Intelligent Design argues that life and the universe are guided by a designer as opposed to a natural selection as illustrated by the theory of Evolution.
Conversely, one may also dispute on the categorisation of ID. Is it science or part of the religious education curriculum? Those who oppose this motion will argue that ID is basically an extension of creationism. It is a belief. Beliefs and dogmas are part of the religious education curriculum. Religious dogma’s are based on beliefs which we never question but just believe in. Science is based on facts and figures and evidence. ID is a belief and not science. Why? Purely because there is no substantial evidence, thus it should not be classified as science. We cannot teach this in science lessons without proof. The devastating result of this is that we will create generations of students who will not have a critical scientific outlook. As a result, they will not be able to distinguish facts from beliefs.
On the contrary, some scientific studies have shown that Intelligent Design is a plausible alternative theory. A Tory peer, Lord Piercon stated that advances in DNA science reveal that DNA molecules are so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. Hence, this leaves the door open to Intelligent Design because the complexity of this world shows that it is too much of a coincidence to just have evolved. For instance, if gravity wasn’t 9.8 we wouldn’t be able to exist – thus a coincidence isn’t likely and an intelligent force may have been involved.
In contrast, some may also claim quite the opposite – that ID isn’t scientifically proven. ID is one big fantasy. It is not accepted on the same scale as Evolution as it is based on a large amount of evidence, which is testable. ID on the other hand, is based on circumstantial evidence which is basically just an assumption and full of idle speculation.
In conclusion, this debate has examined the scientific outlook to ID, the categorisation of it and also how it broadens students horizons. After this discussion I am in opposition to ID as I believe it is just a shot in dark not based on any substantial and worthy evidence to be studied in science.
Negotiation with terrorists can be seen as a practical way to react. However, some may also view it as the wrong was to resolve the situation. Two key areas of talk in this debate that have to be defined are ‘terrorists’ and ‘negotiation’. Terrorists are those who use violent action, against civilians, in which to achieve their political aims. One would perhaps negotiate to the extent of being prepared to comprise and listen to relieve the hostage situation.
To negotiate with terrorists is merely giving them legitimacy, which they do not deserve. We should not have any relationship with terrorists but we should virtually expel them from society at their own will. Therefore they may even forsake violence and look at other peaceful means of putting forward their views in our democracy. If we negotiate with terrorists there is still no guarantee that they will release the hostages. When we give in to their demands they may still merely refuse to cooperate. Moreover, most of these political terrorists are not looking for money but the release of political prisoners. The problem aroused from this is that the prisoners released may even go and kill again. This completely defeats the point of negotiation. Although hostages may be saved now, this may result in more hostages being killed later.
The key question that this debate raises is over whether contact sports really do glorify violence and do contact sports cause a serious concern for safety of the player? This issue has been substantially fought over by the Medical Board of the
At the forefront of this topic is issue concerning safety. Let’s use boxing as an example. The whole point of the sport is to knock the other person out. Surely this is a cause for concern. The injury possibilities that can arise from this are endless – ranging from brain damage to paralysis and to even death, in some extreme cases. These types of sports are merely violent physical contact that is uncivilised, dangerous and brutal.
On the other hand, surely the state should not interfere unless it is excessively dangerous – which it is clearly not as even basic things such as driving, causes more deaths and injuries per year. The participation of contact sports should come down to the individual’s choice. In this case, they should be able to choose the risks they are willing to take as it is far less dangerous than smoking (which is still allowed) and other day-to-day activities such as crossing the road and driving a car!
However, contact sports also glorify violence. We have a duty to protect our younger generation who are at an impressionable age. They will look to their role models and the sports stars they see on television and be influenced by their actions. Watching someone punch the lights out of another person (boxing), jumping on top of each other (rugby) and kicking someone to the ground (kickboxing) isn’t ideal. All this will have a negative impact on our youth. Consequently, this will lead to an increase in violence effecting society as a hole.
In contrast, it is logically flawed to say that these sports glorify violence. In the 19th century, sports were more violent; however, children were less violent than now. In the 21st century, sports are less violent as they are regulated yet still, we have more violent teenagers! This clearly shows that there is no correlation between contact sports and violent teenagers. Violent teenagers are not the result of contact sports but they are influenced by movies, video games and television. Therefore, it is naïve to believe that contact sports such as rugby, boxing and kickboxing lead to violence.
In conclusion, I believe that contact sports should not be banned. This decision has been largely influenced by the fact that these sports are not as dangerous as they have been made out. On the grand scheme of things even driving a car is more dangerous as it causes more injuries per year. Contact sports are legitimate because it doesn’t have a negative impact on the youth, it doesn’t put players in excessive danger and it doesn’t glorify violence, which have all been established in this discussion.
