This House believes the internet brings

more harm than good

The Internet is a network connecting computers across the world. It has its origins in military
and academic projects dating back to the 1960s, but began to be more widely available from
the end of the 1980s. The creation of the World Wide Web (1989) and web browsers (early
1990s) gave ordinary people easy ways of getting around the Internet. Over the past fifteen
years, millions of different websites have been set up, giving people the chance to shop, do
business, play, learn and communicate online. Over the same period it has become much
easier, cheaper and faster to get online in order to do these things.

Now more than 30% of the global population have access to the Internet. Continent-wise, this
breaks down as: Europe: 58.3%, North America 78.3%, Latin America 36.2%, Africa 11.4%,
Asia 23.8% and Oceania 60.1%.[1] These figures are growing all the time, as technology
designed to access the Internet becomes both more mobile and much cheaper to produce. The
arrival of the Internet has vastly changed the way in which people search and access
information. News travels more quickly than ever, and current affairs can be discussed all
over the world instantaneously via forums, blogs, and social networks. Search engines like
Google and Wikipedia have now become ubiquitous starting points for researching anything
from minor queries to academic reports. Many people also maintain social links through the
Internet with services such like Facebook, Skype, and Flickr, to name but a few. Research in
the UK has shown that the average adult spends around 22 hours 15 minutes online each
month.[2]

Some believe the Internet is dominating the lives of its users. Nicholas Carr in his book The
Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way we Think, Read and Remember,[3] that all
this time spend online cannot be healthy, whereas other have cheered the increased
possibilities for research, meeting new people and keeping in contact with one another. The
strongly contested debate remains as to whether the internet is an active force for good in
society or not.

[1] Miniwatts Marketing Group, World Internet Usage and Population Statistics. 2011.

[2] BBC News, Britons Spend Nearly ‘One Day a Month Online’, 2010.

[3] Carr. The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way we Think, Read and
Remember. 2010

Show less
Discuss this

 Points For
 Points Against
The quality of information online cannot always be relied upon

Point

The Internet has become a major source of information for many people. However, online
information has usually not gone through the same checks as newspaper articles, books or
factual television programming. There is a higher risk that some of the facts or quotations
from a particular source in an article are false. Whereas newspapers might lose customers if
people find out they have been ‘selling lies’, a blog and other online content can be easily
created and uploaded as well as just as quickly being deleted. If people base their opinions on
the information they find online, they could well be basing their opinion on false information.
Take for example the 2006 conspiracy film Loose Change which has had millions of views.
A report from the thinktank Demos in a report titled “Truth, Lies and the Internet: A Report
into Young People’s Digital Fluency”[1] state that the film contains a “...litnay of errors,
misattributions, vague insinuations, subtle misquotes, and outright falsehoods...” Since the
Internet gives equal space to material of greatly varying quality, the degree to which the
internet can been viewed as being a total force for good is drawn into question. If an informed
society is an empowered society it therefore stands to reason that a misinformed society is
disempowered society.

Counterpoint

The Internet gives millions of people access to information they would not otherwise have
had, which is a huge benefit. People who read the news, offline or online, are not inherently
dupable, they like all people do not simply accept messages they are, to varying degrees,
critical of what they read and not simply passive. When people spend a lot of time reading
online content they can differentiate between bloggers who are untrustworthy or extremely
biases from bloggers who carefully refer to legitimate sources. The problem of bad
information in news-making is not unique to the Internet; there are lots of trashy magazines
and poorly researched news content in traditional print channels of communication as well.
We learn in formal education to double-check our sources and not believe everything we
read, and we can apply that skill while surfing the Internet.

It is not enough to say that the internet contans falsehoods to dismiss the value of the internet.
All mediums contain falsehoods whether intentional or unintentional but there is a much
broader picture that needs to be considered in terms of the ability of the internet to provide
people with freedom of expression and freedom of information, if it being a free for all has
the downside of some falsehoods then thaty is a price worth paying.

Improve this

The Internet is a threat to privacy

Point

Everyone’s privacy can be greatly harmed by the Internet. Some websites store information.
Some ask us to fill in information which can be sold to other sites for commercial purposes.
As the Internet gains more and more users the temptation for criminals to gain our private
information becomes greater. Hackers can hide their true location when engaging in illegal
activities online, so the likelihood of their being brought to justice is low. Whenever people
post something online, it becomes almost impossible to erase, and with the proliferation of
social networks posting personal information online is becoming second nature, this is a
dangerous precedent. Take for example the posting of our locations online via geotagging,
this for many is an action which doesn’t take much consideration, however, to demonstrate
the danger of this designer Barry Borsoom setup the website PleaseRobMe.com which would
grab geocaching data and tell people when a person’s house was potentially empty.[1]

With the aid of the Internet then, we are symbolically sleepwalking into a big brother style
existence, in an information age all data about ourselves is an important asset and one which
needs defending. The infringement and degradation of our privacy as a side-result of the
Internet should be of great concern, and it is potentially one of the most detrimental effects
the Internet could have on society.

