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.


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.


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.


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.


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.).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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,


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,


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. <  .


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory  The state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.  When schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.


The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme  Even if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.  Further, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.


Most universities are publically funded so should have to be open with their materials.  The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9. [1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources. [2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce.  Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university  [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012,   [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010.


Opens up education  Higher education, as with other levels of education, should be open to all. Universities are universally respected as the highest form of educational institution available and it is a matter of principle that everyone should have access to this higher level of education. Unfortunately not everyone in the world has this access usually because they cannot afford it, but it may also be because they are not academically inclined. This does not however mean that it is right to simply cut them off from higher educational opportunities. Should those who do not attend university not have access to the same resources as those who do?  This can have an even greater impact globally than within an individual country. 90% of the world’s population currently have no access to higher education. Providing access to all academic work gives them the opportunities that those in developed countries already have. [1]  [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012,


Openness benefits research and the economy  Open access can be immensely beneficial for research. It increases the speed of access to publications and opens research up to a wider audience. [1] Some of the most important research has been made much more accessible due to open access. The Human Genome Project would have been an immense success either way but it is doubtful that its economic impact of $796billion would have been realised without open access.  The rest of the economy benefits too. It has been estimated that switching to open access would generate £100million of economic activity in the United Kingdom as a result of reduced research costs for business and shorter development as a result of being able to access a much broader range of research. [2]  [1] Anon., “Open access research advantages”, University of Leicester,   [2] Carr, Dave, and Kiley, Robert, “Open access to science helps us all”, New Statesman, 13 April 2012.


Students would be able to benefit from being able to use resources at other universities  Having paid for access to universities and the materials they provide for research students have a right to expect that they will have all the necessary materials available. Unfortunately this is not always the case. University libraries are unable to afford all the university journals they wish to have access to or need for their courses. Therefore any student who wants to go into areas not anticipated by the course they are enrolled with will find that they do not have access to the materials they require. They then face the cost of getting individual access to an online journal article which can be up to $42, despite there being almost zero marginal cost to the publisher. [1] This even affects the biggest and best resourced university libraries. Robert Darnton the director of Harvard University’s library which pays $3.5million per year for journal articles says “The system is absurd” and “academically restrictive” instead “the answer will be open-access journal publishing”. [2]  [1] Sciverse, “Pay-per-view”, Elsevier,   [2] Sample, Ian, “Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices”, The Guardian, 24 April 2012.


Making everything free to access will damage universities ability to tap private funding  For most universities even if the government is generous with funding it will still need for some projects require private funding. When providing money for research projects the government often requires cost sharing so the university needs to find other sources of funding. [1] Third parties however are unlikely to be willing to help provide funding for research if they know that all the results of that research will be made open to anyone and everyone. These businesses are funding specific research to solve a particular problem with the intention of profiting from the result. Even if universities themselves don’t want to profit from their research they cannot ignore the private funding as it is rapidly growing, up 250% in the U.S. from 1985-2005, while the government support is shrinking. [2]  [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research & Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan.   [2] Schindler, Adam, “Follow the Money Corporate funding of university research”, Berkley Science Review, Issue 13.


Who will write and edit the work?  You can’t take the end result out of the system and assume all the rest of it will continue as usual. Journal articles don’t write themselves; there will still be costs for editors, typesetters, reviewing etc., as well as the time and cost of the writer. The average cost of publishing an article is about £4000. [1]  There have been two suggested forms of open access ‘Gold’ in which authors pay publishers article publication charges and ‘Green’ under which the author self-archives their papers in open access repositories. The gold option that the UK intends to implement could mean universities having to find an extra £60million a year. [2] In either case the cost is being put on the author.  This is exactly the same when asking academics to put their lectures, lecture notes, bibliographies etc online. They are being asked to put in more hours grappling with technology without being paid for it.  [1] Moghaddam, Golnessa Galyani, “Why Are Scholarly Journals Costly even with Electronic Publishing?”  p.9  [2] Ayris, Paul, “Why panning for gold may be detrimental to open access research”, Guardian Professional, 23 July 2012.