The typical picture of an animal in a cage can be interpreted in two very different ways. Some people would claim that animals have rights and zoos do not respect this. However, other would say that zoos are a great source of revenue for our industry. The pros and cons of this debate will be weighed up in order to conclude this issue.
In contrast, some people would argue that animals do not have rights. Humans as a superior being are allowed to use animals for our benefit. The benefit here is that zoos attract families, tourists and researchers. Due to this the zoo industry pockets huge amounts of profits. The end result of this chain is that our economy is benefited. We cannot ignore zoos contribute to the British economy.
However, that can be viewed as morally flawed by the opposition. If we really are the superior being then it doesn’t simply mean that “we can do whatever we want for our benefit”. It means that we have a responsibility and duty to treat animals humanely and try to prevent them from suffering. This coincides with the case of zoos. Zoos create severe boredom to these animals. It also glorifies cruelty to animals – and surely this isn’t the way we want to influence our upcoming generation. For example, cruelty in zoos is illustrated by the fact that bird’s wings are clipped and aquatic animals do not have enough space and water.
On the other hand, some people may also claim that zoos feed animals and provide them with water on a regular basis. They are given suitable and comfortable environments and medical treatment. Animal’s welfare is actually better in zoos where they have a better chance of survival.
Likewise, zoos do not teach cruelty but merely educates us about animals. It gives us a chance to observe animals from other countries – zoos give people a chance to see animals they may never see.
In conclusion, I believe that the pros do not outweigh the cons and zoos should not become prey to animal rights activists. Zoos are not ignorant to animal rights – zoos actually preserve this and at the same time generate revenue and educate the public.
To many, the prospect of living up to the increasing pressures of school life is very daunting, overwhelming and demoralising. Some people may argue that a key factor to this horrible picture is due to public examinations. As a result of this many people look at the SATs in KS1, 2 and 3 as non-beneficial. However, some may also claim they provide an accurate evaluation of students. Drawing a conclusion to this debate is going to be contentious either way, as both sides fire truthful, persuasive and substantial arguments.
To begin with we have to understand what the real purpose of these exams is, in order to conclude whether they are “good” or “bad”. Intrinsically, these exams merely test the rote learning of students. This is because students can easily pass the exams by just cramming and memorising facts in a short period of time. We believe that this is wrong as it does not test their understanding of the subject. Therefore, students who are not studious throughout the year may be able to thrive better than the studious students, in the exams because they have good memories but don’t actually understand the subject and have the correct thought process. Consequently, these exams do not paint an accurate picture of the student’s abilities and this is unfair on the student’s behalf.
Conversely, some people may claim that exams actually test the ability to apply knowledge which tests their understanding. They are not simply spoon fed the facts and asked to recite them in the exam, as the proposition has falsely argued. They learn facts which they can then take the principle to show their understanding of the topic. For that reason, these exams do provide an adequate evaluation of students.
In contrast public examinations at a young age create undue pressure on pupils. This pressure of the shoulders for a sustained period can lead to detrimental effects. It can even lead to breakdowns. This is because of the intense learning exams require, the unnecessary significance of them, and the fear of failure. As a result of this, this increases stress levels and even leads to mental breakdowns, in several cases.
On the other hand, the proposition’s stance on exams as unnecessary pressure is a complete farce. The pressure put on them is not excessive as this shown by the vast majority of pupils who do cope. In a way the pressure put on them prepares them for the pressures in working life.
In conclusion, this debate has analysed the costs vs benefits of abolishing some public examinations. Due to the detrimental effects exams create, my stance is against the SATs. I feel that the pressure exams create is more important than how it tests their ability, as there are other means of this (i.e. interviews). Finally, do exams identify true ability? NO. Do exams create undue pressure? YES. Exams, exams, exams… Are there too many exams? YES. Therefore I think we should expunge excessive exams!
On the one hand, some may maintain the line that this website has a destructive impact on teachers. Ratemyteacher.com does not contribute to educational standards and is purely a mean of students venting their anger in a childish manner. An unprecedented amount of the comments made are particularly harsh, over-exaggerated and malicious. Consequently, this will demoralise some teachers, thus effecting their teaching. They will try to improve their ratings – exactly how they will set about doing this creates a problem. They will try to increase their popularity and hence, their style and motives of teaching changes, which may compromise the best interests of the student’s education.
In the same way, the basic role of a teacher is to provide an education to its pupils. However, Ratemyteacher.com will merely cause gossip around the class about the teacher’s personal lives. The result of this is that the students learning will be affected as they will be distracted in the classroom and because of this negative impact it has, Ratemyteacher.com should be shut down.
In contrast to this, this debate also brings to life a case of double standards. Why should we be shutting down a student-teacher evaluation website, when teachers are constantly being evaluated anyway. For example, OFSTED assess teachers, students can voice their views with suggestion boxes and a school council.
Furthermore, this website gives teachers an incentive to improve. The website has rules and regulations which do not allow comments to be made about their personal life. Therefore, constructive comments are made identifying what teachers can improve on, benefiting both students and teachers.