[1] Hough, Please Rob Me website causes for ‘telling burglars when Twitter users are not
home’, 2010

Improve this

Counterpoint

Privacy online is a big concern, but an educated citizen can navigate the Internet in a safe and
sensible manner with minimal privacy issues, although as with being offline a the threat of
crime can never be entirely eliminated. When we go online no-one forces the user to share
private information, it is volunteered by the user in exchange for a free service, it is often a
small price to pay for the services that can be received in return, such as free e-mail or free
webspace. Of course privacy can be infringed in other ways, by unlawful access to personal
files for example, but if protection such as firewalls are setup and users are careful about
what they download privacy online can be easily maintained. It is misleading to say we are
sleeping walking into a big brother existence, it gives in impression that the effect the Internet
is having on society is conspiratorial, this is clearly not the case, people like the way the
Internet can bring people all over the world together. Privacy is no more of a problem online
than privacy is in the offline world, the issue is being overstated by the proposition.

Improve this

The Internet has allowed a large amount of criminal, offensive and discriminatory
information to be easily accessed.

Point

The ability for anyone to be able to publish anything online without barriers resulted in a
large amount of information which could not only be incorrect but could also be criminal,
offensive or discriminatory if it were available to the general public. This sort of information
would not usually be widely published via offline channels, but with the advent of the
Internet it is very easily accessible by anyone like never before, and this is a dangerous
president. A cavalcade of propaganda from extremist groups such as religious zealots or Neo-
Nazis for example can be accessed by anyone around the world. This is dangerous as
vulnerable people could easily be taken in and exploited if the discovered this material. It is
quite often found that ‘lone-wolf’ terrorists, for example, have gotten their information and
inspiration from the Internet. Garry Reid, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Combating Terrorism in the USA states that “Enabled by 21st-century
technology, extremists have optimized the use of Internet chat rooms, Web sites and e-mail
chains to spread their virulent messages and reach a global audience of potential recruits”.[1]
But it is not only terrorists who are utilizing the Internet at a detriment to society. Various
reports have linked a sharp rise in paedophilia with the growth of the Internet[2] as it is an
easy and often anonymous way to share such material with the world. The ability for anyone
to publish anything online could clearly do considerable harm to society, which would have
otherwise been much less prevalent and easier to control and regulate.

[1] Romm, Internet Helped Flight 253 Suspect Radicalize, 2010

[2] Cowan, Arrests of Internet Paedophiles Quadruple over Two Years, 2005. Daily Mail,
Psychologists Warn of ‘Causal Link’ Between Internet Porn and the Rise in Sex Offenses.
2011.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Freedom of information should mean freedom of all types of information, even if it is

extreme propaganda from fringe groups such as neo-Nazis or Al-Qaeda. The public must be
trusted to be able to make its own decisions on the value of such texts. What is great about
the Internet is that points of view that would not necessarily get much publicity in traditional
media can be aired and discussed online, from serious issues such as capital punishment to
less serious ones like aliens. Of course one of the downfalls of such freedom is that illegal
content such as child pornography can be made available in a way which it could not have
before, but highlighting this issue is not entirely fair as it is greatly outweighed by the
information available online that is perfectly fine and legal. This does not of course excuse
the publication of such images. It is, however, a slight misnomer to suggest that the Internet
is entirely free from the restraints of law. In issues of legality, governments can take action:
they can either trace the origin of the images or force web space providers and ISPs (Internet
Service Providers) to take down the content. On the whole, having ready access to such a
large amount of information, and being able to freely add and discuss it, is beneficial to
society, because it is both liberating and educational.

Improve this

Voting Results
This House supports the death penalty
Capital punishment is the sentence of death, or practice of execution, handed down as
punishment for a criminal offence. It can only be used by a state, after a proper legal trial.
The United Nations in 2008 adopted a resolution (62/149) calling for a moratorium on the use
of the death penalty, however fifty-eight countries, including the United States and China,
still exercise the death penalty. As such, the topic remains highly controversial. Abolitionist
groups and international organizations argue that it is cruel and inhumane, while proponents
claim that it is an effective and necessary deterrent for the most heinous of crimes.

Read more
Discuss this

 Points For
 Points Against

It helps the victims' families achieve closure.

Point

The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will
no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They will not have to worry
about parole or the chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of
closure.
Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the
State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to
the death penalty. I'm just so disappointed in the system'1. Other victims' families deemed the
decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done'1.
1
Goldbery, Michelle. "The Closure Myth". Salon. January 21, 2003.Accessed June 30,2011

Improve this

Counterpoint

Many victims' families oppose the death penalty1. While some might take comfort in
knowing the guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to know that the person is
suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable knowing that the state killed another human
being on behalf of the victim.
Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions
not only fails to provide closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is
not far removed from experience it'2.
Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is
simply not about what the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the
crime committed, and not the alleged preferences of victims' families.
1
Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation. Accessed June 9, 2011.
2
Rahka, Naseem. "Capital Punishment: Muhammad and the 'Closure' Myth." November 1,
2009. Accessed June 29, 2011.

Improve this

The death penalty deters crime.