Less incentive to study at university  If everything that University provides is open to all then there is less incentive to study at university. Anyone who is studying in order to learn about a subject rather than achieve a particular qualification will no longer need to attend the university in order to fulfil their aim. The actual benefit of university education is less in learning content per se than engaging with new ideas critically, something that is frequently more difficult in an online environment.  Moreover if only some countries or institutions were to implement such open access then it makes more sense for any students who are intending to study internationally to go elsewhere as they will still be able to use the resources made available by that university. Open access if not implemented universally is therefore damaging to universities attempts to attract lucrative international students who often pay high tuition fees.


Universities deserve to profit from their work  Universities are providing a service just like almost any other business. They provide a service in terms of educating students who are enrolled with them and secondly they conduct research on a wide range of subjects. In both of these cases the university deserves to make a profit out of their work.  When acting as an educator universities are in an educational free market, this is the case even when the cost is provided by the state. All universities are aiming to attract as many students as possible and earn as much as possible from fees. If the university is successful it will be able to charge more as it will attract students from further afield.  While Universities may make a profit on research or even teaching this profit is for the benefit of society as a whole as the profits are usually simply reinvested in the University’s education and infrastructure. [1]  [1] Anon. “What does the money get spent on?” The University of Sheffield, 2013.


Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy  Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student’s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students.


Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”  The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively “teaching the test.” The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country.


Standardized tests are arbitrary  Standardized tests are inherently arbitrary. They reduce an applicant’s entire academic career to a single one-day session. The result is an inherently unrepresentative test which fails to paint an accurate picture. What if a student has a bad day? What if they do poorly on the specific test questions? In the SAT’s there is an error of measurement of about 30 points either way out of 800, this is the potential difference between where the student really is and what his or her score on the day was. [1] By contrast, looking at their entire academic record ensures that admissions officers will get a far more comprehensive picture of their actual ability. The law of averages means that bad days and tests will be balanced out with good ones, with the result that their academic record, the result of years of work, will reflect their true performance.  [1] Cloud, John, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, Time, 1 September 2006,


Standardized tests discriminate against minorities  Minority students perform less well on tests like the SAT, even when correction is made for income. The test with its reading comprehension test and being done in English is obviously biased against students from households where English is not the dominant language as they are much less likely to understand the questions.  Even when English language skills are not a problem the question choice can contain a cultural bias. One analogy question on the 2003 SAT used the word “regatta” which minority students were unlikely to be familiar with. Having this kind of bias is obviously unfair and can never be fully accounted for in a diverse country such as the United States of America where those who set the wording of the questions will never know all possible perspectives.


Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance  Most tests were designed in an earlier era when far fewer students took them. The large number of students who now take tests like the SATs results in a situation in which the scoring scale magnifies small differences in performance into large differences in scores. Two questions wrong out of 80 on the math section of the SAT may well produce a score of 760 while three questions wrong will result in a 720. 40 points can mean difference between admission and rejection for many candidates, while telling us nothing about the different abilities of the students involved. Indeed on average for 88% of applicants their SAT score will predict their final college grade rank no more accurately than a pair of dice. [1]  [1] Elert, Glenn, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 5 May 1992,


Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process  SATs are mathematical and it is therefore possible to objectively evaluate them. This is why they are so popular, they provide a benchmark of comparison across the whole education system in a way that any non-standardized assessment never could. This does not only benefit universities in providing an objective measure to compare admissions candidates but it also gives the government statistics with which to measure the progress of schools.  Any other form of assessment would mean switching to much more subjective factors. Traditionally such factors, such as extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and even access to references are all more easily available to high income students. Opportunities may not even be offered in poorer school districts. Complaining that poorer and minority students do less well on the SAT ignores the fact that the test provides one of their best opportunities to impress admissions officials.


It is the only single standard that everyone ends up taking  All measures applied during University admissions processes are arbitrary to one extent or another. Grades depend on the whims on individual instructors, curriculum choices, and school quality. Every single one of the flaws the proposition applies to the SATs or other standardized tests may well be true, but the fact is that they are true for everyone who takes them. The SATs are the only part of the application to a university that every single applicant will likely have been taken, and therefore the only one where all applicants can be objectively compared.


