text: The ICC allows for the prosecution of war criminals.  Law-abiding states like the United States that have yet to ratify the ICC should have nothing to fear if they behave lawfully. The Prosecutor of the ICC is only concerned with the most grave offences and it defies belief that the US would approve a strategy of genocide or systematic mass violations of human rights that could attract the jurisdiction of the ICC. Further, the discretion of the Prosecutor is not unchecked. The Statute requires that the approval of three judges sitting in a pre-trial chamber be obtained before an arrest warrant can be issued or proceedings initiated. Moreover, there is no harm to the interests of the US in being subjected to a mere preliminary investigation. In fact, it is preferable that spurious accusations are briefly examined and shown to be baseless, than that these accusations be allowed to raise doubts about the credibility of a State's actions and the impartiality of the Tribunal in question. The US acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor of the ICTY is evident ; the US troops forming part of the KFOR peacekeeping force in Kosovo could equally be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICTY. The US is prepared for its forces to operate under the scrutiny of the ICTY since it reasonably does not expect its members to commit the very crimes they are deployed to prevent.


title: human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise

text: The ICC's ability to prosecute war criminals is both overstated and simplistic. It has no force of its own, and must rely on its member states to hand over criminals wanted for prosecution. This leads to cases like that of Serbia, where wanted war criminals like Ratko Mladic are believed to have been hidden with the complicity of the regime until finally handed over in 2011. The absence of a force or any coercive means to bring suspects to trial also leads to situations like that in Libya, whereby Colonel Gaddafi is wanted by the ICC but the prosecution's case is germane if he manages his grip on power. Furthermore, it relies on external funding to operate, and can only sustain cases so long as financial support exists to see them through.


text: The deterrent effect of the Court ensures wide-spread and equal adherence to international law.  Upon signing the Rome Statute in 1996, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that 'the establishment of the Court is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law'1. Such statements demonstrate the impact the Court could potentially have, as a body that simultaneously cherishes sovereignty and protects national courts whilst offering a means by which criminals in states unable or unwilling to prosecute will still be brought to justice. As the natural and permanent heir to the process started at Nuremberg in the wake of World War II2, the ICC ensures that the reach of law is now universal; war criminals, either in national or international courts, will be forced to trial as a result of the principle of universal jurisdiction1. The deterrent effect of such a court is obvious and a warning to those who felt they were operating in anarchic legal environments.  1 Amnesty International. (2007, September). Fact Sheet: International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011  2 Crossland, D. (2005, November 23). Nuremberg Trials a Tough Act to Follow. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Spiegel International


text: The ICC does not have too much authority, merely the necessary authority to be useful as an institution. It is the very pre-eminence of the US that demands it adhere to the international rule of law, the ICC's existence will not alter that nor lead to charges for legitimate actions. It is perfectly possible to conduct a campaign for bona fide reasons of saving lives and protecting human rights that involves the commission of war crimes. The ICC can reasonably demand that the US, or any other State, pursue their lawful ends by lawful means. Moreover, it matters not to the victim of a gross human rights violation whether the perpetrator was the regime of a rogue state or the service member of a State seeking to protect the population. Further, other States with significant military commitments overseas, such as the UK and France, have ratified the Rome Statute without equivocation. These States accept that intervening in other States to uphold international human rights demands respect for these same norms.


text: The budget of the ICC is not particularly excessive and can be maintained without US finance. The withholding of US funds from the UN budget is a familiar tactic for expressing disapproval. In 1998, the total US arrears on assessed contributions that had been approved by the Security Council amounted to over $1.3 billion1. Whilst the operation of UN institutions and operations, in particular peacekeeping, might have suffered, the UN was still able to function. Likewise, there is no reason to suggest that the refusal of the US, or even Japan, to ratify the Rome Statute, would preclude the operation of the ICC. The Statute allows the donation of additional funds and resources from other State Parties. With regard to the ICTY, the EU has consistently contributed personnel, in addition to the payment of the assessed contribution of each of the 15 States. $100 million might seem a significant expense. However, it is both trite and true that no price should be put on justice. Not least justice for thousands of victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable.  1 Lautze, S. (2000, October). US Arrears to the UN. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Humanitarian Exchange Magazine:


text: It may be in the best interests of victims and their state for war criminals not to be brought to trial.  The ICC may well lead to the political prosecution of war criminals, but that is not necessarily the most effective means to peace, or lasting peace for victims. As U.S. policy papers have pointed out, despots like Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein did not consult lawyers over potential legal ramifications before they committed their respective human rights violations1. Furthermore, the impact on an oppressed population of a long, protracted trial of their fallen dictator is not always therapeutic for it can dredge up events of particularly melancholic qualities and grants the dictator a platform to continue his psychological control over his population.  1 Elsea, J. K. (2006). U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court. Congressional Research Service, p. 22.


text: The ICC fails to prevent atrocities.  The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crimes of the Holocaust when it became clear that the Allies would defeat them in Europe. The only expectation of the Nazi leadership was immediate execution, rather than trial in a judicial forum. Similarly, Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb army conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo whilst the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was sitting in the Hague. The calculation of whether to commit gross human rights violations is not that of the reasonable and rational individual. The existence of a court, however well intentioned, will have no effect on the commission of these crimes.


text: The novel crime of aggression leads to the prosecution of those seeking to protect human rights.  The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of 'aggression' under the Rome Statute. Any intervention in a State for the protection of human rights of some or all of its people might constitute a crime. The US or any NATO State could be prosecuted, at the request of the genocidaires, for successfully preventing genocide. Moreover, by a quirk of the drafting of the Statute, States that refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC can nevertheless request the prosecution of individuals of other States for crimes alleged committed on its territory. Thus Milosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO forces for the events of Operation Allied Force, but have precluded any investigation of the actions of the Bosnian Serb army on the same territory.


