MILITARY BUDGET SHOULD BE INCREASED

YES
1. Money is spent on modernizing the military sector
- New threats seek better readines of the army
2. Better for maintaining national security
- Enemies are becoming stronger
3. Paying for alliences
INTRODUCTION:
Military spending has become a hot topic during debates in many years now, where some people
suggest of cutting it, while others are okay with increasing it. To come up with a good decision on our
end for this matter, let us take a look at its pros and cons.

YES:
1. It makes military preparation efficient
- it is critical to keep the military forces ready to fight and quickly win.

- the fund is used for this purpose, especially for major regional wars that could happen at the
same time.

- remember that readiness will decline if funds are not increased for training and equipment.

2. It can keep defense factories operational

- increasing military spending will enable struggling defense contractors to keep their factories
operational and retain jobs at military bases.

3. It is spent to ensure national security

- maybe the last, but not the least on the “pros” list is the importance of national security, what is
every countrie`s priority.

NO

1. Investing in other sectors

- Education, healthcare, environment. Money should be spent productively
2. How much money is enough?
3. Money does not improve soldiers' readiness

1. It is not balanced with foreign aid and diplomacy

- if foreign aid and diplomacy budgets were more balanced with military spending, there would be
a better chance to prevent conflict and avoid military involvement.

- also, let us remember that national security means more than military power.
 - so, to sustain a secure nation, federal spending must be balanced among military defense,
economic security, healthcare, education and job training

2. It might be used irresponsibly

- enlisted men and women who are having difficulties in supporting their families should receive a
fair wage, adequate healthcare and housing.

- financial support would be available for these needs if the country’s military authority improved
the way it manages its funds to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.

3. Its share to global military spending is already too big

- though the US’s military spending has declined since 1989, its share of total worldwide military
spending has increased greatly.

- in fact, the country’s military spending and its allies’ account for more than half of the total
amount worldwide.

- moreover, the US spends 18 times the combined military budgets of the rogue nations.

CONCLUSION:
Military budgets are only one of the many gauges of military power. Their spending adequacy
depends on the capability and number of the country’s adversaries, how well it invests its funds and
its objectives, among other factors. Now, policymakers have been debating whether the level of
military spending is appropriate, considering the increasingly constrained budgets and the winding
down of wars in other countries.

MACHINES CAN REPLACE SOLDIERS ON THE GROUND

YES
1. Less expensive
-human soldiers need t be equiped with all kind of equipment that has to be
modern and keep up with todays military trends.
- It's easy to understand the allure of robotic troops. War ain't cheap. In
addition to the incalculable price that comes with putting soldiers in the
line of fire, there is also the cost of training, feeding, supplying and
housing them during active military operations. When the fighting stops,
the bills for veterans programs, pensions and medical care continue to
pile up. (A quarter of the 2012 Pentagon budget request was for
benefits like these [source: Atherton]). Proponents say robot soldiers
not only help keep humans out of harm's way, but also reduce the cost
of operating and maintaining the U.S.'s military forces.
2. Easier to control
 - Iti s easier to crate alghorythm which can control how machines behave
on the field. In an effort to become "a smaller, more lethal, deployable and agile
force," Cone said the Army was considering reducing the size of brigade combat
teams to 3,000 from 4,000 soldiers.
3. Less casulties
-In army, the most important resource is a human. Human life if priceless
and irreplaceable.

INTRODUCTION:
In 2013 General Robert Cone claimed that machines like drones and robots could replace up to a
quarter of troops in combat by 2030. The U.S. is already using unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct
surveillance and drop missiles on suspected terrorists overseas in places like Pakistan and Yemen.
But, will the robots eventually replace human boots on the ground, we will see in this essay.

YES:
1. Replace soldiers in dangerous missions, such as crawling through caves or in street-to-street urban
combat, reducing casualties.

