications,2001.
SECURITYANDLIBERTY
The events of September 11, 2001, forced governments worldwide to take extraordinary measures to improve the security of their citizens.
Measures included unparalleled searches of passengers and baggage at airports; more frequent searches of possessions when entering public
places; tracking and monitoring of foreign nationals; and random searches of Internet content by intelligence ofcers. Most of these measures are associated with loss of privacy. Extraordinary security measures seem justied in response to the imminent and continuing threats
of terrorists, who have become much more cunning and resourceful over the last decade. The introduction of these measures, however,
comes at the expense of some of our most cherished civil liberties. No doubt, we must trade some liberty for security, but what is the ideal
balance?
PROS
CONS
Thecurrenttensionintheinternationalarenaislikely
toincrease,leadingtogreaterdissatisfactionwithAmericanpolicies.This,inturn,mayresultinmoreterrorist
attacks.Terroristsnowuseadvancedtechnologyandare
organizedinnetworksofhard-to-trackcells.Addressing
modern terrorism is impossible without curbing some
rights.
Wedonthaveenoughevidencetoshowthatterrorismis
moreofathreatthaninpastdecades.Governmentsare
likelytotakeadvantageofthefearofterrorismandseize
themomenttostrengthentheirregimes.Moderngovernment agencies are sophisticated enough to counter
terrorism without impinging on citizens rights. What
isnotacceptableistoinfringeoncivilrightsusingthe
eventsofSeptember11asanexcuse.
Libertydependsonsecurity.Wemusteliminateterrorismtoprotectourfreedom.Weneedtoupdatewiretappinglawstoconformtochangingtechnologiesandgive
law enforcement agencies added powers of search and
seizure.
TheUnitedStateswasfoundedontheprincipleoflimitedgovernmentandinalienablerights.Thegovernment
can take steps to thwart terrorism without infringing
on our rights. For example, instead of giving agencies
broaderrightsofdetention,theagenciescoulddobetter
workincollectingevidencesothattheycanbringcrediblecharges.
Ourimmigrationlawsaretoolax,andtheImmigration
andNaturalizationServicehasfailedinitsjob.TheterroristsresponsibleforSeptember11enteredtheUnited
States legally, and undoubtedly others are still here in
hiding.Weneedstricterlawsandbetterenforcement.
InthewakeofSeptember11,thegovernmentdetained
morethan1,000non-U.S.nationals,someforlongperiods,anddeprivedthemofbasicrightsguaranteedunder
international law.This is not appropriate for a nation
thatpridesitselfonitssupportofindividualfreedom.
|197
PROS
CONS
Inanylarge-scaleattempttoghtterrorismsomeabuses
ofrightsarecertaintooccur.However,endingallsecurity measures because they may violate rights is not a
goodidea.Themajorityofthemeasuresareintendedto
safeguardcivilliberties,notabusethem.
Historically, many limitations on rights started with

goodintentions.Permittingviolationsofrights,evenin
a few cases, is the top of a slippery slope.The public
willtolerateincreasedviolationofrights,andeventually
fundamentalrightswillbeeroded.
Securitymeasureshavenotreallylimitedfreedom,and IftheUnitedStateslosesitscherishedlibertiestoterrorUSmeasuresarecomparablewiththoseofotherdevel- ism,theterroristswin.

opedcountries.
Randomsearchesatairportsensureagainstethnicproling.Inmanyairports,thesoftwarethatrunstheairline
reservationsystem,calledComputerAssistedPassenger
PrescreeningSystem(CAPPS),selectspassengerswhose
carry-onandcheckedbagswillrequireadditionalsecurityscreening.CAPPSalsochoosespassengersatrandom
forscreening.
Fruitless random searches of elderly women, toddlers,

and uniformed airline pilots have become standard at
USairportsasmoreandmoreinnocentpassengersare
treatedlikesuspectsratherthancustomers.Someofthe
redagsforCAPPSsystemare:personslastname;methodsofpayment(ticketspaidincasharehighlysuspect);
orwhetherarentalcariswaiting.Thesecriteriaarevery
vagueanddonottargetrealsuspects.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatsecurityisthemostimportantgoal.
ThisHousewouldnottradelibertyforsecurity.
WebLinks:
AmnestyInternationalConcernsRegardingPost-September11DetentionsintheU.S.<http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/
AMR510442002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA>
Reportbyinternationalrightsorganizationexpressingconcernaboutpotentialhumanrightsviolationsinthenationalsweepfor
possibleterroristsfollowingSeptember11.
BalancingSecurityandLiberty.<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/do51403a.cfm>
ArticleinsupportofBushadministrationanti-terrorismpoliciesbytheconservativeHeritageFoundation.
OfceofHomelandSecurity.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/>
Bushadministrationsiteprovidinglatestnewsonthedomesticcampaignagainstterrorism.
OnTradingSecurityforLiberty.
<http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/wthomas_trading-security-liberty.asp>
ArticlebytheObjectivistCenterviewsBushadministrationactionsinresponsetoterrorismasthreatstolibertiesandrecommends
alternatives.
FurtherReading:
Chang,Nancy,andHowardZinn.SilencingPoliticalDissent:HowPost-September11Anti-TerrorismMeasuresThreatenOurCivil
Liberties.SevenStoriesPress,2002.
Dempsey,JamesX.,andDavidCole.Terrorism&TheConstitution,SacricingCivilLibertiesintheNameofNationalSecurity.First
AmendmentFoundation,2002.
Netanyahu,Benjamin.FightingTerrorism:HowDemocraciesCanDefeatDomesticandInternationalTerrorists.NoondayPress,1997.
SELF-DETERMINATIONANDNATIONALISM
Across the world nationalist movements like the Qubecois in French-speaking Canada and the British Nationalists in Gibraltar,
campaign to determine their own allegiances and government. Many of these movements are peaceful, but some have degenerated into
violence. India and Pakistan are currently locked in conict over the future of (predominantly Muslim) Kashmir (under the control of
Hindu India); and the Arab-Israeli conict continues to rage over the proposed establishment of a State of Palestine. On the one hand,
self-determination reects the democratic goal that a people choose their own government; on the other, self-determination and nationalism
can generate dangerous conict and fragmentation where identity generates exclusivity (e.g., Yugoslavia). Can minority rights can be successfully accommodated in a single homogeneous state?
PROS
CONS
Self-determinationisafundamentalrightthatmustbe
affordedtoanativeornationalgroup.TheUNGeneral
Assembly Resolution 1514 (The Declaration Granting
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), the
HelsinkiAct,andtheAfricanCharterofHumanRights
allassertthatself-determinationisanimportantright.
Callsforindependencedestabilizecountries,asseenin
NorthernIreland,Kashmir,Palestine,theBasqueareasof
Spain,andSriLanka.Turmoildoesnotsupporthuman
rights,italmostalwaysabrogatesthem.Iftheminorityis
abletoactivelytakepartinalegitimateandrepresentativegovernment,thenself-determinationisviewedasan
illegitimateclaimininternationallaw.TheUNGeneral
AssemblyResolution2625arguesthatterritorialintegrityandstabilitytrumpclaimsforself-determination.
Some claims for self-determination and independence

werenourishedinthesoiloftheill-treatmentofnative
peoplesbycolonialpowers.Therecognitionofminority
rightsprotectsculturalidentitiesthatriskbeingdiluted.
Theactivitiesofterroristgroupsshouldnotundermine
thepoliticalagendasofnationalistpartiesandtheprotestsofminoritygroups.
Thewrongsinictedbythecolonialpowersarenotthe
faultofthenewgovernments.Inthepost-ColdWarera
wearemovingawayfromnationalistideology.Nationalism is about difference, which ies in the face of the
idea of the global citizen. Nationalist causes are often
pursuedbyviolentterroristorganizationsthatshouldnot
berewardedfortheirdisregardofhumanlife.Bytrying
torecognizeminorityrights,governmentsruntheriskof
givingminoritiespreferentialtreatmentattheexpenseof
themajority.Nationalbordersarebecominglesssignicant deners of identity; Irish Americans, British Muslims, Catholic Africans, and French-speaking Arabs are
allcoherentidentities.Boundariesarenotthesolutionto
thefearofthethreatofculturaldilutionoroppression.
Thestatebordersdrawn(particularlyinAfrica)bycolonial empires were completely articial. Ethnic groups

were split and divided. In the post-colonial environment,thesebordersareinappropriateanddonotdelineatetruenations.Self-determinationwouldallowborderstoberedrawnrealistically.Nationsoftheworldcan
haveself-determinationonlyiftheyhavestatehood.
Theredrawingofcountryboundariesishardlythebest
waytopromotestabilityinnewlyindependentnations.
In 1964 the Organization of African Unity stated in
the Cairo Resolution that it would accept the boundariesdrawnbycolonialpowers.Governmentsoughtto
concentrate on bolstering states with civic identities.
Federalismisonegovernmentstructurethatcanaccommodate self-determination within national boundaries.
Forexample,inCanada,Quebechasrelativeautonomy
includingsomenativecourts.
Self-determinationdoesnotalwaysmeanindependence; Howtodeterminewhohastherighttochoose?Whois
in Gibraltar in 2002 a referendum on rejoining Spain anative?ShouldallofSpainhavebeenallowedtovote
|199
PROS
CONS
wasvoteddownbyresidents.Morethan99%choseto onthefateofGibraltar?ShouldresidentsoftheBritish
maintainhistoricandlegaltiestoBritain.Self-determi- mainlandhavevoted?Thebroaderinternationalcontext
nationisaboutrepresentationandidentityandchoice. maymeanthatotherinterestsorlegalagreementsmust
take precedence (e.g., returning Hong Kong to China
afterover100yearsunderBritishrule).
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesinnativerights.
ThisHousebelievesself-determinationisahumanright.
ThisHousebelievesthatonemansterroristisanothermansfreedomghter.
WebLinks:
Freeman,Michael.NationalSelf-Determination,PeaceandHumanRights,PeaceReview,vol.10,no.2.<http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/freeman.htm>
Articleprovidinganoverviewofnationalisminthe20thcenturyandcontemporaryworld.
InternationalInstituteforSelf-Determination.<http://www.selfdetermination.net/>
Sitemaintainedbyanorganizationpromotingpeacefulself-determination,containsalistofconictscenteredontheissueofselfdetermination,abibliographyofprintresourcesonthesubject,andalistofissuesinself-determination.
Self-DeterminationforGibraltarGroup.<http://www.self-determination.gi/>
Siteillustratesthekindsofissuesinvolvedinacampaignforself-determination.
FurtherReading:
Hobsbawm,EricJ.NationsandNationalismSince1780:Programme,Myth,Reality.CambridgeUniversityPress,1993.
Ignatieff,Michael.BloodandBelonging:JourneysintotheNewNationalism.NoondayPress,1995.
Ranger,Terence,ed.TheInventionofTradition.CambridgeUniversityPress,1992.
SEXEDUCATIONINSCHOOLS
For years conservatives and liberals in the United States debated whether schools should teach sex education or whether this responsibility is
that of the parents. With the rise of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, particularly AIDS, the focus has shifted to what
should be taught, rather than where. Should schools advocate sexual abstinence (refraining from sexual activity until the age of consent or
marriage), or should society assume that the students will be sexually active and therefore encourage teaching safe sex?
PROS
CONS
The primary cause of unwanted pregnancies and the

spreadofsexuallytransmitteddiseases(STDs)isignoranceaboutsafesex.TheAIDScrisisofthe1980sand
1990shasshownthatsexeducationmustbeavitalpart
oftheschoolcurriculumandmaybesupplementedby
frankdiscussionathome.
Judgingbythenumberofteenagepregnanciesandthe
continuing spread of STDs, teenagers are not getting
the message. Sex education in schools can be counterproductive because teens nd it fashionable to ignore
whatteachersadvocate.Themosteffectivechannelfor
sex education is the media, particularlyTV, lms, and
magazines.
AstheUSGuidelinesforComprehensiveSexualityEdu- Thisisthewrongapproach.Sexeducationintheclasscation(1991)state,allsexualdecisionshaveeffectsor roomencouragesyoungteenagerstohavesexbeforethey
PROS
CONS
consequencesandallpersonshavethe...obligation
tomakeresponsiblesexualchoices.WhileHollywood
promotes casual, thoughtless sex as the norm, teacherleddiscussionscanencourageresponsibleattitudesabout
sexualrelationships.
arereadyandaddstopeerpressuretobecomesexually
active.Inaddition,anyclassdiscussionmayleadtoridicule, thus devaluing the message. Sexual responsibility
shouldbediscussedinaone-to-onecontext,eitherwith
oldersiblingsorparents.
Abstinenceisanoutdatedapproachbasedontraditional
religious teaching. Some young people may choose it,
butwecannotexpectittobethenorm.Teenagersexpress
theirsexualityaspartoftheirdevelopment.Havingsex
isnottheproblem;havingunsafesexorhurtingpeople
throughsexualchoicesis.
Classroom education should promote abstinence. Sex

education encourages sexual promiscuity. Advocating
bothsafesexandrestraintisself-contradictory.Children
are at risk of severe psychological and physical harm
from having sex too young and should be encouraged
toabstain.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatsexeducationshouldtakeplaceathome.
ThisHousewouldrathernotdiscussitwithitsparents.
WebLinks:
Avert:AIDS&SexEducation.<http://www.avert.org/educate.htm>
InformationonsexeducationfromaleadingUK-basedAIDSeducationandmedicalresearchgroup.
SexEducationForum.<http://www.ncb.org.uk/sef/>
PartofthelargerUKNationalChildrensBureausitepromotingsexeducationandofferinginformationonquestionsinvolving
sex.
SexEducation,TeenagePregnancy,SexandMarriage:AnIslamicPerspective.<http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/sex_education.htm>
Essayadvocatingsexeducationinareligiouscontext.
FurtherReading:
Moran,JeffreyP.TeachingSex:TheShapingofAdolescenceinthe20thCentury.HarvardUniversityPress,2000.
SEXOFFENDERS:PUBLICLYNAMING
During the 1990s the US Congress passed two laws designed to protect children from dangerous sex offenders released from prison. The
rst law, the 1994 Jacob Wetterling Act (named after a child abducted at gunpoint), requires states to register individuals who have been
convicted of sex crimes against children. The second, Megans Law (1996), compels states to make information on registered sex offenders
available to the public but gives states discretion in establishing the criteria for disclosure. Megans Law was named after Megan Kanka,
a 7-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered by a paroled sex offender. States vary on how they have implemented this
law. Many post the name and address of offenders on Web sites or offer the public this information on CD. Others permit law enforcement ofcials only to notify neighbors of the offender. Megans Law has generated heated discussion. Those supporting it maintain that it
will protect children; those opposing it say that it is ineffective and will force convicts who had served their sentences to wear a badge of
infamy for the rest of their lives.
PROS
CONS
Sex offenders, even more so than other criminals, are Thisproposalisafundamentalviolationoftheprinciples