text: The ICC has too much authority.  The ICC will lead to political prosecution. American service members and senior military and political strategists will be subject to charges for legitimate military action. Any State has the power to refer an issue for investigation to the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor also has the power to commence an investigation ex proprio motu. There is no UN Security Council veto over the discretion of the Prosecutor. Moreover, the phantom of political prosecution has already materialised in the preliminary investigation mounted by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY into the NATO bombing of Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the course of 'Operation Allied Force'. The Prosecutor chose to investigate a campaign that had been undertaken with clinical precision, that had received the ex post facto support of the Security Council, and that had been directed against a military infrastructure effecting a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing. This grim precedent suggests that a Prosecutor will not hesitate to investigate any other good faith and successful military actions across the globe.


text: It is ludicrous to claim that the ICC will fail to deter atrocities when such an international institution has never before existed. Moreover, the ICC is not designed to be a prophylactic ; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that these offenders are apprehended, tried and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version. Therefore, even if the ICC failed to prevent the atrocities in the first place, a mechanism is now in place to punish those responsible. Justice is not sufficient where war crimes are concerned, but it is a start.


text: The ICC generates crippling expenses.  Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 million per year1. The costs of the ICTY and ICTR have already spiralled out of control, and the latter tribunal has a legacy of maladministration and internal corruption. The US contributes 25% of the budget for both the tribunals, which amounted to $58 million in the fiscal year 20002. It is dubious whether the ICC could survive without US financial support. The UN as a whole is obligated only to fund investigations and prosecutions initiated at the request of the Security Council. Every other investigation must be funded by assessed contributions from the States that have ratified the Rome Statute. Although the UN could authorise the transfer of additional funds, the procedure would require a UN Security Council resolution that would of course be subject to the US veto. Alternatively, it is accepted that State Parties to the Statute could directly contribute funds or personnel to the ICC. However, the possibility of partiality or even corruption is manifest where States with their individual political interests are deploying and directing their own staff within the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC.  1 Irwin, R. (2010, January 8). ICC Trials Hit by Budget Cuts. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Institute for War & Peace Reporting:  2 Scharf, M. P. (2000, October). The Special Court for Sierra Leone. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from American Society of International Law:


text: The crime of aggression is not remarkably novel. Intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State is contrary to norms of conventional and customary law. The UN Charter prohibits both the unauthorised use of force against another State and any intervention in its domestic jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact that the crime of aggression has not yet been defined means that this objection to the ICC is purely hypothetical. The US should in fact be encouraged to ratify the Rome Statute in order to allow its negotiators to play an active role in the Assembly of State Parties. The Assembly is currently responsible for drafting the definition of this crime.


text: It is always in the best interest of victims for war criminals to be brought to justice, even if in the intermediate period there is a great deal of stress and suppressed grief. The ICC has the power not only to punish war criminals with incarceration, but order reparations to be paid to victims. Though financial reward cannot cover the loss of life or injury, it is a start and could not directly come from the criminal themselves without the influence and power of the ICC. Furthermore, it establishes a precedent that demonstrates to the wider public that victims will, however long it takes and however hard the ICC must work, get justice for their suffering.


title: university free speech debate free know house believes western universities

text: A bargaining chip, by definition needs to be part of a bargain. Using it to demand a change in the structure of the state as a whole is hardly reaching a bargain – it’s dictating a fiat. An invitation from a country to a university is a big step in expressing an interest in how that institution works and the values it promotes. Using that as an opening to demonstrate the strength of those ideas is an opportunity that should not be dismissed.


text: Employers measure degrees by the academic results they indicate. The level of political engagement of the individuals is not critical – or even relevant – to that measure. In a global market of tens of millions of students graduating every year [i] an increase of a few thousand in those graduating from top universities will do little to dilute their iconic brands while taking advantage of communications technologies to justify their global reputation. University Senates determine whether degrees can be awarded in their name and it is scarcely in their interest to damage their own reputation. [ii]  [i] There are approximately 150 million students in the world and for the purposes of this debate, that number has simply been divided by three. Source material can be found here .  [ii] Jones et al., ‘The Academic Senate and University Governance in Canada’, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol.XXXIV, No.2, 2004, pp.35-68, p.50, 57


text: Universities also survived the inquisition, the French revolutionary terror and the tyrannies of twentieth century Europe. The issue being discussed here is not in the same league as any of those. There is, as a result, clearly nothing innate that requires an appreciation of free speech for universities to operate. Furthermore universities do not locate or relocate en masse depending on the direction of the political wind.


text: There is gradualism and then there is inertia. Refusing to cooperate with governments where individuals can be banned from addressing a group of students would seem to be setting the bar relatively low. In this particular instance, the bar doesn’t appear to have been set anywhere. The example given by opposition is of one between states, this is between state actors and organisations who rely on the free expression of ideas as part of their raison d’etre.


text: Singapore in this particular instance is securing far more than a ‘service provider’ from a university whose foundation precedes that of the state by over a century. Yale is an internationally identifiable brand, as would any other major university be, and Singapore and NUS benefit from that association. Yale is in a strong position here to argue for things that stretch well beyond the lecture theatre.


title: education general teaching university science computers phones internet house

text: MOOCs primarily reach already educated and thus privileged people. Roughly 80% of people who took Coursera courses already have a Bachelor' degree [12]. This statistic shows that the less-advantaged do not prefer online courses over the traditional university nor do they find them more convenient to take. At the least it shows MOOCs are just reaching the same people as universities. Even if universities drop tuition fees, which does not seem likely, the argument is entirely based on the idea that poorer people would find it easier to do courses from home. However, many of the poor do not even have access to internet at home, including an estimated 100 million poor Americans [13], not to mention much larger numbers of poorer people from less developed countries.