School's duty of care  Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers. [1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'.  It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not.  Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.  [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007


Prevent drug use  There is a clear and present problem with drug use among children and teenagers in many countries. According to the UK Department of Health, in 2002-2003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as had 8% of 11 year olds [1] . The fact that all of these children would have been in schools at the age of 15 shows that current policies of targeting the supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing to protect children. Therefore a more direct approach that intervenes at the point of consumption is needed, most crucially for children and teenagers, as their years in education are crucial for both their personal development and their realization of their future education and employment potential.  Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be discovered, and assist the state in getting them the help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is especially valuable in this scenario because many infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise their drug use from parents and teachers and so avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic which will prove of no use against random drug tests which will likely affect all students at one point or another. It should also deter many students from starting taking drugs in the first place as the prospect of them being caught becomes far more likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be of no use.  [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”.


No harm to non-drug users  Random drug tests will pose no harm to students who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and good character.  Random drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from secondary exposure (for example, being near someone else smoking cannabis).  Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need their right to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impact upon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users have nothing to fear from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users.


Keeping teenagers in education  Studies in Michigan in the USA have found that random drug tests in schools do not deter drug use, as schools with and without random tests have similar levels of drug use among their pupils. [1]  It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter students from taking drugs. What such tests will result in, however, is a greater number of exclusions and disciplinary actions resulting from catching student drug users, which as the studies have shown has no guarantee of lowering drug use overall.  Faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests, many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may choose to leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers. This may well be compounded by an adolescent desire to rebel and reject authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out of school so as to allow themselves to continue doing what they want more easily – that is, taking drugs. Leaving school at such an age for no other reason than to pursue a drug-using lifestyle is almost certainly more harmful than the worst-case alternative, whereby they at least remain in education even if they continue to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future career and education choices. Simply driving teenagers out of education with random drug tests benefits no-one.  [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.


Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship  Random drug tests change the student-teacher relationship from one of trust into one of suspicion, whereby the teachers and the school establishment become a body which many students will perceive as being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The destruction of this trust makes it far harder for teachers to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the consequences of their use to students, and students may be less willing to seek teachers out on this information. This would lead to students relying increasingly on their peers and the internet for information on illegal drugs, and this information is far more likely to be of questionable policy or influenced by notions of drug use as 'cool' or glamorous. Thus schools' anti-drugs message may be harmed by random drug tests.


Right to privacy  Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use.  Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it -an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal democracy.  Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use, random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they are not actively harming others, these students should be subject only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.


Schools are best places to ensure good nutrition  Education is universal from 5 or 6 to 16 years old in most countries, 58% of children worldwide attend secondary school, [1] with even poor countries providing education for all from 5 to 12 years old. As a result giving breakfast at school will mean that all children between these ages receive it.  [1] Unicef, ‘58: The percentage of children of secondary school age worldwide who attend secondary school is 58’, Unicef global databases, 2008,


A school breakfast gives all students an equal start to the day  All children should have equal opportunities, a breakfast for all helps provide this. With schools providing breakfast for everyone the start to the day will be the same for all. No one will starting school hungry or thirsty. Everyone will have had a chance to wake up before their lessons start allowing them to get as good a start to the day as possible.


A healthy breakfast improves students concentration  Children are in school to learn. To do this they need to concentrate. To be able to concentrate they need to have a balanced meal – one without too much sugar – that will ensure they are not hungry until lunchtime. A child who is hungry is not going to be concentrating on their studies. A study by the Indian National Institute of Nutrition has shown a regular breakfast to result in a 2% increase in test scores in addition to other health benefits. [1]  [1] Gajre, N.S., Fernandez, S., Balakrishna, N., and Vazir, S., ‘Breakfast Eating Habit and its Influence on Attention-concentration, Immediate Memory and School Achievement’, National Institute of Nutrition, 31 March 2008,


Breakfast teaches about health  Children need to learn about how good nutrition keeps them healthy. Providing a school breakfast means that the meal can be an educational experience and have teaching alongside. This education will ensure that when these children grow up they continue to eat healthily with future benefits for the nation’s health.


