Question:
Ineffectiveness of alternatives

One possible alternative to our possibly is to better police prenatal sex determination. This is highly unfeasible. In 1982 the Chinese government distributed masses of small, light ultrasound devices to ensure that women who’d already had one child were either sterilized or continuing to wear their intrauterine device. Women started using these devices for prenatal sex determination and therefore “more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.” In China prenatal sex determination is illegal and, though ultrasounds are allowed in certain cases for medical reasons so long as they are on security camera, doctors who reveal the gender of the child can no longer work as doctors. The masses of distributed ultrasound devices, however, are the basis for a large and successful black market.

A second possible approach is propaganda. “The government has launched a campaign to convince parents that having daughters is a good thing: propaganda street banners preach that preferring boys over girls is old thinking.” This too has been unsuccessful. Posters and the like are unlikely to change age-old traditional ways of thinking. [1]

Abortions are still free and legal right up to the ninth month, even as the boy-girl imbalance grows. A third possible approach to the problem could be to ban abortions altogether. This is unlikely to be effective as, with such high demand, a black market for abortion is sure to spring up. Even if it is effective, it may drive parents to commit infanticide instead. It also seems an unfair policy. We promote women’s rights and women’s choice and it seems wrong to prevent women who have, for example, been raped from aborting a child that they had no choice in conceiving and will possible resent.

Therefore, there are seemingly no satisfactory alternatives.

[1] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/13/60minutes/main1496589_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

We agree that a policy to ban abortion is not conducive to the encouragement of women’s rights. We would argue, however, that more rigorous policing of prenatal gender determination could be effective. For example, an amnesty could be issued for handing in of illegally used ultrasound devices, possibly even with a financial reward for turning these in. Further investigation could be made into rumours of places where one might access prenatal gender determination. It may be difficult but all crime detection is difficult but we do it because it is important.

Propaganda has been known to change age old ideas. It is an extremely powerful force. China has shown the power of propaganda through its censorship of the internet, protectionist policies in the film industry and control of print and radio media which help ensure that the Communist party stays in power. Of course, propaganda can also be used to create positive effects. What’s important to note about propaganda is that it takes time. Propaganda in South Africa which aims to encourage the use of condoms and greater HIV awareness is only now beginning to work after ten years of running such campaigns. New infections in the teenage age group (the age group most exposed to HIV awareness particularly through schools) have decreased. [1] There is no reason why this cannot be a very effective tool in changing people’s mindsets about gender.

Furthermore, some of the changes in society will happen naturally as countries like China and India develop. As more women are educated and get jobs, people will start to realise women’s value and women will probably have more influence in the decision of whether or not to go through with a pregnancy. It is a historical trend that nations offer more freedoms and they become more economically developed. [2] Wealth leads to liberalisation and greater exposure to western ideals.

[1] “HIV/AIDS in South Africa.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa

[2] Mosseau, Michael, Hegre, Havard and Oneal, John. “How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace.” European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 9 (2). P277-314. 2003. “HIV/AIDS in South Africa.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Gender equality

Men and women deserve to enjoy equal rights. In China and India women do not enjoy equal rights. By encouraging couples to produce girls we contribute to the resolution of two problems. Female children are likely to be treated poorly in comparison their brothers. They may be given smaller quantities of food, less education etc. It is not only the physical differences in the upbringing of boys and girls that are noteworthy but also the emotional. Particularly in families without sons, daughters are led to experience guilt and a sense of inferiority because their parents are disappointed in their gender. These girls will grow up in a home without gender equality and therefore will come to accept a smaller share of family wealth as an adult and be unfit psychologically to denounce male dominance. The girls are likely to later perpetuate gender inequality amongst their own children. [1] By making it beneficial for parents to have female children, we make parents less likely to make their daughters feel guilty and inferior for their gender. Furthermore, educational grants will allow girls access to education – which is both intrinsically valuable and valuable in that it will allow the possible financial independence and the confidence to denounce male domination. Similarly, men will receive a message that it is more praiseworthy to produce a son. In essence, allowing selective abortions to take place without taking action against this practise is allowing gender inequality to stagnate in the popular wisdom. It is important to take a stance especially in a country like China where government ideology heavily effects the people.

