Debate is a series of formal spoken arguments for and against a definite proposition.

A proposition is a carefully worded statement that makes clear the positions of both the affirmative and negative sides. Debate differs from discussion. Discussion is the process by which a problem is recognized, defined, and investigated, and then solutions are explored. Debate is the process that evaluates a probable truth, a judgment, a causal relationship, or a single solution. Formal debate In formal debating, the same number of people speak for each side. They have the opportunity to reply directly to opposing speakers. Affirmative and negative speakers usually alternate, and all the speeches are limited in time. In informal (as in conversation) and in legislative debating, though there is the same opportunity to reply to opposing speakers, the speeches are not necessarily limited in time. There may be no attempt to alternate opposing speakers, and the number of speakers on each side may be unequal. Propositions Subjects for debates are expressed in the form of propositions. Propositions should be: (1) Appropriate to the knowledge, experience, and interests of both speakers and audience. (2) Debatable--that is, not obviously true or false. The statements should involve an honest difference of opinion, with arguments and evidence on both sides. (3) Phrased in the affirmative. Positive statements prevent confusion by making the issue clear-cut. (4) Restricted to set forth only one idea. This policy keeps the debate within narrow limits. (5) Worded clearly. The words should be ones that can be defined exactly, so the debate does not become a mere quibble over the meaning of words. There are four kinds of propositions: (1) propositions of fact, (2) propositions of value, (3) propositions of explanation, and (4) propositions of policy. A proposition of fact is a statement to be proven true or false as the evidence is gathered. For example, the proposition, "Resolved, that Main High School will defeat East High School in varsity football next week," is neither true nor false at the present time. After the game, the proposition is no longer debatable. It is a fact that Main High School either won, lost, or tied. Propositions of fact are usually resolved in debate by awarding the decision to the team that presents the best evidence and that establishes probable truth. A proposition of fact is not a fact. Facts are truths proved only through such means as experiment, testing, measurement, or scientific observation. A proposition of value contains a relative term that makes a value judgment. For example, in the proposition, "Resolved, that John Jones did a good job as student council president," the word goodcannot be precisely defined. The meaning of good depends on the value that is given to it. It may have several meanings: (1) John was kind to council members, (2) John was politically successful, (3) John achieved his agenda, or (4) John was moral. In order to debate a value proposition, debaters must define the value term, convince the audience that this definition is reasonable, and apply it to the subject of the proposition (John). A proposition of explanation attempts to determine whether a cause and effect relationship exists between two actions or events. For example, the proposition, "Resolved, that oily rags left in the attic caused the fire," asks whether the rags were a necessary and sufficient factor to produce the fire. A proposition of policy evaluates potential courses of action. It answers the question, "should we change?" A proposition of policy may argue for a new program: "Resolved, that the federal government should finance elementary and secondary public education in the United States." A proposition of policy may want to end a policy: "Resolved, that trial by jury should be eliminated in civil cases." It may also want to substitute one policy for another: "Resolved, that tackle football should be replaced by touch football." Analysis After a subject has been selected and the proposition carefully worded, the next step is analysis of the proposition by both debating teams. Analysis of the proposition begins with a broad understanding of it. As a team member, you should know as much about your opponents' case as you know about your own side. Good debaters study the origin and history of a proposition, define its terms, and survey carefully all the arguments and evidence for and against it. Policy analysis usually follows one of two outlines:" Does a new condition exist in the present system? Is that condition harmful to people or nations? Is the harm significant in scope and/or intensity? Is the present policy the cause of the harm? Can (or will) the present policy solve the harm? Will the proposition solve the harm? Will the proposition produce new harms? " or" Will the proposition create a new situation? Is this new situation advantageous? Are the advantages significant or widespread? Are the advantages unique only to the proposition? Will disadvantages result from adopting the proposition? "

The case Both affirmative and negative sides need to prepare a case. A case is a group of arguments. Two common affirmative cases are the need case and the comparative-advantages case. The need case attempts to show that a significant harm exists, that the present policy either has caused the harm or cannot solve it, and that the action proposed will solve the harm. The comparative-advantages case argues that there is an opportunity for improvement. The affirmative side argues that the action urged in the proposition will yield significant advantages that the present policy cannot produce. The negative approach to the affirmative case may defend the present policy as being good. The negative side may also reject both the present policy and the proposition, and present an alternative. The plan The affirmative side needs to present a workable procedure to put the proposition into effect. Such a procedure usually focuses on four steps: (1) the goal, (2) administration, (3) funding, and (4) enforcement. The negative side usually will raise one or more objections to the plan. Examples are: "The plan will not work." "The plan will not solve the harm." "The plan will create new harms." The issues The chief points of difference between the affirmative and the negative are the main issues. These may have divisions called subordinate issues. There must be a clash of opinion on both the main and the subordinate issues. A good way to help find the issues is to list the opposing arguments in parallel columns. In the subject, "Resolved, that the United States should abolish the Electoral College and adopt a system that would provide for the election of the president by direct popular vote," a listing of opposing arguments might lead to the following two main issues and six subordinate issues:" I. Would electing the president by direct popular vote correct flaws in the present system? A. Would it be more democratic and give each voter an equal voice in choosing the winner? B. Would it assure that the candidate with the most votes is elected? C. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, would this system reduce the chances of political deals and an electoral crisis? II. Would electing the president by direct popular vote have disadvantages? A. Would it weaken the power of the small states and threaten the federal system? B. Would it encourage the formation of small political parties and make it difficult for the winner to receive a majority of the votes? C. Would it reduce the power of minority groups to influence an election? " The evidence After the issues have been determined, the next step for the debaters is to find the evidence that will prove the issue true or false. Evidence can be in the form of factual evidence or testimonial evidence.Factual evidence consists of current and historical examples (true incidents), statistics, physical evidence, and facts. Testimonial evidence consists of opinions of experts on the subject being debated. To evaluate testimonial evidence, the debater should ask: "Is this authority an expert and, thus, in a position to know the truth?" and "Is this authority biased, and, thus, in any position to tell the truth?" Rebuttal Next, the debaters must select the arguments and evidence of their opponents that they believe can be successfully attacked. Finally, they must prepare their own arguments and evidence that will be used in the attack. Format In the traditional form of debate, there are two speakers on each side, each of whom makes both aconstructive speech and a rebuttal speech. The speaking order is:" Constructive speeches (10 minutes each) 1. First affirmative 2. First negative 3. Second affirmative 4. Second negative Rebuttal speeches (5 minutes each) 1. First negative 2. First affirmative 3. Second negative 4. Second affirmative" Another type of debate is the cross-examination form, which was developed at the University of Oregon. Each constructive speaker is cross-examined by an opposing speaker. The speaking order is:" Constructive speeches (8 minutes) and Cross-examinations (3 minutes) 1. First affirmative 2. Cross-examination by second negative 3. First negative 4. Cross-examination by first affirmative 5. Second affirmative 6. Cross-examination by first negative 7. Second negative 8. Cross-examination by second affirmative Rebuttal speeches (4 minutes) 1. First negative 2. First affirmative 3. Second negative 4. Second affirmative"

PRINCIPLES Principles of Personal Ethics

Personal ethics might also be called morality, since they reflect general expectations of any person in any society, acting in any capacity. These are the principles we try to instill in our children, and expect of one another without needing to articulate the expectation or formalize it in any way. Principles of Personal Ethics include: Concern for the well-being of others Respect for the autonomy of others Trustworthiness & honesty Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience) Basic justice; being fair Refusing to take unfair advantage Benevolence: doing good Preventing harm Principles of Professional Ethics Individuals acting in a professional capacity take on an additional burden of ethical responsibility. For example, professional associations have codes of ethics that prescribe required behavior within the context of a professional practice such as medicine, law, accounting, or engineering. These written codes provide rules of conduct and standards of behavior based on the principles of Professional Ethics, which include: Impartiality; objectivity Openness; full disclosure Confidentiality Due diligence / duty of care Fidelity to professional responsibilities Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest Even when not written into a code, principles of professional ethics are usually expected of people in business, employees, volunteers, elected representatives and so on. Principles of Global Ethics Global ethics are the most controversial of the three categories, and the least understood. Open to wide interpretation as to how or whether they should be applied, these principles can sometimes generate emotional response and heated debate. Principles of Global Ethics include: Global justice (as reflected in international laws) Society before self / social responsibility Environmental stewardship Interdependence & responsibility for the whole Reverence for place Each of us influences the world by simply existing; and it is always wise to think globally. An added measure of accountability is placed on globally influential enterprises such as governments and transnational corporations. (Responsibility comes with power whether we accept it or not.) One of the burdens of leadership is to influence society and world affairs in a positive way. Can a person, nation or company truly be successful while causing human suffering or irreparable environmental damage? A more modern and complete model of success also considers impact on humanity and the earths ecology. Co-existence of Principles Principles can only provide guidance. There are a myriad of situations that will never lend themselves to an easy formula, and the principles can only be used to trigger our conscience or guide our decisions. (As stated earlier, they are also useful for ethics education.) It is important to note that principles of personal ethics are the first checkpoint in any situation, often overriding those at the professional and global levels. For example, when judging if a corporation has been socially responsible, we still need to consider principles of personal ethics as prerequisites. Contributions to charities and the like (doing good) may appear to be in the interests of society, but loses its significant if the corporation has not also taken responsibility to

