Teacher’s personal life might undermine educational message.  Access to a teacher’s private information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking or smoking [1] ? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a ‘hypocrite’ by her students when a risqué photo of her was found on her facebook page [2] . And even if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such incidents from happening.  [1] Preston, Jennifer. ”Rules to Stop Pupil and Teacher from Getting too Social Online”. The New York Times. 17 December 2011. nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/.../rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html.  [2] Keneally, Megan. ”Pupils at scandal hit school post sexy Facebook shot of principal over hallways.” The Daily Mail. 5 December 2011.


n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social

This shift in the role of the teacher from educator to supervisor may actually negatively affect teachers. What if a teacher sees her students post pictures of themselves in inappropriate circumstances, drinking or smoking or scantily clad? What if she discovers cyber bullying? Does she have an obligation to intervene or contact the parents of the children involved? Might that do more harm than good? What if the teacher fails to act and a child gets hurt? Should the teacher be held professionally or legally responsible for that failure? Until clear guidelines are established on what exactly the responsibility of teachers would be in such a situation, the supervision of social media use by children should probably be left to parents rather than educators.


Even if this were a great educational tool, some kids may not have access to it. Poverty or a parent’s life style choice might leave kids without access to a computer or the internet, preventing them from joining into such online discussions. This might make them feel more isolated from their peers and leave them behind in their work. The classroom is a space where everyone can be equal and have equal access to learning. The internet may not provide equal access and may hinder some students as a result. The use of such resources may also be to the detriment of other more traditional methods. For example the teacher may feel there is less need to explain homework if anyone who has difficulties while doing the homework can simply ask over the internet.


The law would violate freedom of speech and association.  Under this law a random person who the student has never met, even a potential predator, would be allowed to send a message via facebook or twitter. And yet a teacher doing the same thing, regardless of the content of that message, would be instantly committing an offence. Every person is allowed to speak to and associate with whomever they choose. That is a fundamental right that the government is not allowed to take away [1] . A person’s status as a teacher should not be an excuse to violate their rights.  [1] Solove, Daniel. “Missouri Bans Teachers from Friending Students on Social Networking Webistes.” The Huffington Post. 02 August 2011.


The law would be hard to enforce.  It would be difficult to find out whether a student and teacher have had contact over the internet. If a teacher were having a relationship with a student, and this law was in effect, both parties would try to conceal it from others and from the authorities. There is then a question about how the state would find out about such behaviour. Would the state be allowed to access private facebook accounts, personal computers, or internet service provider records to make sure teachers and students are not communicating with each other? That would constitute a serious intrusion and privacy violation.


Teachers can be essential in supervising cyberspace.  Social media has become the primary way in which children interact with their peers. These interactions are largely unsupervised by any adult, and yet they have a fundamental impact on the development of the children involved. Adolescents use social networking websites to gage peer opinion about themselves which may subsequently influence identity formation [1] . With so much cyber bullying happening on such websites, and postings of inappropriate behaviour that may later surface to affect a student’s chances of getting into college or getting a job, it would be useful to have a teacher supervise these interactions to make sure no harm comes to the children involved.  [1] Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert. ”College students social networking experiences on facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Pshychology. Vol. 30. 2009.


Social media can be powerful educational resources.  Many teachers have been using social media as an extension of the classroom, some of them setting up discussion pages, or allowing students to contact them about homework or things that they did not understand in the classroom, it allows the teachers to provide extra help whenever the student needs it. This keeps students interested and makes learning fun by using a tool that they are already fond of. The enormous success of tools like ‘The Khan Academy’, which uses youtube videos to deliver lectures to kids, is proof of that [1] . It also allows even those students who are too shy to speak out in class or ask for help, to participate3. Tools like facebook and twitter have the advantage of being ready-made platforms that lend themselves well to extending classroom discussions through groups, pages, pictures, and videos. Not all schools have access to the funding to set up such pages separately and not all teachers have the skills to create them. It would be a mistake for schools to dismiss their use and their value.  [1] Khan, Salman. ”Turning the Classroom Upside Down.” The Wall Street Journal. 9 April 2011.


The state wouldn’t need blanket access to teachers’ personal accounts. If suspicions arose that a teacher were breaking the law, as with all cyber-laws, the state could subpoena the information needed as proof. This law would work mainly as a deterrent for teachers to contact their students via social media. Knowing that they’d be committing an offence that could result in sanctions or losing their job, would be a strong disincentive against it.


Speech can be restricted in order to protect the vulnerable groups, like children, from harm. Such a law does not attempt to keep educators from communicating or associating with their students. It merely insures such interactions happen in an appropriate manner and forum.


defence science science general house supports development missile defence

Anti-ballistic missile systems are a largely unproven technology, and still have many problems that do not make them a viable option for strategic defense, at least not at present. Furthermore, there is the excessively high cost of designing and building such a system, which has been in development for 25 years. It has cost billions of dollars over the decades, including $53 billion between 2004 and 2009, the largest single line on the Pentagon’s budget for those years. For all this, only an unproven system of questionable efficacy has been produced. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad trying to develop a technology that may never be useful. Also, even if the technology were made effective, the same technology could be used as a countermeasure by enemy countries against the interception of their missiles, making the system even less effective, if not useless (Sessler, et al., 2000). Furthermore, the system does not protect the vital interests of the United States because it angers countries like Russia, which has actually begun increasing its conventional force distributions on its Western border with the rest of Europe, and to threaten to deploy short-range nuclear missiles on its border. The political destabilization caused by the missile defense program is not worth its ephemeral benefits.


A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies  The missile defense shield the United States intends to build is the most effective and complete ballistic missile shield ever devised. When fully armed with a complement of anti-ballistic missiles both within the United States itself, and in allied nations in Europe, the shield will be virtually impregnable to external missile attack. This means the chance of a nuclear attack succeeding against it will be very unlikely, reducing the chance not only of a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and another nuclear power, but also against missiles fired by rogue states or terrorists, the biggest threats in terms of actual use of nuclear weapons (The Economist, 2009). Technologically speaking, anti-ballistic missile missiles have developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. The current system being put into operation by the United States is the Aegis combat system, designed for deployment on US Naval vessels. This new development has served to sidestep the problems associated with ground and space-based missile defense arrays, due to the slow response time of ground missiles, and the still unfeasible orbital deployment. The sea-based defense array, furthermore, lacks the problem of the land-based system in that it does not need to be placed in countries other than the United States in order to be effective (thus avoiding the political problems of the past). Technology and diplomacy have clearly made a national missile defense system highly desirable.


Nuclear capability has historically created more stable international relations between countries, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The United States and Russia never engaged one another in open conflict during the whole span of the Cold War, for example, for fear of setting off a nuclear cataclysm neither could survive (Waltz, 1981). MAD breaks down, however, with the advent of national missile defense systems. This is due to the fact that when a state cannot guarantee its second-strike, or even first-strike capability it becomes vulnerable. Countries without missile defense systems will be defenseless against those that have them. Furthermore, as the technology is disseminated and more countries possess missile defense systems, stability decreases as it will become a gamble as to which country can more successfully counteract the offensive and defensive missile systems of the enemy. Missile defense makes the world less, not more safe.


As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability  The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations (Mearsheimer, 1993). States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of a strategic national missile defense system. The United States has every right to develop such a system if it will furnish a greater measure of defense for its citizens and interests. US military technology is the most advanced and prodigiously financed in the world, which is why it is generally the United States that stands at the forefront of new defense and combat systems. The National Missile Defense program is simply the newest tool in the arsenal of the world’s greatest military, whose purpose is entirely defensive. To shield itself from potential ballistic missile, and even nuclear, attack the United States has the right to build a missile shield to defend itself and its allies under its aegis. There is no principled justification for a country to not pursue defense initiatives that benefit itself and that it wishes to pursue.