text: Online courses broadens access to education  Online courses can expand access to university education. University education is based on the idea of merit - that the brightest people should be enabled to learn - however in real life many different circumstances play a role in one's ability to attend university. The result is that lots of stellar people from less-affluent backgrounds do not even apply to the best universities due to costs and anxiety involved in leaving home. In the United States the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution comprise just 14 percent of the undergraduates at top universities [10]. Online courses allow more bright people to go to a university by definitely removing accommodation and travel costs, and, as some predict, even by lowering or dropping tuition fees [11]. This argument is made even stronger by inherent flexibility of online courses, which means that people can combine studies with work and family obligations better. This improves access to education for the poor within the country and in particularly for those in less developed countries, which then improves meritocracy of the university system.


text: Online courses enables universities to accept virtually unlimited numbers of students regardless of presence of tuition fees. If universities keep tuition fees, it makes sense to admit more students because they are no longer limited by availability of physical space; if they drop tuition fees, they still should accept more students because their revenues would depend on how popular they are. What this means is that instead of picking just the brightest of the applying lot, universities can now accept pretty much everyone who meets the basic standard criteria. Not only this decreases the quality of professionals and academia, it decreases the value of a university degree.


text: Online courses encourage sharing of academic information  One of the technical features of MOOCs is that content of courses can easily be shared between universities and learners (as content is freely downloadable). This is useful in two ways. First, people who are not earning credit from the course can have full access to educational materials, which expands knowledge of those not enrolled in the university. Second, less prestigious universities can benefit by learning how to design courses better, so they can offer better services. MOOCs even offer opportunities for universities to cooperate together to offer shared courses that would decrease duplication and increase quality of education [16], which would be of even greater benefit to financially stressed institutions. Shared educational resources would expand access to education even further and drive educational standards higher through university cooperation.


text: Online courses are more convenient for students than traditional university  The vast popularity of MOOCs can be explained by the fact that people are finding it easier to learn this way. The best feature of online learning that it can be done in the privacy of one's home, which is more convenient than having to move cities or even countries for a university degree. Moreover, online courses are inherently more flexible. Lectures can be watched and tests taken at any time a person desires (within the deadlines), unlike with scheduled lectures and tests at the traditional university. Not only this means a more personal approach to studying, it also provides people with more flexibility to manage their other commitments, such as work and childcare. Such personal and flexible approach to learning will overtake the rigidity of the traditional university.


text: Online courses are popular not because they are flexible, but because they provide an opportunity to expand one's knowledge on a variety of subjects. For example, the most common reason for people taking Coursera courses are professional development and lifelong learning, the latter being essentially pleasure learning [9]. While there is nothing wrong with people taking courses to expand their knowledge or add to what they already know, it nevertheless indicates that MOOCs are not really used for furthering one's academic knowledge. This objective is and will remain the field of traditional universities.


text: Though it is good for personal development opportunities to access educational material don’t mean anything in the labour market that requires verification of understanding through grading. As regards to universities cooperating; that might actually result in the same course being offered by many smaller universities, which decreases the room for free thinking and interpretation, which is an integral part of academic development [17]. Moreover, if with MOOCs prestigious universities can accept more students, this might mean an end to many less prestigious universities altogether as they would not be able to compete. This could actually diminish access to university education for many people who cannot make the cut for the prestigious universities.


text: It is questionable whether universities would be able to substantially cut administrative costs and facilities. They will have to spend substantially more on IT support for running courses, as well as adapting courses for the online format. Then it is likely that universities would have to spend substantially more on hiring teaching and research assistants to manage increased numbers of students enrolled. While student accommodation support is going away, the normal academic student support for questions about studies is not, and its workloads actually increase due to higher student numbers. At the end of the day, administrative expenses just have to be spent on different administrative tasks.


text: Online courses are a way to higher academic excellence  Relocating to the best universities is a budgetary concern, but also family and social relations concern for many people, which prevents all the best people from even applying to universities that would suit them the best. Online courses can recruit students from anywhere in the world much easier than traditional universities can because students don't need to travel far away for the best education. This then ensures that universities have better access to the brightest people. For instance, Stanford University's online course on Artificial Intelligence enabled people from 190 countries to join, and none of students receiving a score of 100 percent where from Stanford [14]. Improving the pool of students would automatically result in better academics, professionals and science, which would benefit the society better.


text: Online courses would allow universities to use more resources on teaching and research  Traditional Universities are forced to spend a lot on administration and facilities, such as renting and maintaining buildings and parking lots, providing student support for accommodation, renting student halls, subsiding transports costs and meals, supervising university areas and so on. Across 72 US public universities the average administrative cost was about 8% of spending with the highest, at the University of Connecticut at 17% [15]. All these costs can be cut or abandoned all together if universities move to online teaching. There would be no need for lecture halls and student accommodation as students would just work from home, and even professors could mostly work from home. Even if some of administrative costs remain, that would still substantially increase the amount of resources to be spent entirely on teaching and research. This allows universities to improve their academic credentials and their academic output, which benefits the students and the society.


text: It is not true that online communications cannot be as good as real life communications. MOOCs platforms already are addressing student and professor involvement via such means as discussions in internet forums, Google hang-outs etc. This communication can be expanded to other means that the internet provides, such as Skype chats, conference calls, instant messaging, and even broadcasting live podcasts where people can ask questions online. Plus, it is not true that students would not be able to communicate among themselves given the possibilities of social media. Sure, they probably won't meet other students in real life, but that does not mean they cannot try to get to know each other online, especially since this is the only option. The internet has the capability to promote inclusive dialogue between students and professors, this capability just is not used to the fullest at the moment.