minimize the damage done by their core business operations (preventing harm). Similarly, trustworthiness is fundamental to professionalism, and so on. As well, there are many times when principles will collide with other principles. Lets say you are a scientist who has been coerced by a corrupt military dictatorship into designing a biological weapon. Since the project is top secret, you have a professional duty to maintain confidentiality. But if there were an opportunity to inform United Nations observers, global and personal principles would justify divulging confidential information to protect the overall good of humanity. (Compare this to selling confidential information for personal gain.) Still, the scientist is faced with a tough decision since they or their family could be harmed as a result of the whistleblowing. This is where the principles must be viewed in the context of universality. Principles versus Absolute Rules and Universality It is tempting to apply these principles selectively, or only within set boundaries, such as next-of-kin, countrymen, race, gender, etc. This is called cronyism. For example, I'm half Sicilian and also related to Gypsies. The Mafia will engage in despicable acts, but have a rigid code of honor within their own 'family'. Trustworthiness is highly valued, and they have a strong (but perverse) sense of justice. Many a gypsy will have no qualms about picking your pocket, but would never pick mine since I'm a relative. Limiting the application of ethical principles negates their value. They must all be applied to everyone. There are also selective violations of the principles that society considers acceptable. Murder is illegal, unless we are fighting a (just) war. Lying is wrong, unless we are telling a child about Santa Claus, or saving them from harm. And so on. These interpretive variations cause people to conclude that there are no universal standards for ethics, and that moral responsibility is relative to cultural practices. This is a dangerous conclusion that relieves us of any responsibility other than what we choose in our own interests, what has been dictated by the rules of our faiths or governments, our personal values, or the local status quo. As generic principles, these can be practiced in many different ways. For example, virtually all cultures value trustworthiness; but they have different views on truth telling. This is illustrated by Eastern vs. Western preferred values for harmony vs. forthrightness. An Asian being polite to maintain friendly relations may be perceived by an American as deceitful, although that is not the case. Both cultures agree in principle that deceit is unethical and trustworthiness is ethical, but misunderstandings can arise when the underlying principle is embodied in diverse ways that reflect different cultural values and virtues. Morality can never be distilled into a universally acceptable list of absolute rules (even killing can be justified, vis. a sniper who refuses to negotiate). These principles are simply recurring patterns of ethically responsible behavior that our conscience can use as landmarks. he principle of universal human rights ought to take precedence over conflicting national interest.
EUTHANASIA

Background and context

Assisted Suicide, also called Voluntary Euthanasia, is currently a contentious issue in many countries. The question in the debate is this: if a terminally ill person decides that they wish to end their life, is it acceptable for others to assist them? This would normally take the form of a doctor administering a lethal injection, which would end their life painlessly. A clear distinction must be made with involuntary euthanasia, by which someone is put down against their wishes, and which is simply murder by another name. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is illegal in most countries around the world. In the United States, Dr Jack Kervorkian nicknamed Doctor Death for his actions beliefs has campaigned for a change in the law for many years, and assisted in the suicide of at least 45 people. He was found guilty of second degree murder and imprisoned in 1999 after a widely publicized trial. He was released on June 1, 2007, on parole due to good behavior. Those that practice euthanasia continue to risk charges of murder and prison sentences. However, in Oregon and California, state legislation has been passed to allow for euthanasia in special circumstances and within a heavy regulatory framework in which third party ethicists attempt to ensure the appropriateness of euthanasia cases. Euthanasia is legal in a few modern democracies: the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland. In the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia has been legal since 1983, with some 3,000 people requesting it each year. In Australia,

assisted suicide was legalised in the Northern Territory with the backing of a substantial majority of the local population, but was then overthrown by the Federal Senate before anyone could actually use the new law. This debate revolves around numerous questions: Is euthanasia an appropriate response to the excruciating pain of terminally ill patients who desire to die? Or, is euthanasia never justified? Is it appropriate for governments to effectively force people to live through their pain by denying them the right to euthanasia? Are there sufficient pain medications in existence to override concerns surrounding pain? Is this an insufficient solution because it simply puts people in a "drugged state"? Do people general have a right to die or to commit suicide? Does the government have a compelling interest to stop them? Is the "sanctity of life" a sufficient reason to stop them? Does euthanasia violate the "sanctity of life"? Do exceptions exist to the "sanctity of life" in which it is acceptable to end life prematurely? Does the government have the right to define the "sanctity of life" or should individuals and families be able to make their own determination about when life is "sacred" and when it may cease to be? Does criminalizing euthanasia violate the notion of "equal protection" by enabling those on life-support to withdraw support and effectively commit suicide, while denying persons with terminal illnesses, but whom aren't on life support, an opportunity to die quickly? Are non-treatment approaches to speeding death, such as "pulling the tubes", justified? Or, do they needlessly subject patients to pain that could otherwise be prevented through euthanasia? Is euthanasia "unnatural" or not "how God intended" death to occur? Do doctors have a right to assist in euthanasia (assisted suicide)? Or does this give them too much power? Are doctors sufficiently trained in administering euthanasia? Is it their place to do so? Or, does the Hippocratic Oath restrict them from this practice? What is the role of physicians? Are they healers only? Or can they participate in decisions regarding ending a life? Is it reasonable to place these burdens on doctors? Does it traumatize them? Do the families of terminally-ill loved ones have an interest in euthanasia? Do they appear to support it? Would the legalization of euthanasia allow greater family awareness and involvement in any choice? Will families abuse euthanasia, possibly pressuring their loved ones to pursue the option out of a selfish desire to avoid the burden of caring for him or her until death. Can third-party regulators help reduce the risk of these abuses occurring? Are wider abuses a significant concern surrounding euthanasia? Would the legalization of the practice open a slippery slope to abuses? Will doctors begin pressuring individuals to commit suicide (euthanasia)? Will doctors make moves to euthanise the disabled? Will doctors aggressively implement involuntary euthanasia? Will regulations be capable of constraining a slippery slope from developing? Can appropriate criteria be created for eligibility for euthanasia, and can those criteria be regulated and enforced? Are the poor at risk simply because they are less able to afford health care, which may give an incentive to health care providers to euthanize an individual in order to cut costs? Will euthanasia become a cynical option for insurance companies to cut costs? Or, is it a legitimate consideration that euthanasia may reduce health care costs? Will it reduce the incentive of doctors to provide strong palliative care, causing them to ask, "what's the point if we have euthanasia"?

Background and context

Many countries restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. For example, convicted prisoners are automatically banned from voting in Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania, Russia and the United Kingdom. In Australia, prisoners are only entitled to vote if they are serving a sentence of less than three years. Only two US states (Maine and Vermont) permit prisoners to vote, although Utah and Massachusetts also did so until 1998 and 2000 respectively. In France and Germany, courts have the power to deprive people of voting rights as an additional punishment, but this is not automatic.

CRIMINALS RIGHT TO VOTE

Eighteen European states, including Spain, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, place no formal prohibition on prisoners voting. In practice, however, it is often difficult for prisoners in some of these countries to vote: in the Republic of Ireland, prisoners have the right to be registered to vote in their home constituency, but have no right to either a postal vote or to be released to cast a vote at a ballot box. Since 1999, South Africa has had no restrictions on the right of prisoners to vote. Canadas Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that prisoners should not be denied the right to vote; the first federal election in which Canadian prisoners in federal jails (generally those serving sentences of two years or more) were permitted to vote was in 2004. The issue is particularly controversial in the United Kingdom and the USA. In April 2001, the British High Court rejected a case brought by John Hirst (a man serving a life sentence for manslaughter), who argued that the ban on prisoners voting was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Courts Grand Chamber rejected the

British governments appeal in October 2005. As of June 2006, however, there has been no change in UK law on the matter. Much controversy in the USA results from the fact that, in some states, people who have been in prison are banned from voting for the rest of their lives, even after they have fully served their sentences. This is especially controversial in Florida, given the closeness of the 2000 presidential election result there and the fact that a disproportionately large number of ex-convicts are black or Hispanic (statistically, more likely to be Democrat voters). One in forty Americans of voting age are ineligible to vote because they are, or have been, in prison. The arguments below relate directly to whether those currently serving prison sentences should be allowed to vote, but could readily be adjusted for a debate about whether ex-convicts should have this right.

Rights: Do prisoners have a "right" to vote?

Yes
Prisoners retain many rights, including the right to voteWe should
respect their human rights and should infringe upon their liberty as little as possible, except for the protection of the public. Voting Rights of Prisoners. Australian Democrats Action Plan. "Prisoners do not lose all their rights in prison, only some of them. Other rights are inalianable and are guaranteed by international and domestic law." National Voter Registration Act of 1993. U.S. Congress. October, 1998 "The Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right."[1]

No

Voting is a privilege (not right) that criminals fairly lose.The

clearest indication that voting is a privilege and not a right is the fact that minors cannot vote. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the state to deprive criminals of their voting privileges.

If minors have no right to vote neither should prisonersNot

all citizens have the right to vote. Only trusted members of society have a right to vote. Indeed, minors are not yet fully trusted members of society, given that they are not yet mature enough. This is why they can't vote. With this precedent in mind, it is appropriate to conclude that prisoners should also not be able to vote. They have

Prisoners have a right to express interests through voting The

needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding and abuse by warders are not treated seriously as political issues, since those most directly affected cannot vote and the public generally has little interest in prisoners well-being.

demonstrated that they are not responsible enough to vote. If this was deemed unreasonable, we would really have to re-do the voting age.