It is not always within the right of a state to develop weapons and technology, since international treaties ban, for example, the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, when the development of weapons will be detrimental to the state that builds them, it is in their interest no to do so. In the case of national missile defense, the United States is angering several countries, particularly Russia, and potentially upsetting the balance of mutually assured destruction (Harding, 2007). Clearly more than a right to self-defense must be considered when developing new kinds of armament.


Conventional war is a nasty thing, and can be just as destructive as nuclear war, if not as immediate. The threat of war is only increased with the breaking down of MAD, as countries will be able to engage one another without fear of the existential threat of nuclear holocaust. Furthermore, if many countries have access to missile defense systems they will likely be able to employ countermeasures against their enemies’ systems, bringing the chance of nuclear weapons deployment back to the fore.


A robust missile defense shield will provide the protection previously afforded by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, allowing the US to dismantle much of its dangerous nuclear arsenal  With a fully functioning missile defense shield deployed, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles become obsolete, unable to ever reach their targets. This means countries’ strategic obsession with second-strike capacity, the ability to return fire with nuclear weapons should they be attacked by them (Mutually Assured Destruction), will cease to be an issue, as first-strikes are destined to be wiped out before they hit a single target. What this means is that countries with missile defense systems can feel secure without the need of retaining massive nuclear arsenals. This will alleviate the pressure to have stockpiles of warheads and will promote disarmament. Mutually Assured Destruction has become a far less secure strategy as nuclear proliferation has occurred to states with different strategic conceptions. This has been seen in the United States, which since its full adoption of the Aegis system has actively pursued a policy of reaching a new accord with Russia on nuclear arms reduction. This culminated in 2010 with the signing of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), an accord to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half (Associated Press, 2011). This new step toward nuclear disarmament could not be politically possible in the United States without a replacement defense, which only a national missile defense system can provide.


Strategic missile defense technology is substantially more advanced and discriminating in application than nuclear weapons, making potential future wars less potentially devastating  An operational national missile defense system renders nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles generally, obsolete. When a country can shoot down all enemy missiles, those weapons lose their power. The future of war, once countries have access to the technology to build missile shields, will no longer be marked by fingers held over the proverbial red button. Rather, the incentive for conflict between states armed with effective missile defenses will be to seek diplomatic solutions to problems. The technology will likely be in the hands of many nations very soon, as the United States has already provided the technology to Japan and Australia, and will be building defense batteries in Romania from 2015 (McMichael, 2009). Furthermore, even should war break out, they will necessarily be far less destructive, as they will not feature the city-leveling power of nuclear missiles. With missile defense, war will be less likely and, should it occur, less destructive.


While missile defense technology still has problems that need to be worked out, its future is very promising. The most recent technology, Aegis, is far more effective in testing than its predecessors and has been deployed on a number of Navy warships and in Japan and Australia (McMichael, 2009). The technology will with time become extremely effective at stopping enemy missiles. In a world with more and more countries developing nuclear weapons, many who oppose the United States and its allies, it is imperative that the United States has an effective defense against them. A missile defense system is the most promising such defense.


MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. In terms of deterring conventional warfare, that assumes that the state being attacked would chose mutual destruction over potential, transitory subjugation. MAD has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used (Sagan, 1993). National missile defense systems provide a very real defense against not only full-scale attacks by other states, but against nuclear-capable rogue states, such as North Korea, which is seeking to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology of its own. Should North Korea ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, the world will need the ability to counter it. National missile defense is simply a strategic necessity of the modern world in which nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of unstable, aggressive states who might actually try to use them.


The political consequences of the system make the world less safe  Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states.


The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work  Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely.


Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down when national missile defense systems are introduced, destabilizing world security:  Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war (Waltz, 1981). If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another (Jervis, 2001). If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles (Mearsheimer, 1993). The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when national missile defense systems are brought into the equation. Anti-ballistic missile missiles effectively eliminate the surety of MAD; it becomes a gamble of whether one’s nuclear arsenal will be able to penetrate the missile shield of the enemy. This increases the chance of a nuclear war, since an aggressor state can count on its missile shield to deflect the second-strike attempted by its opponent. Furthermore, in the case where both states in a conflict have missile defense arrays, as will likely occur as the technology is disseminated, the outbreak of war is also more likely, since each will try to race the other to the ability to counter each other’s offensive and defensive missiles. Clearly, the technology will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security.


The United States has rarely bent the knee to international pressure with regard to issues directly affecting its security, nor should it. Not only does the United States have a right, as do all states, to defend itself against any potential foreign aggression, it is also the primary purveyor of the public good of international security, policing the sea lanes and serving as the United Nations’ primary peacekeeper (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2008). This role places the United States in particular danger because it means it often contends with, and gains the enmity of, some of the most dangerous groups in the world. North Korea, for example, has been at odds with the United States for many years. Furthermore, the United States’ development of a missile defense shield has allowed it to feel safer. It is thus more willing to engage in dialogue concerning and implementation of nuclear arms reduction programs, as occurred with the recent New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia (Associated Press, 2011). This reduction is in compliance with the wishes of the United Nations, and is arguably more important for international security. Additionally, in the case of Russia, the United States has been able to reach a compromise by which Russia will not oppose its sea-based missile defenses, so long as they are not built on land on the Russian frontier.


arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all

There are many ways to correct for the dearth of some works on the market such as orphan works. By simplifying copyright law, reducing lengths of copyright and more robust searches for legal provenance can all help correct for the shortfalls without eroding an important part of law and material rights. Or indeed the law might be revised simply to free works that have unclear ownership from copyright by default. Creators should retain, no matter how annoying it may be to would-be enjoyers of their work, control over their artistic output. Artists’ creations are fundamentally their own, not the property of the state or society.


Choosing to release one’s work into the viral market may be a shrewd business and artistic move, or it might not. All of this depends on the individual artist and the individual work. Nine Inch Nails both has the money that they can afford to take the risk and the name recognition that means they can be sure some fans will purchase the music, this is not the case with most artists. Thus the decision can really only be made effectively and fairly by the artists themselves. Trying to usurp that choice through a state mandate only serves to undermine the artist’s creative vision of how he or she wishes to portray and distribute their work to the world.


Although ideas are not tangible intellectual property generally, and copyright in particular, is far from a fiction. Rather it is a realization of the hard work and demiurgic force that sparks the generation and fulfilment of artistic endeavour. The property right assigned over these things to their creators is a very real one that recognizes their fundamental right over these works as owners, and the right to profit from them. The artist must have the right to prevent even non-commercial use of the idea if it is to maintain its value and so retain for the creator the ability to commercialise it. These protections are critical to the moral understanding of all property and must be rigorously protected, not eroded for the benefit of some nebulous notion of social good.


It may be costly and sometimes ineffective to police copyright, but that does not make them any less of a right worth protecting. If artists or firms feel that they might benefit from fighting infringers of their rights, they should have the right to do so, not simply be expected to roll over and give in to the pirates and law breakers. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. Furthermore, the ensuring health of the economy is a primary duty of the state and this means aiding its domestic businesses and one of the ways it does that is by acting to enforce copyright both internally and if possible externally.


Few artists ever see much profit from their work anyway, many choosing the life of bohemian squalor in order to keep producing art rather than taking up more profitable pursuits. Vincent van Gogh sold almost nothing, but his drive to create never abated. No doubt the true artists will continue to feel the urge to create under this policy, and the loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world.