2. Reduce civilian casualties if used properly and if sufficient ethical programming could be
developed.

3. Make faster decisions than humans, an important advantage on the modern battlefield.

4. Be unaffected by anger, revenge, hunger, fear, fatigue, or stress.

5. Refuse to carry out an unethical or illegal commands, something a human soldier might be
pressured not to do.

Robots can save soldiers’ lives, they can remove serving soldiers, who might be killed, from the
battlefield, they are remote-controlled mobile robots or autonomous robots, they are designed for
military applications, from transport to search & rescue and attack, they are not fully autonomous,
they require human intervention to ensure that targets are not within restricted fire areas.

Still, human soldiers can do things that robots cannot. For one, they have the ability to respond to a
situation with nuance. They can, for example, read the body language of a civilian who might be a
terrorist. They can adapt to cultural idiosyncrasies. And most importantly, they can earn the personal
trust of those they are interacting with. This is especially crucial in insurgency environments, where
the ability to earn the trust of others is even more important than the ability to locate and destroy an
enemy.

NO
1. Reducing the job pool
- Many people would lose their jobs.
2. Difficult to reach public acceptance
 - Robots do not have empathy and understanding like human soldiers do.
For one, they have the ability to respond to a situation with nuance. They
can, for example, read the body language of a civilian who might be a
terrorist. They can adapt to cultural idiosyncrasies. And most importantly,
they can earn the personal trust of those they are interacting with. This is
especially crucial in insurgency environments, where the ability to earn the
trust of others is even more important than the ability to locate and destroy
an enemy.
3. There is always a chance that machine will be hacked
- n addition, unlike human soldiers, robots could be hacked and turned
against their own side. Again, the fused network in which robots would
operate also leaves them vulnerable to a few lines of code turning them
into enemies rather than allies. In contrast, even if one or a small group of
soldiers betrayed their companions, the force as a whole would be highly
unlikely to do so: Their moral sentience and patriotism mean they can be
relied on to follow orders.

CONCLUSION: Of course, the ability of robots to take more fire and not leave
behind families is of great potential, and the military is rightly pushing
ahead with exercises such as this one. Ultimately, though, while robots will
play a significant role in future wars, they will only do so alongside human
personnel.

1. What if rogue friendly soldiers override a robot’s safety and ethical programs and use it to take
some action against the rules of war?

2. If robots break the rules of war, who takes responsibility? The manufacturer? The programmer?
The nearest human commander?

3. If robots gather information on the conduct of human troops using video or other sensors, might
soldiers feel they are being “spied on” and resent the robots, thus harming morale?

4. Might robots be “hacked” by the enemy and turned against friendly troops? If robots contained a
remote “kill switch” to shut them down in case that happened, might that be hacked by the enemy
to disable them?

5. Can programmers imagine every situation that robots will encounter on the battlefield? If not,
robots could make lethal mistakes when first deployed.

Army robots could be hacked by the enemy and can be used against you, They can malfunction and
turn against you or explode in front of you, they can’t tell right from wrong meaning it could kill
civilians as well as rebel allies if it sees them, Robotics can’t accommodate for non-standard
conditions, Advances in artificial intelligence in the near future may help to rectify this.

https://www.online-sciences.com/robotics/army-robots-types-advantages-disadvantages-how-do-
artificial-soldiers-change-the-future-of-war/
 FUTURE WARS WIIL BE WAGED IN CYBERSPACE

YES
1. Element of surprise
- Can hit anytime, anywhere. A huge problem when it comes to cyber-
attacks is being able to tell who carried it out.
2. Less human casulties
- Attack is executed via computers therefore no humans are sent on the
battlefield.
3. With one malware you can create a catastrophe
- Today is everything digital. It is easier to attack multiple targets at once via
computers than sending soldiers all over the world. Cyberspace brings
opportunity to create bigger disaster with only one attack on bank than
having soldiers shooting on enemies. It is easier to access someone's
bank account since everything is being done digitaly.

INTRODUCTION:
Gone are the days where battles are fought in person-to-person conflicts. In the coming years, most
wars will be waged via computers, servers, and digital weapons, where cyberwarfare does not imply
scale, protraction or violence which are typically associated with the term war. So what are pros and
cons of wars waged in cyberspace?