Only qualified citizens have a equal "right" to vote.Alexander

v Mineta, U.S. Supreme Court. October 16, 2000. - "The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but

Prisoners must be able to influence world they will reenter. Prisoners should also have the opportunity to influence the formation of policy on healthcare, education, the environment and all the other issues that affect the world into which almost all of them will some day be released.

rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote."[2]

Criminals forfeit the right to vote When a citizen breaks the

laws of the state, they forfeit many of the rights and protections of the state, including the right to vote.

There is no state interest in denying prisoners a voteDepriving a

citizen of a right requires a compelling state interest. But there is no solid one for depriving them of a right to vote. The primary purpose of sending a criminal to prison is to punish them and to protect society from their criminal acts. Depriving them of the right to vote cannot be said to be a serious part of either of these main reasons for sending a criminal to prison. Taking away someone's freedom of movement is sufficient punishment; depriving them of a vote is excessive punishment. Preventing them from committing another crime is sufficient protection for society; protecting society from a prisoner's vote/opinion is a rediculous notion.

Criminals, unfit to participate in society, are unfit to vote.UK

Shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said in 2001, "The courts have ruled that convicted prisoners, many of them dangerous, cannot be allowed to take part in normal society. How, therefore, can it be sensible to give them a say in how that society should be run?"[3]

Prisoners lose freedom; what's so important about losing

vote. "Do Criminals Have The Right To Vote?" Thoughts on Freedom, Australian Libertarian Society - "If we are all agreed that convicted felons should have their right to liberty temporarily removed, then why are we so anxious about protecting their right to vote (a far lesser right than liberty)?"

We cannot assume that they do not wish to vote. While many

prisoners may not wish to vote we cannot assume this goes for the entire prisoner population. It is their right to have the option of voting and the choice of whether or not to use it.

Most prisoners don't care about voting Jonathan Aitken.

"Prisoners don't care about their right to vote". Telegraph. 15 Dec. 2006 - "I can offer some well-informed guesses about how my old cellmates in HMP Belmarsh might react to the news that their

Christmas present from Brussels is to be a new right to put their crosses on ballot papers from behind bars. Indifference, incomprehension or dismissive expletives would be their likely responses."

Prisoners interests are represented by NGOs and others.

These entities ensure that prisoners are not ill-treated. Prisoners do not deserve any further representation.

Prisoners deserve voting privileges only when they act

responsibly. Prisoners can only be given the rights of members of society when they are deemed capable of acting as responsible members of society.

Democracy: Does prisoner voting uphold democratic practices?

Yes
Allowing prisoner voting respects democratic practices.Even
governments can choose to rule that prisoners forfeit their right to vote or deserve the punishment of being deprived their vote, we should ask, "what's the higher road?". In terms of democracy, the higher road is to extend the vote to all citizens, including citizens that have commited crimes and are imprisoned (they are still citizens). This is the higher ground.

No

Prisoner voting would cheapen the votes of

citizens.Canadian Alliance MP Vic Toews said that the 2002 Canadian Supreme Court decision in favor of prisoner voting "cheapens everyone's vote."[5]

Prisoner voting would demean the entire electoral

system. The electoral system is based on a society's collective sense of respect for the law, citizenship, and democratic processes. These are precisely the values that felons have flaunted. In this way, offering them a right to vote demeans the entire spirit of the electoral system.

Depriving prisoners a vote wrongly disenfranchises themThe

Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the infringement of prisoner voting rights did not meet the test for what's considered "reasonable." Justice McLachlin wrote, "The wholesale disenfranchisement of all penitentiary inmates, even with a two-year minimum requirement, is not demonstrably justified in our free and democratic society."[4]

Prisoner voting would undermine the public's sense of

justice UK attorney general Dominic Grieve said: "If convicted rapists and murderers are given the vote it will bring the law into disrepute and many people will see it as making a mockery of justice".[6] Even worse, it would insult the victims of crime.

Banning prisoners serving 6-month sentences from voting is

unhelpful. Daniel Machover. "Prisoners too should voteToday's agenda". The Guardian. May 11, 2001 - "Did you want the disaffected 18-year-old in your street, now serving a six-month sentence for criminal damage, to lose the right to vote in the present general election (the first one he or she can vote in), so that he or she feels even more alienated and disengaged from society on being released from custody? Wouldn't it be better if politicians canvassed such young people while in custody, to encourage them to feel that they have a stake in society and invite them to think about the political process itself?"

Felons have bad judgement so should not help elect

representatives Tucker Carlson, MSNBC News Commentator. "The Situation with Tucker Carlson". June 26, 2006. - "Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives. If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why do we want people with that judgment picking our representatives?"[7]

Prisoners should have very right to make a decision based on

their own morals . Part of the freedom of this country is the freedom to choose based on personal moral ethics. Several debates have been held discussing whether or not people should take a test to decide

whether or not they are aware enough of the issues to make their choice. However this debate has been won a hundred times over based on the fact that people have the right to make decisions based on their own reasoning. If that reasoning is sufficient is a matter of personal opinion, something that has no place in our legal system.

Discrimination: Does depriving prisoners of a vote discriminate?

Yes
Depriving prisoners a vote continues legacy of
disenfranchisement Te-Ping Chen and Maggie Williams. "Keeping Felons from Voting". July 9, 2007 - "Last month, the New York State Assembly unanimously passed a bill expressing regret for New Yorks role in the slave trade. The move was a recognition of the states history as much as it was an apology. A lot of people dont even think slavery happened here, said its prime sponsor, Assemblymember Keith Wright of Manhattan. But it did. Slavery was not simply a Southern affair. Neither were the laws used to keep former slaves and their descendants from the polls. Today, New Yorks laws depriving some people with felony convictions of their right to vote serve as an ongoing, painful reminder of that legacy."

No

Depriving prisoners a vote "disenfranchises" only because

more minorities are felons. Edward Feser, Ph.D. Instructor, Pasadena City College. "Should Felons Vote?". City Journal. Spring, 2005. - "The frequently heard charge is that disenfranchising felons is racist because the felon population is disproportionately black. But the mere fact that blacks make up a lopsided percentage of the nation's prison population doesn't prove that racism is to blame. Is the mostly male population of the prisons evidence of reverse sexism? Of course not: men commit the vast majority of serious crimes - a fact no one would dispute - and that's why there are lots more of them than women behind bars. Regrettably, blacks also commit a disproportionate number of felonies, as victim surveys show. In any case, a felon either deserves his punishment or not, whatever his race. If he does, it may also be that he deserves disenfranchisement. His race, in both cases, is irrelevant."[8]

Punishment: Is it wrong to punish prisoners by depriving vote?

Yes
Depriving prisoners of a vote exceeds judge's punishment. Voting
Rights of Prisoners. Australian Democrats Action Plan. - "As part of their citizenship, convicted persons in detention should be entitled to vote. To deny them this is to impose an additional penalty on top of that judged appropriate by the court."

No

Prisoners are rightly punished by denying their vote They are

shut away not only to protect society, but also to symbolise societys disgust at their acts. Although prisoners are no longer executed in many jurisdictions, the idea of civic death is that they lose the rights of citizens without dying in a literal sense. Those who offend against the common good of society should have no right to contribute to the

A right to vote hardly diminishes a prisoner's sentence.Even with

the right to vote, more fundamental freedoms would continue to be deprived from a prisoner (most importantly, their physical freedom of movement). In general, therefore, offering the right to vote to prisoners hardly diminishes the principal forfeitures of these citizenprisoners or the punishment they incur for their crimes. It is, therefore, an unnecessary and excessive punishment or forfeiture to deprive them of their right to vote.

governance of society. They can only be readmitted to society, both physically and in terms of their rights, when they have made amends to society by serving their sentence.

Depriving prisoners of a vote is simply mean spirited.Surely, we

should punish criminals. But, depriving prisoners of the right to vote goes beyond reasonable punishment (physical imprisonment itself is

very hard on a person) and into the realm of mean spiritedness. Particularly in societies where rehabilitation is an objective, such mean spiritedness is counter-productive.

Rehabilitation: Does prisoner voting help in rehabilitation?

Yes
Prisoner voting offers dignity, aids rehabilitation This is essential
if they are to avoid re-offending after being released. Denying prisoners the vote implies that they are sub-human: this damages their dignity and sense of self-worth, undermining efforts to help them control their behaviour. Arne Peltz, a lawyer defending Canada's inmates in the 2002 supreme court case on the matter, said, "There will be a little more dignity in prison and I think over time that will help reduce crime over the long term."

No

Prisoner voting undermines punishment and so

rehabilitation. Rehabilitation should focus upon making prisoners realise and sincerely regret the effects of their actions. It should not aim to give them a feeling of dignity or the illusion that they are full members of society.

Punishment, not rehabilitation, is the objective in prisons.

Rehabilitation is main goal (not punishment); voting

helps Rehabilitation is the main goal in the prison systems of modern, liberal democracies. Punishment is seen less and less as the objective of the prison system, or at least it is less important than rehabilitation. Therefore, if offering voting rights to prisoners helps in rehabilitation, this benefit outweights any concerns surrounding it "weakening the punishment of prison".

Voting offers prisoners a sense of citizenship,

reintegration Voting encourages prisoners to take an interest in current affairs, which will aid their reintegration into society. Where prisoners are allowed to vote, they are usually required to vote in their home constituency, to avoid several hundred inmates in one jail causing a sudden swing in the constituency in which the jail is sited. This encourages them to take an interest in the particular community from which they came and into which they will probably be released.