[1] Gupta, Monica. “Selective Discrimination against Female Children in Rural Punjab, India.” Population and Development Review. Vol.13, No.1, (Mar.1987), p77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972121

The shortage of women in China has a positive effect on gender equality because there is a shortage of women and men therefore have to compete for romantic attention. Women can afford to be picky. “Many Chinese women place high value on a husband with money and stability. In a now famous moment from a Chinese dating show, a female contestant rejected a suitor with the iconic line, "I would rather cry in the back of a BMW than laugh on the back of a bicycle." [1] One gentleman said, If you're poor, nobody will go with you." [2] This places women in a position of power.

Furthermore, simply increasing the number of female babies alive will not alter the gender dynamics because the preference for male children can be attributed to age old beliefs that men continue the family name and provide financial protection for their parents in their old age as well as to the dowry system in India. [3]

The following is mentioned in the People’s Daily Online regarding the traditional and cultural reasons for the gender ratio disparity: “Demographer Wang Guangzhou at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said that China’s strong preference for male children, coupled with the lack of social welfare, lay at the heart of the problem. ‘Traditional values will still prevail in some rural areas, where having male heirs is important for ensuring that the family bloodline is preserved,’ Wang said. ‘Furthermore, many Chinese families rely on their children to look after the elderly since a solid social welfare system is still unavailable for much of the population.’” [4]

For more argumentation as to why a discriminatory policy in favour of women will not address gender inequality see the opposition ineffectiveness argument.

[1] Adshade, Marina. “The Dating Surplus for Chinese Women.” 2010. http://bigthink.com/ideas/26367

[2] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/13/60minutes/main1496589_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[3] Pande, Rohini and Malhotra, Anju. “Son Preference and Daughter Neglect in India: What happens to living girls?” International Center for Research on Women. 2006. http://www.icrw.org/files/publications/Son-Preference-and-Daughter-Neglect-in-India.pdf

[4] “China faces growing gender imbalance.” BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451289.stm

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Abortion

It is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India. [1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions.

[1] Boseley, Sarah. “10 million girl foetuses aborted in India.” The Guardian. 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/09/india.sarahboseley

We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions.

Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)

42% of the Indian population is under the international poverty line and it is they that contribute the most to imbalanced sex ratio due to economic concerns. [1] Offering a financial incentive for people to produce female children will undermine the autonomy of parents. In order for there to be autonomy, the individual needs to be able to make a rational, unforced decision. When someone is extremely impoverished, as many people are in developing economies like those of China and India, financial incentives are an offer that cannot be refused. Proposition would have you believe that we offer the parents an autonomous choice between having a female child and receiving money or not having the child and not receiving money. Of course they will take the money! Poverty removes the possibility of choice. In this way, poor parents are being forced to have female children to ensure their own survival and the survival of their already existing family.

Why is this problematic? Firstly, we believe choice is intrinsically valuable because the freedom to make choices is recognition of our fundamental humanity and individuality. If we cannot determine our own futures we are slaves. We value choice so much that we sometimes allow it when it risks causing wider social problems. For example, we allow people to smoke or eat unhealthily even though this may cost the health system a lot of money.

Secondly, people have the most empirical information about themselves and are therefore able to make the best choices for themselves. For example, a family may know that they do not have the space in their home or the time to raise another child. They may know that a boy will be better able to support the family financially later on because he will be more likely to get a job and in some cases this may even override the financial benefits offered by government. These are all important considerations that only individual families are able to take into account. A government is unable to know each family’s individual situation and therefore is not well suited to make this decision in place of the family.