text: It is false to assume that MOOCs platforms would be the only or even the main way to provide university courses. The Open University uses its own resources for online and distance learning. This proves that, given advantages of online learning, universities can switch to digital learning themselves without any intermediaries. This also means that there is no reason for states to cut funding for universities as university learning would simply go digital, everything else staying the same. Even though some universities at the moment offer online courses for credit that are very cheap, these are not degrees, and it is unlikely to imagine that universities would offer cheap online degrees that would threaten their own existence.


text: Online courses make it impossible to ensure academic honesty  With online courses, unlike with actual tests and lectures, there is no way to ensure the person is not cheating on the other side of the screen. There is no way to ensure that essays and papers are written by people who will be getting degrees, and especially that tests and examinations are taken by the people who will be getting the degrees. But even if they are the same people, there is no way to prevent cheating during tests and examinations, as people can just have the cheat sheets in front of them and there are no supervisors to stop them from doing so. The crucial point about university degrees is that they ensure that the person is the professional. With online courses, that is not possible, which undermines the whole idea of the university degree.


text: Traditional universities are a rite of passage to independent life  For many students leaving for a university is a passage to an independent life, as they often move out out of their parents’ home and even their countries. This means they have to start learning or practically using lots of skills of independent adults, such as financial management, cooking, being crime-aware, networking, and solving communication problems on their own. With online courses students do not leave homes, and essentially do not start using these skills. This takes away an important practice in being an independent adult before the real life, which might leave students less equipped for the real life.


text: Online courses undermine society life of the university  University is not just a place for learning. A big part of student life is participating in societies and other activities, such as sports, debating, political, philosophical or other interest groups. These provide them with opportunity to explore their talents, do the things they like and also build connections that could be useful after the university. But you cannot do most of these things online as they, unlike studying, are not based on studying materials you can upload. This is why students with online courses would be deprived of these opportunities to develop themselves, build useful connections and get ideas for their further life. This is important for society too as students historically have often been an important political and social actor (e.g. see 1968 France, Athens Polytechnic uprising etc.).


text: Online courses undermine live communication with professors and other students  Online courses impair live communication between students and professors and among students. For instance, Coursera professors ask students not to email them because due to high numbers of students taking the course meaning they cannot reply [22]. Moreover, due to pre-recorded lectures, there is no option of asking professors questions. There are no live class discussions. Sure students could email each other, but it is more difficult to freely communicate with people you do not know and never met. It is also difficult to imagine that, given their numbers, students could get personal feedback on their progress from professors themselves, and not, say, teaching assistants (as Coursera does) or even from computers. Lack of personal feedback and engagement with professors and other students in discussions of the material decreases the quality of education.


text: This is exactly as saying that people who did not go to universities are not independent enough. We know this to be wrong in practice and this is so because independence is not obtained in a fixed set of circumstances. There are different ways to foster independence (e.g. part-time work, personal relationships parents don’t necessarily know about, etc.) that are also very much dependent on the persons' character rather than their circumstances. Besides, rites of passages are a subjective and culturally defined – if people no longer leave for universities, a new type of passage into independence is likely be constructed.


text: Financial model of online courses is unsustainable  At the moment some MOOC platforms are non-profit, while even for-profit ones do not pay universities, nor do universities pay MOOC platforms, they might only divide revenue if a revenue stream appears [18]. This essentially means that MOOCs have to rely on traditional financial models of universities to survive – they need the universities to provide materials and the academics and traditional models that are based on the fact that lots of students do not take online courses. However, MOOCs might undermine traditional university funding. For instance, Princeton professor Mitchell Duneier withdrew from Coursera claiming that states use MOOCs as a justification to withdraw state funding from universities [19]. Moreover, some MOOCs consider providing chargeable courses for credit but for a substantially lower price (around 100 dollars for a course), which might draw students away from traditional universities further undermining their existence [20]. This means a depletion of universities financial sources that MOOCs themselves rely on. At the moment there is no way for MOOCs to replace traditional university learning.


text: While there would no longer be a traditional university campus to carry out these activities, it does not mean these activities would disappear. Given the popularity of societies with students, it is expected that other platforms would spring up to fill in the gap. For instance, student clubs can be established in cities or regions, provided either by for-profit entrepreneurs (as in MOOCs platforms) or self-managed by students themselves. The only difference would be that these new platforms might no longer be affiliated to a university but rather be geographically based. This, however, is not a bad development as students would still have an opportunity to join societies. Students can easily be recruited into them via social media and the internet. Maybe not every student will have an option of the society they'd like to join, but that is also the case in lots of traditional universities.


text: It is highly unlikely to believe that people can easily find other people to go through the degree for them on the massive scale, no matter how dedicated of a friend that person is. And even if that friend or a relative is a professional in the degree area, it does not mean they could successfully pass the degree as universities update their examinations and degree materials yearly. Besides, there are ways to prevent such fraud. For instance, Coursera charges fees for certificates that verify a person's identity by using a webcam while the person is taking the course [21]. In terms of having essays and papers written by someone else, this problem is no different from the traditional universities, as they cannot easily verify that the person themselves wrote those either.


title: university government house believes university education should be free

text: Countries need educated people, including a certain amount of university graduates, but the idea proposed, that everyone having a degree would benefit society economically, is unfounded. There is no economic benefit when people with degrees are doing jobs that do not require university education, and represents a substantial misallocation of resources on the part of the state.4 As to developing future leaders, those who are gifted or particularly driven can still rise to the top, even if university is not free, as scholarships tend to be mostly aimed at such individuals.