Point

The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death
penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in
convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison
may be frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can
change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer
worthwhile for them1.
Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen
K. Layson at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18
murders. Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades,
further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2.
On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than
it is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can
dramatically increase its deterrent effect in the United States1.
In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people.
1
Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007.
Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times.
November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011

Improve this

Counterpoint

There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing,
many criminals may actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and thus,
less effective as a deterrent) than spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by
execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be seen as a much more
intensive punishment.
Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a
harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat
of the moment, with little consideration for their legal repercussions1.
Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not
the case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes
end in acquittals2.
Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty is at best
mixed. Many of the studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the
impact of capital punishment cannot be disentangled from other factors such as broader social
trends, economic factors and demographic changes in a region2.
Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty and higher crime
rates. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have
higher crime rates than most states that do not have the death penalty2.
1
Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
"Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

Improve this

Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes.

Point

The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or
commit further crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit
homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can
receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards
who must watch them.
The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison.
Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be
absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them.
1
Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June
9, 2011
2
Davis, Laura. "Crime and Punishment: the view from a convicted criminal." The
Independent. May 19, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2001.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Escapes from prison, though sensationalized by the media, are relatively rare occurrences1. In
1998, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL
from state prisons. Given a total prison population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure
represents just over half a percent of the total prison population.
On top of this, it is not impossible for people to commit further crimes while on death row.
Those sentenced to death may be even more eager to escape prior to their execution than
those awaiting life in prison, so it is not true that execution necessarily prevents further
crimes.
1
Suellentrop, Chris. "How Often Do Prisoners Escape?" Slate. February 1, 2001.

Improve this

The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for an
eye.

Point
The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the
intentional slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but
there are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and
fair manner, with the death penalty.
As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and
satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than
the worst possible
punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures
that those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes
the value and importance placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any
lesser sentence would fail in this duty.
1
Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983.
Accessed June 30, 2011.

Improve this

Counterpoint

There is no fairness or consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice. Justice

should remain above the petty retributive justice that marks street or community warfare,
whereby the murder of one family member justifies a revenge attack against the murderers'
family.
Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. As New York University Law
Professor Anthony Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn arsonists' houses'1. Capital punishment
'attempts to vindicate one murder by committing a second murder. And the second murder is
more reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned and done with great ceremony in the
name of us all'1.
The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is undermined not merely by the Pope himself, who
advocated 'clemency, or pardon, for those condemned to death', but scripture itself, which
preaches mercy just as vigorously as it does retribution1.
1
Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983.
Accessed June 30, 2011.

Improve this

Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons.

Point

The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries,
where keeping people for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional
overcrowding1.
In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel
ordered authorities to release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up
by the U.S. Supreme Court, which argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are
so overwhelming that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United
Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been deemed overcrowded3.
As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a
pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It is better to execute those who deserve it
than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded
by people serving life sentences.
1
Sanchez, Mary. "California prisons: Cruel and unusual." The Miami Herald. May 30, 2011.
Accessed June 9, 2011.
2
Martinez, Michael. "California officials: We'll fix prison crowding, won't free 33,000."
CNN. May 24,2011. Accessed June 9, 2011.
3
"Two-thirds of prisons overcrowded." The Guardian. August 25, 2009. Accessed June 8,
2011

Improve this

Counterpoint

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

Improve this

State-sanctioned killing is wrong.

Point

The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the
government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process. Such
acts violate the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and
the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment2.
On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life,
which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a humane
state cannot be one that exercises the death penalty.
1
Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October
10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011.

Improve this
Counterpoint

A just state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of others.
By sentencing people to prison, for instance, the state takes away rights to movement,
association, and property rights from convicted criminals. The right to life should be no
different. When you commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does
not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal. Certain
crimes are so heinous that the only proportionate sentence is execution.
As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple
executioners which might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is
forced to become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full
awareness of the risks involved.

Improve this

The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.

Point

Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of
alternative punishments such as life in prison1.
A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million as a result of the intensive jury selection,
trials, and long appeals process that are required by capital cases2. The cost of death row
presents an additional financial burden associated with the death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death penalty in Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000
for every case in which the death penalty is not sought1.
In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning
convicts for life2.
This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much greater benefit to the
criminal justice system- greater policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that
are far more cost-effective.
1
Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times.
November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011
2
"High Cost of Death Row." The New York Times. September 27, 2009.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that
is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent
of financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening
the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1.
1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

Improve this
Wrongful convictions are irreversible.

Point

There are an alarming number of wrongful convictions associated with the death penalty1. So
far, more than 130 people who had been sentenced to death have been exonerated2. In many
cases, unlike those who have been sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate
executed prisoners should they later be proven innocent.
The state should not gamble with people's lives. The chance of wrongful execution alone
should be enough to prove the death penalty is not justifiable.
1
European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October
10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
"Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Wrongful convictions are particularly rare in cases where the death penalty is sentenced. The
lengthy and thorough procedures associated with death penalty cases offer sufficient
protection against wrongful convictions. If there is any reasonable doubt that a person is
guilty, they will not receive the sentence.
Finally, even in cases where there is a wrongful conviction, there is generally a lengthy
appeals process for them to make their case. For example, in 1993, Alex Hernandez was
sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 10-year old girl in Chicago; he
was released a number of years later due to his lawyers proving both a paucity of evidence
and the confession of her actual killer1. As a result, very few innocent people receive the
death penalty, and the legality of capital punishment does not increase wrongful or prejudicial
convictions2.
1
Turow, Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3,
2011,
2
Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June
9, 2011

Improve this

The death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice.

Point

Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of
ways.
First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-
based or racial biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and
adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty
was three to four times more common amongst those who killed whites than those who killed
African Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are three and a half times more
likely to be executed than those who kill men2.
Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of
randomness into sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get
a death sentence for first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County2.
Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards
returning an innocent verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are
told that the consequence of a guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of
reasonable doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means that
more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In this sense the
death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims'
families.
1
"Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
Turow, Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3,
2011,
3
Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.

Improve this

Counterpoint

The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital
punishment.
If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves
just as often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for
people to die or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest
that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be
abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected.
Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty
cases1. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in
sentencing for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes
were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused
accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found.
Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable
sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that
many jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death
penalty.
1
Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007.
Accessed June 5, 2011.
2
Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4.
October 1980.

Improve this

Voting Results
Every child should have a mobile phone.
(Junior)
This debate is about whether every child should have a mobile phone (Cell phone if you are
in the United States). This does not mean that they always have to have it with them, or that
they will be forced to always have their phone turned on. It also does not mean that children,
or their parents, are forced to buy a mobile phone. The debate is simply about whether the
good things about every child having a mobile phone outweigh the bad things that result from
every child having a mobile phone.

Mobile phones were first invented in 1973 and have been available for anyone to buy since
1983. But it was not until the 1990s that most people began owning mobiles. Today there are
six billion mobile phone subscriptions. Even in many parts of Africa a majority of people
have one. In the United Kingdom more than 70% of children aged five to sixteen own a
mobile phone. In the United States 83% of middle schoolers have a mobile phone and the age
at which children first get a mobile is going down.

Although large numbers of children have mobiles until recently it has often been the case that
schools banned the use of mobiles. But the benefits of mobile phones to schools are
beginning to be accepted. This is in much the same way that computers have been accepted.
The introduction of smartphones, phones which are like small computers such as the iphone,
means there are a lot more potential uses for the phone in the classroom. But if mobiles are to
be used in schools then it becomes necessary for every child to have one.

Note for teachers: This is potentially a difficult debate for the opposition side as they are left
wondering how to oppose something that is stated as an aspiration. There is no compulsion
for the opposition to grab hold of and there are very few negatives to having a mobile phone.
Having the debate phrased as ‘Every child must have a mobile phone’ might make for a more
even debate. You may also want to set an age for this debate as for the very youngest many of
the arguments begin to lose their meaning.

Read more
Discuss this

 Points For
 Points Against

Mobile phones make sure that we are safe

Point

Mobile phones mean we are never out of contact with our friends, parents, guardians, or if
necessary our school. They provide a way we can quickly contact someone if we are in
trouble or are lost. Mobiles are most clearly helpful if caught in a large scale disaster such as
a flood or earthquake as we can tell rescuers where we are. But they are also helpful for every
day security. With a mobile phone parents know where we are and can be quickly contacted
if we feel unsafe somewhere.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into
trouble. But they don’t always help because they don’t always keep us in contact. There are
many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have
been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to
parents worries as they can’t get in contact when they expected to be able to.

Improve this

Mobile phones enable us to keep in touch

Point

Mobile communication is very useful and its main use is not to keep us safe but to make life
easier. It is clearly useful that we can phone to ask to be picked up rather than always having
to set a meeting time in advance. It is equally useful that a mobile phone can tell us if it is
likely to rain, or if the train is late. We don’t need this information, but it certainly is helpful,
and it is just as helpful for children as for adults.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Mobile phones may help us keep in touch over long distances which is useful. However some
doctors are concerned that keeping in touch by mobile phone comes at the cost of less face to
face talking. When communicating by text message we are losing many parts of
communication such as facial expression.

Improve this

Mobile phones help us to learn

Point

Having a mobile phone helps us to learn in a lot of different ways. First we learn about
technology; about how to use the mobile phone. Second most phones today have apps
(programs) to enable learning using the phone, or else through the internet. Phones can access
online courses and lessons which can be provided in fun ways and can in some cases instantly
tell you if you have the right answer. It may even sometimes be possible to do homework on
a phone and send it to your teacher. Even without the internet phones can be used to provide
short assignments, or to provide reminders to study.

Improve this

Counterpoint

These are certainly good things but we don’t need mobile phones for them. For example most
people already have access to the internet. It is also not a good reason for why everyone
should have one. If it is being used for learning phones can be used by more than one person.

Improve this

Mobile phones lead to increased independence

Point

Mobile phones bring us increased independence. Being able to use a mobile phone is clearly
a basic skill to allow children to be independent. It means that they are not dependent on an
adult being with them for parents to know where they are. The main reason for parents being
unwilling to let children out on their own is fear for their safety. This is a fear that mobiles
help prevent. This increased independence has other benefits, such as teaching us to be
responsible for ourselves.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Increased independence for children is not always a good thing. Children should be
supervised by adults and mobile phones are no substitute for this. Mobiles simply provide us
with another means of communication with the outside world over which parents has little
control. This is particularly relevant when the phone has internet access which is not
restricted.

Improve this

Voting Results
Jump to Navigation

 Map
 Site Feedback
 IDEA Sites

 RSS
 Facebook
 Twitter

 Login
 Register

Search by keyw

 Home
 Debatabase
o Debatabase Guide
o Motions
o Top 100 Debates
 Debate Now
 Community
o Debating Societies
o Discussions
o Groups
 News
 Events
 Training
o Offline Training
o Online Training
o Teaching Tools
o Glossary
o Multilingual Glossary
 Media
o Video
o Images
o Publications
o Handouts
o Securing Liberty Series

My Debate
Debates

This House would legalize the sale of

human organs
As our knowledge of surgical and diagnostic techniques has increased with time, so has the
success rate of organ transplants. However, the number of patients who require organ
transplants exceeds the number of organs available, particularly if the patient has a rare blood
type[1] or belongs to an ethnic minority where organ donations are even lower than
normal[2]. For example, although black people are three times more likely than the general
population to develop kidney failure, and the Asian community has a particularly high
demand for organs, organ donation within these groups is relatively low[3]. It is important for
the donor and recipient to have the same blood type and similar genetic make-up in order to
minimize the change of the receiver’s body rejecting the organ[4]. More than 10,000 people
in the UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting
list[5]. In the US, over 100,000 people are still on the waiting list[6]. Although these figures
are astonishing in themselves, the genuine figure is probably higher, inflated by the deaths of
patients who are never waitlisted for a transplant. Some patients are never placed on the
waiting list because they have certain habits – such as smoking[7] – and the precious few
organs available are prioritised for patients who fit recipient categories.

The sale of human organs offers a possible solution to this crippling shortage of organs.
There is already an established black market trade in organs[8][9]. Entrepreneurs offer British
and Western patients the opportunity to receive privately financed transplants in countries
such as India and Malaysia[10]. In 2006, investigators discovered that Chinese hospitals were
providing organ transplants using the organs of executed prisoners[11]. In 1983, Dr. Barry
Jacobs requested that the US government should create a fund to compensate the families
who donate the organs of their deceased relatives.[12] He also proposed a business plan to
buy kidneys from living donors to transplant to American patients[13]. However, these is still
plenty of opposition to these ideas, and the National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984 still
prohibits the sale of human organs from both dead and living donors[14].

The proposition line could argue that organs are the property of the donors, and so they have
a right to do with them as they wish. In this case of buying human organs, it is much easier to
argue that the profits would go to the donor rather than (for example) hospitals or
governments which may not have a vested interest in those concerned. It would be useful to
outline in the mechanism that these organs will be transferred through a unique medical
group or business which has the technology available to match up donors to potential
recipients and so avoid potential medical complications as far as possible. After this, it would
be like any other financial transaction. This debate will focus on the United Kingdom, but the
arguments would be relevant to most countries considering this policy change.

[1] Comprehensive Transplant Center,

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/transplant/Programs/InKTP/blood_type.html, accessed
19/08/11
[2] Blood and Transplant. “Black and minority ethnic communities.”
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/black_and_other_minority_eth
nic_communities/black_and_other_minority_ethnic_communities.jsp, accessed 19/08/11

[3] Ibid,
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/black_and_other_minority_eth
nic_communities/black_and_other_minority_ethnic_communities.jsp, accessed 19/08/11

[4] American Association of Kidney Patients, http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/transplant-

compatibility/index.cfm, accessed 19/08/11

[5] Blood and Transplant. “Organ Donation.” http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/default.jsp,

accessed 19/08/11

[6] United Network for Organ Sharing. http://www.unos.org/ accessed 19/08/11

[7] Cleveland Clinic.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/lung_transplantation/hic_lung_transplant_your_commi
tment_to_good_health.aspx, accessed 19/08/11

[8] MacKinnon, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7493466.stm, accessed 19/08/11

[9] Havoscope: Black Markets. http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/organs-

kidneys/, accessed 19/08/11

[10] Kram, http://www1.american.edu/ted/prisonorgans.htm, accessed 19/08/11

[11] BBC News, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5386720.stm, accessed 19/08/11

[12] Goodwin, http://law.slu.edu/healthlaw/journal/archives/Goodwin.pdf, accessed 20/08/11

[13] Ibid, http://law.slu.edu/healthlaw/journal/archives/Goodwin.pdf, accessed 20/08/11

[14] 98th Congress, 1984, http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL98-507.pdf, accessed

20/08/11

Read more
Discuss this

 Points For
 Points Against

We already recognize the benefits of individuals who are able to pay for their healthcare
doing so.