People deserve recompense for their work, but the stifling force of current copyright prevents the proper sharing and expansion of the artistic canon, to the intellectual and spiritual impoverishment of all. Creative commons licenses strike an important balance, by leaving artists with the power over commercial uses of their work, including selling it themselves, while permitting it to permeate the public sphere through non-commercial channels. This is the best way to weigh these competing needs in a complex society. It is not preventing the creator from profiting from his work. It is not a total abrogation of people’s rights, but a giving over of some rights for the benefit of all.


Artists rarely make all that much money in the first place, and a great many only work as an artist part time. More importantly, they can still profit from their art, since they retain exclusive commercial rights to their work. Oftentimes they will actually benefit from operation under a creative commons license because it provides wider dispersal of their work, which builds a broader name and market for their work.


Upon entering the public arena works of art take on characters of their own, often far different than their original creators did, or could have, imagined. The art is consumed, absorbed, and reimagined and takes on its own identity that the artist cannot claim full ownership over. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. That art does, due to its origination belong more to the people, who should have access, even if the artist, like Beckett has bizarrely rigorous feelings about the work.


science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms

The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media spin. The media have created a story about nothing due to headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because people are scared they assert that there are not enough testing of the benefits of GM foods.  The proposition is mainly falling into a media trap because at the moment all reasonable precautions are being taken for ensured safety. There is no reason why many different strains of GM crops cannot be produced and planted - where this is not happening at present, it should be.  However, the need for many different strains is not an argument against some or all of those being GM. Adding or removing genes from natural varieties does not make the rest of their DNA identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of what harm is done by the spreading of GM pollen. [1]  All these effects are considered when a genetically modified crop is to be approved for agricultural use, if a product would cause any of the above mentioned effects, it would not be approved. [2]  [1] Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa, Biotechnology FAQ, Would the spread of GMO traits into traditional maize be a serious problem ?,  , accessed 09/07/2011  [2] Bionetonline.org, Is it safe to grow genetically modified foods ?,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems.  GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial. [1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying. [2]  Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool. [3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology.  [1] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005, www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf , p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011


The immoral behavior of some people towards this technology is not a reason to ban it unless it can be shown that more harm than good is caused. This research is important to deal with global climate change which is reducing the landmass of the earth that can grow food, whilst the global population is rising.  Regulation may be better than outright banning, as we do with many aspects of business. For example gene patenting and the discovery of new genes is an area very similar to genetically modified foods. In the US gene patenting is allowed and when the company Myriad Genetics found the gene BRCA1 and BRCA2 (connected with breast cancer) and made too many restrictions on the use of it (so it hurt people in general), the court stepped in and allowed others to use it, gave them more rights over the “patented product”. [1] With this we see, that there can always be regulation of products if a company attempts to profit out of the misery of others. The same can be done with GMOs. If the company is demanding too high prices, preventing farmers from doing their work, the courts and legal system can always step in. Just because one company acts unethically, this does not mean that all must. There is a market for ethical consumerism, so the actions of a few corporations are not a reason to ban GMOs entirely.  [1] Nature.com, Testing time for gene patents, published 04/15/2010,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.  There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give up their results for review. [1]  Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe.  It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks connected with GM food commercialisation. [2]  Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not conceive it could be a problem. [3] This will become a greater problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic resistance.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] Shah A., Is GE food safe ?, Global Issues,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] European Federation of Biotechnology, Allergies from GM food, published September 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011


This debate should be decided on the basis of hard facts, not woolly assertions and environmental sentiment. Until scientific tests show there to be some real risk of harm from farming and eating GM food there is no case for a ban or a moratorium.  Not only is genetically modification well understood but extensive testing is applied to every new GM foodstuff before it is placed on the market.  The European Food Safety Authority explains that tests of GMOs include a comparative assessment between the GMO and its non-GMO counterpart and there is a case by case evaluation of every single GMO entering the market – however, because products are so different there is no “by the book” procedure for testing. [1]  Researcher Nina Fedoroff from the Penn State University explains: “Genetically modified foods are as safe to eat as foods made from plants modified by more traditional methods of plant breeding. In fact, they are very probably safer, simply because they undergo testing that has never been required for food plants modified either by traditional breeding techniques or by mutagenesis, both of which can alter a plant's chemical composition.” [2]  [1] European Food Safety Agency, FAQ on genetically modified organisms,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [2] Pacchioli D., Are genetically modified foods safe to eat ?,  , accessed 08/28/2011


GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies  The legislative framework and historical behavior governing and guiding the operation of big business is geared towards maximizing shareholder returns. This propensity has been demonstrated time and again and might suggest that the GM companies are not modifying the food in the interests of better health, but of better profit. This is reinforced by the nature of many of the GM modifications, including terminator seeds (infertile seed requiring a re-purchase of seed stock each season), various forms of pest and herbicide resistance potentially leading to pests (and weeds) resistant to the current crop of chemical defenses. One of the more disturbing manifestations of this is the licensing of genes that are naturally occurring and suing those who dare to grow them, even if they are there because of cross contamination by wind-blown seeds or some other mechanism. [1] One has only to look at the history of corporations under North American and similar corporations’ law to see the effect of this pressure to perform on behalf of the shareholder. The pollution of water supplies, the continued sale of tobacco, dioxins, asbestos, and the list goes on. Most of those anti-social examples are done with the full knowledge of the corporation involved. [2]  The example of potato farmers in the US illustrates big company dependence: "By ''opening and using this product,'' it is stated, that farmers only have the license to grow these potatoes for a single generation. The problem is that the genes remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents (Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), under these patents, people are not allowed to save even crop for next year, because with this they would break Federal law of intellectual property. [3]  [1] Barlett D., Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear, published May 2008,  , accessed 08/27/2011  [2] Hurt H., The Toxic Ten, published 02/19/2008,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [3] Pollan M., Playing God in the Garden, published 10/25/1998,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental difference between modification via selective breeding and genetic engineering techniques. The former occurs over thousands of years and so the genes are changed much more gradually. Genetic modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not had the time to assess the long-term consequences. [1] A recent study by the Soil Association actually proves that many of the promises companies gave were false. GM crops did not increase yield. Another example is a frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening. [2] GMOs do not reliably produce the benefits desired because we do not know the long term effects of utilizing them. Given the risks, we should seek to ban them.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] University of Alberta, Genetic Ethics Lecture, published Fall 2008,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world.  The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications which render plants less vulnerable from pests lead to less pesticide use, which is better for the environment. Other modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food prices for all. However, This technology really comes into its own in developing countries. Here where water is at a shortage, modifications (which lead crops to needing less water), are of vital importance. The World Health Organization predicts that vitamin A deficiency, with the use of GMOs, could be wiped out rapidly in the modern world. The scientists developed the strain of rice, called “golden rice”, which produces more beta-carotene and this way produces 20 times more vitamins than other strains, creating a cure for childhood blindness in developing countries. [1]  The fact that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will to solve these problems. GM food provides a solution that does not rely on charity from Western governments. As the world population increases and the environment deteriorates further this technology will become not just useful but necessary.  [1] Black R., GM “golden rice” boosts vitamin A, published 03/25/2005,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Genetically modified organisms will prevent starvation due to global climate changes.  The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions.  Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions. [1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation. [2]  In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions. [3]  [1] Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published December 2007,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be legal to use.  Genetic modification is entirely natural. The process of crop cultivation by selective breeding, which has been performed by farmers for thousands of years, leads to exactly the same kind of changes in DNA as modern modification techniques do. Current techniques are just faster and more selective. In fact, given two strands of DNA, created from the same original strand, one by selective breeding and one by modern modification techniques it is impossible to tell which is which. The changes caused by selective breeding have been just as radical as current modifications. Wheat, for example, was cultivated, through selective breeding, from an almost no-yield rice-type crop into the super-crop it is today. [1]  [1] Trewas A. and Leaver C., How Nature itself uses genetic modification,Published January 6 2000, Nature,  , accessed 09/05/2011