text: The state benefits from the skills of a university educated populace  A university educated society is of great value to any state, and provides three main benefits. Firstly, it provides extensive economic benefits. There is a profound advantage to countries that actively promote a culture of “smart economy”3, with a highly educated and technically able workforce. They are more likely to be innovative and highly productive. Secondly, higher education leads to an increase in cultural awareness via subjects like the arts, history, and the classics. The third benefit is the development of leaders in society. The barrier created by university fees will prevent some potentially high worth individuals from ever reaching their potential.


text: There is no fundamental right to a university education; it is a service, and people should pay for it, not freeload on the taxpayer. Rights exist to provide people with the necessities of life. Some people may never have the “opportunity”, ie. wealth, to visit Hawai’i, yet that is not unfair and the state should not be expected to fund every citizen’s tropical vacation. Yet even in the presence of fees, access to scholarships and loans make it possible for people from disadvantaged economic backgrounds to find their way into university. In this way the state can provide equality of opportunity while the wealthier pay.


text: Individuals have a right to the experience of higher education  University offers personal, intellectual, and often spiritual, exploration. In secondary school and in professional life, no such opportunities exist as they are about instruction and following orders, not about questioning norms and conventions in the same way university so often is. [1] A life without the critical thinking skills provided by university will be less useful to society, as citizens will be unable to engage with political debate effectively – citizens need to be critical of what politicians tell them. The state has a responsibility to provide citizens with the skillset to take partake in the democratic process. [2] Free universities benefit both the citizen, as an exploration for his/her own development, and to society, for an educated and active populace.  [1] Key Degree. 2010. “How to Reap the Benefits of College”. Keydegree.com. Available:  ofcollege.html  [2] Swift, Adam. 2001. Political Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide for Students and Politicians. Cambridge: Polity.


text: There is no right to the university experience. University life is not used as the previous argument would suggest. University life is often about alcohol first, education second. Selfknowledge and genuine wisdom come from study and reflection. This can be done anywhere, not just in a university. There is no fundamental right of individuals to be allowed to take four years free of charge to learn new skills that will benefit them or teach them how to be better citizens. The state’s duty is to provide a baseline of care, which in the case of education secondary school more than provides. If individuals want more they should pay for it themselves.


text: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.


text: Individuals have a right to equal opportunities that free university provides.  The employment prospects created by a university degree are substantial, and many lines of work are only available to university graduates. True merit should define the ability to attend university, not the accident of birth. With the institution of fees, access becomes more difficult, and will certainly lead to lower attendance by poorer groups. This serves to lock people into the economic situation when they are born, as getting out is much more difficult when denied access to most highincome jobs.5  5 Tribune Opinion. 2005. “Education Paves Way Out of Poverty”. Greeley Tribune . Available:


text: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder  University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well. [1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives. [2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.  [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available:


text: State funding of higher education is actually beneficial to universities. It allows universities to get on with their research and teaching without worrying about competing and spending money on getting students to attend. The money wasted in pursuit of high numbers of students is thus saved, as the state can tend to the needs of universities.1 The idea that the state will simply neglect its universities is silly, because society and therefore the state, relies on having capable professionals whose qualifications have value.  [1] Greatrix, Paul. 2011. “University Isn’t Just a Business—and the Student Isn’t Always Right”. The Guardian. Available:  educationnetwork/highereducationnetworkblog/2011/mar/14/studentsasconsumers


text: It is far from impossible to pay for free university education. States waste money in many activities, and if they were to cut back on other discretionary (optional) spending then the cost of free higher education would be entirely possible. Cuts to defense spending in countries with overinflated militaries, or ending farm subsidies in many European states, are just some of things states can do.


text: Maintaining a system of free university education leads to an inefficient allocation of state resources.  First, tax money is wasted on paying civil servants to deal with university bureaucracy. Second, when the state funds all university education for free, funding will be allocated to unprofitable courses. Thirdly a moral hazard problem emerges among such students attending for free. They are allowed to reap all the benefits of education, while needing to incur none of the costs so won’t feel they need to work at their degree. The fourth problem of free university education is saturation of degreeholders in the market. [1] When everyone has a degree, the value of such a qualification plummets. Thus, a system of fees is superior to free education as it allows for more efficient allocation of resources to universities determined by which universities produce the best educated students and research.  [1] Chapman, Bruce. 2001. “The Higher Education Finance Debate: Current Issues and Suggestions for Reform”. Australian Review of Public Affairs. Available:


text: State control of acceptance/curriculum criteria has negative effects  When the state has control of the purse strings, it wields a great deal of power over universities. In the case of Ireland, for example, the government has so much influence over higher education that it altered the governing structures of the major universities in 2000 through legislation and has representation on the Boards of each university. This degree of control is negative to the academic independence of universities.1 Universities operate best when they are independent of outside control and agendas. For the sake of free scholarship, free university education should not be instituted.  1 Government of Ireland. 1997. “Universities Act, 1997”. Available:


text: Free university education unjustly benefits one subset of society at the expense of everyone  The state funds essential services, but higher education is not such a service. The specific subset free university education tends to benefit not the disadvantaged, but rather the middle and upper classes who would have paid fees, but are now relieved of this burden. This pattern has been seen in Ireland where poorer communities still view higher education as something for the rich even though it is free. These groups continue to enter the workforce in similar numbers as they had before the ending of fees, and they still tend to prefer trade schools to universities if they do seek qualifications beyond the secondary level. [1]  [1] Brady, Hugh. 2008. “We Must Invest Now in Our Universities or Pay Later”. University College Dublin News. Available:   14 Government of Ireland. 1997. “Universities Act, 1997”. Available:


text: The quality of education suffers when university education is free  Without university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. This leads to larger classsizes and less spending per student. [1] Yet with fees, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality requiring hiring the best lecturers. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education. An example of higher quality education from feepaying is that of the United States, which has eighteen of the top fifty ranked universities in the world. [2] Quality is clearly improved when university is not free.  [1] Brady, Hugh. 2008. “We Must Invest Now in Our Universities or Pay Later”. University College Dublin News Available:  ents.html  [2] QS World University Rankings 2015/16, QS,


text: Publicly funded universities in practice do not become parrots of the state’s agenda; far from it, in fact. Often it is public institutions that are the most outspoken against government activities. The University of California, Berkeley, for example, is one of the most politically active campuses in the United States and is a public institution. States tend to let universities govern themselves, accepting that they are generally better through self-governance. Similarly, the state controls both primary and secondary education, so would the privatisation of these too further benefit independent thinking?