Government should focus on the most needy  A primary responsibility of the government is for reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has a basic living standard. A basic living standard includes food. As a result providing breakfasts should be for those who are most in need of a helping hand from government. Those who are wealthier and can afford their own breakfast do not need this help so any such breakfast policy should be means tested to only apply to those who need it. This is the case with the United States School Breakfast Program.


Can we be sure a school meal will be healthy?  Even if the schools provide breakfast can we be sure that it will be healthy, and even if it is will the students eat it? Without individual supervision that having breakfast with parents provides it is difficult to ensure that the children are eating what they should be rather than throwing away the bits they like. In the UK there has been a campaign against the poor quality of school meals. [1] In the US there has been concern at the amounts of fresh fruit and vegtables being thrown away from school means. One study by the University of Vermont found food waste increased 56%. [2]  [1] Evening Standard, ‘Unhealthy school meals are on the menu for over a million children’, 12 January 2013,   [2] Welch, Ashley, ‘School lunch fruits and veggies often tossed in trash study finds’, CBSnews, 25 August 2015,


A school breakfast for all is a greater cost on schools  Everything costs. Providing free school to all breakfasts will cost the government money for ingredients, cafeteria staff, administration, even possibly new facilities. In the USA the Breakfast Program costs $3.3 billion to provide free or reduced price breakfasts to 10.1 million students. [1] There is a limited total amount of money so the cost will mean there is something else the government will not be able to do. This proposal may mean, for example, that the government cannot afford to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes.  [1] Food and Nutrition Service, ‘The School Breakfast Program’, September 2013


Nutrition is the parents responsibility  Parents are responsible for their children, and this includes responsibility for their meals. The parent has had to provide meals up until the start of school. They know their own child’s preferences there is little reason for this to change. Splitting responsibility between parents and schools means the burden of responsibility will no longer be clearly don't placed.


Cluster Bombs Are Inconsistent With International Law  The international legal system is dependent on being robust and transparent in order for it to be respected by countries and states that accept it. The refusal by the U.S. to ban cluster bombs prevents the international community from doing the same within international law as the U.S. has enough political power that should it choose to ignore the law, the law itself is considered to be irrelevant.  In failing to ban cluster bombs the U.S. maintains an inconsistency within international law. Since dud cluster bombs effectively act as land mines for all intents and purposes, they are well hidden and cause indiscriminate damage, the fact that they aren’t banned is inconsistent with existing bans on land mines already. This inconsistency within international law makes the international legal system seem less credible, owing to contradictions as well as illustrating its weakness to the influence of the U.S. This makes it more difficult for countries to enforce the rules of the international legal system, such as preventing human rights violations because fewer countries will accept international law as being legitimate and will not agree to subject themselves to those rules.5


Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians  In a modern warfare scenario, the vast majority of combat takes place in civilian areas, such as cities. Whilst cluster bombs are obviously not used for peacekeeping purposes they are used in initial assaults on these areas, particularly against larger formations of enemy troops. This means that due to the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs, in the same way as with land mines, often both military and civilian targets are encompassed in the blast radius. This is what happened in Zagreb as Martic was targeting Croat forces but the attack due to the use of cluster weapons also killed civilians.  Further, cluster bombs often have a few bomblets which are duds and do not go on initial impact. The issue with bomblets is that they are often brightly coloured and when used in cities or populous areas they can often attract the attention of children who are very unlikely to know to be careful around them. This can result in significant harm to civilian populations well after the attack has been carried out.  Further, due to the sheer volume of duds that cluster bombs put out, attempts to demine cluster bomb bomblets is an incredibly dangerous process that in of itself costs lives.1,2,3


Rejecting the Ban on Cluster Bombs Hurts the international image of the U.S.  The U.S. is one of the only remaining Western Liberal democracies to allow the U.S. of cluster bombs. The continued refusal of the U.S. to tow the same line as fellow liberal democracies makes it look bad internationally; especially considering that one of the main instigators behind the cluster bomb ban is the U.K. traditionally a great ally of the U.S. politically.  The U.S. is often seen as the greatest representative of Western liberal democracy as it is the most economically powerful. Part of this political clout however, comes from the continued cooperation of other Western Liberal democracies with the U.S. in failing to the sign the cluster bomb treaty despite pressure from other countries, the U.S. fails in this capacity and loses the support of the countries that it relies on to maintain its political status.  Moreover, given that the U.S. currently does not help with demining work, this further worsens relationships with other countries.6