pronetorepeattheircrimes.Makingtheirnamespublic of our penal system, which are based on serving a set
|201
PROS
CONS
enablesparentstoprotecttheirchildrenandreducethe prisontermandthenbeingfreed.Registrationimposes
anewpunishmentforanoldcrime,and,inevitably,will
rateofsexualcrimebyrepeatoffenders.
lead to sex offenders being demonized by their neighbors.Offendershavebeenforcedoutoftheirhomesor
losttheirjobsasaresultofnotication.Innocentpeople
willalsosuffer.Familiesofoffendershavebeensubjectto
threats,andinaccurateinformationmadepublicbythe
policehasledtotheharassmentofinnocentpeople.Such
ariskcannotbetolerated;wecannotasasocietyrevertto
mobruleinplaceofjustice.
Crimes of a sexual nature are among the most abhorrent and damaging that exist; they can ruin a childs
life.Thoseguiltyofsuchcrimescannotbeincarcerated
forever, thus extra precautions must be taken on their
releasetoensurethattheyposenothreattothepublic.
Psychological evaluations can determine accurately

whether an offender is still a risk to society or not.
Should the offender be found to still be a threat, he
shouldremainincustody.Ifthetestsindicatethatthe
offender is no longer a threat, he should be freed and
allowedtoliveanormallife.MegansLaweliminatesthis
distinction and stigmatizes those who have genuinely
reformed.Ourpenalsystemisbasedontheprincipleof
reformingoffenders.Ignoringthepossibilityofchangeis
bothludicrousandunfair.
These laws help the police to track down re-offenders

morequickly,thustheyarealsobroughttojusticemore
swiftlyandsurely.Theselawsandtheirstrongandswift
enforcement provide a strong deterrent against repeat
offenses.
Registering offenders with the police may help law

enforcement, but making public the offenders whereaboutsaddsnoadvantageandmightbecounterproductive. The abuse and harassment that offenders might
suffer could drive them underground, making police
monitoringmoredifcult.
Wecannotknowhowmanychildrenweresavedbythese What evidence do we have that these laws have been

laws,butevenonechildsavedfromsexualassaultjusti- effectiveinprotectingpeopleandpreventingcrime?Very
little.Asaresultofthelaw,manyprosecutorsarerelucesthem.
tanttochargejuvenilesassexoffendersbecausetheydo
not want children stigmatized for life.These offenders
arenotgettingtreatmentandcouldposeafutureriskto
thepublic.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousesupportsanationalregisterofsexoffenders.
ThisHousewouldnameandshame.
WebLinks:
MegansLawLegislationinAll50States.<http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-legmeg.htm>
OffersbackgroundinformationontheJacobWetterlingActandMegansLawaswellaslinkstosummariesofstatenotication
laws.
RevisingMegansLawandSexOffenderRegistration:PreventionorProblem.
<http://www.appa-net.org/revisitingmegan.pdf>
DetailedessayinoppositiontoMegansLaw.
FurtherReading:
Pryor,DouglasW.UnspeakableActs:WhyMenSexuallyAbuseChildren.NewYorkUniversityPress,1999.
Ryan,Gail,SandyLane,andAlanRinzler,eds.JuvenileSexOffending:Causes,ConsequencesandCorrection.Jossey-Bass,1997.
Sampson,Adam.ActsofAbuse:SexOffendersandTheCriminalJusticeSystem.Routledge,1994.
SINGLESEXSCHOOLS
Studies have shown that boys gain more academically from studying in coeducational schools, but that single-sex schools promote greater
achievement in girls. But academic results are not the only criterion on which to judge the success of the education system. In 1996, a
long-standing controversy over the Virginia Military Institutes male-only policy resulted in a landmark US Supreme Court ruling that
the Institute must admit women. However, the Court left room for private (i.e., not state-run) single-sex institutions and for the establishment of such schools where needed to redress discrimination.
PROS
CONS
Women benet from a single-sex education. Research

shows that girls in single-sex schools participate more
inclass,developmuchhigherself-esteem,scorehigher
inaptitudetests,aremorelikelytochoosemaledisciplinessuchasscienceincollege,andaremoresuccessful
intheircareers.InWhosWho,graduatesofwomenscollegesoutnumberallotherwomen.TheUnitedStateshas
only83womenscolleges.
A1998surveybytheAmericanAssociationofUniversityWomen,along-timeadvocateofsingle-sexeducation,admittedthatgirlsfromsuchschoolsdidnotshow
academic improvement. That women from single-sex
schoolsaremoreinclinedtostudymathandscienceisof
questionableimportancetosociety.Asthereportnoted,
Boysandgirlsboththrivewhentheelementsofgood
educationarethere,elementslikesmallerclasses,focused
academiccurriculumandgender-fairinstruction.These
conditionscanbepresentincoeducationalschools.
Childrenintheformativeyears,between7and15,gravitatetotheirownsex.Theynaturallytendtowardbehaviorappropriatetotheirgender.Thusimplementingan
educationstrategygearedspecicallytowardonegender
makessense.Certainsubjects,suchassexeducationor
genderissues,arebesttaughtinsingle-sexclassrooms.
The formative years of children are the best time to

exposethemtothecompanyoftheothergendersothat
theylearneachothersbehaviorandarebetterprepared
for adult life.The number of subjects beneting from
single-sexdiscussionissosmallthatthiscouldeasilybe
organizedwithinacoeducationalsystem.
Boys and girls distract each other from their studies,

especiallyinadolescenceassexualandemotionalissues
arise.Toomuchtimecanbespentattemptingtoimpress
or even sexually harass each other. Academic competition between the sexes is unhealthy and only adds to
unhappinessandanxietyamongweakerstudents.
Infactboysandgirlsareagoodinuenceoneachother,
engenderinggoodbehaviorandmaturity;particularlyas
teenage girls usually exhibit greater responsibility than
boys of the same age. Academic competition between
thesexesisaspurtobetterperformanceatschool.
Single-sexschools(suchastheVirginiaMilitaryInstitute)
are a throwback to the patriarchal society of the past;
historicallyinmanycultures,onlymenwereallowedan
educationofanysort.Suchsingle-sexinstitutionsboth
remindwomenofpastsubservienceandcontinuetobar
themfromfullsocialinclusion.
Single-sexschoolsforwomenareanaturalextensionof
thefeministmovement;menhavehadtheirownschools,
whyshouldntwomen?Ifsingle-sexschoolsexistedonly
for men, then that would be discriminatory; however,
as long as both genders have the choice of attending
a single-sex institution (or a coeducational one), you
cannotcallitdiscrimination.
Teachers themselves are often discriminated against

insingle-sexschools;aboysschoolwillusuallyhavea
largelymalestaffwherewomenmayfeeluncomfortable
ordeniedopportunity,andviceversa.
Teachersfrequentlyfavortheirowngenderwhenteachingcoeducationalclasses;forexample,maleteacherscan
underminetheprogressandcondenceofgirlstudents
byrefusingtocallonthemtoanswerquestions.
|203
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesinsingle-sexeducation.
WebLinks:
Single-sexEducation:TheUSSupremeCourtSpeaks.<http://www.taiga.ca/~balance/index002/rutgin.html>
TextoftheSupremeCourtdecisionrequiringtheVirginiaMilitaryInstitutetoadmitwomen.
TheTroublewithSingle-SexSchools.<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/singsex.htm>
Articleopposingsingle-sexschoolsbyagraduateofawomenscollege.
FurtherReading:
Miller-Bernal,Leslie.SeparatebyDegree:WomenStudentsExperiencesinSingle-SexandCoeducationalColleges.PeterLang,2000.
Ruhlman,Michael.BoysThemselves:AReturntoSingle-SexEducation.Holt,1997.
Streitmatter,Janice.ForGirlsOnly:MakingaCaseforSingle-SexSchooling.StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1999.
SINGLESUPERPOWER:BENEFICIAL?
When the Soviet Union collapsed, people talked about the end of the bipolar world dominated by the Soviet Union and the United
States. Ever since, the United States has been viewed as the single superpower, dominating the world culturally, economically, and militarily. Many argue that a single dominant power is not good. Others say that US domination will bring stability and prosperity across the
globe. This dispute is also part of the ongoing debate on whether the world is multipolar, with numerous centers of power and inuence,
or unipolar, with real power concentrated in the United States.
PROS
CONS
Theworldissaferwithasinglestrongsuperpowerthan
itwasinthebipolarColdWarwithcompetingglobal
alliances.Itisalsofarsaferthanitwasduringtherst
half of the twentieth century, when having a number
ofpowersresultedintwoworldwarsandmanysmaller
conicts.Historyshowsthattheworldisbestoffdominatedbyasingledemocracy.
Withoutanyothernationtocheckitspower,theUnited
Statescanoperateasitwantsintheworldarena,ignoringthewishesofothercountriesinpursuitofitsgoals.
AtleastthebipolarstructureoftheColdWarworldkept
thetwosuperpowersincheck.
The existence of a single democratic superpower promotesthespreadofdemocracy.Ifthereistobeonlyone

superpower,letitbedemocraticsincedemocracyisthe
mostdesirableformofgovernment.
WhiletheUnitedStatesextolsdemocracy,itfrequently
dictatestoorignorestheconcernsofothernationsand
is willing to intervene in the domestic affairs of other
nationsforitsownpurposes.TheUnitedStatesdenitely
abusesitspowerintheinternationalarena.Democracy
abhors the one-sided vertical distribution of power.
Democracyprospersbestinaworldinwhichpoweris
dividedamongmanyplayers.
As September 11 demonstrated, many international

actorsarehostiletopeaceandsecurity.Theworldneeds
apowerfulleadertounifytheglobaleffortagainstterrorismandprovidebettersecurityforallpeople.Withouta
singlesuperpowercoordinatingglobalsecuritymeasures,
Earthismuchmorelikelytobeatroubledplaceinthe
nearfuture.
September 11 demonstrated that a single nation, no

matter how powerful, cannot control world events.
Worlddominationbyasinglesuperpowerdestroysthe
conceptofequalnation-statesuponwhichglobalsociety
isbased.Itisboundtoleadtheworldintochaos.
SampleMotions:
ThisHouseagreesthattheexistenceofasinglesuperpowerisbenecial.
ThisHousesupportsamultipolarstructurefortheworld.
ThisHousecondemnsthesinglesuperpower.
WebLinks:
CarnegieCouncilonEthicsandInternationalAffairs.<http://www.carnegiecouncil.org>
USinternationalrelationsthinktankfocusingonethicalaspectsofforeignpolicy.
Muslimedia.com.<http://www.muslimedia.com/>
Acollectionofanti-Americanviews,amongthemafewpositionsaboutUShegemony.
FurtherReading:
Brilmayer,Lea.AmericanHegemony:PoliticalMoralityinaOne-SuperpowerWorld.YaleUniversityPress,1994.
Huntington,SamuelP.TheLonelySuperpower.ForeignAffairs78,no.2(March/April1999).
Kagan,Robert.TheBenevolentEmpire.ForeignPolicy(Summer1998).
SMOKING,FURTHERRESTRICTIONSON
Although most countries put age restrictions on the purchase of tobacco, over a billion adults smoke legally every day. Supplying this
demand is big business. By the 1990s major tobacco companies had been forced to admit that their products were addictive and had serious
health consequences, both for the user and for those subject to second-hand smoke. In the developed world, public opinion shifted against
smoking, Many governments substantially increased taxes on tobacco to discourage smoking and to help pay for the costs of smoking-related
illness. Yet, while smoking has declined among some groups, it has increased among the young. Meanwhile tobacco companies look to
developing nations for new markets.
PROS
CONS
Smoking is extremely harmful to the smokers health.

The American Cancer Society estimates that tobacco
causes up to 400,000 deaths each yearmore than
AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and res combined. Worldwide some 3 million
peoplediefromsmokingeachyear,oneevery10seconds.
Estimatessuggestthatthisgurewillriseto10million
by2020.Smokersare22timesmorelikelytodevelop
lungcancerthannonsmokers,andsmokingcanleadto
ahostofotherhealthproblems,includingemphysema
andheartdisease.Oneofthemainresponsibilitiesofany
governmentistoensurethesafetyofitspopulation;that
iswhytakingharddrugsandbreakingthespeedlimit
areillegal.Puttingabanonsmokingwouldthereforebe
reasonable.
While a government has a responsibility to protect its

population,italsohasaresponsibilitytodefendfreedom
ofchoice.Thelawpreventscitizensfromharmingothers.
Itshouldnotstoppeoplefrombehaviorthatthreatens
onlythemselves.Dangeroussportssuchasrockclimbingandparachutingarelegal.Nolawshavebeenpassed
against indulging in other health-threatening activities
suchaseatingfattyfoodsordrinkingtoomuchalcohol.
Banningsmokingwouldbeanunmeritedintrusioninto
personalfreedom.
Of course, personal freedom is important; we should

actagainstthetobaccocompanies,notindividuals.Ifa
companyproducesfoodthatispoisonousoracarthat
fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off
themarket.Allcigarettesandothertobaccoproductsare
potentiallylethalandshouldbetakenoffthemarket.In
short,smokingshouldbebanned.
Cigarettesareverydifferentfromdangerouscarsorpoisonousfoods.Cigarettesarenotdangerousbecausethey
aredefective;theyareonlypotentiallyharmful.People
shouldstillbepermittedtosmokethem.Abettercomparisonistounhealthyfoods.Fattyfoodscancontributetoheartdisease,obesity,andotherconditions,but
thegovernmentdoesnotpunishmanufacturersofthese
|205
PROS
CONS
products. Both cigarettes and fatty foods are sources

ofpleasurethat,whilehavingseriousassociatedhealth
risks,arefatalonlyaftermanydecades.Theyarequite
different from poisonous foods or unsafe cars, which
posehigh,immediaterisks.
Smokingisnotachoicebecausenicotineisanaddictive
drug. Evidence suggests that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can.
Upto90%ofsmokersbeginwhentheyareunderage
18,oftenduetopeerpressure.Onceaddicted,continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of free choice, but
of chemical compulsion. The government should ban
tobaccojustasitdoesotheraddictivedrugslikeheroin
andcocainebecauseitistheonlywaytoforcepeopleto
quit.Mostsmokerssaythattheywanttokickthehabit,
sothislegislationwouldbedoingthemafavor.
Comparingtobaccotoharddrugsisinaccurate.Tobacco
is not debilitating in the same way that many illegal
narcoticsare,itisnotcomparabletoheroinintermsof
addictiveness, and it is not a mind-altering substance
thatleadstoirrational,violent,orcriminalbehavior.Itis
muchlessharmfulthanalcohol.Manyothersubstances
andactivitiescanbeaddictive(e.g.,coffee,physicalexercise)butthisisnoreasontomakethemillegal.People
areabletoabstainmanygiveupsmokingeveryyear
iftheychoosetoliveahealthierlife.Nevertheless,many
enjoysmokingaspartoftheireverydaylife.
Mostsmokersarelaw-abidingcitizenswhowouldliketo
stop.Theywouldnotresorttocriminalorblackmarket
activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available;
they would just quit. Banning smoking would make
them quit and massively lighten the burden on health
resources.
Criminalizing an activity of about one-sixth of the

worlds population would be insane. As Americas prohibition of alcohol during the 1920s showed, banning
apopularrecreationaldrugleadstocrime.Inaddition,
governments would lose the tax revenue from tobacco
sales,whichtheycouldusetocoverthecostsofhealth
care.
The effects of smoking are not restricted to smokers.