text: The cost to the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education  The system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt countries. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high. [1] In the OECD 1.9% of GDP, a third of education expenditure, is spent on tertiary education. [2] For countries to survive, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. It seems fair that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any nonessential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but it is not an entitlement owed by the state.  [1] Ullman, Ben. 2007. “Should Higher Education Really Be Free For All?”. The New Statesman. Available:  radicals/2007/01/highereducationfreestudents  [2] ‘What proportion of national wealth is spent on education’, Education at a glance, OECD, 2011, p.225,


text: Many state services are furnished that benefit a few and are not used by others. That is often just the way such services operate. So long as everyone has access to the service, then it is just to provide it out of tax revenues. Every individual, when higher education is free, can attend university without cost. That is a right every taxpayer can enjoy. If some choose not to do so, that is fine, but it does not delegitimize the government outlay.


text: While there will of course be people who do not try to get the most out of their university educations, what matters is that everyone has access to it. It is a fair trade between inefficiencies created by inattentive students and diligent students who would have lacked the facility to attend without it being free. More degreeholders thus do not automatically diminish the value of having degrees; they make the grades gained and degree subject more important.


title: ucation secondary university philosophy religion minorities house believes use

text: Affirmative action is not the best way to deal with these issues. If it is true that there are cycles of poverty caused by past discrimination, the most precise way of righting this wrong is to offer assistance to all people in poverty to get themselves out of its cyclical grasp as opposed to blanket policies based on race or gender that may or may not necessarily help those who have been adversely affected by past discrimination.


text: Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination  Affirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination.  Discrimination in the past not only leaves a feeling of rejection by one’s community, but also a legacy of disadvantage and perpetual poverty. Discrimination is not only psychologically damaging, but tangibly. The denial of opportunities for education and employment in the past has left families in situations where they are stuck in a poverty trap and cannot afford to achieve the basic opportunities that others can as they are stuck in a cycle of poverty [1] .  A good example of this can be seen in the example of Brazil, where poverty is much more wide-spread in African communities who were previously used as slaves [2] .  There is no equality of opportunity in cases of past discrimination. Affirmative action helps level the playing field for selection by assisting those who are held back from a continual historical denial of opportunity and providing them the equality of opportunity everyone deserves.  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.  [2] Telles, Edward. "Discrimination and Affirmative Action in Brazil." PBS Wide Angle. N.p., 01 Jun 2009. Web. 23 Aug 2011. <  .


text: Affirmative action does not reduce societal prejudice, but actually increases it. By creating a situation where individuals receive state help in gaining the jobs and success they have, this simply confirms the prejudice in peoples’ minds that individuals of this group cannot gain anything on their own merit, but rather require external assistance. (Refer to opposition arguments two and three)


text: There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs  Society has a moral obligation to right its wrongs and compensate those they have treated unjustly.  Discrimination, whether overt or convert, is an unacceptable practice that arbitrarily disadvantages certain people on grounds that they have no control over. Discrimination not only is theoretically a bad thing to do to people, but also has tangible negative impacts. Discrimination against groups such as the African American community in the USA has left them without the education or employment opportunities to even have a chance at achieving the success and happiness they deserve [1] . Discrimination is unacceptable practice for any society to engage in and victims of discrimination deserve compensation for the physical and psychological harms they suffered from being rejected by their very own community [2] .  Past discrimination has left communities without the physical goods and psychological feelings of acceptance and safety all individuals deserve from their country and thus there is a moral obligation of society to take steps to offer the physical and symbolic advantages they have been denied through affirmative action.  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.  [2] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.


text: Society may owe an obligation to the victims of past discrimination, but offering advantages to descendants of people who suffered discrimination does not do this. If discrimination occurred several generations ago, the individuals who simply happen to be of the same gender/race as those who were previously discriminated against generations ago are not entitled to preferential treatment as they are not the victims of discrimination.  By not targeting those who actually suffered from discrimination due to the generational gap, you are simply giving unfair preferential treatment to people of a particular gender/race and therefore committing an injustice by discriminating against everyone else who was not given the same treatment.


text: Affirmative action reduces social prejudice  Past discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted.  Past discrimination against particular groups lingers today through the perception of those groups and how they perceive themselves. By using affirmative action, a demonstration effect is created where individuals are previously discriminated groups prove to society and other members of their racial or gender group that they are capable of gaining power and functioning in the same positions of power, responsibility and success as those of other groups in society.  This challenges society’s perception of these groups as the poor people in society and proves to them that the individuals of this race/gender are equally capable and deserving members of society and can and should function in the same positions of society as them.


text: This resentment already exists in society, and as explained in counterargument two, in many specific environments, affirmative action is its own cure.  On a wider societal level, this prejudice will not be created by affirmative action, but already exists. Simply because people may not particularly like the idea of affirmative action and get a bit resentful about it is not a good enough reason to let these minorities be denied the opportunities and lives they deserve.


