Question:
Removing under god would promote religious tolerance

Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity.

This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American. The proposition believes that this is divisive and promotes religious intolerance and that, therefore, this legislation would help relieve the tolerance and divisions caused by the current Pledge of Allegiance.

It is undeniable that any change to the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with resistance from strong patriots who believe it should never be changed.

This change would be associated with and blamed on atheists and non-Christian religious people, thus causing animosity towards them on the part of people who would have otherwise been indifferent towards them.

National pride will, therefore, be associated with Christianity, as opposed to atheism or other religions, to an even greater extent than it is under the status quo.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
Separation of state and religion

The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower.(83rd United States Congress 2nd Session) When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion. The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed.

The mention of the words “under God” does not betray an involvement of religion within the state. The mere mention of religion means nothing for how the government is actually run. Even if religion were unduly involved with the American government, the removal of the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance would do nothing to change this. (Obama 2006)

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
Prevents the marginalisation of non-believers

The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance implies that there is no place for atheism in American patriotism and that non-believers have nothing to give to their country. The removal of these words would create a more inclusive America that accepts that everyone, including all non-Christians and non-believers, have something to give to their country. (Buckner 2002)

True neutrality would be adhering to the status quo; this legislation will be seen as a wilful act on the part of the government to remove religion and faith from patriotism.

As a result, religious people are likely to feel sidelined and alienated by their government to a far greater extent than atheists are likely to feel included.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
Implies ultimate power on the part of the state

The words “under God” reaffirm individual rights of American citizens as divine and coming from above the state. These words show that taking away these rights is not even within the conceivable grasp of the state. Removal of these words puts power back into the hands of the state and reinforces the state as the ultimate authority over what happens to its people. (The American Center for Law and Justice 2004)

The proposition totally rejects the idea that the words “under God” are necessary to indicate that the government does not have the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. The fact that the constitution exists and the government cannot contradict it is what means the government cannot act without consideration; the words “under God” add nothing to the government’s answerability and their removal would detract nothing.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
Associates change and, by extension, anti-nationalism with atheism

Any change to something as ingrained in American patriotism as the Pledge of Allegiance will be met with extreme resistance. As Supreme Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued “the Pledge has become, alongside the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner, our most routine ceremonial act of patriotism; countless schoolchildren recite it daily, and their religious heterogeneity reflects that of the Nation as a whole. As a result, the Pledge and the context in which it is employed are familiar and nearly inseparable in the public mind."(O’Connor, 2004) With it being so ingrained most members of the US public would not see any reason to get rid of the words. The change would be widely accredited to atheists and would create animosity towards them. This legislation, therefore, is inherently divisive.

Shows that the government values atheists as much as religious people and that one does not have to be religious to contribute to the state.

The proposition does not accept that people will regard atheists with animosity as a result of this legislation but will come to recognise them, to a greater degree, as people will an equal potential to give to America.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
The American people would be against the change

As discussed above, the removal of “under God” will not be a move towards neutrality but a move against religion. As a result it is not surprising that the American people would be against such a move. An immense majority, 87% in a newsweek poll said the pledge should contain “under God” against only 9% saying no.(CNN, 2002) No democratic government should go against the will of such a majority of the population they are supposed to represent.

The majority is not allowed to oppress the minority, they would not be allowed to go back to slavery if they wished, in exactly the same way congress should not be able to establish religion even if the majority wants it to as it is against the US constitution.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
“Under God” is part of American tradition and history

Reference to God is made throughout American patriotism. The Supreme Court opens by saying ‘God save America and this honourable court’. The ‘under God’ in the pledge itself came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address a significant speech in American history.(Library of congress) It is impossible to remove references to God from American patriotism and to do so would severely damage American heritage and tradition. (Robertson 2002), (Federer 2003)

Tradition is not a reason for persisting wth anything!

The proposition believes that the fact that references to God are made throughout official American state proceedings is not a reason to persist in including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance but a reason for its removal to be all the more urgent. References to God do not have a place in official state proceedings as the church and the state should be completely separate from one another.

"Under God" as us in the Gettysburg address, had different meanings then. It could mean "God wiling". For that reason alone the phrase should be removed from the Pledge because "one nation, God willing" goes against the whole point.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
Likely to be seen as a state sanctioned condemnation of religion

After nearly sixty years of having the words “under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance this legislation will not be seen as a move to neutrality but a move against religion. 78.4% of Americans are Christian with a further 4.7% believing in other religions.(The Pew Forum, 2007) Most Americans, 60%, think it is good for the country when government leaders publicly express their faith in God.(CNN, 2002) As a result the signal that taking out under God will send to American people is that the state is against religion.

Any modification to the Pledge of Allegiance will be seen as a wilful act by the current government; true neutrality can only be shown by maintaining the status quo.

If the opposition accepts that the inclusion of the words “under God” is a state sanction of religion, then they cannot deny that their inclusion sidelines atheists.

The proposition believes that the status quo is inherently pro-religion and anti-atheists and thus needs to be changed. Religious people will not see a move to the state, which is supposed to be completely separated from religion, making no comment about religion as an anti-religious comment.

These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.

The choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.

The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.

A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]

[1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14046#.UoNqHuImZI0

Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.

Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.

Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.

1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

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


Question:
Women have a right to choose

Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.

Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

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


Question:
Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy

Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.

In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".

1 SECASA

Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion.

1 L.B Finner et al

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

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


Question:
There are practical problems with banning abortion

Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1

Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions.

1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

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


Question:
There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy

There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus.

Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1

1 PRO-Life Information

What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.

Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?

If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.

Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.

[1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org http://www.finalexit.org/ergo_faq.html (accessed 4/6/2011)

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.

Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.

If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.

The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.

Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.

[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16

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