Point
The ethics of private healthcare are not in question here; indeed, the UK government has
stated that as many people as possible should be encouraged to pay for private healthcare in
order to relieve the strain on national resources[1]. Critics have understood this as the
government prolonging waiting lists until the patients ‘remove themselves’ either by going
private, or dying[2]. There is, however, a general understanding that the NHS in the UK is
overburdened and that increased private healthcare would help to balance this[3]. Meanwhile,
in the US, private healthcare is the norm[4]. Allowing the sale of organs is merely an
extension of this principle and provides utilitarian benefit. Not only would those who are able
to pay for an organ enjoy a much better chance at recovery, but there would be more time,
space, and resources for the people who could not afford to do this privately.

[1] On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing [blog], 2011

http://www.onaquietday.org/2011/07/29/nhs-news-review-94/, accessed 20/08/11

[2] 98th Congress, 1984 http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL98-507.pdf, accessed

20/08/11

[3] Lister, 1999 http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7203/191.1.full, accessed 20/08/11

[4] BBC News 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8201711.stm, accessed 20/08/11

Improve this

Counterpoint

If payment-for-organs is introduced as a general norm, this will extend to the state-financed

hospitals which are so burdened in the first place. Few families would turn down the
opportunity to receive ‘compensation’ or payment for the families of their loved ones which
could ensure financial stability, particularly if the family member who died was the sole or
main earner. Therefore, either these families will charge the hospitals the same prices, or they
will refuse to donate the organs, and turn to a private market instead. Given that the black
market price for organs can reach tens of thousands of pounds[1], it seems unlikely that
struggling health systems would be able to afford it, and this would only encourage an
incredibly harmful disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. Unless the proposition
case wants to argue that a rich person inherently has a greater right to an organ than a poor
person, their point falls.

[1] Suddath and Altman, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912880,00.html, accessed 20/08/11

Improve this

Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the black market and ensure safer
transplants.
Point

Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption currently associated with the organ market.
It can also make it easy to regulate, and so safer. Given the mystery of the black market,
medical complications are much more likely; it is necessary to match the donor and recipient
together[1], but this cannot be easily done when every step of the organ collection and
donation must be hidden for fear of prosecution. Legalisation could also stop the ‘theft’ or
organs and abuse of people like Chinese prisoners[2] who are currently exploited for their
organs[3] – authorities will become accountable to a publicly recognised and enforced
system.

[1] American Association of Kidney Patients, http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/transplant-

compatibility/index.cfm, accessed 20/08/11

[2] Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong in China.

http://cipfg.org/en/index.php?news=59, accessed 20/08/11

[3] BBC News, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5386720.stm, accessed 20/08/11

Improve this

Counterpoint

If certain people are already risking punishment by harvesting and transplanting organs
illegally, it seems unlikely that they will suddenly become accountable to a system that
recognises that organs can be bought and sold arbitrarily. If Chinese officials are already
suspected of these activities, it would be very difficult to ensure that profit from the donated
organs did go to the donors or their families rather than corrupt authorities. Finally, legalizing
an action that is currently carried out in appalling conditions essentially legitimizes appalling
human rights violations, and allows human sacrifice.

Improve this

People should have rights over their own body and body parts.

Point

The proposition is not concerned with live people trying to donate their hearts, or other vital
organs which they cannot live without. No matter how impoverished that person might be,
they will not choose certain death for a cash payoff. However, organs like kidneys, and
sections of liver, can be and often are donated from a live donor without significant lasting
damage[1][2]. It is patronising to forbid an individual to sell or donate an organ when it is
possible for them to live without it. Similarly, the family of a deceased relative, as next of
kin, should have the right to receive financial remuneration from their organs.
[1] Guillen, 2005, http://www.emedicinehealth.com/liver_transplant/article_em.htm, accessed
20/08/11

[2] Blood and Transplant. “Could I be a living kidney donor?”,

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/living_kidney_donation/living
_kidney_donation.jsp, accessed 20/08/11

Improve this

Counterpoint

The state often denies individuals the right to do certain things with their bodies. For
example, the state makes hard drugs illegal[1][2] because it recognizes that sometimes
individuals do not make the best decisions for their health or lifestyle choices, and that the
physical damage to their bodies is often lasting and life-changing in ways which that
individual did not apprehend. Furthermore, somebody who is selling an organ to try and pay
off debts or to relieve financial pressure is unlikely to be thinking entirely rationally; this is
an incredibly extreme measure, and allowing individuals to take control over it for a cash
reward is a dangerous way to create an incentive to cause bodily harm.

[1] In the UK: Narconon. http://www.drugrehab.co.uk/illegal-drugs.htm, accessed 20/08/11

[2] In the US: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/dextroproxyphene.html#drugclasses, accessed 20/08/11

Improve this

The donor should be able to benefit financially, rather than being expected to donate
organs with no reward.

Point

Given that the doctors, nurses and surgeons who work around organ transplants are all paid, it
is nonsensical that the donor, the most important figure in the organ transplant, should be left
out. The United States already allows markets for sperm[1], blood[2], human eggs[3] and
surrogate wombs[4]. There is no good reason why organs should be excluded when these
other human products are not; there is no moral difference between a kidney and an ovum.
Moreover, organ donation is a lifesaving process, whereas sperm and egg donation are not.
Simply put, incentivizing donations through payment will save the lives of many patients in
need. The payment from these organs could also hugely improve the quality of life of the
donors by lifting them out of debt, or allowing struggling individuals, such as students, to
improve their career potential by paying for their university fees.
[1] Sperm Bank, Inc.http://www.spermbankcalifornia.com/buy-sperm-online.html, accessed
20/08/11

[2] Kennedy, 1978, http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/3/1/5, accessed 20/08/11

[3] BBC News, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1172616.stm, accessed 20/08/11

[4] Surrogate Mothers, Inc. http://www.surrogatemothers.com/, accessed 20/08/11

Improve this

Counterpoint

It is exactly because organs are potentially life-saving that it would be dangerous to legalize
their sale. Sperm and egg donations are a last resort for a couple struggling with
infertility[1][2][3]; they have had time to weigh their options. Similarly, when sperm, blood
or eggs are donated, they regenerate – kidneys do not. When an organ is the only and final
chance for the patient’s recovery, the patient loses rationality and becomes desperate to
obtain one[4] – to the point where the donors can essentially name any exploitative price he
or she likes. Not only are these individuals then exploited, and the poorer patients left to die,
but hospitals will be unable to afford them – so the overall chance of a patient receiving an
organ will plummet for the majority without the money to pay for it.

[1] Center for Human Reproduction. http://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/, accessed

20/08/11

[2] Kaycoff-Manos and de Brito,

http://www.parentsviaeggdonation.org/v2/overseas_eggdonation.html, accessed 20/08/11

[3] Couple’s Guide to Jewish Fertility Challenges. http://www.jewishfertility.org/egg-

donation.php, accessed 20/08/11

[4] Businesswire, 2011,

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110512006179/en/Americans-Desperate-Organ-
Transplants-Find-Black-Market, accessed 20/08/11

Improve this

Allowing the sale of organs will harm state-financed health services and create a two-
tier system

Point
There is almost no chance that a state-financed health service will be able to afford the
prohibitive cost of purchasing organs under this model. While it is difficult to track the exact
price of organs on the black market, they often reach many thousands of pounds[1] and there
is no reason to believe that the proposition’s model would suddenly reduce this price. In
effect, this would turn essential organs into luxury items which the state cannot afford to
provide, and so the poorest and neediest would be left to die. This would condone the most
gross discrimination between rich and poor where a rich life, perhaps even despite a
previously neglectful lifestyle (for example drinking and smoking), could be prioritised over
a poor person’s life where their medical condition may not have been caused by their lifestyle
choices.

[1] Carney, 2007,

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2007/05/india_transplants_prices, accessed
20/08/11

Improve this

Counterpoint

It is just as bad to forbid those who can afford to buy an organ from taking a life-saving
action as it is to allow poorer people to die. In an ideal world, there would be unlimited
organs; but as organ shortages continue, if anybody can afford to skip the queue by buying an
organ – whether they are generally rich or poor – we should allow them to do so.

Improve this

Allowing the sale of human organs in the First World will impact negatively on the
Third World.

Point

The existing black market already shows a firm flow of organs in one direction; from the
Third World to the First. Those who battle with poverty in poor countries will see the
opportunity to sell their organs to the wealthy West; however, current disparities between
how much donors are paid for their organs and how much these are then sold on for shows
that the donors are already exploited[1][2]. Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, a New York City
resident, was accused of paying poor donors in Israel $10,000 for a kidney but charging up to
$160,000 to recipients[3]. There is no reason to believe, even if we legalize and regulate the
organ trade within Western countries, that people in poorer countries will not continue to be
exploited in this manner when they do not share the same legislation as us.

[1] Suddath and Altman, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912880,00.html, paragraph 5, accessed
21/08/11
[2] Carney, 2007,
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2007/05/india_transplants_prices, accessed
21/08/11

[3] Suddath and Altman, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912880,00.html, accessed 21/08/11

Improve this

Counterpoint

Given the necessity of a close match between donor and recipient blood types, and a higher
rate of transplant success within the same race rather than between races[1], it is a huge
exaggeration to imply that people in poor countries, such as African states, will be scavenged
for organs. Donors from these countries simply will not always match the medical
requirements of Western recipients. In fact, if the organ did match, the balance of harms still
falls in favour of donation. While the donor should obviously be paid the amount (or very
This house Would Ban School Uniforms -
Junior
In some countries, like the U.K., Japan, Hong Kong, and several African countries, school
uniforms are worn in almost every school. In other countries, like France and Germany,
school uniforms are only worn in a few schools, or even none. However, in some of these
countries opinions are changing. For example, both France1 and Germany2 have recently
considered bringing school uniforms back, and in the U.S.A. the percentage of public schools
in which children wear a uniform has increased from 11.8 in 1999-2000 to 17.5 in 2007-
20083. On the other hand, some schools in the U.K. have gotten rid of school uniforms4. With
such different rules in these different countries, it is important to think about whether or not
school uniforms are really necessary, and why.
1
The Independent, 2006. France considers return of school uniforms to banish fashion wars
[online] 21 June.
2
BBC News, 2006. School uniform row grips Germany [online]
3
National Center for Education Statistics, 2010. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010
[online]
4
Guardian, 2011. School uniform does not improve results

Show less

Discuss this

 Points For
 Points Against

Students should be allowed to wear religious dress

Point

If children are religious, they should be allowed to wear the clothes that express their
religion, but school a uniform can often restrict this. Religious beliefs can be extremely
valuable and important to many children, giving their lives a great deal of meaning and
structure and inspiring them to work hard and behave compassionately in a school
environment. Some religions place a great deal of value upon worn symbols of faith, such as
turbans, headdresses and bracelets. When a school demands that a child remove these
symbols, it inadvertently attacks something central to that child’s life. This may cause the
child to see her school and her faith as mutually exclusive institutions[1]. Vulnerable young
people should not be forced into an adversarial relationship with their school, as close,
collaborative involvement with teaching and learning techniques will greatly effect a child’s
ability to adapt, learn and acquire new skills in the future.
For example, school skirts are often not long enough for Muslim girls, who believe that they
should cover most of their bodies. To allow children to express their religions, we should get
rid of school uniforms.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Some schools do have different rules for religious students, so that those students can express
their beliefs. For example, a school might let Muslim girls wear some of their religious items
of clothing mixed with the school uniform (e.g., Reading Girls' School)[2].

Improve this

Dress Codes instead of school uniform

Point

Rather than having school uniform, why not have a dress code instead? This has all the
benefits of uniform without the many disadvantages. While uniforms force all children to
wear the same clothes, dress codes give students a lot of choice what to wear. Only a few
unsuitable things are banned - for example, gang colors, very short skirts, crop tops, bare
shoulders, etc.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Dress codes are a half-way house that does not work. It does not make students look at all
uniform and it does not show what school they are from. In the United States there has been a
move away from allowing either no uniform or dress codes towards having school
uniforms.[6]

Improve this

School uniforms are often impractical or uncomfortable

Point
School uniforms are often not very comfortable or practical. In state schools (schools for
which parents don't have to pay fees) in the U.K., for example, girls often have to wear
dresses or skirts, when they might feel more comfortable in trousers, and boys often have to
wear button-up shirts and ties, which can also be uncomfortable for active children[7]. In
independent schools, uniforms are often even more impractical and uncomfortable, with
blazers or even tailcoats for the children to wear[8].

Improve this

Counterpoint

A lot of schools have a choice of uniform so that children can wear what they feel most
comfortable in. For example, in Australia, which is a very hot country, schools often have a
summer uniform of clothes that are more comfortable in the hot weather [9]. This means that
in summer, children might be allowed to wear shorts instead of trousers and short-sleeved
instead of long-sleeved shirts.

If children were allowed to choose their own clothes to wear to school, instead of a uniform,
they might choose impractical clothes themselves, like baggy tee shirts or long skirts, or jeans
with chains hanging from them. To make sure that children are all wearing sensible clothes in
which they will be able to take part in all their school activities, there needs to be one uniform
that all children at the school wear.

Improve this

School uniforms are often expensive

Point

If a school has a uniform, parents are expected to buy it, and then buy a new one every time
their child outgrows the last. This can be expensive. It has been reported that parents in South
Africa[10], Australia[11], and the U.K[12]. have to pay a lot of money for their children's
school uniforms, and it is probably the same in other countries too.

Improve this

Counterpoint
In many countries, parents can apply for help with the cost of school uniform. For example,
in the U.K., parents who don't earn a lot of money can get money from the government to
help pay for their child's school uniform[13] . In Australia, the Australian Scholarships
Group, which specialises in helping parents save money when it comes to their children's
education, has tips for parents to get their child's uniform cheaper.[14]

Also, parents would probably have to spend a lot more money if their children didn't wear a
uniform to school, because they would have to buy them more casual clothes. Since children
don't like to wear the same thing too often (in case they get bullied), parents would have to
spend a lot of money making sure their children have lots of different outfits.

Improve this

Individuality and creativity should be encouraged

Point

Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right
to freedom of opinion and expression"[18]. Children's freedom of expression is restricted by
school uniforms, because children who have to wear the same clothing as every other child in
their school are not able to express their individuality and creativity. We should get rid of
school uniform so that all children can express themselves freely.

Improve this

Counterpoint

Schools can foster creativity and individuality without getting rid of school uniform. There
are many schools with a uniform which still support creativity and individuality with "Child
Initiated Independent Learning", and other schemes which encourage children to think
for themselves [19, 20]. Also, if children are participating in creative activities like art, it is
surely better for them to wear sensible clothes, and it's easier to make sure all children are
wearing sensible clothes if they all have to wear the same uniform.

Improve this

Voting Results