text: This issue is not whether or not meritocracy is good, but rather if society is meritocratic without intervention by the public or private sector. The system is not meritocratic without affirmative action; with the endemic psychological and tangible disadvantages as discussed in proposition points two and three, people of previously discriminated groups do not get judged on their own merit. They do not receive the same basic opportunities and they are given no inspiration to strive to achieve the things that would indicate their merit because they believe it to be impossible for someone of their group.  Meritocracy only works when everyone is entering a fight from the same playing field, which does not currently happen. Affirmative action adjusts this to a meritocratic system by adjusting for the fact that individuals of previously discriminated groups will not have the same indicators of merit such as academic achievements due to a lack of opportunity as opposed to lack of merit. Moreover, it will afford these individuals these missed opportunities to level the playing field in the long-run, allowing true meritocracy to exist [1] .  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.


text: Affirmative action creates bad workplaces for all minorities  Affirmative action creates a negative workplaces for all minorities whose group receives affirmative action support.  The existence of affirmative action creates a de-facto assumption that anyone of that particular minority must have gotten where they are not on their own merit, but simply because they are that particular minority. This causes people to resent the minority group for getting for “free” what people feel they had to work hard for. This furthers the perception of the minority as being inferior, and removes their capacity to be treated as an equal in the workplace and prove themselves.  This assumption is not only harmful to those minorities who did receive assistance from affirmative action, but also anyone of that minority group regardless of if they were hired using affirmative action because there is simply an assumption that they are less qualified and there because of the policy because the policy exists.  Therefore, affirmative action creates an assumption that minorities in the workplace are less qualified and inherently inferior to the other workers due to the affirmative action policy causing resentment and deepening inequality, not helping eradicate it.


text: Affirmative action perpetuates prejudice  Affirmative action causes prejudice against minorities in society.  The existence of affirmative action creates a de-facto assumption that anyone of that particular minority must have gotten where they are not on their own merit, but simply because they are that particular minority. This causes people to resent the minority group for getting for “free” what people feel they had to work hard for. People feel as though that minority is getting a “free-ride” and are inherently less worthy of what they achieve.  This is damaging on a societal level because minorities who receive affirmative action are assumed to be less qualified and less valuable than others in society simply because many of them are aided by affirmative action policies. This not only creates damaging stereotypes, but also causes resentment and backlash from others in society who view affirmative action as simply unfair.  This is best demonstrated by the backlash in America in the mid-1990s over the existence of affirmative action policies [1] .  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.


text: Meritocracy is the only fair system by which society should be ordered  Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their merit is one that is unjust to those not in the group that is “preferred” and therefore benefitted by it.  Meritocracy is the only fair system to run a society on. Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their skill and effort is one that is unjust. The use of any criteria other than merit to select or benefit an individual is the definition of discrimination itself. Simply putting the word “positive” in front of it does not make it a beneficial or just system. For every act of “positive” discrimination enacted, an act of “negative” discrimination occurs against the individual that was denied a position or achievement they earned on their own merit for the person that received the “positive” end of the discrimination.  Affirmative action is simply reversing the discrimination in society so injustice is enacted in the opposite direction. This is not a just system of distribution; it’s simply unjust against a different group. The only truly fair system to use is one that has no criteria other than merit to determine who receives what.


text: The prejudice that individuals in the workplace hold for these minorities already exist through their current perception of these people as being less qualified as them due to their conspicuous absence from the workplace as it is. The best way to deal with such resentment and prejudice is to use affirmative action and bring more of these minorities into the workplace where they work side-by-side as co-workers and prove themselves as equally competent and qualified as every other person in the workplace.  Although affirmative action may initially cause this assumption to occur, it is its own cure as affirmative action allows these minorities to prove themselves in the workplace and dispel such a baseless assumption.


title: ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education

text: The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.


text: A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable  A graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.


text: As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.


text: Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education  A graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.


text: The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.


text: A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable  A graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.


text: A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.


text: In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.


text: Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available  There are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.


text: Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments  As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.


text: A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities  If a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.


text: Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive  A graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.


text: As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.


text: The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.


title: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach

text: Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say "Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles." [1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren.  [1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855.


text: Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future.  The opinion of the scientific community with regard to facts and theories has a great propensity to change with time. Once scientists adamantly maintained that the Earth was flat. For centuries it also maintained that there were two kinds of blood flowing through the human body. Science is not infallible and the prevailing theory is no more than the opinion currently in vogue among scholars. In light of new evidence, theories can change over time, giving way to better explanations [1] . For this reason, the evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to their position in spite of contrary evidence provided by Creationists is hard to understand. However, it becomes clear why the scientific establishment takes such a confrontational position toward Creationism when one considers that many eminent scientists and researchers have built their careers within the paradigm of evolution, and their research often depends wholly on its acceptance. These scientists would lose their exalted position in the light of a paradigm-shift in scientific understanding away from evolution. It is for this reason that scientists who adhere to established norms so often fight things like Creationism, even though they provide explanations where evolution cannot. For science to progress, these conservative impulses must be fought against, which is why it is essential that when science is taught, so are all the prevailing theories concerning branches of the sciences, including Creationism.  [1] Understanding Science. 2011. “Science Aims to Explain and Understand”. University of California Berkeley.


text: There is no design in biology. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity of life on Earth can be attributed to natural processes; life, diversity, and complexity are all the product of physical and chemical interactions and biological processes. There is no mystery in the basic process. Also, complexity is not at all indicative of design. In fact, evolution has been observed to occur from simple single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms under laboratory conditions. That degree of evolution completely refutes any claims about complexity requiring design. Furthermore, there are no irreducibly complex organisms. Every example offered by theists of irreducible complexity has been found inaccurate. The bacterial flagellum, for example, when several key components are removed loses its functionality as a motor, but becomes a form of secretory system that has a separate function. [1] Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator.  [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


text: Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.  Society is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true.  [1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times.  [2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.