[1] Poverty in India.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

It is ridiculous to say that a decision based on a financial incentive is not an autonomous decision. We allow poor people to make the decision to take on a job or sell items that they own even though these decisions are incentivised by money. We still regard these decisions as autonomous. Furthermore we do believe that families make careful considerations when they decide whether or not to have children. This is evidenced by the fact that families make the decision to abort female but not male children. Parents obviously consider the choice to have a child and we do not think that this will change when there is a government based financial incentive. This is especially the case because the reason that parents currently DO NOT have female children is for financial reasons. As you mentioned, male children tend to be more able to financially support their parents in their old age in these countries. Surely then a financial incentive is exactly the right kind to provide for these parents since it is financial incentives that are causing them not to produce females in the first place. If the opposition is concerned with financial incentives for the poor then they should be concerned with the status quo.

Furthermore, though governments may not know individual situations, they do know more about the widespread societal consequences of gender ratio imbalance and the long term predictions if these conditions continue to exist. They are also more likely to be concerned with the greater good of society whilst families make selfish decisions. Many of these families make decisions not based on rational reasoning or informed, educated plans but on cultural and social wisdom that may not produce the best decision. The bias towards men is cultural ‘wisdom’ of this nature.

Lastly, we’d like to thank the opposition for showing just how effective our policy will be at encouraging families to produce girls

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Commodifying women.

Surely providing a financial incentive for families to produce women causes women to be likened to a product that needs to be manufactured. Families will continue to have a social stigma against female children and they will be viewed simply as a financial asset. This is not only bad for women in general in the country but for babies that are only alive because they provide income. These children are unlikely to be loved and cared for as a male child might be and it is cruel to encourage them to be brought into the world to live life in such a condition.

Furthermore, the commoditisation of money can only serve to worsen the problem of trafficking mentioned earlier by the proposition.

Encouraging families to have female children at least gives people a reason to value females at all, even if this is merely a financial value. In the current scenario women are not valuable in any sense. They are valued so little that their lives are ended without a flinch when they are only infants.

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Financial incentives do not break down cultural bias

The reason why there is a bias towards male children in India is cultural. When women get married in India they become a part of their husband’s family and a dowry must be paid. As one Hindu saying goes, "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbours’ garden." In order to change the gender ratio imbalance in India, therefore, it is important to deal with the underlying prejudices in society, not merely throw money at the problem. There are similar cultural prejudices in other countries with gender disparities. In China there is concern that female children cannot continue the family name as lineage is something male.

A good case study of a place where financial incentives have not altered the social climate regarding reproduction is Germany. Germany Kindergeld policy is particularly generous, giving 184€/month for 1 child and 558€/month for 3 until the children are at least 18 (regardless of gender). This is very similar to the Proposition plan but the birth rate has declined. In German culture there is a bias towards having fewer children and instead pursuing career but this cultural bias was not overcome by financial incentives.

The Germany Ministry of Statistics reported that the birthrate in 1970, 5 years before Kindergeld began, the birthrate per woman was 2.0. In 2005, despite ever increasing Kindergeld, the rate had dropped to 1.35. This trend is mirrored across all other European nations. [1] Of incredible significance is that the decline in birth rates is relatively even across all socioeconomic groups in Germany, indicating that even people with a low or no income do not have children for the sole purpose of receiving more money.

In order for the gender ratio to be rebalanced we need to do more than just offer money to parents who produce girls.

Governments often set blanket policies without coming to grips with the problems on the ground. It is likely that the problem is slightly different in different parts of China and that it has a far more intricate, psychological nature than proposition supposes. Cultural biases are taught to children from birth through everything language to observations of how their parents behave and these biases are internalised at a very young age. It is difficult to see how years of immersion in a culture can be overturned in adulthood by nothing more than the offer of money. There are probably more detailed reasons why male children are greater financial assets that government is not aware of. Perhaps in certain communities the prevalent industry requires strong male workers or refuses to employ females and this financial incentive will override the incentive proposed in propositions argument. In short, a blanket government policy will be unable to deal with the intricacies of the problem and a financial incentive may simply be the wrong approach.

[1] “Child Benefit Germany.” Wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindergeld_(Deutschland)

The German example is incomparable to the countries we are discussing.

