Should we negotiate with terrorists?

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 begin with, we must address the question over what is the purpose of negotiation? One would negotiate in order to “get what they want”. On this instance of a hostage situation a case of practicalities arises. The state would negotiate in order to save lives and prevent the escalation of problems. By negotiating with terrorists we are able to achieve the state’s priority in these situations – saving lives. One may pay at ransom or even release political prisoners to save civilians who have done nothing wrong.

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.

However, nowadays we can learn many things from history. If we look at history we can see that it is proven that negotiation works. Negotiations can often lead to ceasefires, and consequently saving lives. For example, during John Major’s premiership he managed to achieve a ceasefire with the IRA – and only through means of negotiation. Also, to rebut what the opposition stated about giving them legitimacy is completely flawed as they still have no place in our society – but we have to admit that they are the ones in control in these situations, and negotiation is the only way to deal with it.

In conclusion, today’s debate has surfaced several valid arguments – ranging from the issue of practicalities to what history has shown us. In my outlook to this controversial question, I think that negotiating with terrorists will lead to an escalation of hostage situations. This is because political groups will start to think that the state will give into their demands and they can achieve their political aims, when they hold hostages – therefore I would beg to oppose this motion.

The trouble with contact sports.

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 UK and others.

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 19^th century, sports were more violent; however, children were less violent than now. In the 21^st 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.

Should we abolish zoos?

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.

Firstly, animals have rights, and zoos deny them this. They have the basic right to be able to be in their natural habitat, where they can fend for themselves. By enclosing them in an inadequate sized cage is utterly immoral and cruel. The act of cruelty is abhorred in the eyes of society – then why are zoos overlooked just because of the revenue it creates. Yes, we understand that zoos create revenue but at the hands of animals rights, surely not?

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.

Abolition of Key Stage 1,2 and 3 Examinations

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!