Taxes: Does principle of no taxation without representation apply?

Yes
The state is hypocritical in taxing prisoners but not giving them a
vote. Prisoners are not treated as civically dead when it benefits the State: they are liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. There should be no taxation without representation.

No

Few prisoners earn enough to be liable for taxation.

The right to vote does not follow from the obligation to pay

taxes. In many countries, people start earning money and paying tax before they are old enough to vote (particularly if they leave school as soon as they are allowed to do so). This implies that the right to vote is given to those who can be expected to use it responsibly. Those convicted of serious enough crimes to be imprisoned have shown that they have no respect for society. They therefore cannot be trusted to vote responsibly in the interests of society.

Safety: Would prisoner voting maintain public safety?

Yes
Denying prisoners the right to vote does not protect the public. It
is, therefore, an unwarranted infringement upon the human rights of prisoners.

No

Criminals, dangerous to society, pose a threat with their

vote. UK Shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said in 2001, "The courts have ruled that convicted prisoners, many of them dangerous, cannot be allowed to take part in normal society. How, therefore, can it be sensible to give them a say in how that society should be run?"[9]

Deterrence: Denying prisoners a vote does not deter crime?

Yes
Prospect of losing voting rights does not deter crimePeople are
deterred from committing crimes by the prospects of their movement being restricted and of being separated from loved ones. The effectiveness of a sentence can be measured by how well it protects the public, how well it rehabilitates the offender, how well it reverses the effects of the crime committed and how well it deters future offending. Banning prisoners from voting is either counterproductive (i.e. in terms of rehabilitation) or has no positive effect. Other factors include the fact that those that commit crimes are less likely to vote in the first place, so it's not really a punishment to deprive them of a vote. Second, the low visibility of the fact that imprisonment entails the loss of voting rights means that few will even consider that their crime will lead to this consequence.

No

Denying felons a vote sends a strong message, deters

crime Banning prisoners from voting is one part of a package of measures that exclude prisoners from normal society, the most obvious of which are restrictions on movement, communication and employment. By itself, a ban on voting may have minimal deterrent effect. As part of this package of measures, however, it sends out a strong signal of societys revulsion at those who commit crime, thereby discouraging lawbreaking.

GENETIC ENGINEERING

Genetic Engineering Advantages & Disadvantages

During the latter stage stages of the 20th century, man harnessed the power of the atom, and not long after, soon realised the power of genes. Genetic engineering is going to become a very mainstream part of our lives sooner or later, because there are so many possibilities advantages (and disadvantages) involved. Here are just some of the advantages :

Disease could be prevented by detecting people/plants/animals that are genetically prone to certain hereditary diseases, and preparing for the inevitable. Also, infectious diseases can be treated by implanting genes that code for antiviral proteins specific to each antigen. Animals and plants can be 'tailor made' to show desirable characteristics. Genes could also be manipulated in trees for example, to 2 absorb more CO and reduce the threat of global warming. Genetic Engineering could increase genetic diversity, and produce more variant alleles which could also be crossed over and implanted into other species. It is possible to alter the genetics of wheat plants to grow insulin for example. Of course there are two sides to the coin, here are some possible eventualities and disadvantages.

Nature is an extremely complex inter-related chain consisting of many species linked in the food chain. Some scientists believe that introducing genetically modified genes may have an irreversible effect with consequences yet unknown. Genetic engineering borderlines on many moral issues, particularly involving religion, which questions whether man has the right to manipulate the laws and course of nature. Genetic engineering may be one of the greatest breakthroughs in recent history alongside the discovery of the atom and space flight, however, with the above eventualities and facts above in hand, governments have produced legislation to control what sort of experiments are done involving genetic engineering. In the UK there are strict laws prohibiting any experiments involving the cloning of humans. However, over the years here are some of the experimental 'breakthroughs' made possible by genetic engineering.

At the Roslin Institute in Scotland, scientists successfully cloned an exact copy of a sheep, named 'Dolly'. This was the first successful cloning of an animal, and most likely the first occurrence of two organisms being genetically identical. Note : Recently the sheep's health has deteriorated detrimentally Scientists successfully manipulated the genetic sequence of a rat to grow a human ear on its back. (Unusual, but for the purpose of reproducing human organs for medical purposes) Most controversially, and maybe due to more liberal laws, an American scientist is currently conducting tests to clone himself. Genetic engineering has been impossible until recent times due to the complex and microscopic nature of DNA and its component nucleotides. Through progressive studies, more and more in this area is being made possible, with the above examples only showing some of the potential that genetic engineering shows. For us to understand chromosomes and DNA more clearly, they can be mapped for future reference. More simplistic organisms such as fruit fly (Drosophila) have been chromosome mapped due to their simplistic nature meaning they will require less genes to operate. At present, a task named the Human Genome Project is mapping the human genome, and should be completed in the next ten years. The process of genetic engineering involves splicing an area of a chromosome, a gene, that controls a certain characteristic of the body. The enzyme endonuclease is used to split a DNA sequence and split the gene from the rest of the chromosome. For example, this gene may be programmed to produce an antiviral protein. This gene is removed and can be placed into another organism. For example, it can be placed into a bacteria, where it is sealed into the DNA chain using ligase. When the chromosome is once again sealed, the bacteria is now effectively re-programmed to replicate this new antiviral protein. The bacteria can continue to live a healthy life, though genetic engineering and human intervention has actively manipulated what the bacteria actually is. No doubt there are advantages and disadvantages, and this whole subject area will become more prominent over time.

The Gene Pool and Speciation

We have already discussed some of the reasons why the genetics of a species can change over a long period of time. Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species went into great depth in this matter, and providing substance into the theory of evolution. The key thing to remember about evolution is that it favours more preferable genes in the gene pool, and over time, these preferable characteristics become more exclusive in the gene pool. This next section rounds up all the factors that can alter the make up of a gene pool

Natural Selection
Natural selection will favour genes that are more suited to their environment and become more exclusive in the gene pool over time in such an environment. Different genes will become more exclusive when the environment changes, or the species migrate.

Mutation
Mutations are random occurrences which change the genome of an organism. They greatly increase genetic diversity, where advantageous mutations are favoured by natural selection and disadvantageous ones are phased out.

Gene Migration
Occurs after genetic drift, where two groups of a species become separated and therefore cannot reproduce. The gene pool of these groups differ over time. If these two groups can once again meet up and reproduce, their genetic differences can be merged within the single group and increase genetic diversity.

Non-Random Mating
Can cause in-breeding depression by continuous inbreeding, non-random mating is also known as selective breeding, where the breakthroughs of Mendelian genetics have allowed us to predetermine what genes are present in offspring. As advantageous genes are desired by the breeder, some of the less 'popular' genes are lost due to this random mating, therefore decreasing genetic diversity. It is important for a species to have a large gene pool, because in the event of danger, some alleles will allow the species to survive and reproduce to produce a larger and more variant gene pool. For example, an extremely contagious disease may threaten 99% of a species, though the remaining 1% may possess an allele that provides them with resistance to the disease. If this allele was not present in the population, then chances are the entire population would be wiped out

Genetic Drift
Sometimes, species can be split into groups, usually as a result of a geographical factor preventing the two groups from contacting one another. This means that the two groups are unable to reproduce with one another. As the two groups now live in different environments, natural selection will favour slightly different genes in each of the groups that will favour them in their particular environment. Over time, the difference in gene pool between the two groups can be quite dramatic. If these two groups once again become re-united, gene migration occurs (see above). If they remain seperated, their genetic differences become greater which can result in the formation of a new species.

Speciation
When the genetic differences become so great, it can come to the stage where the two groups can no longer reproduce with one another. This results in the formation of a new species (because organisms who are capable of reproducing but cant reproduce with a member of the same species are deemed another species). Long ago, the land of Earth was all on one continent. Over time these continents separated, with members of the same species drifting away on each continent. Over time, speciation has occurred. This is evident by looking at the marsupials of Australia, who have been isolated from other mammals in their ancestral line, and therefore have many differences to that of mammals on other continents.

Adaptive Radiation
Adaptive radiation is the slow change of genotype and phenotype of a species from its common ancestor, meaning that species with a common ancestor become more diversified over time.

WRONGFULLY CONVICTED Should wrongfully convicted prisoners be compensated for?

i was recently watching a program which depicted a story of a woman murderd, and her husband prosecuted and convicted for her death. i believe it was mid 70's, prior to the use of DNA in criminal cases. he apparantly served 16 1/2 years (of his 15 years - life sentence) when additional information prompted authorities to re-open and reinvestigate the case. they were actually able to use the original evidence, and perform DNA testing on it, which then exonerated the husband from the wifes murder. after doing some *googling* i was pretty horrified to see just how common this is thru-out the world, not just in the good ol' US. it's the one reason that has always kept me *on the fence* about the death penalty. so what should be done after a person is wrongfully convicted and spends the better part of their life in jail? should there be some sort of compensation from the gov't? or do you think the fact that they were "clothed and fed" for 25 years is enough? in my search, i actually came across an article ( i believe it was a UK paper) where a wrongfully convicted man was going to be charged to cover the costs that the state had paid to sustain him in jail. here's a part of the article from the man:

I was a hostage, now they are billing me ROBERT Brown was just a 19-year-old from Glasgow when he was jailed for life for murdering a woman called Annie Walsh in Manchester in 1977. He served 25 years before he was finally freed in 2002, when the courts ruled him innocent of the crime.