GM food will do nothing to help solve the problems in developing countries. The problem there is not one of food production but of an inability to distribute the food (due to wars, for example), the growing and selling of cash crops rather than staple crops to pay off the national debt and desertification leading to completely infertile land. Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has stated that GM technology is oversold. The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that the food that is available is not being distributed. “Today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night” [1] . Instead of money being invested into genetic modification, what should be looked at is which areas allow food to go to waste and which areas need food, and then a redistribution needs to occur. Better transport and roads is where money should be invested. Not with potentially hazardous GM crops.  In addition, the terminator gene prevents the farmer from re-growing the same crop year after year and instead must buy it annually from the producer. Abolishing the terminator gene leads to the other problem of cross-pollination and companies demanding reparations for the “re-use” of their crops.  [1] Sample I, Nearly a billion people go hungry every day – can GM crops help feed them?, published 01/23/2009  , accessed 09/05/2011


terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part

It is incredibly unlikely that any randomly selected member of a particular group would be attempting to commit a crime. Racial, ethnic and identity groups are extremely large. Terrorist organisations, even al Qaeda, rarely contain more than a few hundred members. The relative proportion of individuals belonging to any particular identity group who also belongs to a terrorist organisation is likely to be impossibly small.  The impact of the perceptions of the communities involved, however, would be significant, allowing for accusations of racism and persecution.  Statistically, profiling would have very little impact: in 2005, US Airlines carried 745.7 million passengers. [i] Faced with figures like that random stoppages make far more sense.  Although exact figures are not available even if just two or three million fell within the profile group, it would be impossible to search all of them. The use of profiling, however, as a result of the PATRIOT Act, led to, among others, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy being stopped; it does not and cannot work. [ii]  [i] ‘2005 Total Airline System Passenger Traffic Up 4.6 Percent From 2004’, Research and Innovative Transport Administration, 2006,   [ii] ‘Senetor? Terrorist? A Watch List Stops Kennedy at Airport’, Swarns, Rachel L., The New York Times, 20 August 2004,


Profiling would have caught many of the perpetrators of terrorism in recent years.  Profiling takes account of many more characteristics than an individual’s ethnicity. Targeted checks would have caught, for example, the so called Christmas Day Bomber. Individuals who pay in cash for a one way flight while carrying no luggage, as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [i] did, are a fairly small group and it makes sense to target them.  Profiling is a great deal more subtle than a decision to target a single ethnic group. It is entirely possible to identify patterns in the behaviour of terrorists, drug mules and smugglers, and to respond to that accordingly.  Obviously, the more refined the profile can be, the better. It is incredibly unlikely that an affluent, Caucasian businessman with a return ticket for the following day is either a suicide bomber or a drug smuggler. Both common sense and statistics show this to be the case.  [i] “Obama vows to repair intelligence gaps behind Detroit airplane incident”. The Washington post, 30 December 2009.


The scale of flights in Israel- both domestic and international- is tiny. Compared with the North American and European aviation markets, screening passengers entering and leaving Israeli territory requires an entirely different approach. Equally the racial diversity of Tel Aviv is quite different to New York and London.  The Pew Research Centre estimates that there are 2.6 million Muslims living in the US [i] , a number equal to twice the population of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv combined. The pressures on airports between a small state in the Middle East and the transportation hubs of the US and Europe are totally different. The very account cited by Proposition talks about some passengers being interviewed for up to half an hour, that is a rather different prospect when dealing with JFK or Heathrow. It is just not a practical solution.  [i] “The future of the global muslim population”. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, January 2011.


When you know terrorists are likely to be members of particular national and ethnic groups, it is simply more practical to focus searches on those groups.  The reality is that all of the major terrorist attacks against Western targets in recent years have been perpetrated by young, Muslim men. It doesn’t require any prejudice at all to realise that they are the most sensible group to check and recheck.  Although it is important to respect people’s rights and liberties regardless of ethnicity or religious belief, a sensible security policy must force police officers and security officials to make decisions based on factual information. Everybody- including most members of the groups identified by profiling- has an interest in not being blown up on an aeroplane. They will, therefore, accept that this is a regrettable necessity. Airport staff can only stop so many people and it makes sense to target groups that terrorists are likely to be part of.


The presumption of innocence is a principle worth defending and an important part of this is rejecting policing strategies that assume certain groups are more likely to be engage in criminal activity than others. In the last ten years, a few dozen people, at most, have been involved in terrorist acts at airports. Meanwhile, millions upon millions of young, Muslim men have flown across continents and oceans without the slightest disruption.  It is both unfair and foolish to target a single group as being more likely to contain terrorists. It builds resentment among the group concerned and is unlikely to reveal any practical results because of the numbers concerned.


The experience of Israel proves that profiling works  Israel has been using profiling for decades to identify those individuals at airports that should be stopped, questioned and have their luggage thoroughly checked [i] .  Despite the massive threats that Israel faces, the Israeli state does not feel the need to invade the privacy of most passengers because they simply know what and who they are looking for. This approach has meant that, despite high odds, hijackings and bombings are not the routine affairs on El Al flights that one might expect it to be.  As the focus for terrorist atrocities has now become the US and the UK, it simply makes sense to follow the example of a nation that has been such a target since its creation.  [i] “Exposing hostile intent”. SecuritySolutions.com.


This opposition argument is potentially contradictory. It argues that the majority of Muslims are reasonable people and then, on the other hand, that the moment reasonable security measures are put into place there will be a massive increase in radicalised young people willing to act as suicide bombers.  Everybody accepts that security checks are necessary at airports and for the most part they are applied universally. However, if opposition is correct, it would seem absurd to suggest that millions of reasonable people would suddenly take affront at the simple fact that they happen to be part of a social group that has an unusually high number of rogue elements. Indeed, suggesting such a thing could be construed as a racist act; implying that the people concerned are in some way incapable of reaching this regrettable, if logical, conclusion.


The use of the term “racism” suggests that assumptions made by screeners are based on prejudice, not fact. Profiling, which takes far more than race into account, has a solid basis in fact. It is entirely sensible to attempt to prevent criminal acts by being particularly cautious in the investigation of those groups and individuals that are most likely to pose a risk to other passengers.  Risking the lives of innocent passengers in the name of political correctness is simply absurd. These are measures that protect the security of thousands of passengers at the cost of minor inconvenience to a few.  Any reasonable traveller- Arab or not- would accept that there is a reason for these actions in the same way that passengers realise that delays caused by security controls and passport checks are an unavoidable nuisance in an era of routine international travel.


Randomly checking passengers’ identities is much safer than allowing terrorists to know in advance who the authorities are seeking.  Making statements in advance as to who is likely to be stopped at airports is the most dangerous action any government could take. There are innumerable ways in which it would be possible to perform a terrorist act, and random checks mean that all possible routes are equally likely to be apprehended.  By contrast, actively and visibly subjecting members of particular ethnic groups to stricter security checks will enable terrorists to determine where surveillance in airports is at its most lax. The most dangerous terrorist groups operate on an international level, recruiting attackers from a wide range of backgrounds and ethnic groups. It would therefore be comparatively easy for an organisation such as al Qaeda to mount an attack using only individuals who do not conform to the authorities’ profile of a potential terrorist.  More importantly random checks mean that all people, regardless of the background, age or appearance are equally deterred from considering criminal or terrorist acts.  On the basis that it would be impossible to search everyone at a major international airport, the deterrence factor offered by random stops is far more effective than searching a tiny proportion of a designated group.