YES:
1. Element of surprise
- the risk has gone up over time because all our systems are becoming even more dependent on
computers and cyberattack can hit in everytime and everywhere.

2. Less human casualties

- since these attacks are carried out using a computer, there is no need for people to be directly
exposed to the attack.

- This will reduce human casualties.

3. „Wired in“
- Nowadays, you cannot imagine life without technology.

- All we need is at our fingertips.

- Everyone is connected to each and therefore cyber attacks can be very easy.

NO
 1. It is costly
- For these kind of operations people need to be educated about cyberspace
and that demands a lot of money.
2. Cyberwar brings numerous consequences
- Unless country is ready to face possible concequences, it will not be in its
intrest to attack in the first place. The attck will severly impact citizens and
their every day life. If one country attacks the other there is always a
possibilty of counterattack. Do not do to others what you do not want
others to do to you. (Zlatno pravilo! Hahahaha).
3. Development of defence
- Countries are investing in national security the most. It makes no sense to
spend large amount of money on an attack or attacks that, in the end, will
not be successful. Countries are aware of possible cyber-attacks and are
directing their finances to create the most suitable defence against that
kind of threat.

CONCLUSION:
Wars in cyberspace become another battleground. Any future war—whether hot or cold, kinetic or
otherwise—will include a cyber component. And it should. It is my opinion that if we can shoot a
missile at an enemy fighter jet, why can’t we disable it with a software command? The rules of war
need to be—and continue to be—modified to meet the new cyber command.

THE ETHICS OF UAVs

INTRODUCTION:
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, are aircraft that can be controlled remotely by
a pilot or can fly autonomously based on preprogrammed plans or automation systems. A
large number of industries and users are adopting this technology, including military,
government, commercial, and recreational users. As the technology advances, these aircraft
are becoming more common and affordable, giving rise to debates that weigh their benefits
against new ethical and legal concerns.

YES
1. Cheaper
- Military drones are effective because they are much cheaper than
traditional military weapons and they have become increasingly accurate.
They are easier to control and faster.
2. Can be used on tactical and strategic level
- Military drones are used for a variety of purposes such as reconnaissance,
surveillance, remote sensing, armed attacks and warfare, target monitoring
 and designation, and elimination of designated targets. They can also be
used for eliminating the enemy. Killing by a usage of a UAV does not
involve significant harm to the military equipment used in the operation.
3. Useful in civil organizations
- Drones are vastly used in civlian sector. They are able to detect wildfires
and track their movement. Companies like Amazon are considering to
deliver purchases via UAVs. They can track possibly missing people
because of their advanced design which includes heat sensors, 3D
mapping and many others.

1. Quality Aerial Imaging

- drones can take high-quality aerial photographs and video, and collect vast amounts of imaging
data.

- these high-resolution data can be used to create 3-D maps and interactive 3-D models, which
have many beneficial uses.

-for example, 3-D mapping of disaster areas can enable rescue teams to be better prepared before
entering hazardous situations.

2. Precision
- since unmanned aerial vehicles are equipped with GPS, they can be programed and
maneuvered accurately to precise locations.
- this is especially helpful in precision agriculture, in which UAVs are used for a variety of
farming needs such as spraying fertilizer and insecticide, identifying weed infestations, and
monitoring crop health.
- the precision of UAVs saves famers both time and cost.
3. Easily Deployable
- with advances in control technology, most drones can be operated by users with
relatively minimal experience.
- combined with the relative low cost of most models, this has led to drones becoming
accessible to a wide range of operators.
- UAVs also have a greater range of movement than manned aircraft, being able to fly
lower and in more directions, allowing them to easily navigate traditionally hard-to-access
areas.

NO
1. Collateral damage
 - The situation is different when viewed from the perspective of the targets
and collateral damage linked to the drones. Not only are people
misidentified as military targets, but there are also non-military death and
casualties. What this would ultimately mean is that we would hand over the
task of identifying, eliminating and killing our enemies to machines running
complex AI and sensory computer programs. From the point of view of our
military and from the perspective of national defense, the goal of drone
operations, is to identify and keep watch over as well as eliminate our
enemies. If our defense and national security are at issue, does it really
matter if humans kill our enemies or if machines kill our enemies, as long
as our enemies are eliminated? This is an important issue for anyone
concerned about the development of autonomous drones in the future.
- evidence points to them as being wildly unsafe towards noncombatants.
Between 2002 and 2013, there were an estimated 2200 civilian deaths, all
of which the United States denied for a long period
2. Privacy
- If someone flies a drone in a park to take photographs as a hobby or for
artistic for artistic purposes, the consequences of these actions may not
have ethical issue related to them. If, however, one person inadvertently
takes a photograph of another person, this could amount to an invasion of
privacy. An even clearer example of an ethical issue is when a drone is
used to stalk another person. Photographs taken by a drone to follow or
stalk another person present us with clear ethical problems. Both examples
may contribute to an invasion of a person’s right to privacy. Taking
photographs may impact another person’s privacy. Respect is a
fundamental virtue in the sense that to respect a person is to value a
person. Persons have the fundamental right of having their privacy
respected. When drones are used to take photographs of a person or
when a person is stalked by another person, their privacy has not been
respected.
3. Security
- What are the consequences of an increasingly larger number of drones
filling civilian airspace? How would air traffic control be enacted around a
university and for the public in general? What would the odds be of delivery
drones crashing into one another, and if they did crash into one another,
what would the danger be to the public?

1. Uncertainty in Legislation
- since the widespread use of unmanned aerial vehicles is relatively new, legislation is still catching
up.

- The Federal Aviation Administration has established certain rules for small, unmanned aircraft
that apply to commercial and recreational use, but there are still ambiguities.

- questions include how best to determine airspace property rights and protect landowners from
aerial trespassing.
 - further adding to the confusion are conflicts between federal regulations and some state and
local laws.

2. Safety
- safety is a primary concern when dealing with unmanned aerial vehicles.

- to avoid mid-air collisions, UAVs need to be programmed with “sense and avoid” capabilities –
being able to detect a potential collision and maneuver to safety – that match those of manned
aircraft pilots.

- in the event of system failures, ground impact is another serious danger, especially when drones
are used near large crowds.

3. Privacy
- one of the most common concerns from the public about UAVs is privacy.

- drones can collect data and images without drawing attention, leading many Americans to fear
their Fourth Amendment rights of privacy may be in jeopardy if government entities were to use
drones to monitor the public.

- the way in which the Fourth Amendment is interpreted, and the efforts of privacy rights
organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, will have a marked influence on how this
issue of privacy is regulated.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL IS IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE NATIONAL SECURITY

AND CULTURE

INTRODUCTION:
Many people are understandably objecting to the Trump administration's immigration policies. It is
believed that it is illegitimate for the government of a free society to impose any limit on
immigration. But, perhaps these limitations are justified. In this essay we will see whether
immigration can endanger national security and culture or not.

NO
1. Immigration diversifies local economies
- Immigrants bring new perspectives, experiences, and ideas to their local
communities. With this added diversification, there is more strength to be
found within the community. Immigrants start businesses, earn an income,
and support others on the local level. This creates an increase in local
production, which creates more profits, which further helps the economy.
 Strong economies that are based on immigrant perspectives tend to find
the most success.
2.  It encourages economic recovery
- Immigrants are more likely to move to a new location to pursue a job
opportunity than native citizens. That means places which are struggling
economically can begin to experience a recovery with greater speed as
immigrants come to work. Even when the occupations were high-tech jobs,
it was immigrants who kept the labor market moving forward because of
their expertise.
3. It encourages entrepreneurism (PODUZETNIŠTVO)
- Many immigrants are natural entrepreneurs. They are often highly
educated, extensively trained, and very inventive when establishing a new
idea. Immigrants are also highly productive, making it possible to create
new jobs, drive innovation, or make existing businesses become more
flexible. Their presence makes it easier to establish worker specialization,
which makes it easier for all businesses to invest more into their
employees.

1. To infringe the associational rights of citizens

- Some argue that limits on immigration infringe upon the associational rights of citizens.

- Considering that we live in a democracy, each of us has the right to choose which nationalities to
associate with.

2. Europe itself is extremely diverse

- European population have a wide spectrum of habits, values and opinions.

- This is exactly what makes Europe strong.

- Europe should have liberal values of tolerance towards the immigrants, and allow them as much
freedom as possible to follow teir own traditions, provided these do not harm the freedom and rights
of their people.

3. Anti-immigrationists said that if you use sufficient force, you can completley stop
immigration, and excep perhaps in the case of refugees fleeing brutal persecution in
neighbouring country, you are never obliged to open your door
- Turkey may have moral duty to allowe desperate Syrian refugees to cross its border.

- But if these refugees then try to move on to Sweden, the Swedes are not bound to accept them.

- As for migrants who seek jobs and welfare, it is totally up to the host country whether it wants
them in or not, and under what conditons.

YES
 1.  It encourages disease transmission
- Many diseases are transferred to new regions because of the processes of
immigration. Disease-causing agents transfer across borders with
immigrants, which can have a negative impact on the local population that
may not be regularly exposed to certain conditions. Screening processes
can limit this impact somewhat, although there is always the possibility of
having something slip through.
2. Immigration can cause over-population issues
- The wealthiest nations of the world tend to be the most popular
destinations for immigration. That means there can be over-population
issues in the wealthy countries, while under-population issues can begin to
form in the developing world. When population levels become imbalanced,
then it can cause resource access issues at the local level in regions where
high levels of immigration take place.
3. It can place stress on local social services
- Having a large group of immigrants move into a region can also place
stress points on social services related to employment. There may be an
increased need for food bank services, food stamps, and basic housing
services. That can place stress on the budgets of these services, which
may encourage local councils to propose higher tax rates to cover potential
shortfalls. Even if immigrants have a positive influence on the economy
over time, the short-term costs may be too much for some communities to
bear.

1. Terrorism spreding
- It is very important to control the border and the entry of new, unknown people into the country.

- This can prevent terrorists from entering and further developing unexpected events.

2. It encourages disease transmission

- Many diseases are transferred to new regions because of the processes of immigration.

- Disease-causing agents transfer across borders with immigrants, which can have a negative
impact on the local population that may not be regularly exposed to certain conditions.

- Screening processes can limit this impact somewhat, although there is always the possibility of
having something slip through.

3. Immigration can cause over-population issues

- The wealthiest nations of the world tend to be the most popular destinations for immigration.

- That means there can be over-population issues in the wealthy countries, while under-
population issues can begin to form in the developing world.

- When population levels become imbalanced, then it can cause resource access issues at the local
level in regions where high levels of immigration take place.

4. It can place stress on local social services

 - Having a large group of immigrants move into a region can also place stress points on social
services related to employment.

- There may be an increased need for food bank services, food stamps, and basic housing services.

- That can place stress on the budgets of these services, which may encourage local councils to
propose higher tax rates to cover potential shortfalls.

- Even if immigrants have a positive influence on the economy over time, the short-term costs may
be too much for some communities to bear.

9. EU should have a single unified army: yes or no

INTRODUCTION:
The EU does not currently have an army, but it has some military cooperation between member
countries. It already exists joint operations under an EU banner. Some European politicans would like
to see this take the form of stand-alone EU armed forces.

YES:
1. The EU already runs military operations, based on armies working together
- Military operations are already managed at EU level.

- The EU currently has dozen `civilian missions`.

- An important difference between these operations and an EU army is that they rely on member
countries to provide the boots on the ground, because the Union does not directly employ soldiers.

- So it would be better for EU to have always available and well-trained military at every point.

2. The European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats

- Jean-Claude Juncker state that a common EU army would send important signals to the world.

- He also claimed that a common EU army could serve as a deterrent and would have been useful
during Ukraine crisis.

- A common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about
defending our European values.

3. Research & Development

- Each army spend a lot of money for research and development.

- It would be more economical for states to provide this money for joint projects.
 - This would save money, and on the other hand, there would exist an army that is highly trained
and uses state-of-the-art technology in jointly overcoming external threats.