He is now facing a bill of around 80,000 for the living expenses he cost the state. For Brown, it is the final straw. An interim payment he was given pending his full compensation offer is exhausted; his mother recently died; his relationship with his girlfriend has fallen apart and he is facing eviction from his home following a mix-up over benefits. I feel like ending my life, he says. Ive tried to maintain my dignity, but the state has treated me with nothing but contempt now they are asking me for money for my bed and board in jail. I never contemplated suicide once while I was in prison, but its different on the outside. I have received no counselling or support. Society is treating me like something youd wipe off the bottom of your shoes, but Im an innocent man and a victim of a terrible injustice. Its horrific. Ive been out of jail for 14 months and in that time the state has put me through a war of attrition that

it never needed to conduct. I feel my life is disintegrating around me. Making me pay for my bed and board is abhorrent. I was arrested, fitted up and held hostage for 25 years and now they are going to charge me for being kept as their prisoner against my will. Can you think of a more disgusting way to abuse someone? I really feel that my heart is truly and finally broken. 14 March 2004 __________________

When Michael Graham walked off Louisiana's Death Row after 14 years cleared of two murders he always said he did not commit he got the same thing the guilty departing prisoners got: 10 bucks and a coat. "Talk about a crime? That's a crime," says John Holdridge, the lawyer who saved Graham's life by proving his innocence. Graham was convicted of the two murders when he was barely out of his teens. Fourteen years later, his lawyers proved that prosecutors relied on witnesses they had every reason to know were untruthful. Now, Holdridge is trying to help Graham get a lot more than $10 for those years. He thinks the state of Louisiana owes Graham not only money, but a another look at the death penalty. In Texas, attorney Randy Schaeffer is fighting a similar battle for Anthony Robinson, who served 10 years in prison after he was wrongfully convicted of rape. "Sometimes I'll wake up in the middle of the night and I have to get up and walk around to make sure I'm not still in the cage," says Robinson, who had never been in trouble with the law before. "I had worked very hard to escape the confines of being raised in the ghetto," says Robinson, who graduated from a top college and served in the military. "You finally get out and you say, 'OK, I made it through' and then all of a sudden someone says, 'No you didn't.'" Wrongly identified as a rapist by a white woman in 1986, his dreams vanished. It wasn't until after he had served 10 years in prison and was released that Robinson was able to prove with DNA testing that he was innocent. Compensation Programs: How Much Is Enough? Graham, Robinson and hundreds of others wrongly imprisoned say society has to at least try to make up the years to them not just the years spent in a locked cell, but also the years they missed with their families, once-in-alifetime events that can never be recaptured. How much were those years worth? And after so many years behind bars, their lives forever changed, should they be compensated monetarily? "There's talk of compensation," says Robinson. "There's recognition that you've lost something. Not that we put you in a cage and released you, but you've actually lost something." Defense attorney Barry Scheck, a pioneer in using DNA to free innocent people says that over the last 10 years, 50 innocent people have been released from death row alone. Most were set free with no compensation. "Everybody's thinking: 'Oh, they spill hot coffee on you at McDonald's, and you can recover money. So certainly if you were wrongfully convicted and spent all these horrible years in jail, you're going to get a lot of money.' Well you don't," says Scheck. Fourteen states do have compensation programs. For example, in North Carolina, the state will pay $10,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment up to $150,000. Wisconsin pays $5,000 a year up to $25,000. In Texas, the limit is $25,000; for Robinson that means $2,500 for every year of his life spent in prison. Robinson's lawyer, Schaeffer, thinks that sum of money is inadequate and that $500,000 would be a more reasonable sum. "If you were locked up for the weekend wrongly, you'd probably take $25,000 to settle it," he says. "[But] if you were locked up for a decade, you certainly wouldn't take it. I guess at the time the law was enacted 35 years ago, $25,000 probably was a lot of money. But today it won't get you far."

Schaeffer has two suggestions for how to come up with a suitable compensation package. "You either have to allow a lawsuit to be filed and let a jury decide the number, as it does in virtually every other type of case," he says. "Alternatively, you'd probably have to find a number based on the amount of time served instead of a flat number that would give the same amount to somebody that wrongly served a month as opposed to somebody that wrongly served 17 years." The money, he says, is not merely to compensate for what the person was deprived in a paycheck. "I think if you've lost the right to have a family, to go free in the world, and you're put in a cell every night and treated like a rapist, the damages for that are worth more than not being able to go to work every day from 9 to 5." Is the State to Blame? Louisiana state Sen. Jay Dardenne opposes the idea of legislation to compensate people for wrongful convictions and years in prison. "A jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual should be convicted," he says, based on the evidence available at that time. So, if a ruling is later overturned because of DNA evidence that was not previously available, this "does not suggest to me that the state was somehow wrong or at fault." Even in cases like Graham's, where prosecutors committed misconduct, Dardenne does not think taxpayers should pay. Instead, he thinks Graham should sue the prosecutor. "There is a civil remedy in place in Louisiana against a prosecutor who takes such reprehensible action," says Dardenne. "The wrongfully incarcerated individual has a right to go to court and seek monetary damages," he says. "If the prosecutor acted wrongly, that's where the fault should lie." But Scheck says suing the prosecutor is a bad idea that almost never works. "There is a very very narrow class of cases where you can succeed," he says. Such cases are rare instances where you can prove "bad faith misconduct by a police officer or a prosecutor in the investigatory stage which led to the arrest or the indictment but everybody else who can't fit into that very narrow category, can't pass through the eye of that needle out of luck. That's not right." Scheck adds, "You can't sweep these people under the rug. Because their suffering is too great. Their moral lesson is going to be heard."

FAMILY
FACTS ABOUT THE AMERICAN FAMILY 1. Departures from the normal nuclear family are now 75% of the American population. 2. Persons living alone account for 1/4 of American households. 3. At least 14% of women in their 20s and 30s will remain childless- -almost 2 times as high as 30 years ago. 4. 1 out of every 5 children is born is to an unwed mother. 5. The U.S. divorce rate is the highest in the world. 6. 49% of marriages made this year will end up in divorce. 7. 1 out 3 of those treated for mental disorders in hospitals is a teenager. 8. 1 out of 10 boys has at least been sexually harassed in their households. 9. 1 out of 3 women has been sexually assaulted before they were 18 and 80% of these assaults happened in their own homes--the most dangerous place for young women is in their own home. 10. 3 out of every 5 children born this year will live in a single- parent household for at least part of their childhood. 11. 94% of American households are dysfunctional. 12. You are more likely to be killed by someone you know than a stranger. 13. 3 out of every 100 adult males in the U.S. are in the corrections system--1 out of every 3 black males has been involved with the corrections system

14. 44% of children in the Commonwealth of Virginia prefer their TV sets to their fathers. 15. 30% of births in the US in 1993 were to unwed mothers--an almost eightfold increase since 1940. The majority of these unmarried mothers were not teenagers or minorities. 16. 60% of births outside marriage in 1993 were to white women, and 70% were to women older than 20. 17. Among married women born between 1954 and 1963, 82% had sex before they were married, compared with 65% among women born a decade earlier. 18. Welfare is not a significant contributor to recent increases in out of wedlock childbearing. Evidence linking welfare benefits with increase in nonmarital births is inconsistent--and when a link is found, it tends to be small. 19. In 1992, 6% of unmarried women with bachelor's degrees had children, up from 2.7% 10 year earlier. Also, the percentage of never-married women in managerial and professional jobs with children rose from 3.1% to 8.6% from 1982 to 1992. 20. The unmarried mother rate for black women slipped from 48.8% in 1982 to 46.2% in 1992, while for white women overall it rose from 6.7% to 12.9%. For teenagers, the single mother rate slipped from 8.2% to 6.5% over that decade. 21. The $36,959 median family income after inflation in 1993 was $66 higher than it was in 1973, even though many more families are supported by two breadwinners. 22. Workers with less than a four-year college degree, now three out of every four workers , have experienced the greatest declines in income. Also most effected are women, younger and blue-collar workers. 23. Since 1985, overall poverty rates for children under 18 have ranged between 19% and 22%, and it is the youngest children who are at greatest risk--24% of children under age 6 in 1992 versuse 21% of all children. 24. From the late 1960s into the 1990s, poverty rates in single-parent homes hovered around 50%. But whereas in 1965 only 10% of (own) children under 18 lived in single-parent households, by 1994 it was 25% overall and 60% among African Americans. In 1994, female-headed households accounted for 54% of all children in poverty, up from 24% in 1960. The figures for African Americans are more astounding still: 82% in 1994 versus approximately 30% in 1960.

ANOREXICS Context
Anorexia Nervosa is an eating disorder defined as severe, self- inflicted starvation and loss in body weight to at least 15% below that expected for the individuals sex and height. In the UK (and many other western countries) anorexia nervosa is classified as a mental illness. Anorexia nervosa should not be confused with Bulimia (cycles of bingeing and vomiting). Anorexia is typically associated with women and body image and is thought to be made worse by unrealistic media portrayals of the female body. Having said this, one in ten sufferers is male. Mortality varies between 5% and 18%. Anorexia nervosa has been detected in patients from 6 to 76 years of age and has a far higher incidence in the Developed World, affecting 1% of female adolescents.Patients who are dangerously thin are sometimes force-fed through a naso-gastric (through the nose) tube. Normally, medical treatment cannot be administered without the consent of the patient, however, in the case of mentally ill patients, their distorted perceptions of reality may render them unable to make a choice. Despite this, medical ethics, pragmatics and human rights call the treatment into question.

