Kent Debating Society

Updates from October, 2009

• 

  THW Ban Abortion

  Tom Barker 11:55 am on October 26, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: abortion (2), ban, debate (36)

  

  Another great debate. Congratulations to the opposition for winning the debate, a big well done to Jemila, Joe, Ollie (President’s best speaker) and Sebastian for getting their first speeches out of the way.

  A vintage motion and one for the feminists!

  The first prop has a lot of flexibility here. They can stick to their morals and pursue the complete ban of abortion or they can be pragmatic and restrict the ban e.g. to those over the age of consent, those not victims of rape or those seeking abortion for a particular reason such as disability.

  The proposition will want to point out that it is amoral to be so arbitrary in defining the line between a foetus and a living human being with human rights. They will want to argue that abortion is tantamount to murder and that the liberal attitude to abortion perpetuates sexual irresponsibility throughout society.

  Meanwhile the opposition will want to draw emphasis on a woman’s right to exercise control over her body, that it is her and not the law that should be able to make these decisions. They may also want to warn of the potential repercussions a ban on abortion (look up the problems in Nicaragua where there is a blanket ban) could cause to those in the unenviable position of carrying a child that they do not want.

  Links for research:

  http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=30 A good summary of the issues

  http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=44 a pro-abortion pressure group

  http://prolife.org.uk/category/abortion/ a general pro-life resource

   

  Reply Click here to cancel reply.

  You must be logged in to post a comment.

• 

  THW Legalise Assisted Suicide

  Tom Barker 12:39 am on October 17, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: assisted, debating (8), legalise (3), suicide

  

  Thursday (22/10/09) Eliot Lecture Theatre 2, 6PM: This House Would legalise assisted suicide.

  A big thank you to everyone that attended this event and congratulations to the opposition for successfully defending the status quo.
  

  This week’s debate is a fascinating but complicated one. There is a lot of confusion about terms such as assisted dying and euthanasia, their understanding is essential to getting the most out of this great opportunity to hear two experts argue it out.

  People are often surprised to know that a certain degree of euthansia already takes place in the UK. Euthanasia refers to the deliberate killing of someone for their own benefit. This incorporates, for example, the act of switching off a life support machine or following a Do Not Resuscitate request on a patient’s medical notes. In the UK acts such as  this take place all the time and the opposition to such practises is not so vociferous. It is when Assisted Suicide (one form of euthanasia) is mentioned that things start to get a bit more heated. Whereas the previous examples focus on death caused by preagreed inaction or the extreme situations involving vegetative states, assisted suicide tends to refer to situations where the person can often be capable of living for years onwards but for various reasons wants to end their life before they reach these later years.

  The current legal stance on assisted suicide has been modified following Debbie Purdy’s successful appeal to the House of Lords. The DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) has confirmed that citizens who accompany loved ones to countries like Switzerland where assisted suicide is legalised will not be prosecuted on their return to the UK provided there are compassionate grounds for this action. This is the position that Robin Gill will be arguing for at the debate, the status quo.

  Arguably, the major problem with the status quo is that it denies citizens the ability to die in the surroundings of their home, among loved ones. It also makes it difficult for those in the latter stages of degenerative diseases (an aspect central to the Debby Purdy case) to be able to make this journey to the continent and could lead to people having to take their lives earlier than they would if they could do so in the UK. The major issue that counterbalances this is the fear of vulnerable people (particularly the elderly) being pressurised into killing themselves by greedy/selfish relatives. How true this caricature is will be for the speakers to decide.

  A few links to help you with any research:

  http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=55 a summary of the issues

  http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/ the official website of the pro-assisted suicide lobby group Dignity in Dying, kind providers of the proposition speaker of this debate.

  http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/ the official website of the leading anti-assisted suicide lobby group Care not Killing

   
• 

  THW send their child to state school

  Tom Barker 9:00 am on October 11, 2009 | 0 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
  Tags: debate (36), education (4), private (2), school (2), state (3)

  Wednesday, DLT2 – 6pm

  Another week, another debate. So far we have covered the topics of politics (in our BNP debate) and crime (in our drugs debate), this week we turn our attentions to probably the most contentious issues in British society: class and education. The debate will be in DLT2 this week at 6pm following a skills talk on ‘Developing a Mean Streak’, we think you are all far too polite to each other! Remember if you want to speak get in touch and we can guarantee you a speaker spot.

  Having never participated in a debate like this myself, I’m particularly looking forward to seeing how this will play out. As always, a lot will depend on the definition. The first speaker will need to explain how they will turn this theory into action. Will it simply be a case of government setting an example and supporting state education? Will it be a withdrawl of all state-support for private institutions or will it be a complete abolition of the private system? Although a lot of the content will depend on the route taken by the first proposition, there will still be a number of central themes.

  The proposition will want to demonstrate how private schools perpetuate inequality socio-economically, a major problem in the UK. It is a matter of fact that the higher up the University league tables you go, the higher the % private and public school (remember in the UK ‘public’ is another form of privately funded education) entrants. That the continued financial support of the state towards private education only slows the progression the state-education sector are making in terms of academic education. They will also want to explain how state schools produce a better education in terms of life experience and ‘soft skills’, that academic excellence is not the sole aim of the education system, it is one component in a much larger educational process.

  Meanwhile, the opposition will want to refute these claims. They will want to say that schools in the Private Sector provide a brilliant education that can only be achieved through private means. Only an irresponsible parent would ignore the opportunities a private school offer and in a capitalist system it is down to the individual to decide how they would spend their money. They will also want to show that rather than perpetuate the problems in the state sector, the provision of a private education actually alleviates the problem. By reducing the number of students in this system, the financial burden on the government to fulfill its commitment to universal education its reduced.

  Here are some links to aid you with your research:

  http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=31 a more comprehensive summary of the issues

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/04/davidcameron.education an argument for

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/06/private-schools-stigmatised-chief-says some reasons against