The Ban is Unfeasible  The problem with the ban on cluster bombs is that it is unfeasible in the prevention of the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries aside from the U.S. will continue to use the weapons and will likely do so less responsibly. There is no way to persuade these countries to abandon the weapons. Countries such as China and the US are unconcerned by threats that their use can be a crime against humanity and might result in international criminal prosecutions as they are not signed up to the ICC and as Security Council members can prevent investigations of themselves or their clients.  The U.S. and Western powers continuing to manufacture cluster bombs allows them to engage with the other users of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries import weapons from Western powers and as such, continuing the manufacture of cluster bombs allows Western powers to keep a check on their use by other countries.  Further, the ability for Western powers to use cluster bombs allows Western powers to discourage their use on the battlefield through the threat of retaliation with the same weaponry. As such, banning the weapons could cost the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.8


This House Believes That the U.S. Should Ban The Use of Cluster Bombs  Currently the U.S. is working on improving the reliability of cluster bombs. The weakness of cluster bombs, being that the bomblets often do not explode is something that U.S. military has understood for a long time. It is inefficient for the military to allow this problem to continue. As such a large amount of military funding goes into improving cluster bombs.  The U.S. is hoping to improve cluster bombs in two ways, the first is ensuring that when the cluster bombs are deployed that all bomblets explode on impact or explode very quickly after the initial barrage. However, the U.S. is also working on technology that would allow bomblets to disarm themselves after a short period of time, hence preventing accidental discharges in the future.  If these improvements work, then cluster bombs cease to cause civilian damage and will likely be an incredibly effective tool in warfare. Hence a ban on them when this technology is being deployed is premature.10


Cluster Bombs Have Significant Strategic Value  As mentioned earlier in the opposition counter arguments, cluster bombs are incredibly effective at dealing with large formations of troops and armoured vehicles and can cause a significant amount of damage to an opposing force in a relatively small amount of time. This niche is not filled as cheaply or as easily by other weapons that can be released from a bombing aircraft. As such cluster bombs have a significant level of military and strategic value when used in conflict.  In the case where cluster bombs were banned, it would simply fall to the military to find an effective replacement weapon for these scenarios and it is likely that these would be as problematic if not more so.8


A strong leader has more benefits than harms  Putin is the strong leader that Russia has been waiting for. His electoral success and consistently high approval rates show that the people of Russia are ready for someone who can rid their society of increasing corruption and restore a sense of calm and equality. His ability to maintain a high level of support despite what some have called authoritarian tendencies shows that people are ready to sacrifice a certain degree of freedom for the promise of stability. Enthusiasm for Putin among the young also shows that he does not only appeal to those looking back to past certainties.


Stability is more important than reform  Since the fall of communism, Russia has plunged into a deep economic recession. The introduction of market reforms and privatization has led to a swift increase in inequalities coupled with an increase in corruption. The chaos of economic and political reform, along with the chaos of the break-up of former USSR, has left the majority of the population both disillusioned and distrustful of their government. In a period of such chaos, stability seems to be much more important than reform. A strong leader is the only solution to providing such stability, setting a clear direction and pulling a country at risk of falling apart together again. This is also proven from various polls among the Russian population – “…The most eye-catching statistic is the overwhelming majority of respondents who say that order is more important for Russia than democracy – 72 per cent, with 16 per cent responding conversely.” (1)


A strong leader is working in the state’s best interest  Putin’s authoritarian style is not a threat to democracy but rather a requirement for a successful and quicker transition. Having Putin control the media is probably healthier than having it be controlled by a corrupt few that promote their personal interests rather than the interest of the state and thus those of the population at large. Democracy is a goal and while certain countries believe themselves to have achieved it, they are constantly struggling to maintain it. As a young democracy, Russia is still working towards defining its own version of democracy and finding what works best in its case.