It’s most likely the case that the policy in Germany did not work because the population is too wealthy to be motivated by a financial incentive. Germany is a developed country with GDP per capita 40,874 US dollar and a “luxury” state welfare system. High education, no financial worries about the life after retirement and the fact that women pursue careers all contribute to a low birth rate. India, on the other hand is a developing country with only GDP per capita 2,941 US dollar and poor state welfare system. Moreover, 42 percent of the Indian population is under the international poverty line. Hence a financial incentive is far more effective in these Asian nations. Unlike in India, Europeans tend to regard children not as investments but as an opportunity for emotional fulfilment. They are unlikely therefore to make a decision about child rearing based on financial reasons.

Furthermore, the sense of community culture that exists in Asian nations (for example the practise of age-old traditions and the lack of cultural westernisation) is not present in Germany and so the example does not take into consideration the strength of culture in effecting decisions.

Lastly, we would argue that you cannot compare a programme which encourages people to have children at all to a programme that encourages people to have female rather than male children. The incentives of the parents are different and the goals of the policies are different.

We would argue that this policy is far better suited to India than it is to Germany and that the comparison does not hold.

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Ineffectiveness

The policy will be ineffective in two ways. Firstly it will not even achieve the goal of a balanced gender ratio but secondly, even if it did, it will not reduce the divide between men and women and make women a more valued part of society.

1. How does this plan offer advantages to the families of girls in excess of what is already available? The Indian parliament's most recent budget includes several programs designed to increase the resources, specifically including medical and educational resources, available to women and children. Programs exist to provide education to women [1] . Most importantly where do these financial incentives come from? India is currently committed to cut budget deficits especially since “General government debt now stands at 82% of GDP.” [1]

2. The plan proposed by Prop will simply exacerbate resentment of women by men who see taxpayer funds preferentially directed towards women. Men will take this resentment out on the women in their lives.. It’s possible that in some cases, female children will be more valued for the money they bring in from the government than for their own personhood. We understand that some extent of financial or social benefits is necessary to redress historical oppression, but whenever possible, governments should seek to end gender-inequality by utilizing gender-neutral policies rather than picking sides. Widespread economic development will reduce the need for poorer families to select the sex of their children based on who can bring in the most income and therefore the gender ratio will begin to balance out without implementing discriminatory policies that create anger.

A perfect example of how discriminatory policies in the name of redress can create social divides is affirmative action in South Africa. Post-apartheid has an policy name Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) according to which companies gain benefits and status by fulfilling a certain race quota amongst their employees. South African universities accept black students with lower marks than white students in order to try to rebalance the demographics of the university. This means it is increasingly difficult for white people in South Africa to find jobs. Many white people feel resentful towards the beneficiaries of BEE and there is very aggressive debate at universities between white and black students as to whether racially based admissions policies are fair. If anything these policies have divided South Africans. [2] A discriminatory race policy in China and India will have much the same effect and therefore will not achieve its aims of addressing gender inequalities.

[1] Prasad, Eswar. “Time to tackle India’s Budget Deficit.” The Wall Street Journal. 2010. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0222_india_budget_prasad.aspx

[2] Mayer, Mark. “South Africans Continue to Seek Greener Pastures.” Sharenet Marketviews. 2008. http://www.sharenet.co.za/marketviews/mv_view_article.php?id=633

Our policy provides far more than these existing programmes (which are, we could mention, exclusive to India). By offering parents of females an annual lifelong pension we remove the fear that their female children will not support them in their old age. This will certainly encourage parents whose primary goal in reproducing is to be financially secure in old age to have girls. Giving parents preferential employment and housing benefits would certainly be an effective incentive as 42% of the Indian population lives below the bread line. [1] There are NGOs around the world concerned with women’s rights who will help to fund these initiatives and the UN has existing women’s rights projects in China. [2]

This policy is necessary to ensure that women are born in the first place so that there is a larger united group working towards gender equality within these nations. Furthermore men will not be disgruntled at all because the money that government is supposedly spending on women is in fact going into the pockets of these parents. Whereas tax money might go to roads in parts of the country one might never use or to help people poorer that the taxpayer, this policy places money directly in the pocket of any taxpayer who has a female child. It is very unlikely that men will hate their daughters for bringing in money and for not requiring costly education – if government offers to pay for female education.