text: There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.  Many scientists do not accept the conclusions of the evolutionists. People like Dr. Michael Behe have dedicated themselves to exposing the flaws in evolution and showing that there is very real disagreement within the scientific community. This controversy is highlighted in the many court cases, books, and televised debates occurring in countries all over the world [1] . Children deserve to hear about the controversy, and not to simply be fed one story set for them by the prevailing majority in the scientific community, even if that community cannot claim anything near consensus. Until consensus is reached and indisputable proof of one theory or the other given, both sides should be taught in schools.  [1] Linder, Doug, 2011. “The Evolution Controversy”. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.


text: There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all. [1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm.  [1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


text: Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given "equal time", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education [1] . It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped.  [1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News.


text: Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with "the designer did it". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant.


text: Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.  Nature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the "motor" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design.  [1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press.


text: Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.  Creationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms [1] . While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer.  [1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute.


text: Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence "proving" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot.


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


text: Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.  Scientific enquiry is, at its core, a search for truth [1] . It is about shining light in dark places. Dogmatic adherence to beliefs in spite of evidence, and even trying to cover up facts that contradict those beliefs is academically dishonest and intellectually facile. Evolution is proven fact, a theory so sound that it is the cornerstone of all biology. Nothing in biology makes any sense unless considered in the context of evolution. Schools should teach this fact, not the pseudoscience of religious demagogues. It is a fundamental attack on children's rights to subject them to false information for the sake of upholding outdated and disproved beliefs. It is a right of all people to have a valuable education, because good education is required to be able to take part in the democratic process, to be able to make informed decisions. That right is compromised when the educational system gives them a worthless education in untruths, like Creationism, because informed decisions must be based on fact, and must be objective the way science is, rather than loaded with religious undertones, that skew ones view of the facts. The value of education is only as good as its applicability, either directly or through its fostering of critical thinking. So, when the political process is used to circumvent the curriculum set by teachers and experts, who actually know the subjects they are talking about, and replacing them with the curriculum set by a scientifically illiterate political body, the children suffer as the quality of their education decreases.  [1] Pauling, Linus. 1983. No More War! New York: Dodd Mead.


text: Creationism is a religious, not a scientific, explanation of reality.  Creationism is, by definition, not science. It is not based in any empirical evidence. Rather, Creationists start with a presupposed answer and work back from it. They assume there is a designer, so they look for holes in evolutionary theory and claim only a designer can explain the gaps. When new evidence arises that gives a natural explanation of the phenomenon in question, the Creationists backpedal and start looking for new holes. No amount of evidence could convince a Creationist because his belief is not based on evidence, but rather on a usually religion-driven opposition to evolution on a political and belief level. A science proves itself through experimentation and submitting research for peer review. Creationism fears scrutiny by real scientists. Instead supporters of creationism attempt to further its agenda through politics and courts, where science is not the main goal, but popularity and where expertise is not in science but in law (Dawkins, 2006). Creationism couches itself in the language of science and does its best to look respectable in the eyes of the public. For example, in rebranding as Intelligent Design, Creationists sought to appear less overtly religious. These attempts show the illegitimacy of Creationism. The pseudoscience of Creationism must, for the sake of education, be kept out of the classroom.


text: There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.  Creationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims. [1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data. [2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution. [3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom.  [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.  [3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive.


text: The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.  95% of all scientists accept evolution, and only a fraction of those that do not accept Creationism. [1] The numbers are even smaller among biologists, the people most qualified to discuss the relative merits of Creationism and evolution, as the study of life and biological processes are their specialty. There is, in fact, greater consensus in biology than in virtually any other discipline. Evolution is often called one of the most thoroughly proven theories, more so even than such things as the observable laws of physics, which break down at the subatomic level. Evolution is a constant, which is why it has survived as a theory for 150 years. [2] The scientific community always fights any effort to institute Creationism in schools through the political process. [3] This is why, when court cases are brought on the issue of teaching Creationism, the panel of scientists is always on the side of evolution. Only a few discredited cranks support Creationism, and they invariably break down under cross-examination when they can offer no positive evidence for their claims. Furthermore, many scientists have religious faith and accept evolution. They simply see no reason to reject observable reality just to serve faith [4] . Creationists try to portray evolution as contrary to religion, which forms one of the main planks of their political campaigns against it, but such claims are fallacious. Science and faith can be compatible, so long as people are willing to accept observable reality as well as belief. The scientific community rejects creationism because it is not true and is not science.  [1] Robinson, B. 1995. “Public Beliefs About Education and Creation”.  [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.  [3] Irons, Peter. 2007. “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design”. University of Montana Law Review 68(1).  [4] Gould, Stephen. 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.


text: Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either.


text: Truth is a complex thing. Scientists claim to know what is true and that schools should only teach their truth. But their truth changes with time. Communities can hold, and desire to hold, beliefs with more constancy. States everywhere recognize the value of communities and often give them special rights and exemptions for the sake of those beliefs. The Amish in America, for example do not need to attend education past the primary level, because the communities do not desire it. Communities give structure and lend stability to broader society, so they should be allowed to behave with a degree of leeway in terms of issues like education. Creationism is a truth for those who adhere to it and see that evidence fits that paradigm more than does evolution. Until irrefutable proof of evolution is given, as the scientific community has yet to do, both paradigms are equally valid and should be available to students in the classroom.


title: x education education general secondary house would fund education using

text: Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.


text: Improving the quality of state managed education  State schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.


text: Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.  Thus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.


text: Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children  State education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.


text: The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.


text: Increasing parents' freedom of choice  Different parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.  Further, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.


text: Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.


text: It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.


text: Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice  Under the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.  There will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.