Arguments Pros
Anorexics are typically treated under mental health legislation (e.g. the UK 1983 Act). They do not make a free choice because they are not rationally able to weigh up decisions and consequences. The patient is not capable of forming unimpaired and rational judgements concerning the consequences (British Medical Association 1992). Life is more important than dignity, many medical treatments are unpleasant or painful but they are necessary to preserve life. Psychological problems can only be treated if the person is alive. A healthier body weight is necessary to be able to treat the patients psychological problems. Studies in Minnesota show that when normal volunteers were starved, they began to development anorectic patterns. They over-estimated the sizes of their own faces by approximately 50%. This shows the impact of starvation on the brain. Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently request it. The Israeli Courts ordered the forcefeeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level.

Cons
Force feeding is undignified. The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits degrading treatment in Article 3. The patients right to refuse treatment should be respected even if they are mentally ill.(N.B. Anorexia is not recognised as a mental illness in every country). An anorexics fear of weight gain, especially forced weight gain in hospital is an obstacle to treatment. If an anorexia sufferer thinks that they will be force- feed they may be less likely to seek treatment or advice. Compulsory treatment may only be successful in the short term. In the long term it does nothing to reduce the fear of food, weight and hospital felt by the patient and is a barrier to treatment. Suicide accounts for 27% of anorexia deaths. Compulsory treatment may make the patient more depressed and at greater risk from harm. Force-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. They are even less likely to do so if they are faced with the possibility of forcefeeding.

Palliative care is defeatist and does not attempt to cure the problem. Doctors do not often have to deal with severe or chronic anorexia. Just because it is a very long treatment schedule that can be harrowing for a doctor, this not a reason to settle for palliative care. Better support structures ought to be put in place to enable the doctor to fulfil their obligation to the patient.

Some doctors advocate focusing on palliative care (relief of pain but not treatment of cause) due to the low full recovery rates of anorexia sufferers. Research Studies Show that over 10 years only approximately 20% of patients recover. Those patients who are sufferers for more than 12 years are unlikely to ever recover.

Motions
This House Would Force Feed Anorexics This House Would Treat The Mentally Ill Without Consent This House Believes the Doctor Knows Best

Warrantless Wiretapping
Summary: Should electronic surveillance of American citizens by the US government only be permitted after court approval of a legal warrant? Or should we trust the government to exercise its powers to protect the United States in a time of threat? print this page Discuss topic

Introduction
Author:The Debatabase Book, 4th Edition with additional material by the Editor ( United States )

Created: Monday, August 23, 2010 Last Modified: Monday, August 23, 2010

Context
In December 2005, President George W Bush acknowledged that he had signed a secret order permitting the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap communications between American citizens and terrorists overseas. Several months later, the press revealed that the NSA had amassed the domestic call records of millions of Americans as part of its antiterrorism campaign. Critics say that the NSAs eavesdropping violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which makes it a crime to conduct domestic surveillance without a warrant from a US court. Asserting an expansive concept of presidential power that many experts reject, the Bush Administration contended that he had the right as Commander-in-Chief to approve the program. In 2008 President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act, weakening the role of the courts in government surveillance. Since 2008, the Obama Administration has broadly continued to uphold the same position, arguing the executive must be able to exercise these powers, and attempted to block lawsuits that challenge its use of warrantless surveillance. In March 2010 a Federal District Court ruled that the federal government had broken wiretapping laws and should have sought warrants before eavesdropping on the communications of lawyers working with an Islamic Foundation. The case is likely to be appealed and may ultimately be decided in the US Supreme Court.

Arguments Pros
Both the Constitution (Article II) and the 2001 law authorizing the use of all necessary and appropriate force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks give the president the legal authority for the no-warrant surveillance. Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief, and as such he is responsible for defending the nation and should have the right to determine how best to do so.

Cons
Conducting surveillance without FISA authorization via a US court is a felony. The Constitution clearly states that the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed and gives Congress the sole right to enact or modify laws. Claiming expansive constitutional powers in an effort to justify violating laws is unacceptable the president cannot choose which laws he will obey. Furthermore, the law that the proposition cites authorized military force against Afghanistan. It was never meant to justify domestic surveillance. The United States has faced many threats in its history and has often reacted with policies it later regrets. Consider the mass internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We have often been tempted to abridge our liberties in times of stress, but this is precisely when we must defend them most vigorously. The United States was founded on certain values if we ignore or reject these values, we may win the war on terrorism but lose the freedoms that define us.

Communications have changed since the passage of FISA, as has the nature of our enemy. In 1978 the USSR was our principal foe, and the NSA could easily retrieve telephone satellite communications. Today our enemy is not a superpower but terrorist organizations that can move easily and change cell phones and e-mail addresses at will. To fight terror, US intelligence operatives need to act quickly, with a minimum of red tape, and must gather information in new ways. Also, most of the worlds broadband communications pass through the United States, making monitoring of potential enemies easy for NSA. However, distinguishing between foreign and domestic calls is difficult. As proved by the attacks on September 11, terrorists can do tremendous damage. If we are to protect ourselves in the future, we may have to abridge the privacy of many individuals, however innocent they may ultimately prove to be. Simply put, you can never know who is a terrorist until after his or her privacy has been violated or an attack has occurred. In addition, why should the innocent be afraid if they have nothing to hide?

The ends do not justify the means. The right to privacy is crucial in a democracy and should not be abridged, particularly as no evidence has been offered that warrantless surveillance is effective in fighting terrorism. Finally, as our own history has shown, we have no guarantee that the government will not violate privacy for its own ends. Look at what happened in the McCarthy era or during Watergate. To date, the government has not articulated the specific criteria it uses to determine which conversations to monitor itself a reason to worry. There is a Constitutional right to privacy, upheld by Supreme Court in decisions from the 1960s onwards. The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and surely today this

There is no constitutional right to privacy; the concept is mentioned neither in the original text of the Constitution nor in the Amendments to it. Instead the high value placed on privacy has

come as a result of dubious judicial interpretations. The Supreme Courts decisions in cases such as Roe vs Wade relied upon very loose and liberal interpretations of the wording of the Constitution and are among the worse excesses of judicial activism. In a different time, and with a very different set of justices on the current Supreme Court, so-called privacy rights are unlikely to be upheld, especially where they impede the authority of the president as commander-in-chief.

should be understood as applying to the search for and seizure of our private communications, as well interference with our physical property. This is not to say that privacy is an absolute right: a reasonable search is still allowable under the Constitution. But the executive should not be able to define for itself what is reasonable in an expansive and potentially arbitrary way. They should have to make a case out to an independent authority in order to justify their breach of privacy. In other words, they should obtain a warrant from a court first.

Motions
This House would uphold the authority of the President in time of war This House believes that warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic terrorist suspects is fully justifiable That we must be prepared to sacrifice aspects of liberty for increased security This House believes that privacy is not an absolute right

HOUSEWIVES
The ideas of traditional family roles have changed markedly since the entry of women into the labour force. As the notion of 'natural' family roles has decreased so the awareness of the vital and sizeable quantity of unpaid work homekeepers (still predominantly women) do has increased. This raises questions about how voluntary and unpaid, or contractual and marketised the divisions of labour in family life should be.

Arguments Pros
The running of a home, far from being just simple chores, has been and remains one of the bedrocks of a functional society. Without the work of a homekeeper, other family members would not be free to go to work and invest in a career for themselves. This would harm the family structure and the economy. The importance of this role means that the home labourer is entitled to some compensation. If the work had to be provided at market rates the cost would run to hundreds of billions of pounds or dollars a year. Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a capitalist system the value of goods and services is recognised in financial terms, so a wage would recognise the important contribution of homemakers. As well as being important, housework is physically taxing, time consuming and in balancing the needs of a household, a relatively specialised task. These features are all valued highly by the marketplace, and it is a pure accident of history that homekeepers have not been included in this. No-one knows for sure what they are signing up for upon entering a marriage or relationship. The circumstances of a family can change dramatically over time so one member may end up doing work they never expected. If so, then their work may be voluntary in the sense they are not physically coerced, but it is not a situation they previously gave any consent to. If business partners sign a contract which circumstance means is no longer representative of the work they do, then the partners should have a right to re-negotiate. It is the same with a partner in a relationship. Firstly, physical coercion is still regrettably common in the home, and rarely reported when it exists. Secondly there are more subtle forms of power imbalances between family units. It is estimated that men own over 90% of the property in the world, and they are almost always still the dominant wage earners in a household, both in amount and likelihood of working. This means women in particular can be left in an unequal bargaining position when compared to their partner. This means the voluntariness of domestic agreements can be highly questionable. Even if divorce is possible, it is understandable that the more vulnerable partner may want to avoid it at all costs, for cultural reasons, or to prevent harm to children. So it does not constitute the element of consent the opposition is looking for. As such it is important that we give homekeepers at least the option of recompense. The improvements in the rights of women all stem from the state 'interfering' in social matters. Pre-nuptial agreements, custody and property sharing upon divorce are all legal measures in family law. Equalising the rights, roles and access to wealth in the household is an important step towards empowering women, and ensuring equal opportunity for future generations by showing that household roles are not defined by gender. Conservatives are always keen in public on promoting the family and on the advantages of mothers being able to stay at home to

Cons
Whilst the essentialness of work can sometimes influence the amount it is paid, it is by no means the only variable we use in society and the market. Look for example at how nurses and doctors are paid compared to footballers. And the proposition admits themselves that the work is done, and has always been done this way, so it's not as if a failure to pay homekeepers will mean a crash in the amount of work carried out. As such there is no threat of economic problems. It is merely a case of entitlement, and there seems to be little grounds for that. The key fact about homekeeping is that even if it is hard work, and demanding - it is voluntary. Charity work can be taxing and specialised, but society recognises this does not require payment either. The entrance into a marriage or relationship implies a similar voluntary attitude towards the work that must be done to sustain it as with those who work unpaid for charities like Oxfam.