Second-handsmokejeopardizesthehealthofnonsmokersaswell.Researchsuggeststhatnonsmokingpartners
of smokers have a greater chance of developing lung
cancerthanothernonsmokers.Beyondthehealthrisks,
smokealsocanbeextremelyunpleasantintheworkplace
orinbarsandrestaurants.Smokingcausesdiscomfortas
wellasharmtoothersandshouldbebanned.
Theevidencethatpassivesmokingcauseshealthproblems
isveryslim.Atmost,thosewholivewithheavysmokers
foralongtimemayhaveaveryslightlyincreasedriskof
cancer.Smoke-lledenvironmentscanbeunpleasantfor
nonsmokers, but reasonable and responsible solutions
canbefound.Ofcesorairportscouldhavedesignated
smoking areas, and many restaurants offer patrons the
choiceofsmokingandnonsmokingsections.Allowing
peopletomaketheirowndecisionsissurelyalwaysthe
best option. Restricting smoking in public places may
sometimesbeappropriate;banningitwouldbelunacy.
Attheveryleastalltobaccoadvertisingshouldbebanned Where is the evidence that either of these measures

and cigarette packs should have even more prominent wouldaffecttherateoftobaccoconsumption?Cigarette
andgraphichealthwarnings.
companies claim that advertisements merely persuade
peopletoswitchbrands,notstartsmoking.Peoplestart
smoking because of peer pressure. Indeed, forbidding
cigaretteswillmakethemmoreattractivetoadolescents.
Asforhealthwarnings,iftheknowledgethatcigarettes
haveserioushealthrisksdeterredpeoplefromsmoking,
thennoonewouldsmoke.Peoplestartandcontinueto
smokeinthefullknowledgeofthehealthrisks.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldbantobacco.
ThisHousewouldnotsmoke.
ThisHousewoulddeclarewaronthetobaccoindustry.
WebLinks:
CenterforDiseaseControlandPrevention:Tobacco.<http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/index.htm>
Research,data,andreportsrelatingtotobaccoaswellastobaccoindustrydocumentsandcampaignsfortobaccocontrol.
PhillipMorris.<http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/>
Majortobaccocompanysiteofferinggovernmentreportsontobaccoaswellasinformationontobaccoissuesincludingthemarketingoftobaccoproducts.
SmokingFromAllSides.<http://www.cs.brown.edu/~lsh/smoking.html>
Linkstostatisticsandhundredsofarticlesonbothsidesoftheargument.
TheTobaccoHomepage.<http://www.tobacco.org/>
Providesrecentinformationontobacco-relatedissuesaswellasdocuments,timelines,andlinkstoallaspectsofthetobaccocontroversy.
WorldHealthOrganization:TobaccoFreeInitiative.<http://www.who.int/toh/>
InformationonWHOsworldwideprogramtostopsmoking,aswellasbackgroundinformationontheeconomic,health,and
societalimpactoftobaccoandsmoking.
FurtherReading:
Whelan,Elizabeth.Cigarettes:WhattheWarningLabelDoesntTellYou:TheFirstComprehensiveGuidetotheHealthConsequencesof
Smoking.Prometheus,1997.
SPACEEXPLORATION
The space programs of both the United States and the Soviet Union were, perhaps, the most important prestige projects of the Cold War.
From the launch of Sputnik, the rst articial satellite, in 1957, through to the rst human space ight by Yuri Gagarin in 1961, the
rst Moon landing in 1969, and beyond, both superpowers invested huge amounts of money to outdo each other in the Space Race. Since
the end of the Cold War, however, the future of space exploration has become less clear. Russia no longer has the resources to invest in
a substantial space program, and the United States has also cut back. Near the end of the twentieth century, American emphasis was on
unmanned missions that are faster, better, cheaper. Expensive, complex projects such as the Voyager missions of the late 1970s seem
unlikely to be repeated. However, in January 2004 President George W. Bush committed the United States to a long-term human and
robotic program to explore the solar system, starting with a return to the Moon that would ultimately enable future exploration of Mars
and other planets.
PROS
CONS
Humankindalwaysstrugglestoexpanditshorizons.The
curiositythatconstantlypushesattheboundariesofour
understandingisoneofournoblestcharacteristics.The
explorationoftheuniverseisahighideal;spacetrulyis
thenalfrontier.Theinstincttoexploreisfundamentallyhuman;alreadysomeofourmostamazingachievementshavetakenplaceinspace.Noonecandenythe
High ideals are all well and good, but not when they
comeattheexpenseofthepresent.Ourworldismarred
by war, famine, and poverty, with billions of people
strugglingsimplytolivefromdaytoday.Ourdreamsof
exploringspacearealuxurywecannotafford.Insteadof
wastingourtimeandeffortonprestigeprojectslikethe
spaceprogram,wemustsetourselvesnewtargets.Once
|207
PROS
CONS
sense of wonder we felt when for the rst time a new

man-madestarroseinthesky,orwhenNeilArmstrong
steppedontotheMoon.Spaceexplorationspeakstothat
partofusthatrisesabovetheeveryday.
wehaveaddressedtheproblemswefaceonEarth,wewill
havetimetoexploretheuniverse,butnotbeforethen.
Themoneyspentonprobestodistantplanetswouldbe
betterinvestedinthepeopleofourownplanet.Aworld
freefromdisease,aworldwherenoonelivesinhunger,
wouldbeatrulygreatachievement.
The exploration of space has changed our world. Satellites allow us to communicate instantaneously with
peopleondifferentcontinentsandtobroadcasttopeople
allovertheworld.TheGlobalPositioningSystemallows
ustopinpointlocationsanywhereintheworld.Weather
satellitessavelivesbygivingadvancewarningofadverse
conditions;togetherwithotherscienticinstrumentsin
orbittheyhavehelpedusgainabetterunderstandingof
our world. Research into climate change, for example,
wouldbealmostimpossiblewithoutthedataprovided
bysatellites.
Satellitetechnologyhasbenetedhumankind.However,
launchingsatellitesintoEarthorbitdifferssignicantly
fromexploringspace.Missionstootherplanetsandinto
interstellarspacedonotcontributetolifeonourplanet.
Moreover, most satellites are commercial; they are
launched and maintained by private companies. Space
explorationrequireshugegovernmentsubsidiesandwill
neverbecommerciallyviable.Forexample,theVoyager
missions alone cost almost $1US billion. This money
couldbebetterspentelsewhere.
Space exploration has had many indirect benets.The

space program has brought about great leaps in technology. The need to reduce weight on rockets led to
themicrochipandthemoderncomputer.Theneedto
producesafebutefcientpowersourcesfortheApollo
missionsledtothedevelopment of practical fuel cells,
whicharenowbeingexploredaspossiblepowersources
forcleanercars.Theeffectsofzerogravityonastronauts
havesubstantiallyaddedtoourknowledgeoftheworkingsofthehumanbodyandtheagingprocess.Wecan
neverknowexactlywhichbenetswillemergefromthe
space program in the future, but we do know that we
will constantly meet new obstacles and in overcoming
themwillndnewsolutionstooldproblems.
These auxiliary advantages could have come from any

project.Theyarearesultofgivingpeoplehugeamounts
ofmoneyandmanpowertosolveproblems,notaresult
ofaspecicprogram.Forexample,manyoftheadvances
in miniaturization were the result of trying to build
betternuclearmissiles;thisisnotagoodreasontocontinuebuildingnuclearweapons.Similarresourceswould
be far better devoted to projects with worthier goals,
forexample,cancerresearchorresearchintorenewable
energy sources. These, too, could provide many side
benets,butwouldtacklerealproblems.
Space exploration is an investment in the future. Our

world is rapidly running out of resources. Overpopulation could become a serious worldwide threat. Consequently, ignoring the vast potential of our own solar
systemminingresourcesonasteroidsorotherplanets,
or even colonizing other worldswould be foolish. If
wefailtodeveloptheabilitytotakeadvantageofthese
possibilities,wemaynditistoolate.
Spaceexplorationisawasteofresources.Ifwewantto
tackletheproblemsofoverpopulationorofthedepletionofresources,wemustaddressthemonEarthinstead
ofchasinganelusivedream.Wecandealwiththeproblemsofourplanetinpracticalways,andwemusttackle
themwithalltheresourcesandallthepoliticalwillwe
have.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldexploretheuniverse.
ThisHousewouldexploretheFinalFrontier.
ThisHousewouldreachforthestars.
WebLinks:
EuropeanSpaceAgency(ESA).<http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/index.html>ProvidesinformationonthemissionsoftheEuropeanSpaceAgencyandtheearthlyuseofspace.
JetPropulsionLaboratory(JPL).<http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/>
DescribestheresearchconductedbytheJPLandprovidesanextensivecollectionofimagesofEarth,thestarsandgalaxies,the
solarsystem,anddeepspace.
NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration(NASA).<http://www.nasa.gov/>
VastsitedescribingtheUSspaceprogramandtheotherNASAactivities.
FurtherReading:
Cooper,Gordon.LeapofFaith:AnAstronautsJourneyintotheUnknown.HarperCollins,2000.
Launius,Roger,BertramUlrich,andJohnGlenn.NASAandtheExplorationofSpace.Stewart,Tabori&Chang,1998.
STEMCELLRESEARCHANDTHERAPEUTIC
CLONING
Stem cells are cells that give rise to specialized cells such as heart or brain cells, muscle tissue, or skin in a developing embryo. Researchers
believe that these cells hold the promise of future cures for deseasessuch as diabetes, Parkinsons disease, and Alzheimers disease caused
by the disruption of cellular function. Ethical issues surround stem cell use because such cells are harvested from embryos created during
in vitro fertilization. (Stem cells can also be derived from adults, but they may not be as useful as embryonic cells.) Extracting the cells
destroys the embryo and thus ends future human life. In addition, fears have been expressed that humans will clone themselves (therapeutic cloning) to create embryos to mine for stem cells.
PROS
CONS
Although therapeutic cloning will involve the creation

anddestructionofthousandsofembryos,theresulting
benetswillbesogreatastooutweighmoralconsiderations.Oncetheresearchgoalshavebeenachieved,the
use of embryo treatments can be greatly reduced.The
likely result of curing people of fatal diseases is worth
thecost.
Merely hoping for a good outcome does not make

immoralactionsacceptable.Medicalresearchshouldbe
governedbymoralandethicalconcerns.Howevermuch
sympathy we feel for sufferers of terminal diseases, we
cannottoleratetheuseofhumanembryosasmeansto
an end. Stem cell research is inherently contradictory:
Liveswouldbecreatedandthendestroyedinorderto
saveotherlives.
Wealreadyacceptthecreationanddestructionofspare ThelossofembryosinIVFisareasontocondemnIVF
embryos for cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF treatment.Itisnotareasonforallowinganotherprocefacilitates the creation of human life. Stem cell treat- durethatwillsacricemuchmorepotentiallife.
mentswillsaveexistinghumanlives.Theinfertilewill
still survive. The sufferers of Huntingtons chorea or
Alzheimerswillnot.IfweacceptthemoralityofIVF,we
mustacceptthemoralityofstemcelltreatment.
The creation, storage, and destruction of embryos can Media fears of mad scientists free to manipulate and
bestrictlycontrolled.ThereshouldbenofearofFran- destroyhumanlifemaybeoverstated.However,research
kensteinscience.
projectscarryasignicantriskofdestroyingthousands
ofembryosforlittleornoscienticgain.
|209
PROS
CONS
Themoralstatusoftheembryoisdistinctfromthatof
thefetus.Whatreasonistheretoassertthatlifebegins
at the stage of embryo creation?The accepted test for
clinicaldeathisanabsence of brain stem activity.The
fetusrstacquiresafunctioningbrainsixweeksafterthe
embryohasbeencreated.Wecannotcondonethewastageofhumanembryos.However,wemustbewaryof
regarding the loss of an embryo as the loss of human
life.
The embryonic human should have the same moral

status as the fetus or the child or the adult. At what
physiologicalpointdowedeclareanembryohuman?
Arewetobaseadeclarationofbeinghumanonphysical
appearance?That the embryo looks different from the
fetusandfromtheadultdoesnotprovethattheembryo
isnotahumanbeing.
Wecannotequatehumanembryoswithhumanbeings
just because they could develop into adults. Between
50% and 70% of embryos are lost naturally through
failuretoimplantinthewalloftheuterus.Thepotentialofanembryotodevelopdoesnotofitselfmakethe
embryohuman.
The proper test of humanity should be if the embryo

hasthepotentialtoorganizeitselfintoalivinghuman
whole. Every embryo has this capacity.The fact that
embryos are lost naturally does not imply that the
destructionofembryosismorallyacceptable.
Furtherresearchrequirestheuseofthestemcellsfound
inembryos.Researchdonewithadultcellshasyielded
very little progress because of the difculty of reprogramming an adult cell to develop as the particular
neuronortissuecellrequired.Thegreaterunderstandingofhumancellsthatscientistswillgainfromresearch
withembryostemcellsmayincreasetheutilityofadult
cellsinthefuture.Forthepresent,resourcesshouldbe
concentratedonresearchwithstemcellsharvestedfrom
embryos.
Researchers have no need to use embryo stem cells.