Profiling exacerbates terrorism as it reinforces the perception that Muslims and marginalised ethnic groups face prejudice.  The reality is that if a plane can be held up with a box-cutter, a broken glass bottle from duty free or flammable alcohol from the same source could be just as threatening.  However, increased use of air marshals- armed plainclothes police officers who travel secretly on certain flights- means that even these desperate tactics are likely to be ineffectual.  Institutionalising prejudice and assumption will add legitimacy and grativas to terrorist propaganda that seeks to radicalise curious or confused young people.  Not only is profiling ineffectual, it is likely to exacerbate the situation.


Profiling is simply institutionalizing racism an reduces minorities to the status of second class citizens  Profiling is, in the end, simply wrong. Britain suffered for decades from the ‘innocent until proven Irish’ attitude of their security forces, which did nothing but engender resentment among Irish individuals who were trying to live and work in the United Kingdom. For western nations to make the same mistake in their approach to Muslims would be the gravest folly.  Aviation authorities are, ultimately, under the control of the state, and if a government announces that they consider all members of a group to be potential criminals, it sends out a very provocative message.


In other areas of enforcement it is routine to use simple common sense when identifying security risks. A group of students coming off a cheap flight from Amsterdam are simply more likely to have illegal drugs in their possession than a group of pensioners returning from a tour of museums in St Petersburg.  Of course it is important that airport authorities should be vigilant and avoid making damaging assumptions, but that is no reason for them to be reckless.  There are a limited number of people that can be stopped and searched or questioned at an airport; wasting that time on passengers who are extremely unlikely to pose any threat presents a substantial risk of peoples’ lives and safety.


computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join

It is true that a society in which information is widely available to the public is desirable, but what must be recognized that this argument of “social platform publicity” encounters two main problems.  First of all, unless your information is lucky enough to go viral if you really want efficient online advertising you will have to pay for it, even when it comes to social networks. “When Facebook launched its log-out screen ads, reports suggested it was charging $700,000 for them, but in reality they came bundled with a homage ad commitment, too. Buyers say they’re now selling log-out ads standalone for around $100,000.”(1). As a result, you can hardly call them “free”.  Secondly, online advertising comes merely as a back-up or as an addition to full-time campaign ads. No matter what kind of event we are talking about, if it is of general interest, the information will be distributed to the population. It will be either promoted by the company itself, if we are talking about a massive price discount for the new Toyota, or by the local or national media, if we are talking about a concert or a sporting event. The information will be more efficiently transmitted through advertising mechanisms, as this allows the targeting of certain groups of individuals who are interest in those events rather than relying on people stumbling onto a Facebook page. For example posting an ad announcing a new soccer competition in a sports magazine will be more effective as we know the readers will be interested. There are other means which serve the purpose of promoting information, the promoters will pick the best ones, which may or may not mean Facebook.  (1) Jack Marshall “What Online Ads Really Cost”, February 22, 2013


There are immense problems with using Facebook to facilitate protests in oppressive regimes. Firstly, due to the anonymity of users, it would be extremely easy for government forces to disguise themselves as being protesters and find out future protest locations, thus allowing them to be one step ahead every time to crush the protest before it starts. Second of all, if all of these fail, the government could always shut down ISPs (Internet Service Providers), exactly in the way the Egyptian forces did. Their mistake was that they didn’t shut them down soon enough, but it won’t be repeated by future oppressive governments as they have the Arab Spring’s example.(1) [1]  Surely, it is of great importance that people express their opinions through any means possible, even through mass protest. For this reason, over time western societies were shaped to encourage any discontented individual to express his or her view. We allowed the media to be free, it being the so called “fourth estate” due to its ability to pinpoint and underline any problem regarding government policies or actions. There is no need for Facebook or Twitter or any kind of social network to reveal any discontent in the population as we already have the media who is doing this. All the news agencies and TV stations are always looking for the sensational, looking for places where the government has failed in order to attract audience. One of the best ways of doing this is by polling and trying to reveal any group of individuals who were either discriminated or hurt by the government. As a result, if there are the necessary reasons for people to start protesting, we shouldn’t worry about people not finding out that other individuals share their views as we have the media, one of the most influential elements of the society who is actively trying to do that.  (1) Marko Papic and Sean Noonan “Social Media as a Tool for Protest” ,Stratfor, February 3, 2011   [1] For more on this see ‘ This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non-democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities ’ and ‘ This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those involved in uprisings ’


On this point, there are two levels of analysis which will demonstrate that, at the end of the day, Facebook has a detrimental effect on one’s social abilities.  First of all, of course having a lot of friends has numerous advantages and it is undoubtedly beneficial to one’s development, but being active on a social network isn’t an indispensable prerequisite for this. As an individual, you can meet, talk, connect and share feelings and emotions in real life with your friends without any problems. People nowadays are not more socially bonded than before the appearance of Facebook and other social networks, because what Facebook did was merely shifting the face-to-face socialization to an online version of it. Moreover, you don’t need the “Rock Fans” group on Facebook in order to meet new people who are also interested in rock music, as you have real rock events and concerts where you can meet with people with whom you have shared interests and thus expand your friend group.  Secondly, when using social networks as a tool to socialize, teenagers tend to rely too much on them, getting comfortable chatting behind a glass monitor, but this can mean having problems exiting this comfort-zone. This happens as you feel less exposed if you are not talking to someone in person, but when you are forced to socialize in the real world you feel uncomfortable and awkward. As a result, their ability to socialize is diminished even more.


On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making.  If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence.  Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1)  (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011


Facebook enhances people’s lives and brings numerous advantages. Facebook provides information and social support through the creation of a network of friends; sometimes this communication will bring them into contact with material that makes them envious. The need then it to focus on the things in Facebook that are positive. It is clear that people prefer a Facebook which is concentrated around subjects of interest, friends’ updates and funny pictures rather than one which is constantly reminding them about their failures or about their acne.  Therefore, users will try to block any type of harmful information, as generally you dislike being reminded about things that make you feel bad about yourself. At the end of the day, no matter of user, the accent will always be on meeting new people, having fun and making the connection with people that you already know stronger rather than searching for reasons to be envious on other people. If life satisfaction declines when using Facebook more often then users will log in to Facebook less often, but this is far from being a reason to abandon social networks entirely. Facebook is a commercial enterprise: if it is bad for people’s life satisfaction they will vote with their feet. At the moment it is clearly perceived as being positive.


