English Debate Motion 1.

Technology This house not allow young children to own their own mobile phone Pro: Student tend to waste their time to use their mobile phone Mobile phone is distraction-Children will be disturbed by the access of their mobile phone-They do not focus on their task-Their task are neglected-Their potential and achievement will decrease-It worsen their academic value and prohibit their effort to attain maximal potential Mobile phone will allow them to access not appropriate website. Mobile phone will make them possibly cheating The research found that too much exposure of mobile phone will not be good for their health, esp for the psychological health. Misbehavior is the tendency of the usage mobile phone -> hierarchy, jealousy, thefts, ragging and ridicule Cont: The children needs communication, especially emergency calls (IMPOSSIBLE the parents send a letter when there is emergency event)-security The children need their mobile phone to support their academic skill. They can access much information through the app, like browser etc-can get picture of the board, manage time from the calendar

This house believe that governments should be allowed to censor internet content in their countries Pro: Not all of picture or video in internet is appropriate to see There is possibilities that racism will be happened

Upside Terrorists use the Internet as their major point-of-contact medium where it is

manipulated and controlled to do their bidding. With regulations on the Internet, there would be a way to control and thus minimize the threat that the Internet causes because of terrorist activity. Regulating the Internet would mean putting a stop to content and activities linked to social unrest, and racial hatred among men and women. Child pornography is an industry that is booming in the porn genre, simply because we live in a world where mentally sick men and women that have an absent conscience when it comes to young kids, exist among us. The Internet has material all over the place, where the authorities have been able to trace / ban these websites from public viewing. But the problem is that it can still be viewed through streaming porn websites where these are viewable for free without any kind of membership with a fee. The abuse of women and young children when it comes to human trafficking is a shocking dilemma that we have to face in the world today, and the Internet doesn't protect them from such acts of violation and abuse. Regulating the Internet would keep a check on such activity, narrowing it down quite immensely with stiffer laws. Fraud and defamatory activities spread like wildfire throughout the Internet, where businesses and individuals would be protected against such viciousness if regulating policies were passed. Piracy which poses as a threat to those who see free material as a way of harming their chances of being supported financially, is at an all-time high in our day and age. Banning or restricting such websites would steer consumers towards actually buying services and products, as opposed to getting these for free. Email spamming would be put to a stop, where damaging content like malware is frequently sent to others inbox. It would also curb away fraudulent acts where people try and access your personal information like bank account numbers and so forth, to gain your information illegally and use it against you. Another prime example is when people tend to fall for emails carrying sob stories about how they need money for surgery. Even

lottery money is supposedly won by you, but is accessible only after a certain fee is paid by you before the transaction of the said amount can be made. Plagiarizing copyright material would be put to a stop since many companies that run their work over the Internet have illegal portals copying their content, without giving due credit to the writer / expert / website they obtained the information from.

Downside Regulating the Internet would automatically mean restricting the flow of information, as well as its exchange. It would suppress people from being communicative and expressive, changing the way information is dealt with over the Internet. Information would be withheld from the public and not freely available as it is currently. The information we access is invaluable, and for a policy or act to come in and snatch that away, could be the end of the Internet as we know it. Those who indulge in acts of abuse and illicit activity would only be forced to cover up their tracks better or go into hiding, if policies / acts came up to regulate the Internet's content. Information when not accessible in one country is easily attainable through proxy servers that fools the system into believing that you are in another country through a fake IP address, thus allowing you to access information through its software.

PRO 1 It is way too easy for children to access pornographic material. Just do a search for something as harmless as sports pictures, and you will see that a few porn pictures will slip in. A child could innocently click on one. PRO 2

