Question:
The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum

The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.

Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 [1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” [2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” [3] This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures [4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:

1) The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person

2) That this threat was persecutory in nature

What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.

We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda [5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato [6] . In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered [7] . It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.

The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.

[1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.

[3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.

[4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.

[6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

[7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation.

Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be.

There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result [1] . The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others.

[1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.

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)

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.

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.

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


Question:
This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights

This policy damages international discourse and progress in LGBT rights.

This policy makes it very unlikely that governments will be willing or receptive to discussions on liberalization of their LGBT laws and policies. Discourse and compromise only happens when both sides of the debate accept the validity of the other person holding the view that they do. If the West outright rejects the views of other nations as “immoral” or “unacceptable” these nations are unlikely to want to engage with the West on these issues as they feel that their opinions will not be respected or be treated fairly or equally. You effectively remove these countries from the negotiating table when you do this. This can be illustrated by countries deemed “backwards” or “immoral” such as Iran and North Korea, who become more isolationist the more they are categorized as and rejected for being “evil” or “unacceptable.” Construction engagement does not begin with the rejection of the other viewpoint’s right to be on the negotiating table.

Moreover, you create an antagonistic relationship between the West and those nations with anti-homosexual laws that hinders further discussion on the issue. By dealing with LGBT treatment in this manner, you effectively brand all acceptance of homosexuality as “Western”. This makes the concept of acceptance for the LGBT community nearly mutually-exclusive with religiously conservative nations or nations who have a historical and national narrative that dislikes the West and the concept of imperialism.

International discourse on this issue has not been working.

When society is the one persecuting the LGBT community, the governments have plausible deniability in the matter and thus can skirt their responsibility in negotiations. This means that all talk and “dialogue” is meaningless as the government’s can claim a lack of responsibility or agree to protection for the LGBT community, but then not offer it because they are “unable” to.

Many times discrimination against sexual orientation is a religious one, and when it is not, it is a moral one. These views are not reconcilable with alternative moral claims as they are absolutist forms of thought. They are not negotiable or a matters of opinion; they are simply right. This will never lead to consensus-building through friendly dialogue.

Even if the leaders of these countries have made laws against certain forms of sexual orientation on a calculated political level, it will be because of the religious/moral views of the citizens within their country. This is important because, given the option of disagreeing with an international community that has no power over them or angering their domestic constituents that either keeps them in power through democratic support or the avoidance of violent unrest, leaders will pick the former. Thus, international consensus-building is bound to fail

These people need protection now. Regardless of any international dialogue about the future, real people are in real danger now. The reason asylum was created was to protect individuals in immediate danger when no immediate solution to the persecution is in sight. This is a perfect fit for the criteria of asylum.

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)

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.

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.

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


Question:
This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty

Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice.

No nation has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The moral viewpoints of a nation and its peoples are not what can be considered ‘just cause.’ It is a religious and moral viewpoint to believe that homosexuality should be prosecuted and it is the obligation of any individual living in a state to abide by the laws of the state that they live in. It is not within the rights of other countries to decide if the domestic laws of another country are in line with their views nor is it legitimate for them to violate sovereignty on this basis.

If an individual wishes to break the laws of their society on moral grounds, they have knowingly and intentionally violated the law. Just as people who think any other law unjust and thus breaks it, the LGBT community is in no way less culpable for the breach of law nor is any state any more justified in allowing them to evade punishment.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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


Question:
This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community

Lasting change to anti-homosexual attitudes will only happen from the ground-up. This hinders the ability of governments to engineer more accepting attitudes toward the LGBT community.

Even if you could get countries to discuss their policies and liberalize them through this policy, this will not actually change the reality for the LGBT on the ground. Nations where anti-homosexuality laws are in place have large swathes of support for these laws as they represent and enforce the morality of the vast majority of their populace. Simply removing anti-homosexuality laws does not protect homosexuals in their home countries. Simply not being pursued by the government does not mean the government is willing or able to protect individuals from society. Moreover, it makes it nearly impossible for the government of that country to try to liberalize and engineer a more LGBT-friendly attitude in their country if they have submitted to Western pressures. Populations feel abandoned by their governments when they no longer reflect or uphold their wishes and what they view as their moral obligations. The government loses its credibility on LGBT issues if it abandons its anti-homosexual platform and thus cannot moderate or attempt to liberalize such views in the future. This simply leads to people taking “justice” against homosexuals into their own hands, making danger to homosexuals less centralized, more unpredictable and much less targeted.

A perfect example of this is in Uganda where the government’s “failure” to implement a death penalty for homosexuality led to tabloid papers producing “Gay Lists” that included people suspected of homosexuality [1] . The importance of this is two-fold. First, it shows that vigilante justice will replace the state justice and thus bring no net benefit to the LGBT community. Second, and more importantly, it means that the violence against LGBT individuals is no longer done by a centralized, controlled state authority, which removes all pretence of due-process and most importantly, makes violence against homosexuality become violence against suspicion of homosexuality. Thus, making it an even more dangerous place for everyone who could associate or in any way identify with what are viewed as “common traits” of the LGBT community.

[1] "Gay Rights in Developing Countries: A Well-Locked Closet." The Economist. 27 May 2010.

As explained in counterargument two, the rationale behind this form of discrimination is nonnegotiable and absolutist due to its religious/moral nature. Consensus-building will not happen in the near future on this issue and even if the potentiality of social acceptance of the LGBT community was in the not-so-distant future, this does not offer any protection to those in danger now, nor remove our obligation to their protection from discrimination and unjust punishment.

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)

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.

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.

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


Question:
Child sponsorship brings about greater understanding between people from different countries and cultures.

Personal letters, charity reports, photographs and even visits help to build a bridge between the developed and developing world[5]. More and more people are able to talk to each other around the world, and it is important that less fortunate people in poor countries are connected to the rest of us and have the opportunity to communicate with us. Sponsorship creates a personal connection - the children get to learn about their sponsors and the sponsors get to learn how their money helps people. This continued attention to the positive effects of sponsorship is really important to help poorer countries, especially at a time when worldwide economics are in trouble and charities are most at risk from begin forgotten [6].

Whilst it is important for people to remember the terrible troubles people have surviving in very poor countries, we must also remember that direct sponsorship is perhaps not the best way to help people out of poverty - there are a lot of downsides [7]. Would it not be better to hear of how an entire community was improved rather than just a single child or family? Ultimately you can’t force people to give to charity, and at times like these when even in wealthy countries people have trouble getting enough money it must be expected that charitable giving will drop.

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:
Sponsorship also contributes to all aspects of life.

This includes drinking water, food, education, medical care, shelter and sanitation - often charitable donations are more specific (they only provide for one of these aspects of life). By putting children at the heart of charity programs it is hoped that a stronger foundation will be made for the future - the young people who are helped today can maintain a better lifestyle in the future [8]. Giving all this to an individual child also produces more tangible results than giving to a vast organisation, whose work is can often over-ambitious and more open to corruption [9].

The problem once with this form of giving is that it only provides for a single child, not an entire community - this is why many organisations refuse to offer single child adoption, and instead spend the money they receive on developing poor places for everyone that lives there [10]. By sponsoring a child rather than giving the money directly to a cause or organisation you add a layer of uncertainty to the process – you can't be sure exactly how your money is being spent, or if it really is being used to help all aspects of life. Some organisations only work through missionaries and churches [11]. Although giving to a single child may produce more tangible and immediate results, the work done by large charity organisations is likely to have more important long term benefits to many more people.

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:
Sponsorship is better than other kinds of charity because it is a long term commitment.

Over the years $30 a month, or perhaps even more, adds up to thousands of dollars’ worth of aid spending - this is different to other forms of charity because the main focus here is on “long-term changes"[2]. Unlike a one-off donation, this method of giving ensures that poor people get support for a long time without costing people too much in one go. It also ensures that people keep giving to these needy causes, and makes people realise that they can afford to make a difference.

The long term nature of sponsorship implies that it does not fix the problems that cause poverty. Instead, many argue it can create dependency[3], meaning that the child and family will come to rely on their sponsor. This may discourage them from using their own efforts to escape poverty. For example, even if leaving their village to find work elsewhere could be best for them, they may stay where they are to keep receiving the sponsorship money and other benefits. By linking a single child to a single wealthy (rich) person it also creates a situation in which it is easy for the child to compare their own lives with those of their sponsors. This could make them unhappy or even jealous [4]. In the end it is still possible to help children through charitable giving, but sponsorship schemes create a more complicated relationship that could sometimes go wrong.

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:
Sponsorship is a good way of getting people who otherwise wouldn't give to charity to donate their money.

Unlike most other forms of charity, sponsorship creates a direct link between the person giving money and the person receiving it. People are able to see the ways in which their money is helping others, and this makes them feel good about it – as World Vision International says - “You get to see and feel the difference your support makes" [12]. Although this is probably not the best reason for people to give their money to those in need, practically speaking (in the real world) it is one of the most effective (it works very well) in encouraging people to give.

People should not need this kind of “feel good factor” in order to give to charity – it is very selfish. People all over the world need help from richer people, and instead of helping just one they have the ability to help many. By focusing in on one single example, people may also get a very narrow view of life in poorer countries – they may feel that the developing world can't look after itself and as a result won't support very important changes to things like government that could actually help the people more than their sponsorship. The “personal connection” is also sometimes made up by the charity organisations, who translate and edit letters sent between the rich and poor to make sure they do not get too emotionally attached to one another [13].

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