Question:
Positive discrimination for women is discrimination

Merely glossing 'positive' discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The Labour Party's policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as it disadvantages potential male candidates1. The law may have been changed, but the principle of the objection remains and all-women shortlists are only legal until 20152which demonstrates a level of uncertainty and reservation about its true legality. Equality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. MPs should be the best on offer, and the one chosen freely by constituents, otherwise this is not democracy. All-Women shortlists seem to, in some ways, detract from the purpose of having elections if candidate lists are restricted.

1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia

2 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001

All-women shortlists were declared legal in 2001 after a debate, and there has not been an issue about its legality since then1. Judges have ruled that quotas and other forms of positive discrimination are not in breach of any human rights or democratic law, and thus should be used. Positive discrimination compensates women for the many years that they were excluded and placed in the political wilderness. There is an unavoidable discrimination at work in the electoral systems worldwide, and if another type of discrimination is temporarily necessarily to combat it then it must be used. A true 'meritocracy' only works when candidates are starting from equal positions. Dame Ann Begg MP has said that positive discrimination is absolutely crucial for ensuring the best candidates apply: "If under-represented groups are not encouraged to apply, you cannot get the best person for the job. Women, for example, are less likely to put themselves forward as MPs"2. Nobody is saying that positive discrimination is without its problems, but in this circumstance the end must justify the means.

1 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001

2 'Positive discrimination crucial for democracy, says disabled MP' by Alev Sen, The Beaver, 15th March 2011

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.

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_...

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

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.

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

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.

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

There are many alternatives to a repatriation policy that will more effectively target the problems caused by illegal immigration. Countries can toughen border controls and have better systems in place for granting asylum. Voluntary repatriation is unworkable, even if accompanied by financial assistance, because many illegal immigrants want to stay in the country. Involuntary repatriation is inhumane and harmful because it restricts the freedom of movement for people, and separates them from their family and friends, whilst they are forced to go back to potentially harmful situations. Repatriation will not stop the numbers of people coming to the country. Illegal immigration does not occur because a country is a 'soft touch': very few, if any, countries have no problems with illegal immigration. The reasons behind immigration are social, political and economic and have nothing to do with an individual country's policy on illegal immigration. Those who turn to illegal immigration are often desperate and will pay no attention to the immigration policies of a country.

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


Question:
Illegal immigration is facilitated by criminal networks

Repatriating illegal immigrants would lead to fewer opportunities for criminal networks to gain entry to the country. Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as people and drug trafficking, terrorism and the sex trade. An estimated 270 000 victims of human trafficking live in industrialized countries, of whom 43% are forced into commercial sexual exploitation, mostly women and girls1. This is both dangerous for those involved in illegal immigration but also increases the criminal activity in a country, putting lawful residents at risk. The state also has a duty to protect its citizens from the harms associated with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration fuels dangerous industries such as prostitution and the drug trade, repatriating illegal immigrants cuts off a vital source of labour for these industries and could contribute to the eradication of these industries.

1 UN.GIFT, "Human Trafficking: The Facts",, accessed 31 August 2011

A repatriation policy will not effectively target this area of illegal immigration. Criminal networks will always find ways of smuggling people into a country and evading detection. All a repatriation policy will do is make these gangs more sophisticated when it comes to hiding illegal immigrants. This not only makes it more difficult to discover and undermine these networks, but also puts the illegal immigrants that are involved in these criminal activities at risk. If there is a standard repatriation policy for all illegal immigrants, vulnerable groups such as trafficked women are less likely to seek help, because not only is it likely that they will be repatriated, but they also put the lives of themselves and their families at risk by going through this procedure, rather than receiving anonymous help. As a result, illegal immigrants that are often at the bottom of criminal organisation will be worse off, while the criminal at the top will get more power over their victims.

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_...

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

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.

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


Question:
Costs of illegal migrants and harm to labour market

Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. It is difficult to give an accurate number on the cost of illegal immigrants for the rest of the population (the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has come up with numbers as high as $1,183 per household in the state of California1), but they are likely to put a strain on resources by not paying taxes whilst demanding social services such as healthcare and education. As a result, they take taxpayer's money away from those who are lawfully entitled to use these services and put a burden on the state. Moreover, illegal immigrants undercut the labour market by accepting low wages and working under illegal conditions. This is harmful to lawful residents because it takes employment opportunities away from them and encourages employers to seek illegal labour in order to keep costs down. Removing the illegal workforce would increase the number of jobs available to lawful residents and force employers to pay fair wages and provide safe working conditions.

1 Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), "The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal Aliens", 2006,, accessed 31 August 2011

It is impossible to prove that all illegal immigrants are a drain on the system and so their cost to society cannot be used as a justification for repatriation policies. Many illegal immigrants pay taxes in some way and actually contribute to the economy of a country. For instance, every time an illegal immigrant buys something, they pay the same amount of sales tax or VAT as any other person. Illegal immigrants do not always undercut the labour market. The illegal workforce is a necessary part of the economy because lawful residents do not want jobs such as casual labour, agricultural or domestic jobs. Illegal immigrants often provide vital services that would otherwise be too expensive or hard to find if regular workers were employed e.g. cleaning, childcare and manual labour. Goods would become too expensive to produce if, for example, parts of the agriculture industry had to employ lawful residents/migrants.

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_...

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

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.

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


Question:
There needs to be a tough stance to prevent illegal immigration.

The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt policies of repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants, after it has been proven through a fair hearing that they have no legitimate reason to stay, will be granted a period of voluntary repatriation, where they receive counselling and help to return to their country. If this does not work, and the illegal immigrant wants to stay, he or she will forced to repatriate. Repatriation is needed because illegal immigrants are residing in a country which is different from their country of origin, without fulfilling the legal requirements to do so. They also do not make the same contributions to the state as other people do, such as paying taxes. This means that illegal immigrants are actively harming the legal system, the citizens of the country and legal immigrants. At the same time, the number of illegal immigrants is rising every year, with an estimated 11.5-12 million illegal immigrants living in the US alone1. These kind of numbers show that the rules on immigration need to come with tough sanctions to ensure that they are not exploited or broken in the future. Repatriation is necessary because it targets successful illegal immigrants and ensures a comprehensive immigration policy that aims to reduce illegal immigration. What this policy of repatriation will do, is that it firstly will reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, which will lead to a decline of harms caused by them. Secondly, it will act as a strong deterrence for future immigrants. Repatriation sends a message to potential illegal migrants that their presence in the country will not be tolerated and that any attempt to stay in the country illegally will be unsuccessful.

1 BBC News, "BBC guide on illegal immigration in the US", 2005, accessed 31 August 2011

There are many alternatives to a repatriation policy that will more effectively target the problems caused by illegal immigration. Countries can toughen border controls and have better systems in place for granting asylum. Voluntary repatriation is unworkable, even if accompanied by financial assistance, because many illegal immigrants want to stay in the country. Involuntary repatriation is inhumane and harmful because it restricts the freedom of movement for people, and separates them from their family and friends, whilst they are forced to go back to potentially harmful situations. Repatriation will not stop the numbers of people coming to the country. Illegal immigration does not occur because a country is a 'soft touch': very few, if any, countries have no problems with illegal immigration. The reasons behind immigration are social, political and economic and have nothing to do with an individual country's policy on illegal immigration. Those who turn to illegal immigration are often desperate and will pay no attention to the immigration policies of a country.

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_...

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

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.

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


Question:
Loss of trust in the government

Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migration policy. In the UK, opposition leader Ed Milliband has acknowledged that Labour had lost trust in the south by underestimating the number of illegal immigrants and the impact they would have on people's wages1. People believe that allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social tensions.

1 BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13133544

The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is an impossible task to start with, so if this policy is adopted and fails in its execution, this will lead to a greater loss of trust in the government. If immigration policies focus more on the integration of illegal immigrants, this will have a more beneficial effect than criminalizing them. Marking illegal immigrants as criminals that have to leave the country as soon as possible will actually incite more conflict between migrants and populists.

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_...

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

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.

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


Question:
Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic

The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is impossible to realize, and this large-scale project would cost large sums of money. The Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the US population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for "every man, woman, and child in this country)."1 In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce US GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.1

The impracticality of repatriation lies not only in the costs of the transportation and the help given to immigrants, but also in the time and effort of finding all illegal immigrants. A repatriation policy would be never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of harm to society.

1. Apsan, 2010 http://news.jornal.us/article-4716.Mass-Deportation-Of-illegal-Immigrant...

It might be true that repatriation is a costly option, but so are other alternatives. Illegal immigrants are already putting a costly burden on the state by using its resources without giving much back. If this situation is left on its own, the long-term costs of keeping illegal immigrants might be higher than the relative short-term cost of repatriation. Alternatives, such as nationalisation of immigrants are also very costly and time-intensive, and would moreover encourages more potential migrants to come and obtain the country's nationality.

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_...

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

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.

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


Question:
Repatriation is immoral

The repatriation of illegal immigrants, even if it is not completely under coercion, is immoral. Even if the repatriation is 'voluntary', immigrants know they have no alternatives, and might agree to go back voluntary because the next step would be involuntary repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants are severely restricted in their freedom of movement. In the Western world, people can move around relatively easily, and this is seen as an inalienable right. To restrict this for people that do not come from this part of the world would be inhumane. Moreover, illegal immigrants have often built their lives in the country they reside in, having a family, sometimes children, work and a social circle. Often, children from illegal immigrants get citizenship because of their age, whilst their parents are repatriated. This forceful separation of children from their parents is a violation of their human rights, as article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the family is the natural unit in society which is entitled to state protection1. Separating children from their mother can be seen as a violation of this right.

1 United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948,, accessed 31 August 2011

The repatriation of illegal immigrants is not immoral because they do not have the right to be in that country in the first place. Laws are put in place to prevent people to live certain countries without a legitimate reason, and if these laws are wilfully breached, people must face the consequences. It is true that people have the right of freedom of movement, but this right is restricted to the borders of one's home country, and are widened by international agreements. But even then the freedom of movement can be restricted, even for people in Western countries. If we take the example of a European or an American that wants to go on holiday to a tropical island, we see that freedom of movements is relative. Legally this person can be free to go, but if he or she does not have money to pay a ticket or refuses to do so, this right can still be taken away.

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_...

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

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.

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


Question:
Alternatives are better

There are alternatives to the repatriation of illegal immigrants that are much more attainable. First of all, there has to be more attention to the root causes of migration, rather than attacking the results. The money that would be spent on repatriation could be used for prevention of immigration by focusing on border controls and improving economic conditions in countries where migrants come from. Trade agreements between developed and developing countries could be improved, which gives poorer countries more opportunities to trade. Most illegal immigrants migrate to Western countries to earn money, so if there are more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally and on a temporary basis, with the assurance that they can come back if needed, this will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country.

Repatriation is a more direct solution to the problem, and it is not sure whether these alternatives would work. Tougher border controls will only result in immigrants finding better ways to avoid them; improving economical conditions in poor countries is a slow and insecure progress, and the situation in many developing countries in unlikely to improve anytime soon. Giving illegal immigrants temporary working visas will not stop some immigrants from staying in their host country after their visas have expired if they prefer the living conditions. Even in the case where they do decide to go back to their country of origin, this means the money they have earned will be spent there, and not in the country they have worked. This means the states loses out on revenue.

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_...

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

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.

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