In addition, it is not practical to shut down this website. This is because the British Jurisdiction does not allow us to shut down a ‘.com’ website as it is American. Also the internet is a free source and as long as it doesn’t insight violence, there is no reason to shut it down. Besides if we were to shut down this forum then students will still want to vent their anger and consequently go underground. They will make their own website and their comments will not be moderated. Therefore, it will have a much worse effect than Ratemyteachers.com.
To conclude, throughout this debate I have taken concern the right of the student’s voice vs right to teacher’s privacy. These are both important considerations but in this instance the student’s voice conflicts teacher’s privacy. Due to this fact I believe that Ratemyteacher.com should be shut down.
The subject of school uniform is hotly contested, especially among the youth arena. Those who advocate this motion may solely argue that it provides a means of identifying pupils in public. However, the opposition may use the cost issue as their foothold against this motion. To draw a conclusion with this topic is going to be contentious either way, as both sides put to the table very favourable, bullet – proof and a compelling set of arguments.
Firstly and foremost, some people may claim that a uniform aids a student in appearing tidy and disciplined. This serves a key role of the school; to encourage tidiness and discipline. If one were to adopt a non-uniform regime giving the choice of freedom of dress, then pupils may express their individuality overwhelmingly. The reason why this is a problem is because many students may end up being extremely messy or flashy. This in turn launches another problem as many students are not in the right frame of mind for learning, defeating many aspects of their education. This statement is reiterated in the widely established fact that there is a strong connection between appearing smart and good behaviour, allowing them to thrive in their education – a chance freedom of dress may hinder.
On the other hand, the opposition does not deny the link between appearing smart and behaviour. However this is not a valid argument in this debate as many schools with a non uniform policy demand adequate standards of dress codes, such as forbidding short skirts. Therefore, this again counter’s the proposition’s argument as they do not appear too flash and consequently this is not a hindrance in their learning but merely an opportunity for them to express their individuality. Also by allowing them to choose their own clothes we are giving them more responsibility as they are making their own independent decision.
In contrast to this, when students are out in public (i.e. on a school trip), suppose a pupil is separated from the group. Is it more likely that they will be identified with or without uniform? Obviously the inevitable answer is of course with a uniform.
On the contrary, in actual fact one can infer that many schools do not demand uniforms on school trips, revealing a major flaw in what the proposition have said. This is because this argument does not stand as it simply isn’t true.
Likewise, the cost of uniforms are very high. This arouses two problems. Firstly it puts more of a strain on parents and secondly uniforms are futile as they only have use inside school.
In conclusion, after examining the issues of cost, and studying the pros and cons of school uniform, my mind has unanimously set itself in favour of uniform. This decision has been drawn on the grounds that uniforms improve student’s appearance and tidiness putting them in pole position for educational achievements.
A handful of nations around the world currently enforce the death penalty. Britain can learn from the status quo is some states of the US, China and several Islamic nations, to conclude whether the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent. Intrinsically, this debate addresses the question “what is the purpose of punishment for murder?” Should it be to simply segregate them from society or perhaps rehabilitation is an area worth considering?
The state has a duty to protect its citizens. The proposition may feel that in the event of serial murders or terrorists, they should be punished with death. The death penalty will be subject to people who have infringed other’s basic human right of life. On the other hand, isn’t it immoral to kill in the eyes of society and thus, the state killing another person is equally barbaric. In our society we follow the principle of “two wrongs don’t make a right” – then surely we have moved on from the principle of eye for eye, tooth for tooth and life for life.
To rebut the issue of whether this motion is moral or not, the proposition may claim that the death penalty deters criminals from murdering. Looking at the states of the USA that have the death penalty, the crime rates have been on free-fall since this legislation has been passed. However, saying that, some may also argue the case that there is no direct relation between the death penalty and murder rates. Even if it did act as a deterrent, would it merely be a short term deterrent (immediately following the aftermath of an execution) or as a long term one?
The cost of life imprisonment is extremely expensive. This will put more of a financial burden on the state. In addition, prison cell spaces are rapidly decreasing and it is not practical due to the fact that it is putting more of a load on the taxpayer’s purse. Contrastingly, we cannot kill prisoners on the grounds of cost. If one were to follow that principle then we would start executing all criminals on the basis of relieving the taxpayer’s purse! Besides, one does not pay taxes for nothing but to provide themselves with more services and to allow the state to invest in their safety.
In conclusion, although the death penalty would only be in effect on those murderers we have conclusive evidence of, I hold the opinion that capital punishment is morally flawed as we have passed the age of our ancestor’s barbaric principles. Furthermore, it is totally unjustifiable to kill one innocent person no matter how many criminals are executed. Additionally, I feel that execution takes away the possibility of rehabilitation and a person being reformed back into society.