The simplest solution to this problem is a minor change to the domain naming system which will make adult oriented sites easily identified and restricted from viewing by underage individuals. An ideal solution in this case would be one that effectively limits children's access to such content, is easy and efficient to enforce, and requires little adjustment by the Internet using community. Imagine if sites with pornographic content ended in ".xxx" rather than ".com", or ".net" and then imagine if Netscape and Internet Explorer could block out all sites that had ".xxx" in their addresses. PRO 3 We censor all forms of media now except the internet. COMMENT 4 There are four reasons for internet censorship: Two of the purposes are desirable goals: access control to protect children and to enable adults to avoid material which offends their personal and community standards. Both of these can be achieved very well with filtering software on the user's computer, and cannot be achieved in any practical sense with censorship. A third goal - censorship to impose certain moral frameworks on the communications of adults - is not desirable and is not achievable by any means, except only partially, with many costs and difficulties, with some form of censorship. A fourth goal, stopping the communication of material which it is illegal to possess, like bomb plans, is in many ways desirable, but hardly achievable because of the free availability of strong cryptography. CON 5 Filtering and blocking software in public institutions raise the question about who is responsible for the de-selection of the material. Raises freedom of speech/freedom to read issues in a constitutional context. Raises questions about the rights and responsibilities of children. Raises questions about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate -a) some filtering software blocks hate group sites. If a student is trying to research about skinheads or neoNazis, that information will be blocked on the Internet. b) some software programs block any mention of the word "sex" and will therefore block out sites dealing with biological and botanical issues involving procreation. c) filtering programs will block the word "breast" and therefore block information about breast cancer. CON 6 Internet users know best. The primary responsibility for determining what speech to access should remain with the individual Internet user; parents should take primary responsibility for determining what their children should access. CON 7 Parents should do what ever they think necessary theres lots of software to block offensive sites but there should be no government coercion or censorship. The First Amendment prevents the government from imposing, or from coercing industry into imposing, a mandatory Internet

ratings scheme. Libraries are free speech zones. The First Amendment prevents the government, including public libraries, from mandating the use of user-based blocking software. This house Believe in Electricity Privatization for Solving Energy Crisis

2. Social This House agrees that death penalty eligible for corruptor Death Penalty Pros and Cons List

Death Penalty Cons

Of the 192 countries of the world, more than two-thirds have abolished death penalty. In 2009, two countries Togo and Burundi abolished the death penalty, bringing the total number to 139. Amnesty International USA, an organization of more than 2.2 million supporters from across the globe, works with a mission to protect people denied of justice, freedom, truth and dignity. Partnering with another organization, Witness to innocence, Amnesty International has come up with the Death Penalty Awareness Week (February 26-March 7), which is an awareness program unveiling the realities of the fatally flawed capital punishment system. Several others also oppose death penalty as a punishment.

The reasons why myriads of people across the globe are working towards the abolition of death penalty are as follows:

Wrong Convictions Since 1973, more than 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the US, due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. We do not know how many people are charged for crimes and murders they have never committed. However, the legal system has found some cases wherein, they have wrongly accused the innocent. Factors such as inadequate legal representations, police and prosecutor misconduct, racial prejudice, jail house "snitch" testimony, political pressure to solve a case, misinterpretation of evidence,

etc. can work against an innocent person and conduce to harsh death penalty.

Costs Most of us fail to realize that executing a death sentence is 2.5 times more expensive than keeping the same criminal in prison for life. This is because, the cost incurred prior to and during the trial, involves an endless stream of appeals, legal wrangling, etc. For such trials, special motions and extra time for jury selection are required. Investigation charges also rise exorbitantly, especially by the prosecution. Thus, spending finances on death penalty is tantamount to reducing essential financial and time resources needed for crime prevention, mental health treatment, rehabilitation, valuable victim's services, etc.

Deterrence The other school of thought says that death penalty will help reduce the number of homicides. On the contrary, statistics have revealed that countries with death penalty as punishment, have higher homicide rates as compared to countries that have abolished capital punishment. This shows that the threat of execution in the future is unlikely to deter people from executing the horrendous crime under the influence of alcohol, drug, fear, rage or mental illness. Most murders are done in the heat of passion, wherein a person fails to think rationally, so it's baseless to think the fear of death penalty will reduce homicides.

Rehabilitation Failure Putting somebody on death row does not accomplish anything. Death penalty closes all doors for the criminal to acknowledge his mistakes. Family members of the convicted may want to see the murderer punished, but death penalty will not ease the pain caused by the loss of the loved one. Retribution will not pacify the pain or fill the vacuum caused by the loss. This does not mean we are not to punish the guilty. A life imprisonment is a terrible punishment, amplifying the agony of the convicted over the decades spent in prison. Moreover, if we take away the murderer's life, how are we different? Isn't giving a second chance more humane? Although lethal injects and electric chairs are not as barbaric as medieval torture devices, it still is taking somebody's life.