Russia as a state and Russians as a nation need strong leadership  Historically, Russia has always needed strong centralised leadership for it to make progress. This was true both in imperial times under tsars such as Peter the Great (who made Russia a European power and built St Petersburg) and Alexander II (who freed the serfs), and since 1917 under Lenin and Stalin. Russia is too big, too diverse and too thinly-populated for western systems of representative democracy to be applied. Culturally its people are temperamentally suited to following the decisive lead of a strong ruler who can unite them in the face of great challenges. Without such a ruler Russia is likely to fragment with local strongmen grabbing power in the regions, religious fundamentalism dominating much of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and economic stagnation.


Russia does not have true democracy  The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the Russian elections as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote. (3)  Furthermore not only there isn’t election freedom, there is not academic freedom either – “The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities” (4)  There are cases of murdered journalists, who were “inconvenient” to the authorities. This also raises the question whether a strong leadership is better for the people.  Basic freedoms are denied to the Russian population. In the 21st century this is simply unjust. Therefore strong leadership creates more wrong than it does good.


Corruption, an essential issue in Russia, is due to the strong leadership  There is a link between the high levels of corruption and the strong leadership of Russian president and prime minister of Russia. – “Some of Russia's most prominent opposition figures have produced a report accusing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of presiding over a boom in corruption and enriching his inner circle over the past decade… Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev themselves have 26 "palaces" and five yachts, which in turn require costly state upkeep, according to the report.” (8)  Many argue that if it weren’t for the power of the prime minister and ex-president Putin, also his strong authority and management, corruption would have been minimized long ago.


The status quo reveals that several powerful and influential people are in charge of the whole state  What is occurring in Russia now is closer to dictatorship rather than to strong leadership. Many commentators of the Russian political stage share the opinion that Medvedev is just a pawn in the hands of the former president and current prime minister – Putin. “The leading role still clearly belongs to Putin. This reflects the unspoken agreement that was reached between Putin and Medvedev,” said Yevgeny Volk, an independent political analyst in Moscow. (6) Russia’s both external and internal policy have not changed after the elections in 2008 and are following the same path, which is another argument that Putin continues to pull the strings.  In fact, the more important question is not whether or not Medvedev is a pawn, but who is actually in charge – “Kremlin-watchers say this system of interlocking and competing clans that is managed by Putin comprises the core of Russia's ruling elite. The key players, the people with decision making power, number about thirty. The inner circle, most agree, comprises about twelve people… There are something like a dozen of the most influential guys in the first circle and perhaps two dozen who are less influential in the second circle. These are not only managers but also shareholders who are not that visible or public...Not only do they manage Russia...but they also enrich themselves pretty actively.” (7) This poses the debate is such a status quo in the best interest of Russia and its people or is the exact opposite.


Proper democratic checks and balance are the only way to real problem-solving  There is a fine line between enough authority to fight corruption and enough authority to oppress a population. Many corrupt, authoritarian leaders have risen to power through the promise of social reform and of wiping out drug cartels and gangsters. A society living in fear and believing that all their problems will be solved by a powerful leader will never be able to overcome its problems. Empowering individuals and accepting risk is ultimately the only true solution to such problems. Even if Putin were completely pure himself, centralising power so completely gives great influence to those advisers and ministers around him and makes corruption in government inevitable. Only by building in proper democratic checks and balances, including criticism from a free media and legal system, can accountability be created and corruption or incompetence tackled.


Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly  Whatever the EU is we can all agree it is not the fastest and most responsive of institutions. As a result of needing the input of 28 countries EU external policy is slow and faltering. Leaving will enable the UK greater freedom to create its own policies and to reframe them in response to changing circumstances and challenges. The UK will no longer need to take into consideration any other country’s views.