Even if every future contingency is not planned upon the entrance to a marriage or relationship, what is agreed is that any changes will be discussed and mutually agreed. This is the fundamental part of the marriage or relationship contract. As long as this happens then the homekeeper has no grounds for complaint, unless there is physical coercion, which is illegal anyway. In these and other cases the option of exiting the relationship is always available too divorce laws now make vastly improved provision for women in such situations. Even if there are some marginal cases where power imbalances affect agreements within relationships, it is not right, or useful, for the state to interfere in this private and personal sphere. Families will always know their situation better than the state. In the vast majority of units where the current situation works fine this risks contractualising the family, which greatly undermines the principles of shared purpose, love and agreement which make it unique and valuable in the first place.

Even if we agree there shouldn't be overt gender discrimination in the workplace, it is not the role of state to enforce its conceptions of gender roles on the household. Many cultural and religious groups base their societies squarely on the traditional family unit. Many of the women involved in these are comfortable with that. To enforce a subjectively 'progressive' model both violates their cultural rights, and risks causing havoc in these established structures. In reality this proposal would undermine the traditional family, as it attempts to put an economic value upon something that is really a

bring up young children. This proposal would provide positive encouragement for couples to make the decision that one of them should stay at home to care for their children, as it provides an economic incentive for one of them (typically the woman) to do so. At the same time it ensures that although family income will be the same, the homekeeper retains their own income and so receives proper recognition for their work. This will serve to maintain their status within the relationship, and make it easier for them to return to the workplace in the future if they so choose.

vocation. Many people believe that although men and women are equal, they have different roles in life. Men are seen as more career-orientated and occupy the economic sphere, while women are more nurturing and so occupy a more domestic role. By monetarising the domestic sphere the different roles of the genders are ignored and family relationships will come under strain. For example, should a wife have the right to strike if she does not think her husband is paying her enough? From another point of view, this measure is highly discriminatory, as it assumes that couples are all in stable partnerships along the lines of the traditional two-parent famly. Many family are headed by a lone-parent who has no option but to go out to work, and they would be both ignored and demeaned by this proposal.

Motions
This House would pay housewives a wage That the distribution of tasks/resources in a household is a matter of public significance This House believes that the state should pay homemakers a minimum wage This House would allow homekeepers to demand a wage from their working spouse

BRIBERY
Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain. Facilitation payments, where a bribe is paid to receive preferential treatment for something that the receiver is required to do by law (e.g. an official processing a license application), constitute "according to rule" corruption. Corruption "against the rule", on the other hand, is a bribe paid to obtain services the receiver is prohibited from providing (e.g. a policeman ignoring a crime or favourable marking of a students examination paper). The phenomenon of corruption has complex reasons that include flaws in legal system, the lack of democratic traditions and political accountability, social and economic difficulties, and low pay for public officials. Corruption affects people's lives in a multitude of ways. In the worst cases, corruption costs peoples lives. In countless other cases, it costs their freedom, health, or money. It is becoming an international problem due to increasing level of globalisation and international trade. Transparency International (TI) the biggest organisation that fights corruption on a global level - believes that keeping corruption in check is only feasible if government, business and civil society work together and agree on a set of standards and procedures they all support.

Arguments Pros
People are often made to give bribes to officials because of unfavourable economic, social or bureaucratic conditions. Officials may refuse to serve clients unless they are paid. In those countries where state institutions are extremely corrupted, refusal to give a bribe may cost financial losses for business representatives or even health and liberty for citizens who need medical service and access to justice.

Cons
The position of civil society plays a key role in reducing corruption. Its action in taking a moral stand against corrupted officials is an important precondition for effective anticorruption policy. Hence, citizens who put up with the necessity to give a bribe become a part of the problem. It is not just the case of public officials abusing their positions, but of people who are tempted to choose the easiest way out. Recent developments in Kenya show how quickly expectations can change once people begin to make a stand. In every society there will be those who try to "beat the system" and if the society has moral or political vulnerabilities, there will be more of them. Bribery cannot be justified because it is a serious crime, which undermines the principles of democracy and leads to economic harm as well as social tension by keeping the poor poor. Many officials practice corruption to recoup the cost of buying their position, which perpetuates corruption and puts their interests ahead of those of society. The North also carries part of responsibility for the situation in the South due to its role as the bribe-payer. After all, it is largely Northern corporate interests that supply the bribe payments. They defraud the citizens of developing countries who get a less good deal as a result, as well as the interests of shareholders at home whose money is diverted into the pockets of foreign officials. This shows the necessity of treating the bribing of foreign officials as a criminal offence in companies home countries. It also requires the publication of all payments relating to foreign deals. International standards on prosecution of companies who bribe foreign officials may encourage positive changes in national legislation as well, thus eliminating legal flaws to combat corruption. Different national rules and standards for combating corruption are not sufficient in the era of global investments and international business transactions. Variation between national standards enables corruption to spread. Companies wishing to hide illicit transactions may attempt to take advantage of weaker standards, wherever they are found. That is why international efforts to ensure the prosecution of the companies that bribe foreign officials are necessary in the current situation. The risk of corruption demand greater transparency from business. Companies have a big impact on the social environment and they have a responsibility to address it. Co-operative actions between the business sector and state institutions are essential for effective anti-corruption policy. These actions are possible only because of whistleblowers, who are brave enough to expose

"Survival" corruption, practised by public servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhaps in highly inflationary economies, which do not allow them to make a living. Without bribery, public administration would collapse altogether as no one would have any incentive to get anything done. Thus the level of corruption is determined by the poor economic situation of the country as well as by the policy of the government. Bribery is often inevitable for foreign companies that invest in those countries, where corruption is widespread and the conditions for business development are unfavourable. It illustrates that bribe giving is just a result of political system with weak democratic traditions. That is why many companies from Northern countries, where corruption levels are low, tend to practise bribery in the South.

The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by international means efficiently if the level of corruption at the national level is high. It depends on the political will of national governments, the activities of civil society and other social conditions that exists inside the state. This explains why only a few cases are investigated under the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. In most OECD countries the political will to prosecute major bribery cases is lacking. This explains why international efforts to combat corruption are inefficient.

Foreign companies simply adapt to the political and economic conditions that exist in different countries. You cannot blame them for high level of corruption, which is the inner problem of the state. Involvement of business representatives in anti-corruption actions may contradict their interests by providing access to commercially sensitive information. If bribery was banned, companies would be

unable to operate, resulting in less investment and so less development in some countries. Norms and values differ between countries. In many non-western societies gift taking and giving in the public realm is a matter of traditions and customs. Moreover, gift giving is a part of negotiations and relationship building in some parts of the world. It is hypocritical for the west to target developing countries for this as many so-called democracies are hopelessly compromised by business interests through political funding and lobbying.

cases of corruption. In turn they need a legislative environment that protects their interests. The OECD convention is an important step forward in this sphere. In different cultures the lines between the acceptable and unacceptable are drawn differently. However, there are limits in all societies, beyond which an action becomes corrupt and unacceptable. The abuse of power for private gain and the siphoning off of public or common resources to private pockets should be illegal and unacceptable in all cultures and societies.

Motions
This house would pay a bribe This house supports international anticorruption policy This house would prosecute business companies This house believes that it is better to wash ones hands than money This house would make punishments for bribery more strict

CENSORSHIP
The concept of "censorship" is somewhat ambiguous but a better debate results if the Prop side takes the commonly accepted definition that certain texts, images, or films should be banned. If "censorship" is defined as any form of regulation or law, then it becomes almost truistic as a definition, since the opposition would (if they accepted such a silly definition) have to argue that Art somehow exists above all laws.The Proposition can also include age restrictions as part of their definition of censorship. For example, certain texts, images, or films may only be viewable by people of a certain age, or under the grounds of official academic research.This debate sometimes becomes one about the broader concept of censorship, rather than a debate specifically about whether the arts should be censored. The debate can also go in other directions some debates will instead evolve into a discussion about the nature of art and how we can decide that a work has redeeming artistic value.

Arguments Pros
An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws against incitement to racial hatred and similar hate speech, we have accepted that freedom of expression should have limits. In addition, art, like any other form of free speech, should be subject to the same restrictions on an individual's freedom of expression. To create an exception for art would be hypocritical and create a legal loophole for content such as hate speech, which could then seek protection on the grounds that it was a form of art. Censorship can also be a finely tuned system of protecting our children. Just as we recognise that certain content should not be accessed by society at all, we can also recognise that certain content (e.g. sexual content) is unsuitable for children, and we can pass censorship accordingly. For example, certain forms of erotic artwork might be unsuitable for children, despite their artistic merits.