Death Penalty Pros (Corruption is a public criminal and the death penalty will make the others governor be careful of corruption acting)

Precedent Server It is believed that keeping harsh punishments like death penalty conduce to fear in the would-be murderer's mind pertaining to their future on being caught. If people know they will only face life-imprisonment, they will take the legal system casually and commit all the crimes they want. This increases the rate of homicides. By instilling death penalty in the legal system, people will not dare to murder that easily. Thus, death penalty is considered as an essential tool to fight premeditated murder.

Just Punishment Since life is so precious, the punishment for taking somebody's life is paying the price with your own life. Thus, death penalty is nothing but just punishment for those who have taken another individual or individuals lives.

Safety Concerns A murderer who has mercilessly killed people once, may escape from prison and end up killing others. Life imprisonment means chances of parole, which gives the criminal a chance to get back at those who testified against him. He can also take revenge from the victim's family. This leaves the victim's family living a life of fear all the time. Death penalty ensures the murderer can commit no more crimes in the future.

Excess Sympathy The law seems too sympathetic towards the criminal than towards the victim and his or her family. The reason the convicted is charged for death penalty is because he or she has murdered somebody. Thus, there is no room for sympathy. The criminal is only facing the consequences of his or her actions.

The United States is one of the few countries that still uses death penalty as a form of

punishment. According to statistics, published by Amnesty International, 'public support for death penalty is diminishing in the US'. Over half of the American citizens consider life imprisonment without parole, far more severe form of punishment as compared to a death penalty. Hope this article was informative and helpful! This House would regulating all TV shows This house believe that gay communities should 'out' gay public figures 3. Healthy This House believes that human cloning is unacceptable When Dolly, the first cloned sheep came in the news, cloning interested the masses. Not only researchers but even common people became interested in knowing about how cloning is done and what pros and cons it has. Everyone became more curious about how cloning could benefit the common man. Most of us want to know the pros and cons of cloning, its advantages and its potential risks to mankind. Let us understand them.

Pros

of

Cloning

Cloning finds applications in genetic fingerprinting, amplification of DNA and alteration of the genetic makeup of organisms. It can be used to bring about desired changes in the genetic makeup of individuals thereby introducing positive traits in them, as also for elimination of negative traits. Cloning can also be applied to plants to remove or alter defective genes, thereby making them resistant to diseases. Cloning may find applications in development of human organs, thus making human life safer. Here we look at some of the potential advantages of cloning.

Organ Replacement: If vital organs of the human body can be cloned, they can serve as backup systems for human beings. Cloning body parts can serve as a lifesaver. When a body organ such as a kidney or heart fails to function, it may be possible to replace it with the cloned body organ.

Substitute for Natural Reproduction: Cloning in human beings can prove to be a solution to infertility. Cloning can serve as an option for producing children. With

cloning, it would be possible to produce certain desired traits in human beings. We might be able to produce children with certain qualities. Wouldn't that be close to creating a man-made being?!

Help in Genetic Research: Cloning technologies can prove helpful to researchers in genetics. They might be able to understand the composition of genes and the effects of genetic constituents on human traits, in a better manner. They will be able to alter genetic constituents in cloned human beings, thus simplifying their analysis of genes. Cloning may also help us combat a wide range of genetic diseases.

Obtain Specific Traits in Organisms: Cloning can make it possible for us to obtain customized organisms and harness them for the benefit of society. Cloning can serve as the best means to replicate animals that can be used for research purposes. Cloning can enable the genetic alteration of plants and animals. If positive changes can be brought about in living beings with the help of cloning, it will indeed be a boon to mankind.

Cons

of

Cloning

Like every coin has two sides, cloning has its flip side too. Though cloning may work wonders in genetics, it has potential disadvantages. Cloning, as you know, is copying or replicating biological traits in organisms. Thus it might reduce the diversity in nature. Imagine multiple living entities like one another! Another con of cloning is that it is not clear whether we will be able to bring all the potential uses of cloning into reality. Plus, there's a big question of whether the common man will afford harnessing cloning technologies to his benefit. Here we look at the potential disadvanatges of cloning.