It is absolutely regrettable that men use Facebook in order take advantage of certain women, but we must not forget that because of these very situations Facebook and many NGO’s initiated campaigns to prevent these kind of tragedies happening again(1). Such campaigns have informed thousands of women about the dangers of meeting strangers, both the virtual world and in the real one, and how to avoid them. These campaigns both help women avoid the threat in the first place and encourage them to make sure they are protected, for example by carrying pepper spray, so at the end of the day, a significant number of women are now more protected against being rape because of these social networks. Facebook has clearly not increased the incidence of rape as statistics (2) show that the number of rape cases has dropped dramatically since the start of the world wide web.  Cyber bullying is potentially a problem. On this level too, Facebook recognized the possibility of certain teenagers posting harmful or offending information about another party so it took action in order to try and stop this from happening in the future. As Facebook officials are declaring, they will “update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts. We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create “(2). Facebook has an entire department to try to prevent such cyber bullying. Moreover Facebook is comparatively secure from cyber bullying compared to some sites; it is not anonymous and users can unfriend people and prevent people who they don’t know from accessing their profile.  (1) Facebook   (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation   (3) Facebook


gender house believes gender quotas eu are advantageous economies member states

If there is no equal access to education and training opportunities, this measure does not address gender inequality. On the contrary, gender quotas are likely to bring inefficiencies because companies face sanctions if they do not abide by the legislation.  Introducing this legislation on the overall population of the EU rather than simply on matters regarding qualified women will introduce impediments to businesses across sectors. The EU member states uphold gender equality in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, women do not face particular institutional obstacles to their employment. On the contrary, they have the legal support of the EU law.  Moreover, evidence shows the effects of quotas are distortive. In the case of Sweden, the short-term effects of quotas suggest some negative impact on firm returns. The companies had to reorganise their activities to compensate for this consequence. [1] Even in Norway, many firms changed their status (e.g. they moved to other countries) to avoid the sanctions for non-compliance while those who introduced the compromise experienced a relative decline in annual profits over assets associated with the quota. [2]  [1] Pande, Rohini & Deanna Ford, “Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review” , Background Paper for the World Development Report on Gender, 2011  [2] Matsa, David, and Amalia Miller. "A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from Quotas." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 30 April 2012


More women in the labour market leads to higher GDP  By introducing gender quotas to ensure gender equality, one could not only increase the labour force by bringing more women but also enhance the labour productivity and the available talent pool in a country. This would stimulate businesses to expand, innovate, and compete. This process has an effect of raising tax revenue and social security payments. The overall effect is the positive growth of the economy.  Therefore, addressing social injustice and higher economic returns are mutually supportive goals.  This argument is particularly relevant for qualified women who could be hired at executive positions, but are prevented from doing so due to cultural beliefs, societal practices, and lack of economic and institutional support. A study by Asa Löfström on the links between economic growth and productivity in the labour market argues that if women’s productivity level rises to the level of men’s, Europe’s GDP could grow 27% which makes women’s participation is of crucial importance to Europe’s economy. [1] Quotas would allow for a better utilisation of the talent pool; as currently, 59% of the students graduating from Europe’s higher educational institutes are women. [2] With the current access to education and the introduction of quotas against barriers of existing prejudices, women will have incentives and support to increase their productivity  In the case of Norway, the quota law requires all public, state-owned , municipal, inter-municipal and cooperative companies to appoint at least 40% women on their boards per 2008. The law led to a fast increase from 6% women on boards of public limited companies in 2002 to  36% in 2008. [3]  [1] Löfström, Asa. Gender Equality, Economic Growth and Employment. Swedish Presidency of the European Union, 2009. Web.  [2] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012  [3] Working Paper: “The Quota-instrument: Different Approaches across Europe”. N.p.: European Commission’s Network to Promote Women in Decision-making in Politics and the Economy, 2011. Web.


There is no clear and conclusive statistical data to support the long-term link between quotas and women’s participation on highest executive positions. The introduction of quotas around the world has not increased the number of women on high positions in some male-dominated sectors and there is no certainty that such policy measures in the EU will change the current status quo. For example, despite the 40% increase in women in executive positions, there was no significant change in the number of female CEOs .  Moreover, there should not be a one-size fits all binding quota, but member states should come with their own rules that change gender mentality in the respective country. Gender equality and women’s choice of career have cultural and industry-specific implications which common gender quotas do not address


Gender equality is based on fundamental human rights endorsed by the EU which needs to be addressed  Gender equality at the workplace is an important principle that businesses should follow. If we consider men and women to be equal then they should be equally represented at the top levels of politics, society, and business. This is not simply a national issue, but a pan-EU problem of justice and equal rights. Gender equality is linked to the fundamental human rights that the EU endorses and the lack of progress in terms of women in high positions of Europe requires a proactive stance. As Morin-Chartier argues, the EU directives are about being a model for one another and the quotas will serve as an archetype for others worldwide. Therefore, the quotas are necessary to encourage progress in this field as other tools have not brought equal gender representation.


Gender equality comes from the society. Businesses operate in a different way than the overall society and imposing quotas on them will not necessarily change the gender inequality. Businesses require skills to expand and progress and, therefore, quotas undermine them by affecting their employment process. At the same time, these measures do not address the origins of inequality which are linked to tradition and cultural background of a society and thus, will not bring progress in this field.


It is difficult to evaluate whether a business institution change its values due to the increased number of women on board. On the contrary, companies stick to their values and hire people who behave according to them.  Also, it may be early to measure the positive impact of the quotas in Norway. A University of Michigan study found that the increased presence of women on boards in Norway led to slight losses in companies’ value. [1] One of the possible reasons is that women hired after the quotas implementation often had less upper management experience than the employees hired before that and who had to leave their posts, so companies could fulfil the quotas.  [1] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 32.4, 2012


Quotas encourage women to pursue education and professional job positions  Quotas attempting to maximise the number of educated and skilled women in executive positions could improve corporate performance and help raise national productivity. But doing so will depend on keeping ambitious, well-qualified women moving up the management ranks. Gender quotas will encourage more women to pursue education and career options leading to the top of executive positions. Quotas create incentives for women to adapt their job preferences to the more accessible boardroom positions and develop necessary skills which would reduce the need for positive discrimination in the future. Encouraged to develop relevant skills, women will contribute to the long-term talent pool and the economy. According to McKinsey report, women’s interest in being leaders increases as they progress from entry level to middle management [1] which is exactly what the principle behind quotas aims to encourage - more women following professional career development. This is very important in the short run during which, according to research, women who have high position stimulate other women’s interest in traditionally male-dominated sectors and encourage them to pursue similar career paths. [2]  [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey & Company. N.p., 2011. Web .  [2] Australian Human Rights Commission, “Women in leadership”


Quota-led gender equality in executive boards will help shape a gender sensitive and highly performing business environment.  There are many reports showing that there is a positive correlation between the number of women on high positions and the companies’ performance. A report from The McKinsey Organizational Health Index (OHI) argues that companies with three or more women in top positions (executive committee and higher) scored higher than their peers. Companies that score highly on all the OHI measures have also shown superior financial performance. [1]  This is often related to the high overall education level of women on boards. In Norway, there has been some advancement in firms’ human capital as a result of the quotas, [2] which may result in increased profits in the future due to the increasing number of well educated women.  Female managers tend to promote a communal and collaborative style of leadership that can improve a company’s performance and work culture. Organizations with women in top leadership positions are also more likely to provide work-life assistance to all employees. [3] Norwegian scholars have found that the increased number of women on boards has led to more focused and strategic decision-making, increased communication, and decreased conflict. [4] In fact, many successful business women, such as Sheryl Sandberg, also argue that more women in business could change business ethics and the male-associated image of successful business model that will bring competitive advantages to companies and thus, to the EU economies. [5]  [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey & Company. N.p., 2011. Web .  [2] Sandberg, Sheryl, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, New York, 2013  [3] Matos, Kenneth, and Galinsky, Ellen, “2012 National Study of Employers”, Families and Work Institute, 2012, p.45  [4] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 32.4, 2012  [5] Sandberg, Sheryl, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, New York, 2013


Binding quotas are more effective than most of the other tools, particularly voluntary quotas. Member states, however, could implement any other policy instrument they find suitable alongside the quotas. Yet, binding gender quotas bring quicker results especially in the short run. According to the a report on gender quotas published by the European Department, they are the most successful mechanism to narrow the gender gap in corporate boards and achieve the economic targets by giving the progress on women’s participation on boards. Once targets are reached, policy instruments of positive discrimination will be abolished; therefore, gender quotas are the optimal solution due to their quick effects as in the case of Norway. [1]  [1] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012


Gender equality in the work force will most certainly have a positive effect on the economy. The US economy would have been 27% smaller without women expanding their job share from 37% to 48% between 1970 and 2009, women went from holding 37% of all jobs to nearly 48%. [1] In addition, the economic history of OECD shows that a large proportion of post-war economic growth was due to the increased presence of women in the labour market. [2] The introduction of quotas will ensure this more skilled women working in many industries which will help these industries expand. A study by Asa Löfström on the links between economic growth and productivity in the labour market argues that if women’s productivity level rises to the level of men’s, Europe’s GDP could grow 27% which makes women’s participation is of crucial importance to Europe’s economy. [3] Such growth is crucial for the EU in the context of the economic crisis.  [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey & Company. N.p., 2011. Web .  [2] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 32.4, 2012  [3] Löfström, Asa. Gender Equality, Economic Growth and Employment. Swedish Presidency of the European Union, 2009. Web.