NO:
1. Brussel rules over multinational army
- There will never be any situation in which Brussels rules over of multinational battalions and
situations in which Brussel`s GOEBSAND interest are over national interests.

- EU is community of sovereign nations in which every country has own interest and any one
national government will never allow Brussel to command.

2. Weak will to defend itself

- This is demonstrated by deficit sin spending and thinking seriously on defense.
- EU countries have lack of political will and seriousness about defense matters.
3. The EU can not handle existing military resources
- NATO has standard that all members states should spend 2% of their national GDB on defence
spending.

- Statistics from previous years showed that hardly any of European members spend 2% of GDB on
a military.

CONCLUSION:
Proposals reported in May 2016 as `the first step towards an EU army` reffered to a push for
permanent structured cooperation, to be tablet after the UK membership referendum. Some people
would like an EU army, but there are not concrete plans for one. Building an EU army might be
interesting in the long run for some of us, but culturally it will take generations, as the vast majority
does not identify as European at this point. NATO is stability, the EU army is possibility. But possibility
also includes risk and uncertainty, and voters do not like uncertainty, when the issue is security. So
the question about forming an EU army actually stays open.

10. „Brexit“ will happen again: yes or no

INTRODUCTION:
‘Brexit’ is a contraction of ‘British exit’, and it is the word used to define the UK’s departure from the
EU. Since 2016, there has been heated debate from both the remain and leave camps about the best
scenario for Britain moving forwards. In this essay we will see whether another brexit is possible.

YES:
1. Independent seat at the World Trade Organisation
2. More control of laws and regulations
3. Billions of pounds spent in membership fees to the EU every year
NO:
1. European businesses invest billions of pounds in UK every year
2. EU is a 500 million people community
3. Free trade within the EU reduces barriers and enables UK companies to grow
CONCLUSION:
Considering both pros and cons of Brexit from an objective perspective, although it might bring
advantages to Great Britain, it will also cause damage on the economy and growth. It has already
costed Britain a lot of money and resulted in drastical decrease in GBP value. Not only it would be
destructive to Britain’s economy, it would also effect the EU and all of it’s members who are
currently in trading deals with UK.

1. Mandatory national service: yes or no

INTRODUCTION:
Mandatory military service or military conscription is a strategy used by countries to build a
large and powerful military ready to be deployed in times of war or when the need to
protect the sovereignty of the state arises. It is a controversial topic and many objections
have been raised against it on both religious and political grounds. This leads us to the
question: Is compulsory conscription a good thing or a bad thing? Let us take a look at its
pros and cons.
YES:
1. Promotes National Unity
- it allows citizens to learn and train together, creating that shared experience of having served in
the military.

- citizens are able to understand and develop appreciation for the sacrifices that people in the
military made for their country.

2. Can Provide Useful Skills

- life in the military can teach individuals more than how to throw a salute or shoot straight.

- many military volunteers who have pursued a career in the civilian workplace mentioned several
other skills and work-related attitudes that help them well in their job.

- these include teamwork, responsibility, initiative, stress management and so on.

3. Maintain Active Military Force

 - having compulsory conscription to the military means having an active reserve of large body of
armies that is ready to respond quickly and effectively to any threats to national security.

NO:
1. Violates Free Will
- one of the arguments raised against mandatory military service is that it violates people’s rights
to exercise free will.

- no one has the final say whether they should participate or not in the military training and enter
the army since it is a compulsory mandate implemented throughout the country.

2. Put Young People’s Lives at Risk

- though you might not like to think about it, part of the process is risking young people lives at
risk.

- casualties don’t just happen in actual combat or in the battle field but also during training.

3. Not Everyone Is Fit for It

- mandatory military service requires every citizen to join and serve in the armed forces, but not
everyone is cut out for it.

- whether it is mental issue, physical issue, or psychologically issue, not everyone is fit to meet the
physical, mental and emotions demands of the job.

- potentially killing someone is something that every person who was drafted in the military
struggles with in their own way.