The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy  Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office. [1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers.  [1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission,


EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain  As a customs union the EU has a common external tariff set at the EU level meaning that the UK cannot tailor its external trade policy to its own needs. Instead the UK will be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with any power it wishes. This may be individually or joining larger trade groupings such as the currently being negotiated Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal between the USA, Canada, and the EU. it also means the UK is free to reject such joint agreements, as many campaigning groups would like with the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. [1] Countries which are not in regional blocks have not suffered as a result, South Korea has 24 free trade agreements [2] and despite an economy that is just over half the size of the UK’s has trade in goods worth similar amounts;$1,098bln $1,190bln [3] but importantly gets to negotiate each one itself and to its own terms and conditions.  [1] See #noTTIP,   [2] ‘Free Trade Agreements’, Asia Regional Integration Centre, 2015,   [3] Adding exports and imports of merchandise, ‘Korea, Republic of and United Kingdom’, World Trade Organisation,


UK will be disentangled from EU affairs  Leaving the EU would mean that Britain is no longer entangled in foreign policy issues that are of little interest to it and instead could devote itself to other more productive issues. The two main foreign policy crises for the EU at the moment are Ukraine and migration, neither of which concern the UK when not a member of the EU. Migration would be stopped at the channel while Ukraine is at the opposite end of the EU. The EU would essentially become a buffer for the UK.


Power is shifting to the East  Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising powers are; China and India. This means that the UK’s position is less geographically important so to compensate the UK needs Europe; China’s leader Xi Jinping on his state visit to Britain stated China wants “a united EU, and hopes Britain… can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” [1] The United States, Britain’s main ally since World War II, is much less interested in Europe.  [1] ‘China wants Britain in a united European Union, Xi Jinping tells David Cameron’, South China Morning Post, 23 October 2015,


Leaving the EU will mean the UK will have less regional influence  Like it or not the UK is a part of Europe geographically and as such the countries that are most important to UK foreign policy are also in Europe. Leaving the EU will damage relations with those powers that are currently a part of the EU, and potentially also those who are used to dealing with the UK as part of the EU. The United States has noted it “benefits from a strong UK being part of the European Union” [1] in much the same way as the UK does. If this is the UK's strongest ally's view what would be the view of the powers from whom out would mean divorce? The UK will be outside the group trying to influence it rather than on the inside. The EU states will no longer need to listen to the UK on a wide range of issues where it has previously been a key voice.  [1] Earnest, Josh, ‘Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest’, White House, 14 March 2016,


The EU is a force multiplier  The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representation. For example the EU have representation in Djibouti [1] whereas the UK individually is represented there from neighbouring Ethiopia. [2]  The UK, along with France, and to a lesser extent Germany, leads the EU on foreign policy matters, as illustrated by the first The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being a Briton, Catherine Ashton. [3] This means the UK essentially gains from the backing of the other 26 member states giving the UK a much more influential voice globally. For example the EU has a role in the Middle East ‘quartet’ of the EU, USA, Russia and United Nations [4] giving the UK a place at the table on the key issue of Israel Palestine where otherwise it would have none.  [1] ‘Délégation en République de Djibouti’, Délégation de l’Union européenne,   [2] ‘British Embassy Addis Ababa’, Gov.uk,   [3] ‘The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, Europea Union External Action,   [4] ‘The Quartet’, Office of the Quartet,


The UK needs to be part of a block to remain relevant  History is moving towards bigger and bigger blocks being relevant. The US and USSR dwarfed the previous global power the UK [1] and China and India look set too be bigger again. In a world where the great powers are regions of the globe in themselves to be influential requires being part of a bigger group. The EU negotiates on equal terms with China, India and the USA. The UK on its own would be very much a second order power.  [1] See Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987


The present system of earmarking in Congress is wide open to abuse. The party leaderships in each house can use the offer of pork, or the threat to withhold it to enforce party discipline. “Logrolling” occurs whereby an earmark is obtained in return for support on an unrelated piece of legislation. All this leads to legislators who put party above country and vote for bad legislation in pursuit of their own vested interest. They basically “are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.”1Forcing pork out in the open by making Congress vote to defend it after a Presidential line-item veto is the best way to remedy matters. Overall the President is more accountable to the people as a whole than individual representatives, and with their national mandate, more able to stand up to powerful interest groups.  1 David Heath and Hal Bernton, $4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted, The Seattle Times, 15/10/07 , accessed 5/5/11