Public and private institutions should hire people based on skills not gender to achieve positive economic impact  Businesses advance when they hire the best person for a job who can unite people and create value. These qualities are individual and enhanced through training rather than not gender-specific. Letting both private and public companies to hire according to their needs and those who meet them is a more efficient way to ensure economic growth.  In some countries in the EU the proportion of women with relevant education is lower and such a measure will bring structural inefficiencies in the short to mid - term for the companies and the overall economy. The empirical data from Norway, for example, reveals that after being exposed to a severe limitation on their choice of directors, boards experienced large declines in value. [1] Often women hired after the quotas implementation had less upper management experience than the previously hired employees. However, since the average size of boards did not increase, male employees were dismissed and less experienced female professionals hired, so that companies could fulfil the quotas.  [1] Ahern, Kenneth, and Amy Dittmar. "The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2012.


There are other policy options that are less distortive and more advantageous for the economy.  Quotas are discriminatory and could be anti-constitutional in countries like France while there are other policy instruments that could be easier to implement.  Rather than implementing quotas as a top-down approach, for example, there could be more access to capital and less regulatory obstacles for starting businesses for women. However, women in OECD enterprise account for an average 30% of all entrepreneurs and there are more self-employed or firm-owners. These gender gaps are particularly large in Ireland, Iceland, and Sweden. [1] Entrepreneurs or individuals starting up new firms are crucial to productivity in all countries. In the OECD area, the levels of entrepreneurship are highest in countries showing the fastest growth. The number of women entrepreneurs, as seen in female to male start-up ratios, is also growing fastest in these countries, which include the United States and Canada. Enhanced access to credit and less red tape for women-owned ventures is a promising source of business and job creation without the distortive effects of quotas on business competitiveness.  Other non-legislative instruments encouraging gender equality in companies are labels, awards, charter signing, and rankings. [2] They do not require externally imposed structural changes but stimulate companies to commit to gender equality in a manner acceptable to them.  Moreover, even if quotas are implemented, they should be flexible and voluntary. A one-size fits all binding quota scheme could easily harm more national economies than it would help. Even by implementing voluntary rather than obligatory quotas in addition to existing national efforts for gender equality, the EU could avoid economic distortions and constitutional complications.  [1] OECD, “Gender and Sustainable Development: Maximising the economic, social and environmental role of women”, 2008, p.35  [2] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012


There is no clear link between gender quota and economic growth  As Pande and Ford found in their report, countries often adopt gender quotas as a response to changing attitudes to women. However, these countries more often than not are Western advanced economies characterised by efficiency. [1] Therefore, the correlations between gender quotas and good economic performance cannot be attributed entirely to the gender equality measures.  Moreover, the competitiveness of the EU economies is damaged by domestic policies and the sovereign debt crisis which will have a larger negative impact on the European economies rather than this measure. Therefore, the expected spillover effects on the economy are unlikely to be realised. [2]  Such sceptic views on quotas when accompanied by bad economic factors are shared by international institutions like the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Breaking the glass ceiling may require affirmative action like gender quotas, but if supply-side barriers remain, even such proactive policies will not necessarily lead to the desired result of gender equality and economic advantages. [3]  [1] Pande, Rohini & Deanna Ford, “Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review” , Background Paper for the World Development Report on Gender, 2011  [2] ibid  [3] Gerecke, Megan, “A policy mix for gender equality? Lessons from high-income countries”, International Labour Organisation, 2013, p.13


Inefficiencies related to outcomes are not necessarily related to the quotas. There are other factors affecting a company performance regardless of changes in staff, such as the general conditions of the industry, national and world economies. The quotas allow for flexibility in terms of technical solutions to different types of companies and ensure women candidates are successful in being selected for a certain share of eligible places. It does not aim to undermine advantages of existing decision-making, but to bring a change in the corporate world and to strengthen EU’s competitiveness by using the full capacity of its talent pool. There are more women (59%) than men graduating from European universities [1] and their talent is underutilised at high decision-making levels where they are necessary. Quotas that are legally binding will bring quick results in that regard.  [1] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012


media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist

Pornography does not objectify people, for they are portrayed as acting. Objects do not act, subjects do.  Telling people what they cannot do is a greater loss of identity than any way by which they may be portrayed by pornography, for only the latter can be challenged.  Sex is not negative towards women, repression is, sex is liberating not dehumanizing! The only thing that is dehumanizing is the belief that natural impulses as sex should have negative moral conotation, including the expression of it(in this case porn).


Porn is inherently dehumanising  Pornography necessarily objectifies people: it presents a sexual desire, an urge, which is immediately attended by another person, often performing acts which we would find demeaning, until the original urge is satisfied. The use of others for pleasure treats them as means to one’s own ends, and denies them any value as rational subjects with a will of their own. This affects, naturally, the participants in pornography, but also their viewers who adopt corrupted notions of what to value in others, and furthermore other women who are later affected by men using the same metric to interact with them.


Women may indeed be harmed through these ideals. However, all forms of media, fashion posters, [1] and razors, all carry the same risk of people potentially hurting themselves with it. This is not grounds for a ban.  Furthermore, placing the blame on pornography for this kind of attitudes is very problematic in that it removes responsibility from the real culprits in society, the men who treat women in this manner when they are not acting.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would ban sexist advertising ’


The feminist movement should not allow women to sell themselves  In most cases, pornography is not entered into willingly. Similarly to prostitution, the sale of one’s own body and one’s dignity is so drastic that consent is often not sufficiently informed to be legitimate. There are patriarchal structures in society that force women into these industries, particularly when they are vulnerable and this seems to be a good last resort. This leads to a loss of integrity, a strong stigma in society, and most importantly, abusive conditions in the production process. As well as high risks of unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases, violent sex practices and abusive conditions after filming often occur (Lubben). [1]  Furthermore, the harms of pornography do not exclusively affect the consenting participants. Other women across the world who are not supporting this industry are equal victims of society and the norms promoted by pornography of how women should be, and how it is acceptable to treat them. These people have not consented.  [1] Lubben, Shelley. “Ex-Porn Star Tells the Truth About the Porn Industry.” Covenant Eyes. 28 October 2008.


What is the difference between working as a pornographic artist and working as a street sweeper, or someone who unblocks the drains? Neither of those is an ideal job, and will rarely be a youth’s first career option. Both involve the use of my body for a sometimes unpleasant task. Yet one of them is considered dehumanising, and the other a valuable service to society. The fact is there is little difference between pornography and any other job. The comparison to prostitution is invalid: the key problem faced by prostitutes is the lack of security, since it is set in contexts that make them particularly vulnerable to violence and abuse.  In pornography, health and security risks such as STDs are addressed in many countries, and can be done so more: in California, for instance, porn actors are required to wear condoms on set. These problems can be tackled in the same way as is the failure to comply with regulations in any other industry. Non-consensual sex, violence, extreme pornography, and child pornography, are all illegal: the problems with pornography must go beyond these (Section 63 - Possession of extreme pornographic images). [1]  [1] “Section 63 - Possession of extreme pornographic images.” Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. 2008.