CONCLUSION:
Mandatory military service has its advantages and has proven itself valuable in protecting the
sovereignty of the state as well as in expanding its territories. However, its ramifications on the
young people enlisted, the quality of military service, the labor market, the future generations and
the like should be carefully considered.

6. Women in front combat lines: yes or no

INTRODUCTION:
In a time when men and women now have equal opportunities, with both men and women
serving in the Armed Forces, why is it that women are still technically barred from fighting
on the front line? According to a press release, “the department recognizes there are
practical barriers that require time to resolve to ensure the services maximize the safety and
privacy of all service members while maintaining military readiness.”
YES:
1. Equality Between the Sexes
 - women have been fighting for equal rights for many years.

- yet, there is still a dick stigma about them being allowed to fight alongside men on the front line.

- Why? Women are just as intelligent, strong and as capable as men. So why should a persons
gender determine what they can and cannot do?

2. Irrelevant differences
- like any job, soldiers should not be picked for the front line based upon irrelevant differences.

- if a soldier has the physical and mental qualities necessary to handle it, they should be selected.

- many women may not be physically strong enough or emotionally resilient enough to fight on the
front line.

- a lot of men aren't either, it is a tough job, exceptional people are needed.

3. Women are vitally needed for Low-intensity conflicts

- LICs require tasks to “win hearts and minds” such as intelligence gathering, medical assistance,
policing, and mediation, as well as the ability to kill an opponent in close combat.

- cultural differences and demographics mean that woman will be vastly more effective in some
circumstances than men.

- allowing women to serve also doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require
interpersonal skills not every soldier has.

NO:
1. Biological arguments can be enlisted in the case against women in front line combat. Pregnancy is
already a problem in the military, reducing unit readiness. However, if women were to see greater
deployment and presence in the armed forces, it would only worsen the problem.

2. Men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. On the one hand, men are
likely to act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. On the other, this will take the form of
harassment and resentment of women’s presence in a heavily masculine military subculture. As
more women enter the armed services, abuse incidents rise.

3. And while children need fathers a great deal; the need for a mother

trumps the need for a father. It`s a greater tragedy when a mother dies; given her more important
parental role.

CONCLUSION:
However, despite the struggle for equality, many women still find that they thoroughly enjoy their
jobs in the military—and they have continued to serve their country.

TURKEY AS AN EU MEMBER??????????????????????
 YES
1. HISTORY, CULTURE, RELIGION
- Reaching out to this prosperous Muslim democracy would send a clear
signal that Europe is open to the Islamic world. EU membership would be
symbolic of Turkey’s success as a secular Islamic nation and a model for
others from Morocco to Indonesia. Turkey has been fully entwined in
Europe’s history since the Ottomans crossed the Bosporus in the 14th
Century. The country’s westward outlook has accentuated under the
republic since 1922. Turkey’s rich cultural heritage is unique, but it is also
undeniably European. EU membership would be a catalyst for resolving
the Kurdish issue as well as relations with Cyprus and Armenia.
2. GEOGRAPHY
- Istanbul is a great European city that lies at the economic and cultural
heart of Turkey. The country is an invaluable bridge between Europe and
Asia. As a member, it would re-invigorate Europe’s relations with fast
evolving regions like the energy rich Caucasus and Central Asia, to the
new Middle East emerging from the Arab Spring. Turkey’s unique geo-
strategic position, plus the strength of NATO’s second-largest army would
greatly add to European security.
3.

NO
1. POLITICS
- The 2016 coup attempt demonstrates that Turkey is not a mature
European-style democracy. Its politics are a tussle between an overbearing
military and Islamists of varying hues. Human rights are routinely abused.
Dozens of journalists languish in jail. Amnesty International’s annual report
is filled with accounts of torture, free speech violations, denial of minority
rights, unfair trials, failure to protect women. Europe would import the
intractable Kurdish issue. Public opinion in the EU is overwhelmingly
opposed and the Turks are only lukewarm about joining.

8. Restricting citizens` rights is justifiable in the name of national security: yes

or no????????????????????????????????????????????'
INTRODUCTION:
YES:
1.
2.

3.

NO:
1.

2.

3.

CONCLUSION: