Debate Club Memo

DEBATE CLUB MEMO

DEFINITION

You may be right and I may be wrong but with an effort, together we may get nearer the truth.” - Karl Popper

Debate is a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or individuals. But more broadly, and more importantly, debate is an essential tool for developing and maintaining democracy and open societies. More than a mere verbal or performance skill, debate embodies the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for divergent points of view, and rigorous self- examination. Debate is, above all, a way for those who hold opposing views to discuss controversial issues without descending to insult, emotional appeals, or personal bias. A key trademark of debate is that it rarely ends in agreement, but rather, allows for a robust analysis of the question at hand. Perhaps this is what French philosopher Joseph Joubert meant when he said: “It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it.”

DEBATE AND DEMOCRACY

"Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.” - Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay

From its very beginnings, debate has been inextricably intertwined with the concept of the open society. In ancient Athens, citizens gathered in forums to discuss and debate the most pressing issues of the day before casting their votes. Such debates were an integral part of the new form of government Athens was to bequeath to the world: democracy.

Unlike totalitarian and other undemocratic regimes where a limited set of ideas are imposed as absolute truths, democratic societies depend upon the free and open exchange of ideas. Indeed, it may be said that true democracy cannot exist without debate. For democracy to function, the values that debate encourages - reason, tolerance, the careful weighing of evidence - must be cherished and nurtured. But even within societies that restrict open discussion, debate can teach young people that no one person or government possesses the ultimate truth.

A debate in the classroom should: • focus on the core elements of controversial issues • emphasize tolerance for multiple points of view • emphasize the development of analytical thinking skills • instill in participants an appreciation for the value of teamwork • provide students with the opportunity to debate many kinds of resolutions

Debate is intended to help students: • develop a broad knowledge base • improve argumentative abilities • speak persuasively and extemporaneously

FORMAT All the students are divided into three or more political parties with one of the students being its leader. If they wish they can name their party and create a philosophy, but it isn’t necessary. Teams are presented with a “resolution,” such as “Economic development should be valued above protection of the environment” or “Human genetic engineering is immoral.” The team affirming the resolution speaks first. The opposing team then must refute the arguments offered by the affirming team and offer arguments rejecting the resolution. Both sides are given the opportunity to present their positions and to directly question the opposing team.

The Judge is elected and assumes the following responsibilities:

 to direct the discussion  to take care of the timing providing all debaters with equal chances to put forward their case  to prevent uncontrolled quarrels and improper behaviour.  evaluate the persuasiveness of the arguments and offer constructive feedback on such elements as faulty logic, insufficient evidence, and arguments debaters may have overlooked. Debate teams are judged strictly on the merits of their arguments.

The list of suggested topics is distributed among the participants. The same topic can be defended by only one party and should be opposed by the other parties by turns. Students are given preparation time in which to 1. think about how they will defend their own motion, and 2. think about how they will attack the bills which their party has decided to oppose. Once the preparation time ends, a parliamentary assembly begins. The Judge invites the consideration of each bill in turn, with students making speeches in favor of the bill, and other students making speeches against the bill. The party whose motions were defeated loses the debate.

RULES  No research is permitted during the discussion. Once the debate begins, the participants may not conduct research via the Internet, nor through electronic or other means.  No outside assistance is permitted. Debaters, however, are allowed to consult whatever research materials they have brought with them to the debate.  Debaters should be able to provide sources for direct citations. When debaters refer to any public information, they should be prepared to provide, upon request, complete source documentation to the opposing team and to the judge. Ordinarily, such documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name and date of a publication (and a page number, if available), or the URL of a Web site.  Debaters should practice intellectual honesty. Students should cite arguments and statistics truthfully, and never fabricate sources or data.  Debate should be approached as a team activity.  As long as the speakers communicate their ideas clearly, it does not matter if they use sheets of paper instead of note cards, or if they read parts of the speeches. However, though it is more persuasive if speakers do not read their speeches, they should not be marked down heavily.

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS Teachers do not need to be specialists with extensive training in oratory or logic (although training is certainly a plus). A teacher is not expected to pass along a body of knowledge to his or her students the way that a chemistry teacher might. The rules and procedures of debate that must be taught are comparatively few. The teacher's job, actually, is to foster the development of thinking skills. The teacher is there to draw things out of the students rather than to pour things in.

USEFUL TIPS

1. Consider road-mapping—setting out at the beginning of your speech what you intend to do and how you intend to do it. This can keep your plan straight in both the judge’s mind and your own.  title all of your points, so they can be easily referred to  give an explanation of them  expand them, tie them to broader values, and, especially,  give examples. 2. If you’re stuck . . .  think of why you came up with the case in the first place  think of different perspectives on the action (e.g. pragmatic, philosophical, political, social, economic, etc.)  ask yourself who are the interests affected by a particular action and how will they benefit from your case. 3. Present 1 or 2 constructive points for opposition (explain why your side is right, not just what is wrong with government’s case). Refute each of the points brought by your opponents – challenge their plan or definition; question their assumptions 4. Watch out for logical fallacies. These can include:  Slippery Slopes (After A happens, B, C, and D will too, but we won’t tell you why…)  False Analogies  Appeals to Tradition (Just because something has always been a certain way doesn’t mean it should be in the future)  Correlation vs. Causation (Did A cause B or did B just follow it?)  Straw Man (Misrepresenting an argument in order to make it look weaker than it is)

TOPICS I BRITISH TRADITIONALISM

Topic 1 Reform of Licensing Laws in the UK Summary Should the opening hours of pubs and bars be extended? Context Current legislation limits the opening hours of public houses. Publicans are forced to close at a certain hour at night (11pm), after which if customers wish to continue their night out, they must go to nightclubs, which have late licensing. Many people argue, for a variety of reasons, that the government should extend opening hours, even to twenty-four hour opening. In opposition, there are an array of arguments, based in concern for public safety and the right to impose restrictions when it is beneficial to society and the people involved. Motions This House Would Extend Opening Hours in Pubs This House Would Call Time on Last Orders Useful Sites The Brewers’ and Licensed Retailers’ Association: News The Portman Group (speaks on behalf of the alcohol industry): News Alcohol Concern Topic 2 Reform of the House of Lords Summary Should the House of Lords continue in its present form? Or should it become a partly or entirely elected chamber? Context The state of the Lords has been the subject of much recent debate. Britain’s second chamber primarily serves the purpose of scrutinising the bills sent to it by the House of Commons. It is expected to oversee what goes on in the democratically elected Commons, acting as a kind of watchdog. The controversy centres on its composition; it has a large number of hereditary peers (recently reduced to ninety by New Labour’s first stage of reform), who are there purely because of their ‘noble’ birth. In addition, the rest of the chamber is made up of appointees; there are no elected members of this chamber. The recent Wakeham report recommended that an elected element be phased in gradually, whilst at the same time reducing hereditary peers. It remains to be seen what form the second phase of reform of the Lords will take. Motions This House calls for a reformed House of Lords This House demands a fully elected Lords Useful Sites The House of Lords Homepage ElectoralReform.Org The Centre for Republican Democracy

Topic 3 Disestablishing the Church of England Summary Should we disestablish the Church of England? Context Since the sixteenth century, the Church of England has enjoyed a position of constitutional privilege in the country. The head of the Church of England is the reigning monarch; its highest-ranking clergyman is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Despite a deep-rooted decline in religious practice, the Church continues to enjoy its status as England’s ‘established’ religion, with all the privileges that imparts – including seats for senior bishops in the House of Lords. This last honour is unique to the Church of England; the most prominent figures in England’s other faiths are excluded. As religious belief has declined, and England has become an increasingly multi-cultural state, so too have calls for the disestablishment of the Church become more vocal. Motions This House Would Disestablish the Church of England This House Does Not Want a National Religion Useful Sites Chuch of England Simon Hughes' Bill to Disestablish the Church of England (Conservative MP) ChurchNet.Org: News

Topic 4 Privatisation of the NHS Summary Should the NHS be privatised? Context With the current social climate boasting a distinct air of discontent with the National Health Service there is a certain justification in calling for the privatisation of health in the UK, in accordance with American policies. The reputation of the NHS has taken a severe battering over the past few decades, with critics citing it’s funding problems and bureaucratic mismanagement – the pride of the British nation is now crumbling and the case for complete overhaul of the present approach is indeed controversial. Motions This house would privatise the NHS This house would pay for its health care Useful Sites Centre for Policy Studies Benefits Agency Medical Services: Privatisation (BBC) Your NHS: HomePage Topic 5 University Tuition Fees Summary Should students in higher education be charged tuition fees? Context Originally, UK students were supported by a maintenance grant from the government, which went towards payment for necessities such as food and accommodation. The last Conservative government replaced this system with a student loan, to be paid back after the student graduated and reached a set income. Tony Blair’s Labour government kept this loan, but added in a tuition fee for each student (currently £1050 per year ) to go towards the cost of their further education, which can be paid after the education, if necessary, in the same way as the loan. The introduction of tuition fees sparked a huge backlash, with many students refusing to pay them on principle. The proposition are therefore defending their introduction. The debate over which system preferable can often turn into a debate over whether university education is a right or a privilege. It should also be noted that many statistics can be produced by both sides for number of applications, percentage of applications by class etc, but as these are all for the very short term they may not be completely reliable. Motions This House supports tuition fees This House would make students pay. This House values education Useful Sites Universities UK NUS (National Union for Students) Higher Education Funding Council Department for Education and Skills AimHigher (Student finance advice site) Liberal Democrat party campaign to end fees Education Guardian collection of articles on tuition fees Telegraph collection of articles

Topic 6 Devolution Summary Is devolution (in Scotland and Wales) to be regretted? Context After the British general election of 1997, the Labour government arranged for a referendum on its proposals, which were set out in a White Paper of July 1997, ‘Scotland’s Parliament’. The Scottish referendum, held on 11 September 1997, produced clear majorities for the two propositions about the creation of a Scottish Parliament and its having certain tax-varying powers. Following this result, the Scotland Bill was introduced in Parliament in January 1998 and became law as the Scotland Act in November that year. The Parliament took on it’s full powers and functions on 1 July 1999.In July 1997, the Government published also its White Paper, ‘A Voice for Wales’, which outlined its proposals for devolution in Wales. These proposals were endorsed in the Welsh referendum of 18 September 1997. Subsequently, Parliament passed the Government of Wales Act 1998, which established the National Assembly for Wales.Since devolution was passed the debate surrounding whether Scotland and Wales should have devolved Parliaments has continued to evoke controversy. Four years on the issues are still pertinent and debate over the success of the schemes or even whether the situation should be changed is very interesting. In the arguments below, the proposition side are arguing that devolution has been a mistake. Motions This House regrets devolution This House believes that devolution has weakened the Union Useful Sites Scottish Parliament Website Welsh Assembly Website Scottish Parliament Website: History of Scottish devolution and facts relating to jurisdictions Scottish Parliament Website: Comprehensive guide to Scottish devolution Archive of Scottish support for Devolution Topic 7 Bill of Rights Summary Should the UK have a Bill of Rights ? Context Many countries have a Bill of Rights, or similar constitutional document. This lays out certain fundamental (‘inalienable’) rights that citizens of the country possess. These have typically included the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial and freedom from torture. The UK at present has a ‘virtual’ constitution, which is made up of the hundreds of legal precedents accumulated over the years. It has been proposed to make this into a proper, written Bill of Rights. However, a number of problems are posed by the idea of introducing such a Bill into the UK. Firstly, does the concept of a ‘right’ make any sense, both on its own and in relation to other people ? And if it does, then how should ‘rights’ be decided and laid down ? The proposition will not only need to mount a defence of ‘rights’, but explain how they will be framed and subject to change. This topic has been written from the point of view of someone debating the issue in the United Kingdom. The same arguments could be applied in similar ways in other countries that did not have a Bill of Rights. Motions This House calls for a British Bill of Rights This House would write down its rights This House believes its rights should be readable Useful Sites The Human Rights Act Charter 88 Human Rights Web

Topic 8 Abolition of Sex Education Summary Should the practice of sex education classes for children under the age of consent in Britain’s schools be abandoned? Context Sex education has been taught in varying forms in the UK since the First World War. Of late, it has – both sides of the debate agree – become more… open, on the one hand, or crude, on the other. Is this right? Should we abandon the attempt to teach sex education, and leave it to parents? The parameters of this debate can be bickered over (Taught what exactly? At what age?) but the most interesting and productive debate is whether we should have sex education at all.. The case discussed here is for and against abolition and although specific details are focused upon the UK situation, the arguments will apply elsewhere. Motions This House would abolish sex education in schools This House would leave it to the parents This House would preserve innocence This House believes the state should stay out of the bedroom Useful Sites BMJ: Limits of Teacher-Delivered Sex Education Carnal Knowledge: The Sex Ed Debate “ Sex etc”: a website by teens for teens Sexuality Information and Education Council of Canada Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States Sexwise Online

Topic 9 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOS) Summary Should Anti-Social Behaviour Orders be scrapped? Context Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced in the UK by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and have been available in England and Wales since April 1999. They were ‘reinforced’ by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. The 1998 Act defines anti-social behaviour as behaviour that "caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household." They stop people from doing stated things or going to stated places. They last for a minimum of two years, but can last longer. Those given ASBOs can be ‘named and shamed’ in local media, and sometimes are. Orders have been granted for abusive behaviour, vandalism, flyposting, and harassment as well as more the more celebrated exotic problems such as elderly people incessantly playing gramophones. Whilst ASBOs are civil orders, criminal penalties can result from breaching them. Motions This House believes Anti-Social Behaviour Orders should be scrapped This House believes that ASBOs have failed This House would not use civil penalties against criminal acts Useful Sites Wikipedia on ASBOs Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (introduced ASBOs) Home Office overview of ASBOs (includes statistics) Examples of ASBOs issued Asbo Concern Liberty Politics.co.uk pages on Antisocial behaviour, with links Children's Rights Alliance

Topic 10 War Powers for UK parliament Summary Should the prerogative power to commit British armed forces to armed conflict abroad be removed from the UK Prime Minister and placed instead in parliament? Context Although the UK is a democracy, historical precedent dictates that it is the monarch who appoints “Her Majesty’s Government” and chooses “their” Prime Minister. In practice the government and Prime Minister have to command a majority of MPs in the elected House of Commons, so democratic accountability is clear – the leader of the largest party in the Commons is asked by the Crown to form a government. Nonetheless, there are many powers of the Prime Minister and their government which derive from their appointment by the Crown, rather than from their mandate from the people. These prerogative powers stretch back to the powers of the Crown in the medieval period, and include the appointment of bishops, dissolution of parliament, signing of treaties, and the power to declare war. All of these can be exercised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown without seeking parliamentary approval. For example, when in 1939 war was declared on Nazi Germany, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain took the decision with a small number of colleagues and announced it to the House of Commons – there was no vote. In recent decades Britain has undertaken a number of major military deployments around the world, and the right of the Prime Minister to do this without consulting parliament has increasingly come under question (as have other prerogative rights). Partly in recognition of this, Tony Blair asked parliament’s approval to commit troops in both 2002 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq), but these votes were sought voluntarily and Blair’s government was reluctant to see them as establishing a precedent for the future. Nonetheless, private members bills on removing the prerogative power of declaring war were put forward for discussion (notably by ex-Cabinet minister Clare Short in 2005), and a committee of the House of Lords published a weighty report advocating change in 2006. In 2007 Blair’s successor as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced that he favoured reform of the royal prerogative in a number of areas, and as part of a wider constitutional review. Seeking “to make a more open 21st century British democracy which better serves the British people”, Brown committed the government to change and a consultation document was published in October 2007 outlining issues and options for reform of war powers. Motions This House calls for a War Powers Act That the prerogative power of the Prime Minister to declare war should be abolished This House would give war-making powers to parliament Useful Sites UK Government Consultation Document Unlock Democracy Guardian article with case for increasing parliament’s powers Guardian article with case against extending parliament’s powers Liberal Democrat position Guardian article House of Lords report and government response (2006) University of Strathclyde working paper putting contemporary debate into historical and constitutional context Thoughtful blog discussion

II AMERICAN DIVERSITY

Topic 1 US Role in World Stability Summary Is the USA a threat to world stability or a political force for good? Context The USA has been described as ‘the world’s policeman’. But should we be that trusting of it? After all, the USA has notably failed in some areas to use its influence and resources for the common good, and its policy can fluctuate between isolationism and over-bearing intervention. Should the USA be feared or welcomed by the international community? The proposition should note that this isn’t about disliking Americans as individuals. This debate, when approached from a range of angles, can combine arguments about the USA’s political and military interventions in global affairs and arguments about its cultural influence around the world. Motions This House fears the US This House would disown Uncle Sam This House believes that the world’s policeman should be locked up Useful Sites Historical and current perspectives on US territorial and cultural imperialism Americans against world empire Database of information on multinationals and their dangers PoliSci.com – political reference desk Stanley Foundation: Framing a New Global Vision Atlantic Council: Military Transformations

Topic 2 Bilateral vs Multilateral Aid Summary Should the USA prefer to give aid money bilaterally (directly to individual countries or projects) or multilaterally (channelling it through United Nations agencies, World Bank, NGOs, etc.)? Context The giving of international aid has been taking place for decades, but the higher levels of international aid we know today are largely a phenomenon of the post-World War II era. Contrasting models of foreign aid giving are provided by programs like the Marshall Plan, involving bilateral aid arrangements with each of several European countries, and by the multilateral arrangements created by the Bretton Woods process (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank). Historically, bilateral aid dominates the foreign aid landscape. The major economic powerhouses—mostly former colonial powers and the United States— provide the bulk of foreign aid. Contributions by multilateral organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank have been controversial for their focus on economic development and the sometimes severe austerity measures they impose upon recipients. Because aid in both contexts is often tied to loans, critics have argued that aid has merely led to the dependence of developing countries on the developed world. Recently, countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have increased their contributions to NGOs or non- governmental organizations that provide help with a variety of different needs in recipient countries. Despite these changes, citizens and politicians in both the United States and Europe seem to be experiencing an increased level of “aid fatigue,” questioning the value of the continued expense. Motions In its relationship with the UN, the USA should favour multilateral rather than bilateral aid The United States should channel its international aid through UN agencies This House favours multilateral aid This House would club together This House would not go it alone Useful Sites Provides a series of links to summaries of arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of bilateral and multilateral aid packages An extensive document by the Congressional Budget Office on the role of aid in international development, including a discussion of bilateral and multilateral models An article by the UN Department of Public Information regarding the gradual shift of aid from major donor countries to NGOs A centralized resource for aid reports on various recipient countries and regions and analysis of different aid formulas Briefing paper with a detailed discussion of the history of aid and the strengths of bilateral and multilateral aid The official website of the US government’s aid granting agency

Topic 3 UN Peacekeepers and the USA Summary Should the United States participate in UN peacekeeping operations and, if so, should the United States permit its troops to serve as UN troops (rather than as US troops under an independent command)? Context The United Nations has engaged in peacekeeping operations for several decades, most heavily in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The number of those operations dropped when US support became constrained by Presidential Decision Directive 25 that established specific and more restrictive criteria for US involvement. The UN Security Council later adopted similar criteria. The type of operations conducted by the UN has evolved from truce and cease-fire monitoring to more aggressive actions, such as disarmament of combatants, and more managerial operations, such as election monitoring. The Bush administration has sought to scale down US commitments to peacekeeping, reducing the number of troops in Bosnia and Kosovo and refusing to supply troops for the peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan (separate from those troops hunting Al Qaeda). While there have been occasional small-scale exceptions, most notably in the UN’s Macedonia operation (under Clinton) and its operation in Georgia (under Bush), the US government has not been in the practice of allowing its soldiers to operate under UN command. This has even extended to the practice of not wearing Blue Helmets or UN insignia. While this attitude has some basis in actual public policy arguments, it is in part an acknowledgement of an attitude among many isolationists (and others) in the USA that the UN is a dangerous institution bent on the spread of world government at the expense of national sovereignty. These critics see the UN as a failed institution, full of corruption that US soldiers should not concede their identity to. This topic addresses the related questions of (1) should the United States participate in UN peacekeeping operations and (2) should the United States permit its troops to serve as UN troops (rather than as US troops under an independent command)? Regardless of how the proposition is worded (e.g. whether your debate specifically focuses on the wearing of “Blue Helmets”) the two questions are closely related, as nearly every US discussion of peacekeeping involvement addresses the initial fundamental issue of whether it is appropriate for US soldiers to engage in nation-building or peacekeeping exercises. Motions The US should send US soldiers to serve in UN peacekeeping missions US soldiers on peacekeeping missions should serve under UN command This House would wear blue helmets Useful Sites Pages from America’s UN Mission, presenting myths and facts related to the US-UN relationship A paper that argues why the United States is an ineffective peacekeeper, regardless of who is in command Congressional Research document that reviews US financial participation in peacekeeping operations and provides a good history of these operations Statement regarding the scandal with peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by an American organization with historical objections toward peacekeeping operations Links to a Congressional Research Service document advancing arguments about what the appropriate role of the United States should be in UN operations Useful article on the pros and cons of US involvement, as well as the involvement of other major powers An example of advocacy by American groups who oppose the UN in its entirety, and peacekeeping involvement specifically

Topic 4 USA leaving UNESCO Summary Should the USA leave the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation? Context The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation was founded on the 16th of November, 1945 and is based in Paris, France. Its stated goal is ‘to build peace in the minds of men.’ UNESCO has a humanitarian agenda – it pledges to work towards particular Millennium Development Goals, in particular, it wishes to * halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty in developing countries by 2015 * achieve universal primary education in all countries by 2015 * eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005 * help countries implement a national strategy for sustainable development by 2005 * to reverse current trends in the loss of environmental resources by 2015. However, the organisation is allegedly misused to promote particular political aims. The Reagan administration said that UNESCO “politicized virtually every subject it deals with, has exhibited hostility toward the basic institutions of a free society, especially a free market and a free press, and has demonstrated unrestrained budgetary expansion.” The USA withdrew from the organisation in 1983 and only rejoined in 2002 - a decision which surprised many both at home and abroad, and which remains controversial. Motions This House calls for the US should leave UNESCO This House believes rejoining UNESCO was a mistake for the USA This House opposes UNESCO Useful Sites UNESCO US State Department Vision Statement on Multilateral Diplomacy, including the decision to rejoin UNESCO Wikipedia (includes a list of all Directors-General) The Heritage Foundation disagreed with rejoining and here presents a comprehensive case against Article against the USA rejoining UNESCO #1 Article against the USA rejoining UNESCO #2 US Secretary of Education on the decision to rejoin UNESCO United Nations Association of the USA

Topic 5 Production and use of Landmines in the United States Summary Should the USA discontinue the production of landmines, and sign the Ottawa Convention? Context The 1997 Ottawa Convention banned the use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines. One hundred and thirty-five nations have signed the convention – the USA has not. The Convention's aims became official United Nations policy with General Assembly Resolution 53/77. The Ottawa Convention requires those that do so to abandon the use of landmines within ten years, and also requires the destruction of the signatory's stockpile of landmines. Motions This House believes the US should cease production and exportation of landmines and sign the UN convention This House would sign the Ottawa Convention This House would ban landmines Useful Sites Adopt-a-landmine International campaign to ban landmines Pro-landmines article The Ottawa Convention Human Rights Watch BBC Online article and debate Statement of US Government policy

Topic 6 International Atomic Energy Authority and the USA Summary Should future US counter-proliferation efforts be directed through the IAEA? Context At the end of the Cold War, believing that the nuclear threat had finally receded, much of the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. Victory in the Cold War, however, sowed the seeds of a new threat: that of nuclear proliferation (the spread of nuclear weapons). In recent years this topic has never been far from the headlines. In 2003, Iraq's nuclear program was given as one justification for the second Gulf War. In the 2004 US Presidential election campaign, both President Bush and Senator Kerry identified nuclear proliferation as the single biggest security threat facing the United States. At the time of writing (October 2005) a debate about how to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is raging. Only last week the international body set up to prevent proliferation, the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) and its Director, Mohamed ElBaradei, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their work. The cornerstone of the international law concerning nuclear weapons is the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Every state in the world except India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea are signatories. North Korea was a member but withdrew in 2003. Under the NPT, five states (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) are recognised as having the right to possess nuclear weapons. These states are known as the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). The other states, the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS), have promised not to acquire nuclear weapons. In return, they have 'the inalienable right' to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. One cause of proliferation is that civilian nuclear programs can be used to make the fuel for a nuclear bomb (the hardest part of any nuclear weapons program). Specifically, there are two routes for making reactor fuel: uranium enrichment (in which uranium ore is refined) and plutonium reprocessing (in which plutonium is separated from used reactor fuel). However, exactly the same processes can be used to refine the product still further and make weapons-grade material. The IAEA was set up to monitor civilian nuclear programs and ensure that they are used for legitimate purposes. The IAEA inspects nuclear facilities and, if it believes that a state is using them to build a nuclear weapon, then it must report this to the United Nations Security Council. The US has recently become frustrated with IAEA efforts and has started to work outside the framework of the NTP. In particular, President Bush has proposed that enrichment and reprocessing facilities should be denied to states that do already possess them. He has also started the Proliferation Security Initiative, an informal arrangement between the US and its allies to share intelligence and intercept suspect cargoes at sea. Note that the US essentially views these actions as a supplement, rather than an alternative, to the NPT and IAEA. Nobody would deny that the IAEA has had some successes, and few in the US are keen to abandon the NPT entirely; rather this debate is about whether it is effective for the US to take additional action to prevent nuclear proliferation. Motions This house believes that international law does not offer the best route to stop the spread of nuclear weapons This House believes that future US counter-proliferation efforts should not be directed through the IAEA This House prefers coalitions of the willing Useful Sites Arms Control Today IAEA Text of the NPT Carnegie Endowment Website Some useful background material from the US State Department Acronym Institute's minisite on the subject

Topic 7 Millennium Development Goals and US leadership Summary Should the USA provide more leadership towards meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals? Context In September 2000 189 Heads of State and Government signed the UN Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to work to "free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected." The Declaration contained a blueprint for doing this by 2015 through eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which would form the basis for international efforts. In summary, the Goals are: 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 2. Achieve universal primary education 3. Promote gender equality and empower women 4. Reduce child mortality 5. Improve maternal health 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 7. Ensure environmental sustainability 8. Develop a global partnership for development

Motions The USA should provide more leadership towards meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals This House believes meeting the Millennium Development Goals requires stronger US leadership This House calls for more US commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals This House moves to increase the amount of aid the United States is granting to Africa This House believes the increasing foreign aid to Africa is the only solution to achieving the MDGs Useful Sites UN Millennium Development goals Millennium Campaign in the USA UN Human Development reports Heritage Foundation Research Paper: The U.N.'s World Summit is Wrong on Development Assistance Millennium Challenge Corporation United Nations Association of the USA on the Millennium Development Goals, with useful links Global Policy Forum, with a range of very useful links Global Governance Initiative of the World Economic Forum Net Aid EU site on the Millennium Development Goals BBC website overview of the Millennium Development Goals Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OneWorld.net's Perspectives Magazine The Millennium Development Goals The Millennium Initiative "Aspirations and Obligations" - a somewhat skeptical view from economist.com

Topic 8 US support for Global Fund Summary Should the USA increase its financial commitment to the Global Fund to better fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria? Context AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis kill over six million people worldwide each year, most of them in poor countries with limited resources. As well as the direct human suffering and loss these three killer diseases bring, they also help to keep poor countries poor by greatly reducing the ability of sufferers to work productively, both in the labour force in support of their families or in education. AIDS in particular can devastate poor communities by killing mostly adults (over 3 million in 2002, and rising), leaving many orphans and overburdening social structures. In developed countries public health systems generally have the infrastructure and funding to treat those suffering from such illnesses, and to operate prevention strategies (e.g. the USA has allocated $17.5 billion for Fiscal Year 2005 for domestic programmes against HIV/AIDS). Yet in the developing world such help is often either unavailable or unaffordable, and even in richer countries, able to pay for courses of antiretroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS costing thousands of dollars a year, there is still no vaccine against HIV. To address these challenges the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was set up in 2002. Although independent of other international bodies such as the United Nations, it works closely with the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS to deliver programmes in over a hundred countries worldwide. To date (October 2005) the Global Fund has spent over $1.5 billion on programmes which are treating an extra 220 000 people suffering from AIDS, as well as over 1 million people with malaria and 600 000 with tuberculosis. It is now seeking $7.1 billion to fund programmes through to 2007. This money comes from donor states as well as private business and charities, but inevitably most is supplied by individual countries who pledged their support when the Fund was established. So far the United States has provided a third of the Global Fund's contributions (European countries have collectively donated just over 50%), but there is uncertainty as to whether the Bush Administration and Congress will provide an appropriate share of future funding. There is also controversy over American priorities in putting billions more dollars into US- run international anti-AIDS initiatives, which have been seen as by-passing the Global Fund and undermining its work through conflicting policies. Motions The USA should increase its financial commitment to the Global Fund to better fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria This House calls on the USA to do more to fight killer diseases This House would do more to back the Global Fund Useful Sites The Global Fund (with excellent links) AIDSPAN (watchdog group for the Global Fund) UNAIDS World Health Organisation All.Africa.com story on problems in Uganda #1 All.Africa.com story on problems in Uganda #2 Friends of the Global Fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS Foreign Affairs article on US AIDS Policy AVERT.org on President Bush's AIDS initiative US State Department on The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: First Report to Congress Health GAP - NGO critical of US Policy on AIDS United Nations Association of the USA comment on US policy to combat malaria United Nations Association of the USA UK Consortium on AIDS and International Development Clinton Foundation on bulk purchasing of drugs Topic 9 Intervention of Failed States Summary Should the USA work together with the UN to prevent the collapse of third- world states? Context Definitions vary, but a failed state is usually thought of as one where any government has broken down to the point where it can no longer provide any services to the people. Most importantly, this means that law and order has collapsed, with the government losing its monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Often large areas of the country are in the control of non-government forces, perhaps through civil war but often as a result of lawlessness and banditry. Recent estimates by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace (see web links) suggest that up to 2 billion people worldwide live in insecure states where government has either failed or is fragile, and are exposed to varying degrees of violence as a result. The most complete example of a failed state is perhaps Somalia, where no government has been able to take effective control of the country since the death fifteen years ago of Siad Barre, its dictator. Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cote D'Ivoire provide other commonly-discussed examples. States recovering from recent collapse could include Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola, although in none of these is recovery certain, while Cambodia, Mozambique, Lebanon and East Timor provide examples of relative longer-term success after periods of failure. Today many observers are gloomy about the futures of countries including Zimbabwe, Nepal, Guinea, Afghanistan, Chad, Sudan, Bolivia and Iraq, as well as the Palestinian Authority. Civil warfare is a big element in the failure of states, but this can include situations where a government has lost control of a significant area of its territory but can function at least minimally effectively elsewhere - examples of this could include Russia (with Chechnya), Colombia, Sudan and the Philippines. The question of how the outside world should respond to such civil wars is addressed in another topic; this one will focus upon states in which widespread collapse of government institutions is threatened, and on whether and how the USA and global community should act to prevent failure. Motions The USA should work together with the UN to prevent the collapse of third- world states This House would save failing states This House believes the USA should do more to prevent failed states Useful Sites Foreign Affairs Global Policy Forum with links a range of articles Centre for Defense Information resources centre on failed states Foreign Policy index of failing states, with links Global Guerillas - blog with good links Brookings Institution Paper

Topic 10 Reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine in Broadcasting Summary Should the Fairness Doctrine be reintroduced in the USA? Context Until twenty years ago broadcasters in the USA had by law to follow the federal government’s “Fairness Doctrine”. This rule, formally introduced in 1949, required radio and television stations to give “ample play to the free and fair competition of opposing views”, so that listeners and viewers received a range of opinions and individual stations were not able to promote particular viewpoints to the exclusion of all others. The doctrine was also supported by Congress in legislation, although there is argument over whether this required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate broadcasters in this way, or simply allowed them to do so if they judged it necessary. A 1969 Supreme Court case found that the Fairness Doctrine did not infringe the constitutional freedom of speech. In 1987 the Reagan Administration’s FCC judged that the Fairness Doctrine was an outdated and unnecessary interference in the broadcasting business and it was repealed. Congress made an attempt to reimpose it but President Reagan vetoed this and the doctrine has never been brought back since. Since the Fairness Doctrine was removed in 1987 talk radio has become much more prominent, bringing a brash and lively style of political debate into many American homes (and cars). Conservative viewpoints dominate their agenda, and hosts such as Rush Limbaugh make no attempt to hide their own political opinions or to provide a platform for views which disagree with their own. Such stations are now seen as hugely politically influential, with loyal audiences which they can mobilise to lobby, vote and protest on key issues. This was particularly seen in the collapse of immigration reform in 2007, when some Republicans as well as Democrats began to call for talk radio to be reined back, perhaps through the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Motions This House would reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine This House calls for “fair and balanced” broadcasting That broadcasters should be required to provide ample play to the free and fair competition of opposing views Useful Sites Federal Communications Commission National Public Radio (NPR) Columbia Journalism Review Economist article Rush Limbaugh Air America Radio Wikipedia entry with good links PBS interview with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting National Review article Pew Research Centre Centre for American Progress report

III EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

Topic 1 European Defence Force Summary Should the European Union have its own standing army? Context In recent years, there has been much discussion regarding the concept of a European Defence Force (sometimes referred to as the “Euro Corps” or EDF). Such a standing armed force would be drawn from EU member-nations and operate under EU control, in contrast to the existing NATO grouping which has the United States as a prominent and influential member. As is often the case with matters of national and regional defence, there is much controversy as to whether the European Defence Force is a good idea. Debates on the Euro Corps can often revolve around the proposed role of NATO in the post-Cold War era, and it is important to realise that the significance of the EDF may resonate beyond the borders of the European Union. Motions This House believes in a European Defence Force. This House Believes that Europe should defend itself. Useful Sites Polis.Net: Pan European Defence Force Jane's Defence Section

Topic 2 European Common Agricultural Policy Summary Should the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy be scrapped in favour of free trade? Context The Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP, is a complex system of subsidies paid by the EU to farmers. Member states have to contribute to a central pool, which the EU then divides, as it sees fit. Some of these subsidies are actually paid to farmers to stop them farming their land, in order to keep the amount of food on the market low and therefore maintain a good price for food. The main proponents of scrapping the CAP have been the more economically liberal countries, such as the UK, whereas the more socialist countries have been its biggest supporters. In this debate the proposition advocates a complete scrapping of the CAP. The fundamental proposition theme is that the introduction of a free market to European agriculture can only be good for the consumer. The opposition advocates the use of interventionist policies. So this debate is an instance of the classic clash between ‘laissez- faire’ and interventionist ideologies. Motions This House Would Scrap the CAP This House Demands an End to EU Protectionism Useful Sites Wyn Grant's Common Agricultural Policy Page Europa: The European Union's Homepage: Agriculture

Topic 3 European Federalisation Summary Should the European Union become a federal superstate, with consequent loss of national sovereignty for member countries? Context At a minimum a federal Europe would involve the loss of national vetoes and a considerable strengthening of the powers of the EU Commission, probably with direct Europe-wide elections for an EU Federal Government (perhaps with a President on the U.S. model?). A European Government would be responsible for defence, foreign policy, economic policy, agriculture and external trade, immigration, and the central taxation and justice systems needed to support these functions – much as the federal governments of states such as the U.S.A, Canada, Germany and Australia are at present. Federalism implies a strong degree of subsidiarity, with power devolved to the lowest appropriate level, rather than a very centralised state (such as France or Britain were before reforms in the 1990s). This implies that the current states within the EU, while losing overall independence, would retain considerable powers over issues such as culture, education, law and order, infrastructure, and the taxation and justice systems required to support these, as the states within the U.S.A do today. The location of powers over welfare, pensions and other social issues is less clear, as is the federal government’s relationship with the existing European Central Bank. Devotees of subsidiarity would, however, also wish national governments to devolve other existing powers downwards to their regions and local authorities, further weakening the role of today’s national politicians within a future federal Europe. It is, therefore, very important for a Proposition on this topic to clarify what kind of federal Europe is at issue. Motions This House would create a United States of Europe This House believes in a federal Europe This House would pursue an ever closer union This House would go deeper Useful Sites Committee of the Regions: Speech by Romano Prodi: "Reshaping Europe" The Federal Trust The European Party The Bruges Group (British eurosceptic organisation) The European Movement (British pro-integration organisation)

Topic 4 Expansion of NATO Summary Should NATO Expand to the East ? Will the proposed NATO expansion consolidate or eliminate stability in Europe ? Context The decision whether to enlarge the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation from its present membership of 19 States to include the States of Eastern Europe, the Baltic and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) stems from the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary at the Madrid summit of the alliance in 1997. The subsequent 50th anniversary summit in Washington DC in April 1999 brought strong statements of support for NATO enlargement. In adherence to the pledge made in the Republican Party’s ‘Contract for America’, President Bush has maintained the impetus for enlargement through speeches made during his official trip to Europe in June 2001. In response, NATO Secretary General George Robertson has affirmed that NATO expects to proceed to further enlargement at the November 2002 summit in Prague.However, the debate has received more critical attention in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Russia holds a pivotal role in the alliance against terrorism and President Vladimir Putin has evinced significant willingness to cooperate with American strategy in Afghanistan. The question is whether the US and NATO States are prepared to risk this novel alliance for the enlargement of their Cold War one. The discussion turns on the persuasiveness of the threat posed by Russia now and in the future, and conversely the view taken of the stability of the myriad republics of the CIS. Motions This House Supports NATO Expansion This House Would Expand to the East before Russia This House Believes that Bigger is Better for NATO Useful Sites Report to the US Congress on the Enlargement of NATO

Topic 5 EU Membership for Turkey Summary Should the European Union commit itself to including Turkey in the future, offering it a starting date for accession negotiations? Context Turkey has had a trade agreement with the European Union for nearly forty years, and first applied for membership of Europe’s premier club over thirty years ago. Until recently these requests were politely resisted; Turkey was never turned down outright but the EU made it clear that massive political and economic reforms would be needed before entry could even be considered. In 1999, however, EU leaders unanimously accepted Turkey as a candidate country, but would not set a date for beginning negotiations about entry. Since then the EU has entered into entry negotiations with many Central and Eastern European states, but has continued to refuse to do the same yet for Turkey. This has led to Turkish suspicion that the EU is not really serious about ever including it. This suspicion seemed to be confirmed in November 2002, when Valery Giscard D’Estaing, a former President of France who now heads the EU’s Constitutional Convention, declared that Turkey was an Asiatic nation that should never be allowed to join the European Union. Motions This House believes the EU should begin negotiations with Turkey. This House would set a date. This House would look east. Useful Sites Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs Abhaber: Turkey News Online Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association European Info Centre on EU-Turkish relations European Association of Turkish Academics American Hellenic Institute EU Commission (Turkey information) Centre for European Policy Studies

Topic 6 EU Constitution Summary Should the European Union (EU) adopt a Constitution? Context The debate about whether the EU should adopt a constitution has been protracted and controversial. It is both a practical debate (does the EU need a constitution?) and a more abstract debate (is the EU the kind of entity/organisation that should adopt a constitution?). In July 2003 the Constitutional Convention, created at the behest of the European Council and headed by former French President Valery Giscard D’Estaing, adopted a Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. After much debate, on 18 June 2004 the European Council agreed to accept an amended version of this text, and submitted it to national parliaments for ratification. In many member states the constitutional treaty will also be the subject of direct popular votes in referendums. The arguments for and against an EU constitution rest on complicated issues of law, sovereignty, political philosophy and the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU’s institutions and procedures. Motions This House would adopt an EU constitution This House would vote "Yes" for the EU constitution This House would be a good European Useful Sites The European Union The European Convention Centre for European Reform Up-to-date European news The Federal Trust for Education and Research Statewatch: monitoring the state and civil liberties in the EU Centre for European Policy Studies

Topic 7 EU Working Language Summary Should the EU introduce one working language? Context After recent enlargement the European Union has 20 languages with equal rights as official and working languages (Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, and Swedish). That means that all of them can be used in communication within and with the EU institutions and translation of all the regulations, directives, as well as draft documents must be ensured for each and every one of them. Estimates say that after enlargement 2.5 million pages a year will have to be translated for the European Commission only. The EU does not so far have a language policy in the usual sense. Language policy has by tradition been the realm of individual members, but many Council of Europe statements aim at determining guidelines for language policies. Council Regulation No. 1 grants each of the above stated languages the status of an official and working language while allowing the institutions some flexibility in selecting their own individual language regimes. Yet it does not provide any real long term solution for dealing with the practical problems the EU faces every day. In 2004 EU enlargement has increased the problems and with several countries, each with their own official language, waiting for future admission (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Croatia, and Macedonia) many say that the EU is becoming an unmanageable tower of Babel and are pushing for a reform in language policy. The arguments below deal with the question of introducing one working language for EU business. The affirmative side argues that while all 20 should remain official languages, the EU should for practical reasons introduce only one working language for use within EU institutions. Motions This House believes that EU language policy should be reformed This House believes that the EU should speak one language This House would tear down Europe's tower of Babel Useful Sites European Union On-line Language Futures Europe Language Rights and Obligations Eurolegal Services Multilingualism In The European Union And Its Costs