Researchhascontinuedformanyyearsintotheuseof
adultstemcells.Thesecellsarereplaceableandcouldbe
usedforthepurposesoftreatmentandresearchwithout
thedestructionofembryos.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldallowstemcellresearch.
ThisHousesupportstherapeuticcloning.
WebLinks:
Bioethics&Cloning.<http://www.ajobonline.com/cloning.php>
Providesawidevarietyofresourcesontheethicsofcloningandgeneticresearch.
TheEthicsofReproductiveandTherapeuticCloning(Research).<http://www.wits.ac.za/bioethics/genethics.htm>
Scholarlyarticlethatarguesthatnoethnicalissuesariseinreproductiveandtherapeuticcloning.
TherapeuticCloning:HowItIsDone;PossibleBenets.<http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_ther.htm>
Providesgoodexplanationofcloningforthelayperson.
FurtherReading:
Harris,John.Clones,GenesandImmortality:EthicsandtheGeneticRevolution.OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
Holland,Suzanne,KarenLebacqz,andLaurieZoloth,eds.TheHumanEmbryonicStemCellDebate:Science,Ethics,andPublic
Policy.MITPress,2001.
Lauritzen,Paul,ed.CloningandtheFutureofHumanEmbryoResearch.OxfordUniversityPress,2001.
TERMLIMITS
For years, the president was one of the few US politicians subject to term limits. As disaffection with politics and politicians grew in the
early 1990s, voters looked to term limits to reform the system. By the end of the decade, 18 states had passed laws automatically forcing
long-term state legislators out of ofce, while many municipalities limited the terms of mayors and other elected ofcials. Congressional
term limits were part of the Republicans 1994 Contract with America, but Congress twice failed to muster the votes necessary for the
constitutional amendment needed to make the change. In the early years of the new century, term limits receded from the political agenda
and some states moved to repeal them.
PROS
CONS
Termlimitsensurethatpoliticiansdonotbecomecorrupted by power and lose touch with the people and

principles that rst got them elected. Representatives
whospendtoomanyyearsinofce,livinginthenational
capital far from their constituents and surrounded by
lobbyistsandfellowpoliticians,easilybecomepartofa
professionalgoverningclass,remotefromtheconcerns
ofnormalpeople.Termlimitsrecreateaclassofcitizenlegislators who see political ofce as a brief chance to
improvetheircountry,ratherthanasalong-term,comfortablecareer.
Experiencecountsinpolitics,whereeventhemostable
newofceholderwilltakemanymonthsorevenyearsto
fullygraspthejob.Policyissuesandlegislativebillsare
complicated,andthepublicisbestservedbyasystem
thatallowsthere-electionofexperiencedpoliticians.If
long-termofceholdersbecometoodivorcedfromthe
voters,theywilllosethenextelection.Theregularneed
torunforre-electionensuresaccountabilityandkeeps
politiciansintouchwithgrass-rootsopinion.
Term limits will overcome the advantages that incumbents have in any re-election campaign.These advantages include name recognition and greater access to
fundingfromspecialinterests.
Term limits are an insult to the intelligence of voters,

whoinademocracyareatlibertytovoteoutanunsatisfactory incumbent. Preventing a popular incumbent
fromrunningsimplyremovesthevotersrighttomake
important political decisions. If incumbents seem to
haveanunfairadvantage,itisbecauseofotheraspectsof
thepoliticalsystem,e.g.,lackofcontrolsoncampaign
nancing.
The regular need to wage costly re-election campaigns

maydamageelectedrepresentativesjudgment(andeven
theirhonesty).Theymustdowhatispopularratherthan
whatisright,actinginthenarrowinterestofconstituents rather than considering the general welfare of the
entirecountryspopulation.Inaddition,politiciansrunning for reelection must pander to special interests to
securefunding.
Corruptionisactuallymorelikelytooccurinasystem
withtermlimitsbecauseofceholdershavenoincentive
todotheirbestforthevoters,whomtheywillnotface
again.Indeed,lesshonestpoliticiansmaybecomemore
corrupt,seeingtheneedtoprotfromtheirpositionas
quicklyaspossible.Alternatively,theymaytoadytobig
businessinthehopeoflandinglucrativelobbyingjobs
onceoutofofce.
Termlimitswouldbringfreshfaces,talents,andexperiences to the political process.They would ensure that

electedofcialshadexperienceintherealworldoutsidepartypoliticalmachinesandbringmorerst-hand
knowledgeofbusinessandindustrytogovernment.
Amateur politicians, thrown into legislatures by the

enforced early retirement of more experienced politicians,arelikelytobenaveandeasilyexploitedbyspecial
interests.Termlimitsarealsolikelytoaffecttherelationship between the legislative and executive branches of
government,becauselegislatorswillnothavetheexperiencetodealeffectivelywiththepresident.
|211
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldimposetermlimits.
ThisHousewouldcleanuppolitics.
ThisHousecallsforthereturnofthecitizen-legislator.
ThisHousebelievesanewbroomsweepsclean.
WebLinks:
TermLimitsTakeEffect.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/termlimits.htm>
WashingtonPostarticleonthestatusoftermlimitsattheendofthe1990s.
U.S.CongressionalandStateTermLimitActionPage.<http://www.termlimits.org/>
Presentsjusticationsfortermlimitsaswellasstate-by-stateinformationonthestatusoftermlimitsandotherresourcesonthe
topic.
FurtherReading:
Coyne,James.CleaningHouse:AmericasCampaignforTermLimits.RegneryPublishing,1992.
Crane,EdwardH.,andRogerPilon,eds.ThePoliticsandLawofTermLimits.CatoInstitute,1994.
Kamber,Victor.GivingUponDemocracy:WhyTermLimitsAreBadforDemocracy.RegneryPublishing,1995.
Will,GeorgeF.Restoration:Congress,TermLimitsandtheRecoveryofDeliberativeDemocracy.FreePress,1994.
TERRORISTS,NEGOTIATINGWITH
The rash of suicide bombings in Israel and Osama bin Ladens announcement in the spring of 2004 that he will not target European
countries that do not attack Muslims has once again brought the question of negotiating with terrorists to the fore. Over the past decade,
violence has declined in some areas, In South Africa, the African National Congress, once considered a terrorist group, helped bring
democracy to that nation and is now its major political party. Yet most nations will not negotiate with terrorists, and, as events in Israel
have shown, negotiation does not always bring an end to terrorist attacks.
PROS
CONS
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom ghter.

Most terrorist organizations do not engage in violence
simplyforthejoyofitorforpersonalgain.Instead,they
standforaparticularpoliticalpositionandoftenfora
group of people. Every conict has at least two sides.
LookattheAfricanNationalCongressinSouthAfrica.
For many years the South African governmentand
manyforeigngovernmentsregardeditasanillegalterroristorganization.SouthAfricasblackmajority,onthe
otherhand,vieweditasachampionoffreedom.History
will record that it was on the side of justice, and the
apartheidgovernmentwasinthewrong.
TheexampleofSouthAfricaisanisolatedone.Inmany
cases, the political situation in regions where terrorists
operateisfarmorecomplex,anditisfarlessclearwhois
intherightandwhoisinthewrong.Bottomline:Killingpeopleisimmoral.Byacceptingviolenceasapoliticaltool,thesegroupsbecomenomorethanmurderers
andshouldbetreatedassuch.
Anygovernmentsprimaryresponsibilityistosavelives.
Historyhasshownthatmilitaryactionhaslittlechanceof
succeedingagainstterrorists.Defeatingterroristgroups
isalmostimpossiblewithoutunbearablyrestrictingthe
Givingintoterroristsmaysavelivesintheshortterm
butisharmfulinthelongerterm.Manyterroristgroups
resort to violence because they have not been able
to achieve their goals through democratic means. By
PROS
CONS
freedomsoftheinnocent.Inthecaseofprolongedinternalcampaignsofterrorism,thepromiseofnegotiations
willalmostalwaysleadtoaceasere.Inthecaseofmore
isolatedincidents,suchashostage-taking,makingconcessionsusuallysaveslives.
making concessions, the legitimate government sets a

dangerousprecedentandbasicallysaysthatgroupsthat
useviolencearemorelikelytogettheirwaythanthose
thatusepeacefulmethods.Governmentsmustdemand
thatgroupsabandonviolenceandceaseactsofterrorism
beforenegotiationscanevenbeconsidered.
Many terrorist campaigns are the result of long-standingpoliticaldisagreements.Terrorismisoftenfueledbya

longhistoryofhatredanddistrust.Insuchsituations,the
governmentmusttaketherststepsbecauseitisalways
themorepowerfulsideintheconictandcanmorereadily make concessions. Only by taking the lead will the
governmentbeabletoendthekilling.
Infact,terroristswillingnesstouseviolencegivesthem
unduepoweratthenegotiatingtable;theycaninsistthat
all their demands be met or they will resume targeted
andrandommurder.Terroristscannotbetrusted.
Refusing to talk to terrorists can cloud the issues surroundingtheiractivities.Publicsympathyfortheircause

may be aroused because they appear to be ghting an
unresponsive,evenoppressive,government.Bynegotiating,agovernmentdeniesthemtheopportunitytopresentthemselvesasmartyrsandpermitspublicscrutinyof
theiroftenradicaldemands.
Again,negotiatingwithterroristsgivesthemalegitimacy
thattheydonotdeserve.Thosewhousepeacefulmeans
to achieve their goals should be respected; those who
murderandterrorizeinnocentciviliansmustbetreated
notaspoliticalleadersbutascriminals.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldtalktoterrorists.
ThisHousebelievesthatforcecannoteliminateideology.
ThisHousewouldbombtheirbeliefsoutofexistence.
WebLinks:
FederationofAmericanScientists.<http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm>
InformationonstepstakentocombatterrorismafterSeptember11.
InternationalPolicyInstituteforCounter-Terrorism.<http://www.ict.org.il/>
MaintainedbyanIsraeliinstitute,thesiteoffersgeneralinformationonstate-sponsoredterrorism,terrorismandthelaw,and
internationalandnationalcounterterrorismactivities.
USStateDepartmentCounterterrorismOfce.<http://www.state.gov/s/ct/>
ProvidescurrentinformationonterrorismaswellasastatementofUScounterterrorismpolicy.
TerroristGroupProles.<http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/tgp/tgpmain.htm>
MaintainedbytheDudleyKnoxLibraryoftheNavalPostgraduateSchool,thissitelinkstohundredsofreportsandWebsiteson
terrorism.
TheTerrorismResearchCenter.<http://www.terrorism.com/index.shtml>
Offersessaysoncurrentissuesaswellaslinkstodocuments,research,andresourcesdevotedtocounterterrorism.
FurtherReading:
Hoffman,Bruce.InsideTerrorism.ColumbiaUniversityPress,1999.
Lesser,IanO.,BruceHoffman,JamesArquilla,etal.CounteringtheNewTerrorism.RandCorporation,1999.
Reich,Walter,ed.OriginsofTerrorism:Psychologies,Ideologies,Theologies,StatesofMind.WoodrowWilsonCenter,1998.
|213
TOBACCOREGULATION:ADDICTIVEDRUG?
Historically, the production and sale of tobacco products were not regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Early
in the 1990s, the new director of the FDA, Dr. David Kessler, wanted to bring tobacco products under the control of the FDA. He
reasoned that the nicotine in tobacco qualies as a drug under the FDA denition. After investigation, he concluded that tobacco companies themselves knew that nicotine was an addictive drug and that they deliberately manipulated the nicotine content of their products.
Accordingly, he ruled that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco should be seen as drug delivery systems, under the jurisdiction of the FDA,
and he introduced rules forbidding their sale to minors and restricting their promotion through advertising. He was supported by an executive order from President Bill Clinton in 1995. His ruling was challenged in court in 1997; the court concluded that the FDA had
jurisdiction to control sales, but not advertising. On appeal, a higher court ruled that the FDA had no jurisdiction at all over tobacco.
This ruling was reafrmed by the Supreme Court in 2000. In some ways, the question has been answered by history, but it is not closed
because Congress has the power to give the FDA appropriate jurisdiction should it so choose.
PROS
CONS
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for

regulatingdrugs,whicharedenedassubstances(other
thanfood)thatareintendedtoaffectthestructureand
functionofthebody.Sincethenicotineintobaccohas
thiseffect,itshouldbeclassiedasadrug,anditssale,
distribution,andpromotionshouldbecontrolledbythe
government.
When Congress delineated the role of the FDA in the

Food,Drug&CosmeticsActof1938,itdidnotstipulate
that the FDA should regulate tobacco. Given the existenceofanotheragencythathadtobaccoinitspurview
theBureauofAlcohol,TobaccoandFirearmsitisclear
thatCongresshadnosuchintent.Moreover,asCongress
clearlyregardstobaccoasacompletelylegalsubstance,the
FDAhasnobusinessrestrictingit.
Restricting the sale of nicotine is especially important Yes,theFDAhasregulatorypoweroverdrugs;theFDA

because it is harmful and addictive. Most people who isalsoresponsibleforensuringthatdrugsaresafeand
smokeareunabletoquit,eventhoughtheywantto.
effectivebeforeallowingthemtobemarketed.Given
earlier FDA statements, clearly the agency does not
intend to rule that tobacco is safe. Rather, the FDA
planstorulethattobaccoisunsafeanddangerous,and
ban it from the market completely. Remember: Congressneverintendedtobantobaccofromthemarket.
The addictive power of nicotine is recognized by the
tobacco industry. Internal industry documents show
thattobaccocompaniesrecognizethatnicotineisthe
elementincigarettesthatsmokerscravemost.Theyhave
takencaretoensurethatevenlow-tarcigarettesremain
high in nicotine, and one tobacco company actively
tried to develop tobacco plants with higher nicotine
content. Clearly, the tobacco industry intended this
drugtohaveaneffectonthefunctionofthebody.
TheFDAhastakenadvantageofaveryvaguedenition
ofdruginordertoclassifynicotineassuch.Inaddition,labelingnicotineanaddictivedrug,whichmakes
it sound like heroin, is patently unfair (and untrue).
Millionsofpeoplehavequitsmoking,usuallywithout
outside help, and former smokers outnumber current
smokersintheadultpopulation.
Giventhatnicotineisaddictive,discouragingyoung
peoplefromsmokingisvital.Surveysshowthatvery
fewpeoplestartsmokingaftertheageof18.Therefore,wemustbanthesaleofcigarettestominorsand
outlawadvertisingdirectedtothem.
The dangers of smoking have been known for more

than30years,andeverycigarettepackageacknowledges
them.Buttheindividualhasarighttoassessthosedangers personally and make a decision about whether to
smoke.The government has no right to interfere with
thatrightortomakethedecisionfortheindividual.
PROS
CONS
Unquestionably smoking creates health problems;

indeed,tobaccohascausedamajorpublichealthcrisis.
The FDA has a responsibility to the citizens of the
UnitedStatestodowhatitcantoimprovepublichealth,
includingimplementingregulationstoreducetheuseof
tobaccointhecountry.
Thedecisiontoclassifytobaccoasadrugisanexample
ofgovernmentbyat.Therepresentativesofthepeople,
membersofCongress,didnotmakethedecision;itwas
madeunilaterallybyagovernmentagency,onethatwas
farexceedingitsdesignatedpowers,andsecondedbyan
executivebranchthathadnoregardforduelegislative
process.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldpetitionCongresstodesignatetobaccoasadrug.
ThisHousebelievesthattheFoodandDrugAdministrationshouldlabeltobaccoasadrug.
WebLinks:
AmericanCancerSociety.<http://www.cancer.org/eprise/main/docroot/ped/ped_10.asp?sitearea=ped>
NationalorganizationsWebsitesuppliescancerinformationandstatistics.
AmericanLungAssociation.<http://www.lunguse.org/tobacco/>
NationalorganizationWebsiteofferinginformationontherelationshipbetweensmokingandlungdisease.
BrownUniversitysSmokingFromAllSides.<http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/lsh/smoking.html>
Websiteincludesseveraldocumentsdiscussingbothsidesofthedebate.
SocietyforResearchonNicotineandTobacco.<http://www.srnt.org>
Symposiaofabstractsontobaccoandnicotineaddiction.
FurtherReading:
Gately,Iain.Tobacco:ACulturalHistoryofHowanExoticPlantSeducedCivilization.GrovePress,2002.
Lemieux,Pierre.SmokingandLiberty:GovernmentasaPublicHealthProblem.VariaPress,1997.
Rain,RobertL.,andStephenD.Sugarman.RegulatingTobacco.OxfordUniversityPress,2001.
|215
TWO-PARTYSYSTEM
Nations such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have two-party political systems. Other countries have de
facto two-party systems: two parties dominate governance, and one or two smaller third parties ensure that one or the other major
party maintains power (Germany is a good example). In contrast, nations with multiparty parliamentary systems, Israel, Japan, some
Eastern European countries, and some of the Latin American democracies, regularly experience shifting alliances and coalitions among
their political parties.
Which system is preferable? Strong voices can be heard on both sides: Advocates of the multiparty system extol its diversity and the
fact that it forces coalition building; advocates of the two-party model argue that such governments are more stable and have a larger
group of members experienced in governing.
PROS
CONS
Two-partysystemshaveemergedeitherastheresultor
thereectionofthewilloftheelectorate.Oftenthetwo
partiesrepresentkeyideologicaldivisionsinsocietyover
thedirectionofpolicy,e.g.,betweenleftandright,small
government and activist government, liberalism and
authoritarianism.Mostvotershavelittleinterestinthe
minutiaeofpolicy,buttheycanunderstandthebroad
politicalchoicespresentedtothembythetwodistinct
partiesandmaketheirdecisionsatelectiontimeaccordingly.
Whileideologyandthewilloftheelectoratemayhave
beenafactoratonestageinthedevelopmentofatwoparty democracy, these are factors that limit political
progresstoday.TheColdWarwithitsdivisionsofleft
andrightisoverandideologicallabelsareincreasingly
meaningless. Such historical precedents make the creation of third parties difcult. The dominant parties
tendtoshapeelectoralrulestoexcludesmallerparties,
andthemoredominantpartiestendtobethemostsuccessful at fund-raising.Thus a two-party system limits
thechoiceoftheelectorate.
Governmentsintwo-partysystemsaremoreabletodrive
theirpoliciesthroughthelegislaturebecausetheyoften
have a clear majority of representatives there. Consequently,theycanimplementimportantchangesquickly
andwithoutcompromise.
Multiparty systems tend to produce coalition governments that have to work to balance interests and produceaconsensus.Thus,theelectorateislikelytoaccept
important changes these governments make and not
reversethematthenextelection.
Becausetwo-partysystemstendtobelessvolatile,voters
retaintheirrepresentativesasincumbentslonger.Consequently,thelegislatorsareveryexperienced.Thisresults
inbetterandmoreconsistentpolicyandmoreeffective
scrutinyoftheexecutivebranch.
Incumbencycanmeancomplacency.Thelongerpeople
holdofce,themorecomfortabletheybecomeandthe
lesslikelytheyaretotakerisksandmakecontroversial
decisions. They can be highly inuenced by lobbyists
and lose touch with the people they are supposed to
represent.Thefreermarketplaceofideasinamultiparty
system forces politicians to adapt their message and
becomemoreresponsivetominorityvoices.
Becauseparliamentarymajoritiesinmultipartysystems
canshiftsuddenly,thesesystemsarefarlessstablethan
two-partysystems.Multipartysystemsarealsolessfair
to the electorate because policies formed after an electionareoftentheresultofbackroomdealsthatignore
campaignpromisesandvoterwishes.
Thethreatofano-condencevote,acollapsingcoalition,
orthedepartureofacoalitionpartnerfromagoverning
majorityforcesleaderstomakecompromises,andcompromisesmakeforpoliciesthatservetheinterestsofthe
majority of the voters. Moreover, most countries have
constitutionalmechanismstoensurearelativelysmooth
transitiontoanewgovernment.
Two-party systems better reect mainstream, centrist Moderationisnotnecessarilyinthepublicsbestinterviews.Toremaincompetitive,partieswilltendtomod- est.Amultipartysystemhelpsensurethattheviewsof

eratetheirplatforms.
a variety of different interests are considered in policy
making.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesrulebyamajoritypartyissuperiortocoalitiongovernment.
ThisHousebelievesatwo-partysystemissuperiortoamultipartysystem.
ThisHousewouldamendnationsconstitutionstoincreaseelectoralcompetition.
WebLinks:
InstituteforDemocracyandElectoralAssistance.<http://www.idea.int/>
Intergovernmentalorganizationthatdrawsoncomparativeexperiencetodeveloppolicyoptions,tools,andguidelinesrelatingto
politicalparticipation,electoralsystems,andpoliticalparties.
TowardaMoreResponsibleTwo-PartySystem.<http://www.apsanet.org/~pop/APSA_Report.htm>
AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationscritiqueofthesuitabilityofAmericanpoliticalpartiestoamodern,activiststate.
FurtherReading:
Laver,Michael,andNormanSchofeld.MultipartyGovernment:ThePoliticsofCoalitioninEurope.UniversityofMichiganPress,
1998.
Lijphart,Arend.PatternsofDemocracy:GovernmentFormsandPerformanceinThirty-SixCountries.YaleUniversityPress,1999.
Reynolds,David.DemocracyUnbound:ProgressiveChallengestotheTwo-PartySystem.SouthEndPress,1997.
UNSECURITYCOUNCILVETO,ABOLITIONOF
The United Nations Charter gives the UN Security Council the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and
security. It is the only UN body that has enforcement power, and, as such, it can approve diplomatic and economic sanctions or vote
military action. The Council includes ve permanent (P5) members: the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and
Russia. In addition, 10 seats on the Security Council are held by member nations that are elected for two-year terms. Although the
Council makes decisions by the afrmative vote of nine of the 15 members, any member of the P5 can veto any decision. When a P5
member registers an unpopular veto, reformers often call for the restriction or abolition of the veto power.
PROS
CONS
The veto power is an anachronism. The P5 got this

privilegefortworeasonsthathavenoapplicationinthe
post-ColdWarworld.First,toprotectnationalinterests,
theBigThree(theUS,Britain,andtheSovietUnion)
madethevetoaprerequisiteforestablishingtheUnited
Nations following World War II. Second, the P5 held
unrivaledstrategicmightthroughtheirnuclearweapons
technologyornuclearcapacity.TheP5willnotabandon
theUNorthecauseofglobalpeaceiftheylosetheveto
power. Moreover, the global power balance has shifted
dramatically since 1945. Nuclear weapons have spread
inthepastdecades:Pakistan,NorthKorea,Egypt,Israel,
India, South Africa and Iran have or are developing
nuclearweapons.
TheP5haswieldedvetopowerwithincreasingsuccess
bothduringandaftertheColdWar.Between1945and
1990, members of the P5 vetoed 240 resolutions. Yet
between1990and1999theyutilizedthevetoononly
seven occasions while mandating more than 20 peacekeepingoperations.Thisgureexceedsthetotalnumber
ofoperationsundertakeninthepreceding45years.The
use of the veto during the Cold War may have saved
theworldfromnuclearwar.Now,increasingproliferationofnuclearweaponsisareasonformaintainingthe
unityoftheP5bymeansoftheveto.IftheP5issplit
on a matter of international security, any of its memberscouldbecomearoguestate.Inaddition,thelogicof
divide-and-ruleappliesintheinternationalarena.
Statistics do not reveal the true defect of the institutional arrangement.The Security Council consistently
failstoconsiderissuesthatmightbevetoed.Forexample,NATOinitiatedmilitary action againstYugoslavia
WemustexpectthatnationswillcircumventtheSecurityCouncil.FollowingtheYugoslavconict,theSecurity Council endorsed NATOs campaign.The Council then authorized the deployment of a peacekeeping
|217
PROS
CONS
without Security Council authorization because it had force.TheSecurityCouncilthusprovedtobeaunifybecomeevidentthatRussiaandChinawouldvetoUN ingforce.

militaryinvolvement.
In the rare recent circumstances in which the veto
has been exercised, it has been hijacked by ideological
demandsandpettynationalinterests.Chinaprevented
peacekeepingoperationsinGuatemalaandMacedonia
becausethesecountrieshadtiestoTaiwan.Thevetois
nolongerappliedforthemaintenanceofcollectivesecurity.
Collective security is often indistinguishable from the

national interests of the P5.The military might of P5
membersissuchthattheymustavoiddisagreementto
preserve international peace.The P5 may occasionally
cast the veto for selsh reasons. Maintaining unity is
moreimportant(andmorecriticalthanever)intodays
multipolarworld.
Theissueofabolishingthevetoisworthyofdiscussion.
AdebatewillclarifythenatureofthevetoanditsapplicationandeducatethepublicontheChartersaims.The
publiccouldthenpressurememberstoactinaccordance
withtheCharter.
Abolishingthevetoisimpossible.TheP5willnotwillinglycedeitspreeminentpositionininternationalpolitics.Andremember,eachmemberofP5wouldhavethe
powerofvetooveranyproposaltoremovetheveto.
The veto power operates to the detriment of international arms control agreements. The Security Council
directly or indirectly enforces the web of arms limitationtreatieseitherbecausetreatiesmaketheCouncilthe
enforcingagentorbecausemembersoftheP5aresignatories.Yet,membersoftheP5haveusedtheirvetoto
preventstrictenforcementoftheseagreementsinorder
topromotetheirnationalinterests.
YoucannotgliblyattributethefailuretocreateaneffectivesystemforarmslimitationtoP5vetopower.Vetoor
noveto,whatshouldconstitutetheappropriateSecurity
Councilresponsetoabreachofanonproliferationtreaty?
Under the Charter, the Council could authorize economicsanctionsordirectmilitaryintervention.Would
eitherovertlyhostileapproachencouragedisarmament?
Diplomacyisoftenbestconductedwithoutthebigstick
oftheSecurityCouncil.Nonproliferationisprecarious
becausenationshavedifferentinterests.Theseinterests
wouldlikelybeinamedwithoutthecrucialsafetyvalve
thevetoprovidesforpowerpolitics.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldabolishtheSecurityCouncilveto.
ThisHousewouldsaynototheveto.
ThisHousewouldvetoeveryveto.
WebLinks:
GlobalPolicyOrganization.<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/docs>
OffersdocumentsontheSecurityCouncilaswellasproposalstoreformit.
TheUnitedNations:SecurityCouncil.<http://www.un.org/Docs/sc>
ProvidesinformationontheCouncilsmembers,structure,powers,andfunctionsaswellaslinkstorecentCouncildocuments.
FurtherReading:
Roberts,Adam,andBenedictKingsbury.UnitedNations,DividedWorld:TheUnitedNationsRoleinInternationalRelations.
OxfordUniversityPress,1994.
Russett,Bruce,andIanHurd.TheOnceandFutureSecurityCouncil.Palgrave,1997.
UNSTANDINGARMY
A standing army is a permanent military force that is entirely under the command of a single authority. This is almost always a
national government, although in the past European colonial companies sometimes maintained their own private military forces, as did
feudal barons and warlords (for example, in China in the 1920s). At present the UN has no military force of its own to send on
peacekeeping or peacemaking missions; instead it must gather together troops and equipment volunteered by member states on an ad
hoc basis for each individual crisis.
PROS
CONS
TheUNmustreformthewayitraisesmilitarymissions.
Under the present system, months pass before troops
areintheeld;theseforcesareofteninadequatetothe
assigned mission because member states have pledged
fewer troops than requested. Thus, the UN has often
actedtoolate,withtoolittleforce,and,asaresult,has
failedtoaverthumanitariandisastersinSomalia,Bosnia,
andSierraLeone.AUNstandingarmywouldbeable
torapidlycontaincrisesbeforetheyturnintowarsand
humanitariandisasters.
AUNstandingarmyisunnecessary.InmanycasesUN
missionsareverysuccessful;someproblemsarisefrom
lengthy and difcult Security Council deliberations,
inadequate mandates, etc., rather than the speed at
whichtheUNgatheredapeacekeepingforce.IftheUN
hadastandingarmyitwouldbemorelikelytouseinappropriateforce.Averyrapidresponsemayalsoworsen
problems.Thetimeitnowtakestogatherandinserta
UN force may provide a period in which the warring
groupsfeelcompelledtonegotiatebeforeoutsideinterventionbecomesareality.
Because a UN standing army would be independent

ofthegreatpowers,itwouldberespectedasneutral.It
wouldalsobefreeofaccusationsofmeddlingandselfinterest that accompany the troops from neighboring
statesinUNinterventions.
Only governments have standing armies. This plan

wouldinevitablymaketheUNaworldgovernment,one
thatisnotdemocraticandwhereatotalitarianstatehas
vetopoweroverkeydecisionmaking.Astandingarmy
maybecounter-productive,underminingperceptionsof
theUNsneutralityandweakeningitsmoralauthority
andabilitytobrokerpeaceagreements.
AUNstandingarmywouldbemoreeffectivethanthe
troopscurrentlystafngmanymissions.MostUNoperationsaresuppliedbydevelopingnationswhosetroops
are underequipped and badly trained. A UN standing
armywouldbebetterprepared,anditssoldierswouldbe
morehighlymotivatedbecausetheywouldbeenlistees
ratherthanconscripts.AsingleUNforcewouldalsohave
bettercommandandcontrolthaniscurrentlythecase:
Often, different national forces and their commanders
failtoworkeffectivelytogether.Successfulforceslikethe
FrenchForeignLegionshowthatdifferencesinlanguage
andcultureneednotbeproblemsincombatsituations.
Differencesinlanguage,culture,etc.,willseriouslymar
operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations.Inaddition,inamultinationalforcethesuspicion
alwaysarisesthatagreatmanyindividualsoldiersmay
betakingsidesinaparticularconict.Aresuchsoldiers
tobepulledoutfromaparticularmission,therebyweakeningthewholeforce?AUNarmymightalsobevery
poorlyequipped;iftheadvancedmilitarypowersseethe
UN as a potential adversary, they will refuse to sell it
theirbestarmsandmunitions.
AUNstandingarmywouldbenettheworldeconomy
by preventing refugee crises and other humanitarian
disasters.Thesecostsarebothdirect(throughaid)and
indirect (as developed nations often become the destinationofillegalimmigrantseeingconictsathome).
War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global
economy. Greater condence that war can be avoided
will encourage long-term investment and contribute
Thecostofsuchanarmywouldbeveryhigh;theUN
wouldhavetotrain,transport,andequiptheforcefor
everypossibletypeofcombatsituation.Atpresentthe
UNcandrawontheequipmentandskillsofmember
statestodealwithvarioussituations.
|219
PROS
CONS
to greater prosperity.The UN pays member states for

providingtroops,soaUNstandingarmywouldnotbe
muchmoreexpensivethanthepresentsystem.
Without the creation of a standing army other UN
reformswillnotaddressthecentralproblemsofpeacekeeping. A rapid reaction force drawn from member
statesmightspeedupthearrivaloftroopsslightly,but
theUNwouldstillbedependentuponthegoodwillof
itsmembers.
The UN can improve response without resorting to a

standingarmy.ARapidReactionForcewithelitemilitary
capability,pledgedinadvanceforUNoperations,would
buildonthebestfeaturesofthecurrentsystem.RemovingthevetopowerofthePermanentFiveintheSecurity
Council would avoid deadlocks and the compromises
thatproduceweakmissionmandates.Betterintelligence
andanalysis,aswellascentrallogisticalplanning,would
permit the UN to assemble forces and draft mandates
before problems became full-blown crises. Rules could
bechangedsothattheSecurityCouncilcouldnotpass
resolutionsrequiringforceuntilmembershavepledged
troops.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldcreateaUNstandingarmy.
ThisHousewouldgivethewatchdogsometeeth.
WebLinks:
UN:Peacekeeping.<http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home_bottom.htm>
ExtensiveUNsiteprovidinganoverviewofphilosophyandgoalsbehindpeacekeepingmissionsaswellashistoricalinformation
onmissionssince1948.
UN:ReportonthePanelonUnitedNationsPeaceOperations.<http://www.un.org/peace/reports/peace_operations>
Textofthe2000panelreportonpeacekeepingoperationsaswellasinformationaboutongoingpeacekeeping,political,andpeace
buildingmissions.
FurtherReading:
Biermann,Wolfgang,andMartinVadset,eds.UNPeacekeepinginTrouble:LessonsLearnedfromtheFormerYugoslavia.Ashgate,
1999.
Gordon,D.S.,andF.H.Toase,eds.AspectsofPeacekeeping.FrankCass,2001.
Sarooshi,Danesh.TheUnitedNationsandtheDevelopmentofCollectiveSecurity.OxfordUniversityPress,2000.
Shawcross,William.DeliverUsfromEvil:Peacekeepers,WarlordsandaWorldofEndlessConict.SimonandSchuster,2000.
Whitman,Jim.PeacekeepingandUNAgencies.FrankCass,1999.
VEGETARIANISM
Very few human societies have forsworn eating meat, fowl, and sh, although in some parts of the world grains constitute almost the
whole of the diet, with meat, fowl, or sh rare additions. These diets often have been the result of poverty, not choice. In modern
Western societies, however, voluntary vegetarianism is on the increase. Many believe it is immoral for human beings to eat other
animals. Some take an even more absolute line, refusing to eat dairy products or eggs as well because of the conditions in which the
animals that produce them are raised.
PROS
CONS
Themainreasontobeavegetarianistoreduceanimal
suffering. Farm animals are sentient, living beings like
humans, and, like us, they can feel pleasure and pain.
Farmingandkillingtheseanimalsforfoodiswrong.The
methodsoffarmingandslaughterareoftenbarbaricand
cruel, even on free range farms. Also, in most countries,animalwelfarelawsdonotcoveranimalsfarmed
forfood.
Eatingmeatdoesnotneedtomeancrueltytoanimals.
Agrowingnumberoforganicandfreerangefarmscan
provide meat without cruelty. We can extend animal
welfarelawstoprotectfarmanimals,butthatdoesnot
meanthatitiswronginprincipletoeatmeat.
To suggest that farm factories are natural is absurd;

theyareunnaturalandcruel.Toeatmeatistoperpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale, a larger, crueler,
and more systematic scale than anything found in the
wild. Humanitys superiority over other animals
means humans have the reasoning power and moral
instinct to stop exploiting other species. If aliens from
another planet, much more intelligent and powerful
thanhumans,farmed(andforce-fed)humanbeingsin
factoryfarmconditions,wewouldthinkitwasmorally
abhorrent.Ifthiswouldbewrong,thenisitnotwrong
for superior humans to farm lower species simply
becauseofourabilitytodoso?
Itisnaturalforhumanbeingstofarm,kill,andeatother
species.Thewildoffersonlyabrutalstruggleforexistence.Thathumanshavesucceededinthatstruggleby
exploiting our natural advantages means that we have
therighttouselowerspecies.Infact,farminganimals
ismuchlessbrutalthanthepainandhardshipanimals
inictoneachotherinthewild.
Humanbeingsareomnivoresandarerationalagentswith
freewill,thustheycanchoosewhethertoeatmeat,vegetables,orboth.Itmightbenaturalforhumanstobe
violenttowardoneanotherbutthatdoesnotmeanthat
itisright.Somenaturaltraitsareimmoralandshouldbe
restrained. In any case, our closest animal cousins, the
apes,eatanall-vegetablediet.
Human beings have evolved to eat meat. They have

sharpcanineteethfortearinganimaleshanddigestive
systemsadaptedtoeatingmeatandshaswellasvegetables.Modernsqueamishnessabouteatinganimalsis
anaffectationofadecadentsocietythatiesintheface
ofournaturalinstinctsandphysiology.Weweremade
toeatbothmeatandvegetables.Cuttingouthalfofthis
dietwillinevitablymeanwelosethisnaturalbalance.
Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly

thingtodo.Modernfarmingisoneofthemainsources
ofpollution.Beeffarmingisoneofthemaincausesof
deforestation,andaslongaspeoplecontinuetobuyfast
food,nancialincentiveswillbeinplacetocontinuecuttingdowntreestomakeroomforcattle.Becauseofour
desiretoeatsh,ourriversandseasarebeingemptied
andmanyspeciesfaceextinction.Meatfarmersuseup
farmoreenergyresourcesthanthosegrowingvegetables
Alloftheseproblemswouldexistwithoutmeatfarming
andshing.Deforestationhasoccurredforcenturiesas
humancivilizationsexpand,butplantingsustainableforestscannowcounteractit.Meatfarmerscontributelittle
topollution,andmanyworsesourcesofpollutionexist.
Vegetableandgrainfarmersalsopollutethroughuseof
nitrates, pesticides, and fertilizers. Finally, the energy
crisisisoneofglobalproportionsinwhichmeatfarmers
playaminuterole.Findingalternativesourcesofenergy,
|221
PROS
CONS
andgrains.Eatingmeat,fowl,andshcausesnotonly notlimitingmeatfarming,willsolvethisproblem.
crueltytoanimals,butalsoharmtotheenvironment.
Goingveggieofferssignicanthealthbenets.Avegetarian diet contains high quantities of ber, vitamins,
and minerals, and is low in fat. A vegan diet (which
eliminatesanimalproducts)isevenbetterbecauseeggs
anddairyproductsarehighincholesterol.Eatingmeat
increasestheriskofdevelopingmanyformsofcancer.In
1996theAmericanCancerSocietyrecommendedthat
redmeatbeexcludedfromthedietentirely.Eatingmeat
alsoincreasestheriskofheartdisease.Avegetariandiet
reducestheriskofseriousdiseasesand,becauseitislow
in fat, also helps to prevent obesity. Plenty of vegetariansourcesofprotein,suchasbeansandbeancurd,are
available.
Thekeytogoodhealthisabalanceddiet,notameat-
and sh-free diet. Meat and sh are good sources of
protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most
of the health benets of a vegetarian diet derive from
its being high in ber and low in fat and cholesterol.
Wecanachievethesebenetsbyavoidingfattyandfried
foods,eatingonlyleangrilledmeatandsh,andincludingalargeamountoffruitandvegetablesinourdiet.A
meat-andsh-freedietisunbalancedandcanresultin
protein and iron deciencies. Also, in the West a vegetariandietisamoreexpensiveoption,aluxuryforthe
middleclasses.Freshfruitandvegetablesareextremely
expensivecomparedtoprocessedmeats,bacon,burgers,
sausages,etc.
Goingvegetarianorveganreducestheriskofcontractingfood-bornediseases.Theinclusionofanimalbrains
in animal feed led to outbreaks of bovine spongiform
encephalitis(madcowdisease)anditshumanequivalent,Creutzfeldt-JakobDisease.Meatandpoultrytransmitalmostallofthepotentiallyfatalformsoffoodpoisoning.
Of course we should enforce the highest standards of

hygieneandfoodsafety.Butthisdoesnotmeanthatwe
shouldstopeatingmeat,which,initself,isanaturaland
healthythingtodo.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesthatifyouloveanimalsyoushouldnteatthem.
ThisHousewouldgoveggie.
WebLinks:
BritishMeat.Com.<http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm>
Despiteitsname,thesiteoffers49reasonsforbecomingavegetariancategorizedbygeneralareahealth,economy,environment,
ethics.
Earthsave.Org.<http://www.earthsave.org/index.htm>
Providesinformationinoppositiontofactoryfarmingandinsupportofagrain-baseddiet.
PeoplefortheEthicalTreatmentofAnimals.<http://www.peta.org>
Radicalanimalrightsorganizationoffersargumentsinfavorofvegetarianismandinformationonhowtobecomeavegetarian.
TheVivaVegieSociety.<http://www.vivavegie.org/vv101/101reas98.html>
Essayoffering101argumentsforvegetarianism.
FurtherReading:
Eisnitz,Gail.Slaughterhouse:TheShockingStoryofGreed,Neglect,andInhumaneTreatmentInsidetheU.S.MeatIndustry.Prometheus,1997.
Marcus,Erik.Vegan:TheNewEthicsofEating.McBooks,1997.
Walters,Kerry,andLisaPortmess,eds.EthicalVegetarianism:FromPythagorastoPeterSinger.StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,
1999.
VOTING,COMPULSORY
Voter turnout in US elections has decreased dramatically in recent decades. In the 2000 presidential election, only 55% of adult
American citizens voted, one of the lowest percentages in a national election of any developed country. There are many reasons for
the decline, including complicated registration procedures and voter apathy. To reinvigorate the electorate some have suggested making
voting compulsory as it is in Australia, Switzerland, and Singapore. Some nations with compulsory voting levy nes against those
who do not participate. To accommodate those voters who do not wish to vote for any of the candidates, they make available a no-vote
option on the ballot. For many Americans the issue of compulsory voting is intertwined with the issue of individual rights vs. civic
duties.
PROS
CONS
In all democracies voter apathy is highest among the

poorest and most excluded sectors of society. Because
poorandmarginalizedpeopledonotvote,governments
donotcreatepoliciesaddressingtheirneeds.Thisleads
toaviciouscycleofincreasingisolation.Whenthemost
disenfranchised are required to vote, then local, state,
andnationalgovernmentswilltakenoticeofthem.
Thisideaisnonsense.Politicalpartiesdotrytocapture
thevotesofthepoor.Lowturnoutisbestcuredbymore
education.Inaddition,theforcedinclusionoftheselessinterested voters will increase the inuence of political
spinbecausepresentationwillbecomemoreimportant
thanclearargument.Thiswillfurthertrivializepolitics
andburytheissuesunderapileofhype.
A high turnout is important for a proper democratic

mandateandthefunctioningofdemocracy.Inthissense
voting is a civic duty comparable to jury duty. Weve
made jury duty compulsory to ensure that the courts
functionproperly.Thisisastrongprecedentformaking
votingcompulsory.
In a democracy, the right not to vote is as fundamental as the right to vote. Individuals should be able to
choose whether they want to vote. Some people are
justnotinterestedinpolitics,andtheyshouldhavethe
righttoabstainfromthepoliticalprocess.Wecouldalso
argue that those who care enough about key issues to
votedeservetobeheardabovethosewhodonot.Any
givenelectionwillfunctionwithouta100%turnout;a
muchsmallerturnoutwillsufce.Thesameisnottrue
of juries, which do require a 100% turnout all of the
time.Eveninhealthydemocraciespeopledontwantto
performjuryduty;thereforeithasbeenmadecompulsory. However, in a healthy democracy people should
want to vote. If they are not voting, it indicates there
isafundamentalproblemwiththatdemocracy.Forcing
people to vote cannot solve such a problem; it merely
causesresentment.
Soldiersinnumerouswarsandthesuffragettesofmany Thosewhofoughtfordemocracyfoughtfortherightto
countries fought and died for the right to vote. We vote,notthecompulsiontovote.Thefailuretovoteisa
shouldrespecttheirsacricebyvoting.
powerfulstatementbecauseitdecreasesturnout,which
decreasesagovernmentsmandate.Byforcingunwilling
voterstotheballotbox,agovernmentcanmakeitsmandatemuchlargerthanthepeopleactuallywishittobe.
Peopleforcedtovotewillnotmakeaconsidereddecision.
Peoplewhoknowtheywillhavetovotewilltakepolitics Atbesttheywillvoterandomly,atworsttheywillvote
moreseriouslyandstarttotakeamoreactiverole.
forextremepartiesashappenedinAustraliarecently.
Compulsoryvotingiseffective.InAustraliaturnoutsare The idea is not feasible. If a large proportion of the
ashighas98%!
populationdecidednottovoteitwouldbeimpossible
|223
PROS
CONS
to make every nonvoter pay the ne.The government

wouldhavetochasedownmillionsofpeopleandtake
action against millions who would not pay. Ironically,
thismeasurewouldhurtmostthosewhoaresupposedly
beingenfranchisedbecausetheyareleastabletopay.
In nations with compulsory voting, postal and proxy
votingisavailableforthosewhoareotherwisebusy.In
addition, when Internet voting becomes available in a
fewyears,thosewithcomputerswillbeabletovotefrom
theirownhomes.
Manypeopledontvotebecausetheyarebusyandcannot
takethetimeoff.Makingvotingcompulsorywillnotget
thesepeopletotheballotboxiftheyareactuallyunable
todoso.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldmakevotingcompulsory.
ThisHousebelievesthatademocracyisnoplaceforapathy.
ThisHousebelievesthatvotingisaduty,notaright.
WebLinks:
TheGreatVotingHoax.<http://www.mind-trek.com/writ-dtf/votehoax/index.htm>
Oneindividualsresponsetocompulsoryvoting.
FurtherReading:
Smith,Lindsay.CompulsoryVoting:AComparativeApproach.MitchellCollege,1980.
WARCRIMESTRIBUNALS
Always controversial and shrouded in the solemn aftermath of terrible crimes, war crimes tribunals are the international communitys
response to national wrongdoings. They raise serious questions about sovereignty and international law. Whether held after World
War II, Rwanda, Bosnia, or Kosovo, they never fail to provoke outrage from one corner and vindictiveness from the other. Would
such matters better be left alone? The trial of Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague in the opening years of this century is an example
of how complicated issues of international justice and power come to the fore in such tribunals.
PROS
CONS
Wrongdoingandwrongdoersmustbepunished.When Ofcoursewrongdoingshouldbepunished.Butthetrial
acrimehasconsumedanentirenation,onlyaforeign shouldbeheldinthecountrywherethecrimewascomtrialcansupplydisinteresteddueprocess.
mitted.Anyoutsideinterventioninmattersofsovereign
statesishigh-handedandimperialistic.
Countriescanexplicitlycedejurisdictionforsuchcrimes
to international tribunals. These bodies are trying to
achieve justice and closure that will benet the entire
nation.
Closureisthelastthingtribunalsbring.Thesetrialsalienate large portions of the nation and turn people against

thenewgovernment,whichisseenascollaboratingwith
foreignimperialists.Suchtrialsincreasetension.
PROS
CONS
Theworldcommunitymustsendaclearmessagethatit No one can dispute the enormity of such crimes. But

willactagainstappallingwarcrimes.Thismustbedone thesetrialsdamageanationbyreopeningoldwounds.
Spain,forexample,didnotembarkonwitch-huntsfolonaninternationalstagethroughinternationalcourts.
lowing the bloody and repressive regime of Francisco
Franco. Instead, it turned the page on those years and
moved on collectively with no recrimination. Between
justice and security there is always a trade-off. Where
possible,peaceshouldbesecuredbyreconciliationrather
thanrecrimination.
Theissueofsovereigntyisincreasinglylessimportantin
a globalizing world.The pooling of sovereignty occurs
withincreasingfrequency,andanysteptowardaninternationalizationoflegalsystems,suchastheuseofinternationaltribunals,iswelcome.
Whateverthetruthaboutglobalizationandsovereignty,
warcrimestribunalsdonotstandardizejustice.Theyare
nothingmorethanvictorsarbitraryjustice.Thistypeof
justiceunderminesinternationallaw.
We have to uphold the principle that if you commit

seriouscrimes,youwillbepunished.Ifwedonottake
action against war criminals, we will encourage future
crimes.
The threat of possible legal action has not stopped

countless heinous crimes in the past, so why should it
now?Thesepeoplearenotrationalandhavenorespect
forinternationallaw.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldhavewarcrimestribunals.
ThisHousebelieveswarcrimesmustbepunished.
WebLinks:
AmericanUniversity:ResearchOfceforWarCrimesTribunalsfortheFormerYugoslaviaandRwanda.<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/humright/wcrimes/research.html>
Detailedsiteonactualtribunals.
IssuesandControversiesOnFile:WarCrimesTribunals.<http://www.facts.com/icof/warintro.htm>
Clearandcomprehensiveintroductionofferinghistoricalbackgroundaswellasargumentsforandagainsttribunals.
SpecialInternationalCriminalTribunals.<http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribindx.htm>
ProvidesinformationonUNwarcrimestribunalsinRwandaandYugoslaviaaswellaseffortstoestablishtribunalsinEastTimor,
Cambodia,andSierraLeone.
FurtherReading:
Askin,KellyDawn.WarCrimesAgainstWomen:ProsecutioninInternationalWarCrimesTribunals.MartinusNijhoff,1997.
Bass,GaryJonathan.StaytheHandofVengeance:ThePoliticsofWarCrimesTribunals.PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.
Harris,MarshallFreeman,R.BruceHitchner,etal.MakingJusticeWork:TheReportoftheCenturyFoundation/TwentiethCentury
FundTaskForceonApprehendingIndictedWarCriminals.TwentiethCenturyFund,1998.
Hitchens,Christopher.TheTrialofHenryKissinger.Verso,2001.
|225
WATERRESOURCES:ACOMMODITY?
With increasing population and growing water usage, water shortages have become a source of potential and ongoing conicts. One
of the main issues is the competing claims of upstream and downstream nations. As downstream nations attempt to win more water
rights, upstream nations try to keep control of the water resources in their territories. While current resources are insufcient in many
regions, water will become even scarcer in the future, producing tension among nations sharing rivers.
PROS
CONS
Wateroccursrandomly,justlikeoilandgas,whichare
treatedascommoditiesthatcanbeboughtandsold.If
countries can take advantage of their geographic locationtoselloilandgas,theyarejustiedinusingwater
resources to support their economies. Failure to view
waterasaprecious,marketablecommoditymakesitfar
lessvaluedandleadstounrestrictedwaterusebyenvironmentallyunconscioussocieties.
Water is the most vital of Earths randomly occurring

resources; it is essential for survival. Consequently,
water-richcountrieshavenomoralrighttoprotfrom
thisresource.Everyinhabitantoftheplanethasanequal
righttowater,andowingwaterhasnopoliticalboundaries.
Controlandmanagementofwaterthemaintenanceof
dams,reservoirs,andirrigationsystemscostsmillions
ofdollarsandisaburdenonupstreamstatesbudgets.
Alloftheseexpenses,includingtheopportunitycostof
fertilelandsallocatedforreservoirsanddams,shouldbe
covered by downstream states, which are the primary
consumersofwater.Forexample,thatanupstreamstate
cannotusethewaterowingthroughittoproduceelectricitytooffsetthecostsofwatermanagementisunfair.
It is immoral to charge for water beyond the cost of

watersystemsmaintenance.Waterisacommodityonly
up to a certain point. Once water exceeds a reservoirs
capacity,itisnotacommoditybecauseitwillowfree
overthedam.Damsmayalsocreatedangerousconditionsbecausedownstreamstatesmaybeoodedifadam
breaks.
Waterresourcesaredistributedunequally.Unevendistributionandwastefulconsumptionwarranttheintroductionofthepay-for-waterapproach.Isitfairtoprefer
tousewatertoirrigateinfertilesemi-desertsdownstream
ratherthanusingwatermoreefcientlyupstream?
Faced with scarcity and drought, states may resort

to force to gain control of water resources.Therefore,
makingwateracommodityisapotentialcauseofmany
conictsandshouldbeavoided.
SampleMotions:
ThisHouseagreesthatwaterowscanbeanarticleoftrade.
ThisHouseshouldendorseinternationalcommerceinwaterresources.
ThisHousedoesnotsupportlegislationfortradingofwaterresources.
WebLinks:
TheTransboundaryFreshwaterDisputeDatabase.<http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu>
Acomprehensiveresourceonwatertreaties.
WaterConicts.<www.waterconicts.com>
Asitepromotingunderstandingofwaterrightsandwaterconicts.
WorldWaterCouncil.<www.worldwatercouncil.org>
Sitemaintainedbyaninternationalorganizationdedicatedtoimprovingworldmanagementofwater;offersarticlesandresources
onwaterissues.
TheWorldsWater.<www.worldwater.org>
Up-to-dateinformationonglobalfreshwaterresources.
FurtherReading:
Amery,HusseinA.,ed.WaterintheMiddleEast:AGeographyofPeace.UniversityofTexas,2000.
DeVilliers,Marq.Water:TheFateofOurMostPreciousResource.IslandPress,2000.
Postel,Sandra.LastOasis:FacingWaterScarcity.Norton,1997.
WHALING,LIFTINGTHEBANON
Whaling became an important industry in the nineteenth century because of the increased demand for whale oil used in the lamps
of that time. The industry declined in the late nineteenth century when petroleum began to replace whale oil. Nevertheless, whales
were still hunted for meat and other products, and modern technology made hunters more efcient. The increasing scarcity of many
whale species, together with growing recognition of the intelligence and social nature of whales, led to the creation of the International
Whaling Commission (IWC), which instituted a ban on whale hunting effective in 1986. In the almost 20 years since, whale stocks
appear to have recovered, although the extent of the recovery is a matter of debate. Some whaling continues for research purposes,
mostly by Japan, which has been widely criticized for taking hundreds more whales than can be justied by the needs of scientic
inquiry. Recently Japan and Norway have demanded that whaling be allowed to resume under regulation. Most other members of the
IWC and conservation groups are opposed. In 2003 Iceland resumed its whaling program after 14 years.
PROS
CONS
Whalesshouldbetreatedinthesamewayasotheranimals,asaresourcetobeusedforfoodandotherproducts. Whales should not be hunted to extinction, but

iftheirnumbersarehealthy,thenhuntingthemshould
bepermitted.Scientistshaveconductedstudiesofintelligenceondolphins,notwhales;thesestudies,however,
cannotmeasureintelligenceinanyusefulway.Although
peopleinsomeWesternnationsviewwhalesasspecial
andinneedofprotection,thisviewisnotwidelyshared
byothercountries.Toimposeituponothersisaformof
culturalimperialism.
Killing whales for human use is morally wrong. Many

peoplebelievethatnoanimalshouldsufferanddiefor
thebenetofhumans,butevenifyoudonotholdsuch
views,whalesshouldbetreatedasaspecialcase.Whales
are exceptionally intelligent and social beings, able to
communicateuentlywitheachother.Thehuntingand
thekillingofanimalsthatappeartosharemanysocial
andintellectualabilitieswithhumansareimmoral.
Whale populations are healthy, particularly those of

minke whales, which now number over a million. A
resumptionofhuntingunderregulationwillnotadversely
affecttheirsurvival.TheIWCdidnotimposetheban
onwhalingformoralreasonsbuttopreventextinction.
Numbershavenowgreatlyincreased.Thebanhasserved
itsoriginalpurpose,anditistimetoliftit.
We should adhere to a precautionary principle. Actual

whalepopulationsarenottrulyknown,buttheyappear
tobenowherenearasgreataspro-whalerssuggest.Until
theinternationalbanseveralspecieswereclosetoextinction. This could easily happen again if the ban were
lifted, especially because regulation is difcult. Even if
hunting were restricted to the more numerous species
ofwhales,other,lesscommonspeciesmaybekilledby
mistake.
Whalehuntingisanimportantaspectofsomecultures.
Forsomegroupsthehuntingofasmallnumberofwhales
isanimportantfeatureinthelocalsubsistenceeconomy,
awayofreconnectingthemselveswiththetraditionsof
theirancestorsandafrmingtheirgroupidentityagainst
theonslaughtofglobalization.
Traditionalhuntingmethodsareoftencruel;theyinvolve
drivingwhalestobeachthemselvesandthenkillingthem
slowlywithlongknives,orsinglingoutvulnerablenursingmotherswithcalves.Becauseonlysmallnumbersare
taken with relatively primitive equipment, the hunters
do not develop enough skill or possess the technology
|227
PROS
CONS
toachievethecleanandquickkillsnecessarytoprevent
suffering. Also, what if the whales these groups wish
tohuntarefromthemostendangeredspecies?Should
thesegroupsbepermittedtokillthembecauseoftheir
culturalheritage?Inanycase,manytraditionalpractices(e.g.,slavery,femalegenitalmutilation)havebeen
outlawedasabhorrentinmodernsociety.
Economic factors argue for a resumption of whaling.
InbothJapanandNorwayremotecoastalcommunities
dependonwhalingfortheirlivelihood.Bothcountries
haveaninvestmentinships,research,processingcenters,
etc.,thatwouldbewastedifthetemporarywhalingban
wereextendedindenitely.
Whale-watchingnowgeneratesabilliondollarsayear,
more income worldwide than the whaling industry
broughtinpriortothehuntingban.Thisindustryand
thejobsitcreatesinremotecoastalareaswouldbejeopardizedifwhalenumbersfelloriftheseintelligentanimalsbecamemuchmorewaryaroundhumanactivity.
Modernwhalingishumane,especiallycomparedtothe
factoryfarmingofchickens,cows,andpigs.Mostwhales
die instantly or very quickly, and Japanese researchers
havedevelopednew,morepowerfulharpoonsthatwill
makekillsevenmorecertain.
Whaling is inherently cruel. Before the whale is harpooned, it is usually exhausted by a long and stressful
chase. Because whales are moving targets, a marksman
can achieve a direct hit only with great difculty.The
explosive-tipped harpoon wounds many whales, who
often survive for some time before nally being killed
by rie shots or by additional harpoons. Even when a
directhitisscored,theexplosiveoftenfailstodetonate.
Japanesewhalingshipsreportthatonly70%ofwhales
arekilledinstantly.
Whales damage the sh stocks on which many people Thedeclineinshstocksiscausedbyovershing,not

dependfortheirfoodandlivelihood.Cullingwhaleswill whale predation. Many whales eat only plankton.The
reducethedeclineinshstocks.
oceans had plenty of sh before large-scale whaling
began.Indeedsomewhaleseatthelargershthatprey
oncommerciallyimportantspecies.Awhalecullmight
havetheperverseeffectoffurtherreducingvaluablesh
stocks.
Apolicyoflimitedhuntingcouldpreventthepotential
collapseoftheInternationalWhalingCommission.The
IWCbanwasintendedtoallownumberstorecover;this
temporarymeasurehasserveditspurpose.Ifprohibition
continuesandtheIWCbecomesmoreconcernedwith
moral positions than whaling management, Japan and
Norwaymayleavetheorganization.Nothingininternationallawpreventsthemfromresumingwhalingoutside
theIWC.Thus,whalingwillagainbeunregulated,with
morewhalesdyingandperhapsgreatercruelty.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldallowwhalingtoresume.
ThisHousewouldharvestthebountyofthesea.
ThisHousewouldsavethewhale.
Anysystemthatallowswhalingwillbeopentocheating,giventhedemandforwhalemeatinJapan.DNA
testsrevealthatJapansscienticwhalinghasresulted
inscarcespeciesbeingtakenandconsumed.Japanand
NorwaycouldleavetheIWCbutthiswouldprovokean
internationaloutcryandpossiblysanctions,soitisnot
intheirbestintereststodoso.
WebLinks:
TheInternationalWhalingCommission.<http://www.iwcofce.org>
Linkstoinformationontheorganizationaswellastoinformationonconservationeffortsandscienticresearchonwhales,dolphins,andporpoises.
MakahWhaling:QuestionsandAnswers.<http://www.makah.com/whales.htm>
NativeAmericansiteexplainingplanstoresumetraditionalwhaling.
ODIN.<http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/environment/032001-990108/>
NorwegianForeignMinistrysitewithinformationonthatcountrysdecisiontoresumesomewhaling.
WhaleandDolphinConservationSociety.<http://www.wdcs.org/>
Providesinformationonthestatusofwhales,dolphins,andporpoisesaswellaseffortstoprotectthem.
FurtherReading:
Stoett,PeterJ.TheInternationalPoliticsofWhaling.UniversityofBritishColumbia,1997.
WORKFARE
Traditionally people on welfare were not required to work for their benets. In fact, if they did work, their benets were cut off. Critics
claimed that this approach led to a cycle of poverty, and in the mid-1990s the United States adopted workfareprograms in which
welfare recipients had to work for their benets. This approach, too, has had its critics. Many claim that workfare does not give people
the training and opportunities necessary to move out of poverty.
PROS
CONS
Making people work for their welfare benets breaks

the dependency culture. Receiving benets for doing
nothingmakesindividualstooreliantonthestateand
encouragesapathyandlaziness.Tyingwelfarepayments
toproductiveworkchallengesthesomething-for-nothingassumptionsofsomewelfarerecipientsandshows
thatthestatehasarighttoaskforsomethinginreturn
forthegenerosityofitstaxpayers.
Workfareprogramsaredemeaningtothepoor,whoare
treatedasslavelabor.Noonevoluntarilyseekstoliveon
theverylowincomeprovidedbywelfarebenets.Workfareignoresthetalentsandambitionsofthoseinvolved,
typicallyusingthemformenialtasksandmanuallabor
thatteachthemnousefulskills.
Workfareoffersarouteoutofpovertybygivingparticipantstheskillsneededtondandkeepjobs.Productive
work increases self-respect and provides the poor with
more condence in their abilities. Individuals who are
currently working are also more attractive to potential
employersthanthosewhoareunemployed.
Workfareprogramsareoflittleuseifnojobsareavailable. Often programs do not teach people necessary

skills,suchasliteracy,facilitywithmath,andfamiliarity
withmoderninformationtechnology.Insteadworkfare
recipientsaregivenmenialtasksunlikelytomakethem
moreemployable.Governmentshouldinvestineducationandtrainingprogramsinsteadofworkfare.Finally,
ifpeopleonworkfareareforcedintorealjobsthatneed
doing,theyshouldbeemployedthroughnormalchannels.
Makingtheunemployedworkfortheirwelfarebenets Puttingtheunemployedintoworkfareprogramslimits
callsthebluffofthoseclaimingbenetsbutnotreally theiropportunitiestolookforrealwork.Somemayturn
lookingforjobs.Movingfromatraditionalsomething- tocrimeratherthanacceptworkfareprojects.
for-nothing welfare policy to a workfare system stops
individuals from being a burden on the state. It cuts
|229
PROS
CONS
welfarerollsveryrapidlyandallowsthegovernmentto
concentrateuponassistingthetrulyneedy.
Spendingmoneyonworkfareprogramsisaninvestment Workfareisactuallymoreexpensivethantraditionalwelinpeople,whogaintheopportunitytoliftthemselves fareprogramsbecausethestatealsohastopaythecosts
out of poverty. Workfare also benets the economy, ofsettinguptheprogramsandsupervisingthem.
by providing a better supply of labor and by increasing consumer spending. Although workfare programs
might cost more per person than just handing out
welfarechecks,theirability to deter fraudulent claims
makesthemcheaperinthelongrun.
Society also benets from the work done by those in
workfare programs that improve the economy or help
the elderly and disabled. In many cases the labor they
providewouldnothavebeenavailableinanyotherway.
Individualsforcedintoworkfarelackincentivestowork
toahighstandardandmaybeactivelydisaffected.The
worktheydoisthereforeunlikelytobenetanyoneand
raisesanumberofissues:Wouldyouuseabridgebuilt
byworkfarelabor?Wouldyoutrustyouragedparentor
youngchildtosomeoneonworkfare?
Workfareprojectscanbedesignedsothattheydonot
displace low-paid workers. In any case, many of those
in minimum wage jobs do such work for a relatively
shorttimebeforendingbetterpositions.Consequently
workfarewillnotjeopardizethoseatthelowendofthe
jobmarket.
Thoseonworkfarewillbecompetingwiththosewhoare
already employed, particularly workers in menial jobs.
Why should local government pay people to pick up
litterifworkfareteamscanbemadetodoitformuch
less?Iflow-paidworkersaredisplaced,theultimateresult
maybehigherunemployment.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousewouldintroduceworkfare.
ThisHousewouldendwelfare.
ThisHousebelievesinthedignityoflabor.
WebLinks:
IsWorkfareWorking?<http://www.lincproject.org/Newsletters/WRI/TheWord/issuesfolder/barraises.html>
Shortarticlesummarizingtheopinionsofsixexpertsonworkfare.
Workfare:BoomorBust?<http://www.poetic-justice.com/essays/workfare.htm>
SummaryofCanadasexperiencewithworkfare.
WorkfareResearchandAdvocacyProject.<http://www.welfarelaw.org/wrap_progress.html>
Siteprovidesinformationdesignedtoempowerthoseonworkfare.
WorkfaretoWages.<http://www.arc.org/gripp/researchPublications/publications/POWER/powerPg02.html>
ReportontheproblemsofworkfareinSanFrancisco.
FurtherReading:
Mink,Gwendolyn.WelfaresEnd.CornellUniversityPress,1998.
Peck,Jamie,FrancesFoxPiven,andRichardCloward.WorkfareStates.GuilfordPress,2001.
Shagge,Eric.Workfare:IdeologyforaNewUnderclass.GaramondPress,1997.
ZEROTOLERANCEPOLICING
Zero tolerance policing aims at stopping serious crime by clamping down on all types of disorder, including minor misdemeanors such
as spray painting grafti. It mandates set responses by the police to particular crimes, although the courts still maintain discretion in
sentencing criminals. Adherents of this policy believe in the broken windows theory, which postulates that quality-of-life crimes, like
littering or grafti writing, prompt respectable citizens to leave communities, which then fall into decline. They also emphasize that
most serious criminals begin their careers with minor crimes. By punishing minor crimes, zero tolerance policing prevents future crimes
and, in the process, stops neighborhood decline.
PROS
CONS
Zero tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent

tocriminalsforthreereasons.First,itisaccompanied
by a greater police presence. Research shows a direct
link between the perceived chance of detection and
crime rates. Second, strict and certain punishment
deters criminals. Third, it provides the short, sharp
shockthatstopspettycriminalsfromescalatingtheir
criminalbehavior.Itgivesaclearmessagethatcrimeis
nottolerated.
Minoroffenders,gangmembers,andthepoorarevery
unlikelytobeawareofthepunishmentsfortheircrimes,
so the threat of punishment has little effect on them.
Manycrimesarearesultofpovertyanddrugsandcan
bereducedonlybystructuralchangestothesociety,not
bythreateningpunishment.Theideaofashort,sharp
shockisunconvincing.Labelingpeoplecriminalsatan
earlyagecausesthemtoperceivethemselvesassuch.This
leadspettycriminalstocommitmoreseriousoffenses.
Zero tolerance policing is extremely effective against

small-scaledrugpusherswhosepresenceinaneighborhoodcreatesanatmosphereinwhichcrimeourishes.
Druguseisamajorcauseofcrimebecauseaddictsusuallystealtosupporttheirhabit.
Arresting small-scale pushers and users targets the victimstostopthecrime.Aswellasbeingunfair,itisineffective. As long as there is a demand for drugs, there
willbedrugdealing.Demandcanbestoppedonlyby
rehabilitation.
Zero tolerance also allows for rehabilitation. A prison

sentence,particularlyforjuveniles,takesthemawayfrom
theenvironmentthatencouragedcriminality.Rehabilitationisacentraltenetofmostpenalcodes.Thelarge
numberofpoliceonthestreetsalsoincreasesthesupervisionofreleasedprisoners,preventingrepeatoffenses.
Prison sentences contribute to repeat offenses. Prisons

shouldhavearehabilitativerole,buttheydont.Juveniles
withcriminalrecordshavedifcultyndingjobs,andso
arelikelytoresorttocrime.Inprisontheymeetestablished criminals who both encourage the lifestyle and
teachtheskillsneededtobeasuccessfulcriminal.Prison
oftenfostersresentmentofthepolice.Theharassment
thatjuvenilesassociatewithzerotolerancealsocreatesan
extremelyantagonisticrelationshipwiththepolice.
Zero tolerance improves the standard of policing. It

reducescorruptionandracisttreatmentbecauseindividualofcersarenotgiventhescopetodecidetheiractions
onacase-by-casebasis.Theirresponseisset.Inaddition,
zerotolerancepolicingtakesofcersoutoftheircarsand
putsthemintothecommunitywheretheyhavecontact
withindividuals.Chasesandshootoutsactuallyareless
commonunderzerotolerance.
Zerotolerancegivesthepolicealmostlimitlesspowerin
poorcommunities.Theyareabletostopandsearchand
harassindividualsconstantly.Usuallyethnicminorities
aretargeted.NewYorkCitysawatremendousgrowth
incomplaintsaboutpoliceracismandharassmentafter
zerotolerancewasinstituted.
Zero tolerance is vital for rebuilding inner cities. Zero

tolerancereducestheamountofdeadgroundusedfor
drugdealingandsoreturnsparksandopenspacestothe
community.Byofferingprotectionagainstpettycrime,
Rebuildinginnercityneighborhoodsisoneofthemost
powerful ways of targeting crime, and it occurs independent of zero tolerance. For every city where urban
renewal and zero tolerance have together been associ-
|231
PROS
CONS
it encourages small businesses (vital for neighborhood ated with a falling crime rate (New York City), there
rehabilitation)toreturntoanarea.
isanareawhererenewalhasworkedonitsown(Hong
Kong). Most important for urban renewal is individualstakingprideintheirarea.Thisisfarmorelikelyto
happenwhenpeopledontfeelpersecutedbythepolice.
Nopolicepresenceissufcienttodefendabusinessthat
hasnotcultivatedgoodrelationswiththecommunity.
Wecanaffordzerotolerance.Protectingbusinessesand
developing a reputation for low crime attracts both
people and investment. Deterrence reduces crime and
thusthecostofpolicing;althoughprisonsareexpensive,
thereductioninrecidivismshouldemptythemintime.
The most important question is whether we believe
spendingourtaxdollarstoguaranteeoursafetyisagood
useofthatrevenue.Mostvoterssayyes.
Theenormousexpenseofzerotoleranceinmoney,manpower,andprisonslimitspolicing.Itleaveslittlemoney
for addressing serious crime. So, although total crime
ratesmaydrop,seriouscrimesmaystillbeaproblem.
SampleMotions:
ThisHousebelievesinzerotolerancepolicing.
ThisHousewouldclampdown.
ThisHousebelievesinstrictpunishment.
WebLinks:
WhatIsZeroTolerance?<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/182553.stm>
BBCsiteofferinggeneralinformationonthesubject.
FurtherReading:
Ayers,Rick,etal.,eds.ZeroTolerance,ResistingtheDriveforPunishment.NewPress,2001.
Dennis,Norman,andNormanDavis,eds.ZeroTolerance,PolicingaFreeSociety.Coronet,1998.
Downes,DavidM.,andPaulE.Rock.UnderstandingDeviance:AGuidetotheSociologyofCrimeandRuleBreaking.Clarendon,
1988.
Topical Index
ARTSANDCULTURE
ArtsSubsidies,Abolitionof40
CulturalTreasures,Returnof77
CHILDRENANDYOUTH
Advertising,TargetingofChildren23
ChildLabor58
ChildOffenders,StricterPunishmentfor59
CondomsinSchools64
CurfewLaws79
GayAdoption110
MinoritySchools153
NationalTesting158
SchoolVouchers194
SingleSexSchools203
CRIMEANDCRIMINALJUSTICE
CapitalPunishment52
ChemicalCastration57
CorporalPunishment:Adults68
CurfewLaws79
DNADatabaseforCriminals84
MandatorySentencing:ThreeStrikes149
SexOffenders:PubliclyNaming201
ZeroTolerancePolicing231
DEVELOPINGWORLD
AfricanAffairs,OutsideInterventionin28
ChildLabor58
IvoryTrading147
Nation-States160
|233
ECOLOGYANDTHEENVIRONMENT
AnimalRights36
BiodiversityandEndangeredSpecies47
DrillingintheArcticNationalWildlifeRefuge87
GlobalWarming121
GreenhouseGases:TradingQuotas125
IvoryTrading147
WaterResources:ACommodity?226
Whaling,LiftingtheBanon227
ECONOMICS
EconomicSanctionsvs.Environment93
FlatTax105
FreeTrade108
EDUCATION
CondomsinSchools64
CreationisminPublicSchools73
MinoritySchools153
NationalTesting158
SchoolUniforms193
SchoolVouchers194
Single-SexSchools203
EUROPEANDTHEEUROPEANUNION
EuropeanDefenseForce98
EuropeanFederalization100
Nation-States160
FAMILY
ArrangedMarriages38
CovenantMarriage71
GayAdoption110
GayMarriage112
HumanCloning132
Polygamy177
GAYISSUES
GayAdoption110
GayClergy111
GayMarriage112
HEALTHANDMEDICINE
AssistedSuicide43
GenePatenting115
GeneticallyModifiedFood116
GeneticScreening118
HealthCare,Universal129
HumanCloning132
Vegetarianism221
INTERNATIONALAFFAIRS
China,Fearof61
Iraq,Invasionof144
Nation-States160
NuclearWeaponsTesting165
Terrorists,Negotiatingwith212
MILITARY
Iraq,Invasionof144
POLITICSANDPOLITICALTHEORY
AssassinationofaDictator42
CampaignFinanceReform50
CivilDisobedience63
ConscriptionandNationalService66
DebateLimits81
ElectoralCollege,Abolitionof94
FlatTax105
Nation-States160
Pacifism172
PoliticiansandSpecialInterests175
Referenda187
TermLimits211
Topicalindex |235
Two-PartySystem216
Voting,Compulsory223
RELIGIONANDMORALITY
AbortiononDemand21
AssistedSuicide43
CovenantMarriage71
GayClergy111
GayMarriage112
God,Existenceof124
HumanCloning132
PriestlyCelibacy,Abolitionof180
Religion:SourceofConflictorPeace?186
ReligiousBelief:RationalorIrrational?189
Vegetarianism221
RIGHTSANDLIBERTIES
AnimalRights36
ConfederateFlag,Banningof65
Debate,Limitsof81
FreeSpeech,Restrictionson107
Privacyvs.Security182
SecurityandLiberty197
SCIENCE,TECHNOLOGYANDSOCIETY
GenePatenting115
GeneticScreening118
HumanCloning132
Science:ThreattoSociety?196
SpaceExploration207
SOCIALISSUES
AbortiononDemand21
AffirmativeAction24
Alcohol,Banningof33
ArrangedMarriages38
AssistedSuicide43
BeautyContests45
CapitalPunishment52
CellPhones,BanningofUseinCars53
CovenantMarriage71
Feminism103
GayAdoption110
GayMarriage112
GunControl127
Marijuana:Legalizationof150
Prostitution,Legalizationof184
Workfare229
SPORTS
Boxing,Abolitionof49
DrugsinSports88
OlympicDream,Deathofthe167
UNITEDNATIONS
UNStandingArmy219
UNITEDSTATESINTHEWORLD
Iraq,Invasionof144
Topicalindex |237

A Must-Have Guide To Debate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Must-Have Guide To Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THEDEBATABASEBOOK

Design by Hernn Bonomo

IDEA Press Books

This page intentionally left blank

ments of rhetoric, namely metaphor and narrative, are

Take for instance the following argument against

tion shortcuts the argumentative process by avoiding

troversialandmustrequire reason for its support.The

A scientic description can be the nal product of

Descriptive claims are about the nature of reality

In addition to relationships based on contingency,

Evaluative claims bear a family resemblance to one

This page intentionally left blank

Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory,

While rape is an appalling crime, is it the fault of the

Targeting TV advertisements to children is unethical.

Exploitative advertising brainwashes children into

Restrictingadvertisingtochildrenwillnotaffectbroadcast revenues signicantly. It will lead to better programming.Muchofchildrenstelevisioncentersaround

Advertisements are the major source of television stationrevenues.Ifgovernmentrestrictsorbansadvertisingtochildren,broadcasterswillstopshowingchildrens

Afrmative action unlocks the unrealized potential of

Afrmative action results in less able applicants lling

Successfulminoritymembersarerolemodelswhowill Afrmative action undermines the achievements of

Granted,weshouldaimforimprovingminorityrepresentation in high-prole positions, but we should not

AftertheSeptember11attacks,theUSwasfullyjustied in waging war to punish those responsible and to

An invasion using conventional military tactics will

Is the involvement of African countries really without

The effect of regional blocs on many African despots

We need to be sure that the intervention is justied.

Mostofthepowerfulcountriesandinternationalorganizations are loathe to become involved in the sort of

Just because the intervening country uses infantry or

The use of non-African languages such as French and

If the issue is one of understanding, then it is a weak

DevelopingAfricancountriesarenotinthesameposition as highly industrialized and computerized Japan

PerhapsEnglishmayhavearoleinthefutureofdeveloping countrieswhen they are powerful enough to

The inuences of the world on a country cannot be

Makinganindigenouslanguagearstlanguagedoesnot Many African countries do not have one or even two

Without a doubt many of the worlds pharmaceutical

The countries with the biggest AIDS problems are a

Generic drugs would be far cheaper to produce and

Millions of people will continue to suffer while drug

Is it right that those infected with HIV in the Third

HIV/AIDS treatments are as cheap as they can be at

No matter how low the drug companies price HIV/

Alcohol is just as potentially addictive as many illegal

Human beings are naturally inclined to violence and

Although organizations like Mothers Against Drunk

The progress made against drunk driving in recent

We need consistency in our drug laws. If marijuana,

The alcohol industry is an enormous global industry.

Tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned.

Currently governments raise large amounts of revenue

American culture is materialistic and individualistic.

America prizes and rewards creativity and leads the

American culture is ignorant and arrogant. Americans

America seeks to dominate the world, but it does not

The American commitment to improving the world

Human beings are innitely more complex than any

Ever since the publication of Charles Darwins Origin

Only human beings who are members of society have

Using animals for our own nutrition and pleasure is

That a small number of extremists and criminals have

Arrangingmarriageisaninsulttotheverynatureofmarriage,whichshouldbeaboutcreatingalovingandlastingpartnershipandfamily.Itreducesmarriagetoacommercial transaction and, therefore, undermines family

Arranged marriages are often very successful; only a