Detrimental to Genetic Diversity: Cloning creates identical genes. It is a process of replicating a genetic constitution, thus hampering the diversity in genes. While lessening the diversity in genes, we weaken our ability of adaptation. Cloning is also detrimental to the beauty that lies in diversity.

Invitation to Malpractices: While cloning allows man to tamper with genetics in human

beings, it also makes deliberate reproduction of undesirable traits, a probability. Cloning of body organs might invite malpractices in society.

Will this Technology Reach the Common Man?: In cloning human organs and using them for transplant, or in cloning human beings themselves, technical and economic barriers will have to be considered. Will cloned organs be cost-effective? Will cloning techniques really reach the common man?

Man, a Man-made Being?: Moreover, cloning will put human and animal rights at stake. Will cloning fit into our ethical and moral principles? Cloning will make man just another man-made being. Won't it devalue mankind? Won't it demean the value of human life?

Cloning is equal to emulating God. Is that easy? Is that risk-free? Many are afraid it is not! This House would legalize assisted suicide/ voluntary euthanasia This House supports the provision of condoms to all secondary school students 4. Culture This house obligate the use of traditional language on advertisement Pro: Con: It instead will promote disunity Some people may not understand and the delivery of advertisement become not effective This house abolish prom night Pro: Its not our culture It will be the trigger of our extincted culture It will enrich and maintain our culture It will alienate our culture with extinct

Con: This house believe that national Heritage should be Auctioned Pro: It will enrich the budget

Con: It makes losing our culture

5. Education This House believes that sex education benefits junior high school students Pro: Absolutely, because sex education is the way to introduce them the hazards of free sex It will be their experience Cons - Without Sex Education many young people will be left to the media and hear say to find answers to important questions. Questions - if left unanswered - can lead to unplanned pregnancy and the repetition of a continuing cycle of ignorance. It seems impossible to get an exact match on every parents core values when it comes to sex education, and so it is an ongoing debate more than a con or conflict. Pros - With Sex Education, young people have the opportunity to learn a basic understanding of their bodies, human reproduction facts and pregnancy prevention techniques. There is no replacing parental, guardian and peer influences upon the behavior of young people. The sexual attitudes and low teen pregnancy statistics of many European cultures is a great example of progressive education. It is hopeful that the current U.S. policy toward sex education will be encouraged by the study of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. When I counsel families and couples, I try to encourage a proactive approach to learning about sex. There are two extremely good resources that I recommend to my clients for their knowledge of intercourse and hopefully have an impact on lesson plans in their families and communities. Having knowledge and wisdom about sex is an invaluable gift to share as a parent or peer of a young person who may not find the greatest sex advice elsewhere.

For excellent advice and education on sex visit: [http://2tobe1.com] Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3352130

Sex Education Advantages

Sex education goes a long way in teaching students the correct knowledge about their bodies, human reproductive system, sexually transmitted diseases, birth contraceptives and pregnancy prevention techniques. Appropriate sex education in schools has a great impact on preventing sexual problems in adulthood. Also, it teaches students on what is right and what is wrong. Through sex education, young people are able to communicate, listen, negotiate with others, ask for and identify sources of help and advice when it comes to sexual relationships.

Sex Education Disadvantages

It is believed that little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Most sex education provided to students is during physical education or health classes. This brief interlude is not enough to teach students serious materials. Sexual education, in many cases, goes against an individuals morals and beliefs. Also, most schools do not teach abstinence. Instead, they focus on having safe intercourse, which many religions and family values object before marriage. Teachers appointed for the task are mostly untrained as to how should they go about teaching sex education to children. As a result, they end up adding in their own morals and beliefs into the subject matter, rather than focusing on the facts. By educating kids on sex at an early age, it pollutes their minds and enhances their curiosity, leading to try it out once or even forcing someone to do it.

This House claims that homeschooling treats social values of individuals

This house believe that school should immediately expel mentally-ill students Pro : They dont have vigorous strength to do all of the tasks Con: Violate human rights, they can have assistant in their school!

6. Democracy This House believes that democracy is a necessary condition for economic growth and stability.

This House believes that opinion polls distort the democratic process. This House believes that democracies should allow citizen-initiated referendums. 7. Law This house believe that doctors should deny practices that going against their believes This house allow abortion att all stages of pregnancy This house Legalize Interfaith Marriage