We live in a society in which no judge will recognise “I saw it on the TV” as a valid excuse for a crime. We allow people to watch violent films believing they will be able to distinguish between pornography and reality. For cases such as Ted Bundy, clearly issues other than pornography must have been at play: there have to be pre-existing anti-women values and, in such extreme cases, mental instability.  Furthermore, the link between pornography and violence is not intrinsic; it is nothing the feminist movement cannot change through greater influence and/or restrictions.


Pornography fuels unreachable ideals  Pornography presents a distorted perception of people, sexuality, and relationships, which has a further effect on a broader societal level. It promotes unreachable ideals of how both women and men should be in bed, and pushes both in the direction of what is idealised in pornography. This may push men to be more dominating than otherwise and women to suffer from anorexia, low self-esteem, and promiscuity. We can expect women to be the most affected by this, simply because the porn industry is owned almost entirely by men, and because there are pre-existing patriarchal structures in society ready to promote the idea that women are there to serve men.  Altogether, pornography merely promotes a new stereotype: that women are generally happy to have sex at any time, that they will respond positively to any man’s advances, and if a woman does not, there is something wrong with her.


Pornography eroticises violence  Many forms of media are often accused of inciting violence, promoting stereotypes, or indoctrinating in some form or another. While this is contentious, the key principle that ‘sex sells’ is more obvious. Pornography is not like other media in that, while most other films are aimed at entertainment, this is aimed at arousal. That is, it is aimed at immediate and fully selfish pleasure, which is much more forceful and addictive than mere laughter.  The psychological effect of pornography is harmful due to the associations it conditions its audience to make. It eroticises violence through portrayals (fake or genuine) of rape and a general treatment of women that is comparable to torture, yet presented in a context that necessarily biologically excites its viewers. Through continuous exposure to the link between abuse and intense pleasure, this link is easily extended to personal relationships. The master-slave dialectic suddenly becomes acceptable. Compulsive rapists, such as Ted Bundy, are often found to have consumed mass amounts of pornography (Benson). [1] More subtle, yet certainly still present is the force of such associations on young teenagers who have not yet had a sexual relationship and rely on pornography for guidance. This has a potentially massive impact given that 11 is the average age of first internet porn exposure (Techmedia Network). [2]  [1] Benson, Rusty. “Vile Passions.” AFA Journal August 2002.   [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award.


Even if achieving a fully effective ban is impossible, it is the responsibility of the feminist movement to take a stance and not condone practices that harm women in practice and promote dangerous messages. Making it illegal will limit it at least an extent, and due to all the harms pornography causes the smallest improvement is an important goal.  It is an exaggeration to claim pornography would have such an effect. The reasons for banning pornography would be the same as for banning prostitution (coercion issues for the participants) and other forms of media that incite to directly offensive acts towards particularly vulnerable people.  It is, rather, the actual sexual culture and view of people’s relationships promoted by pornography that leads to higher levels of rape and harassment.


The consent women supposedly show in the pornographic industry is no more valid than it is considered in prostitution or sex trafficking. Non-pornographic actresses are often coerced into pornography by their agents or producers. The pornographic industry preys on vulnerable parties: poor, psychologically vulnerable, or dependent people.  Furthermore, even if some do give full consent, this does not apply to all the women who are forced into prostitution or pornography, raped, sexually harassed, or generally oppressed as a result of the harms produced by pornography. Pornography makes the emancipation of women from men impossible, and the feminist movement cannot condone it even at the expense of a few women who want to express themselves. Other safer forms of art exist for this purpose.


Pornography liberates women  Pornography is massively produced and distributed: this provides women with a vast platform through which to define their sexual identity. This has been a great tool in the past: in the 1920’s America, the flapper became a great role model for women by promoting revolutionary values of a strong, sexual woman: she danced wildly in jazz clubs, was openly lesbian, and sexually active. This image spread throughout the country thanks to the boom of the film industry in the Roaring Twenties (Rosenberg). [1] Now pornography plays, or at least can play, this same role.  Pornography breaks the taboo of sexuality for women, and promoting the continuation of taboos is a label and a stereotype which the feminist movement must oppose. Instead, it should use pornography to spread its values. There is nothing intrinsic about pornography that makes it anti-women. There is female-friendly pornography, and in fact there are Feminist Porn Awards granted every year since 2006 (Techmedia Network). [2] There is also homosexual porn and porn that presents women as dominant: this can empower women and break current stereotypes, not only that women are not sexual, but that women in general cannot be powerful in society. The feminist movement should seek to promote this flow of ideas of what gender can be and allow women to influence the way their sexuality is perceived by men.  [1] Rosenberg, Jennifer. Flappers in the Roaring Twenties. About.com,   [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award.


The feminist movement cannot afford to alienate itself from society  The term ‘feminism’ is often associated with men-hating and the radical view that women are superior to men as opposed to gender equality. This happens because extreme feminists who uphold such opinions are consistently given greater media coverage by virtue of having the loudest voices and creating headlines that sell. As a result, the feminist movement is currently lacking the support it deserves and even those who take feminist positions often don’t want to call themselves feminists. (Scharff) [1]  It would be a bad move for it to further radicalise itself and attempt to ban something as present in society as pornography. It will never work, and it will merely make women and men more reluctant to espouse feminist ideologies for fear of being associated with a ‘hate group’.  [1] Scharff, Christina, “Myths of man-hating feminists make feminism unpopular”, Economic & Social Research Council, 7 March 2013,


Attempting to ban it would only cause further problems  There is no guarantee that a ban on pornography would improve gender stereotypes: in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. Pornography is a flourishing industry with incredibly high demand, and much like with prohibition in the past, it is naïve to believe a ban can make a difference. It is actually even harder with pornography, because of the ease through which it can be distributed through the net. Rather, a ban would expand the black market with all the problems that come with it today: child and non-consensual pornography, violence, unhealthy conditions, and a general lack of regulations. Furthermore, the extent that a ban could ever limit pornography, this would lead to further problems. On one hand, the feminist movement sends a worrying message that sex is harmful to women, and by extension that sex is for the benefit of men. Restoring a taboo on sexuality actively confines women to being dominated in bed, and in society in general.  Secondly, if pornography is limited, the vessels through which men can satisfy their sexual urges are also restricted. This can lead, at best, to greater sexual harassment, greater pressure on women to provide sexual services, and to more infidelity. At worst, and most probably, it leads to higher levels of rape.


Freedom of expression is essential for women  Social movements should limit themselves to pushing for the rights of social groups, not restricting them. The feminist movement, as a social movement, should not limit the voices of women in the same way their oppressors have throughout history. Banning pornography would directly restrict the freedom of choice of women who want to manifest their sexuality and express themselves in revolutionary ways in art and media. Examples such as amateur and improvised porn, which are independent of a director, show the deep value of self-expression and self-definition women can find in this form of art. The desire of some actresses to become internationally recognised as ‘sex symbols’, become porn stars, or simply convey that sex is for women too, is a legitimate one, and not an act of desperation. This must be taken into account in cases of pornography between consenting adults, for consenting adults.


The feminist movement must, above all, strive to protect the people who are oppressed by anti-women structures in society: it cannot ignore the problems women face. Social movements are there because the rights of minorities in society are being ignored: they are necessarily going against the flow of public opinion, and sometimes they need to be radical in order to uphold the rights others ignore. A big problem requires big changes.