Cons
Civil rights should not be curtailed in the absence of a clear and present danger to the safety of others. The Proposition has a duty to demonstrate this risk is genuine. Furthermore, we would argue that so long as no illegal acts were committed in the creative process, the public should have a choice in deciding whether to view the resulting content. Proposition arguments about child pornography and bestiality being filmed and then displayed as art are irrelevant arguments, as these acts are illegal in the first place. Censorship, even when age rating systems are used, is a very blunt tool. It takes no account of the differing standards of education or maturity between children and youths, or the varying attitudes towards parenting in different households. By imposing an external standard of censorship, the government is depriving parents of the right to raise their children in a manner that they see fit. We lose the element of parental discretion, which is arguably part of the right to lead a private and family life as one sees fit a right that is enshrined in many international human rights conventions. Looking at adults, we see that they have the right to vote, bear arms, and die for the country. Why should they be deprived of the ability to decide what they wish to see, or what their children should be allowed to watch?Lastly, we should note that people are not being forced to view artwork at gunpoint. Every member of the public has the right to avert their eyes and not look at art that offends them. Similarly, they can refrain from entering a gallery with an exhibition of offensive works. Censorship is far more likely to hurt the Arts if something has been decreed by the Government to be unsuitable for children, the odds of the general public wanting to buck the trend and fund it are somewhat slim. The risks of stifling free expression far outweigh the potential for unacceptable material. Content which we consider perfectly acceptable today would have been regarded as taboo 50 years ago if the Proposition had their way, we would all still be stuck in the Victorian Era. Besides, if a novel and controversial art form proved to be completely out of touch with society, then the individuals in society would reject it rather than be corrupted by it. The statistical correlation between watching sex & violence and committing such acts is dubious. Firstly, these studies are not exhaustive and are often funding by special interest groups. We must also realise that correlation is different from causation an alternative interpretation is that people with violent tendencies are more likely to be connoisseurs of violent art, and the same applies for rapists and pornography.Even if we believe that some people with weaker morals are likely to be corrupted, why should the rest of society be penalised for the moral weakness of a few? Why

Censorship may actually help the artistic cause -- e.g. the general public is far more likely to support and fund erotic art with sexual content if they do not have to worry about their children seeing it! Many forms of modern art seek to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, or aim for the lowest denominator in taste. Both situations can give rise to content that is unacceptable, and which governments should not permit.

Excessive sex and violence in the media can lead to similar behaviour in viewers (studies in the USA have shown this). There is a very real risk of copycat crimes inspired by depictions of criminal activity in the media, even if no criminal act was committed during the creative process. This alone should be justification for censorship.

should innocent people have their civil rights curtailed when the small minority we are concerned about has not even committed a crime yet! There are far better ways of reducing the crime rate, with far less cost in civil liberties, such as better policing, tougher penalties on actual crimes being committed, CCTV cameras, and improved street lighting. Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship measures, the Government has sent an important message about what society considers to be acceptable. The role of the state in sending social messages and setting social standards should not be underestimated, and censorship (be it through bans or minimum age requirements) is an important tool in thisprocess. Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text, photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that it is bad. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable.

Motions
This House supports censorship of the arts. This House believes that nude art is lewd art. This House fears that artistic license is a license to kill. This House believes that you are what you see. This House believes that when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into you.

PRENUP
When married couples divorce, the law intervenes to separate their property and assets in a way that is deemed to be fair (or as laid down in a pre-nuptial agreement). In some countries this involves an immediate 50:50 split (as in France), whilst in others the court will investigate what is fair in the circumstances of the specific individuals, taking into account the two parties needs and contributions to the family (as in England and Wales). However, in America and virtually all of Europe, couples can prevent courts making such decisions through pre-nuptial agreements, made before marriage, which determine how their property will be divided in the event of separation or divorce. The English legal system traditionally refused to uphold pre-nuptial agreements although an agreement was recently upheld by the Court of Appeal. There are serious questions about whether such agreements should be permitted, and if they are, whether their terms should always be accepted by the divorce courts.

Arguments Pros
Pre-nuptial agreements can cause bitterness: given the element of unfairness in most agreements, it is likely that one spouse will feel hard done by when the relationship ends. This leads to bitterness and resentment of the other spouse which is particularly problematic when agreements have to be made about custody of children. Pre-nuptial agreements undermine marriage as a relationship of equals: much of the meaning associated with marriage as an institution derives from the total commitment involved. When couples enter into marriage, they agree to share all that they have. This sharing of material wealth can be argued to be symbolic of the equal footing on which the parties enter the relationship. Equality within a marriage helps to ensure that both spouses can contribute to the decision-making process, generally leading to happier and more stable relationships. When parties to a marriage contract to ensure that the other cannot access their money, this equality is undermined. If one party has all of the assets and takes all important decisions, this can increase resentment, harming the marriage. If the state wants to maximise the happiness of individuals, increasing the chance that they are in relationships where they are treated as equals is important.

Cons
Pre-nuptial agreements actually reduce bitterness: the absence of dispute over financial assets can speed up the divorce, reducing tension and benefiting both parties emotional states. Moreover, lengthy and arduous court battles over money are stressful for children, disrupting their development and schoolwork, for example. Pre-nuptial agreements allow people to feel secure when they enter marriage: the person with the higher level of assets can benefit from the feeling of assurance that the other is not marrying for money. They also benefit from the assurance that their assets have a measure of protection in case the marriage does not work. This is particularly important where assets include inherited property which has sentimental value or a family business which would have to be sold if the assets were to be divided equally. The party with fewer assets can also benefit from a prenuptial agreement because it spells out in advance what their financial settlement will include and offers them some assurance that they will be cared for if the marriage ends. Spouses who feel secure are more likely to have equal and happy relationships than those who remain suspicious of the others intentions. Moreover, banning pre-nuptial agreements may encourage couples to not marry in the first place, leaving the poorer half of the partnership even less protected than they would be with a pre-nup, and thus making the policy counter-productive. Pre-nuptial agreements are actually fairer for both parties: the individuals within a couple have access to greater information about their own needs and preferences and can better decide what is fair for themselves than the state. If, for example, one spouse is likely to inherit property from their parents, both parties may agree that it would be unfair for this to be divided equally. Most pre-nuptial agreements take into account the possibility of changing circumstances, such as the existence of children; spouses can amend the agreement as their marriage develops, should they so wish. In addition, divorce is often a long and emotional process during which spouses may feel considerable resentment towards each other. This anguish often results in lengthy conflict over the division of assets which may result in an outcome which is not necessarily fair: one spouse may relinquish

Pre-nuptial agreements are not fair for either party: couples who decide how their assets should be divided on divorce before they are even married do not have adequate information to determine what will be fair in the future. Family circumstances can change considerably. For example, if one spouse gives up their career to raise children, an agreement that the spouses should keep their own earnings may no longer be fair. Also, an individuals income can change dramatically over a period of ten years. We would not want to decide what job to take or where to go on holiday ten years in advance: changing circumstances or preferences may mean that the decision proves to be a bad one. Why should something as important as the division of assets on divorce be decided in such an uninformed way? Justice requires that the court determines what is a fair allocation of resources at the point

of separation.

some of his or her property in order to escape the conflict. It is better for the couple to reach an agreement when they still love each other and so are more likely to treat each other reasonably. Banning pre-nuptial agreements is illegitimate state activity: the state should remain neutral between all its citizens claims, and that responsibility requires it to endorse all contracts made between all people (subject to the absence of duress, misinformation, etc.). The argument that the state predates contracts and so can choose which ones to uphold is not persuasive. We would not think it legitimate if the state refused to endorse perfectly fair contracts between citizens because of their race or gender. The risk of abuse can be minimised by requiring independent legal advice for both parties: if both parties have access to adequate advice regarding their own interests such risks can be overstated. The fact that a pre-nuptial agreement may not be as generous to one spouse as a court order does not mean that the spouse cannot validly consent to it or that it harms their interests. Spouses may feel that the minimisation of anguish during a divorce is sufficiently important to justify a smaller share of the assets. Moreover, we all make decisions that may not be in our best interests. My decision to go debating regularly may harm my degree. A decision to have unprotected sexual intercourse may result in undesired pregnancy. In order to have control over our own lives we have to make decisions for ourselves and the consequence of this may mean that our best interests are not always served.

It is justified for the state to intervene in this context: married couples have entered into a state-endorsed relationship which provides advantages (both financially in terms of taxes and inheritance, and through recognition and validation). It is reasonable for the state to require something in return: namely, that assets are divided in a way which is fair. Furthermore, since no contracts are upheld in the state of nature, the state must be prior to the existence of contracts. It is thus legitimate for the state to choose not to recognise those contracts which it deems inappropriate. Pre-nuptial agreements pose a serious risk of abuse: where one spouse is considerably richer there is a danger of the other being forced to sign a pre-nuptial agreement where it is not in their interests. The richer spouse will be in a considerably stronger bargaining position, undermining the likelihood of a fair agreement. Furthermore, pre-nuptial agreements are often signed shortly before marriage when parties may be keen to avoid conflict and so do not raise legitimate questions or concerns. If one spouse insists on such an agreement very shortly before the wedding, the other can feel under pressure to sign in order to ensure that the wedding goes ahead.

Motions
This House would ban pre-nuptial agreements This House would not uphold pre-nuptial agreements This House believes that pre-nuptial agreements are inconsistent with marriage That pre-nuptial agreements should be disregarded by the courts in divorce cases