[1] “Poverty in India.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

[2] “United Nations Development Programme.” http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&catid=10&sid=7

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The proposition policy will interfere with current government policies

Prop's plan is not only redundant with some current government programs but is also wasteful of worthwhile government funds. For example, the plan pays for the education of young girls up through the high school level. This is targeting a problem that has been addressed with significant success. Currently, the rates for primary school enrolment among young girls and young boys are 94% and 97% respectively in 2007. This is a drastic change from the year 2000 when it was 77% and 94%, a 17% disparity. [1] Additional policies in the same area are inefficient and the additional bureaucracy risks disrupting this positive trend.

There are currently at least 27 ministries in the Indian government (account for almost 5% of total budget expenditure) that are allocated to providing programs for female empowerment, and of these most are taking a targeted approach that identifies actual needs within communities. [2] [2] Side Prop does not tell us how their plan will be different than any of these existing plans.

At best, Prop's plan is likely to be redundant when combined with existing policy and therefore a waste of money. At worst, it will work against established, valuable programs and actively cause harm.

More importantly, the fact that girls are attending schools in these numbers and yet a sex-ratio imbalance exists and has in fact worsened proves that better education for women does not solve or improve the problem of sex selective abortion. Therefore, prop’s policy of providing education grants is redundant.

[1] World Bank, ‘Adjusted net enrolment rate. Primary’, data.worldbank.org, http://databank.worldbank.org/

[2] Ministry of Women and Child Development, ‘Gender Budgeting in India, http://wcd.nic.in/gbman/powerpoint/third.ppt

Whilst the Indian government may have policies that empower women, they do not currently have programs that encourage more female children to be born. Thus, there is a reason to fund both of these independent programmes. This is an investment in creating a socially stable society in the long-run. The benefits of educating women have been seen in other nations. As women become more educated they gain more freedoms as they are better equipped to fight for them and their achievements make it hard for men to argue that they are inferior. This is a long term effect, however, that will not reap the mentioned benefits for some years though it is very important. Extra educational subsidies cna easily be run alongside other policies simply by being well organised and communicative. Again, opposition’s argument applies only to India while there are not educational programmes of this nature in other nations mentioned. Secondly, the pension programme we are proposing directly and immediately deals with the problem by saying to parents ‘Have a female baby and we will support you through old age so you don’t have to worry that the girl won’t do it’.

This presupposes that hate crimes are equal in their effects to non-hate crimes, which they are not as hate crimes cause harms in terms of terror directed at, and felt only by, specific groups.

Moreover, intent is considered in trials in many other circumstances, such as in differentiating between manslaughter (killing without intent to kill) and murder (killing with intent to kill), or when deciding whether a murder was premeditated or not. There is no reason to suppose intent cannot also be judged in possible hate crime cases.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Madeleine Albright and Condoleeza Rice in the US are high ranking female politicians who mostly deal in traditionally 'male' topics. Not all female politicians will represent women's views or needs. Indeed, sometimes they are bad advocates for women. For example, Nadine Dorries proposed a bill in Parliament for teaching abstinence to girls in school, but excluded teaching boys; this is a clear bias and suggests that boys can get away with being irresponsible.

Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).

[1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2001/09/what_...

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.

1.Somerville, 2003, p.1

2.ibid.

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]

Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.

[1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis - http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php (accessed 23 September 2012)

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.

This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.

Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must.

1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.

[1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006. http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php/css/?m=home&newsid=2248

MPs will still be freely chosen representatives. Constituents can vote for any of the candidates on the ballot; if they disagree with a party's use of quotas or all-women shortlists they can cast their vote elsewhere. The emphasis, as always in voting, will be on the party. It does not limit their freedom of suffrage at all: we still vote for the candidate we feel will best represent our interests.

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.

1. Sullivan, 2011

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim