New Topics

New random topics are here!

That states should seek to prioritise reducing income inequality over GDP growth
That we should pay additional benefits to families on welfare according to their child's performance in school
That we should ban international aid charities from using graphic images of suffering
That states should hold binding national referendums on major peace agreements
That post-revolution states should delegate trials of former rulers to the International Criminal Court
That we should allow prisoners to volunteer for drug trials in exchange for lighter sentences
That slum tourism does more harm than good
That we should not allow unvaccinated children to attend public schools
That the feminist movement should actively exclude socially conservative viewpoints
That Palestine should prohibit the operation of Israeli companies within Palestinian territories
That we should allow the public to remove Supreme Court justices by a popular referendum
That the continuation of NATO after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is regrettable
That governments should actively discourage consumerist lifestyles
That we should give more votes to citizens according to their performance on a current affairs test
That online matchmaking is a better system than traditional dating
That we should allow internet users to sell their own personal information for profit
That where peaceful protests are met with a violent state response, protesters should respond violently
That secular governments should censor those sections of religious texts that constitute hate speech
That we should criminalize the public denial of evolution
That life-extending medical procedures should be denied to the terminally ill
That we should make wearing fur illegal
That we should punish users of extremist websites
That paralympic sports deserve more broadcasting time
That government trained jurists should be appointed to all court cases
That radio stations should be required to play a certain percentage of native music
That Israel should finalize a secular constitution
That scientists should have a delegation in national legislature
That the forced militarization of civilian naval vessels is legitimate in times of war
That Antarctica should be colonized for resource extraction
That the Middle East would benefit from Kurdistan being independent
That Christian artifacts and texts should belong to the Church
That Shinto should be a state religion in Japan
That Costa Rica should put the economy before environmental protection
That Nagorno Karabahk Should be Reunited with Armenia

admin: Several thoughts.
I don't like these topics
That the feminist movement should actively exclude socially conservative viewpoints
All feminists are liberal? I know that it not true, and this just seems like to weird of a topic really.
That we should criminalize the public denial of evolution
This is a fiasco waiting to happen. Actually, I completely hate this topic, and could theorize every possible argument that would be made for it.
I really think this should be replaced with a more moderate "Human Evolution is True".

Here's a few I have questions on.
That slum tourism does more harm than good
What is slum tourism?
That where peaceful protests are met with a violent state response, protesters should respond violently
This topic seems a little silly tbh. It is also spelled wrong, and additionally, it would no longer be a peaceful protest, right?
Like the evolution topic, I think this should be a more moderate "Peaceful Protest is more successful than Violent Protest"
That secular governments should censor those sections of religious texts that constitute hate speech
Most governments don't have laws prohibiting hate speech. This would have to be a 2 part resolution.

Besides that I love all the topics. Especially mine

BTW, kudos on these topics
That the continuation of NATO after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is regrettable
That we should give more votes to citizens according to their performance on a current affairs test
That life-extending medical procedures should be denied to the terminally ill

Blackflag: All feminists are liberal? I know that it not true, and this just seems like to weird of a topic really.
Of course it's not true, but there's a "should" in this topic. It's mostly about how narrowly feminism should be interpreted, which I'd consider a pretty important issue.

That we should criminalize the public denial of evolution
This topic is really about freedom of speech, and whether it should be valued over speaking the truth. It really has nothing to do with evolution at all and I would be very surprised if one side ran an evolution argument. So the suggested alternative is not really an alternative.

That slum tourism does more harm than good
When you go to a poor place to see how the other world lives.

It is also spelled wrong, and additionally, it would no longer be a peaceful protest, right?
I just checked the spelling and am sure it's right. Probably a NZ english thing but am open to you pointing anything out.
The point of the topic is whether principles should stand in the way of practical concerns in achieving political outcomes.

Most governments don't have laws prohibiting hate speech. This would have to be a 2 part resolution.
Not necessarily. Just censor hate speech in religious texts and nowhere else.

This topic is really about freedom of speech, and whether it should be valued over speaking the truth.
There are already several topics of freedom of speech. My problem is still criminilization, but the thing that irks me the most is denial.
It implies that it is an atheist state, or that there is no interpretation other than evolution is true.

Believe me, I agree that evolution is a fact, but there are many people who think otherwise. If anything, the word denial should be removed, and maybe the topic can be done without having evolution at all, because that will make people talk more about evolution than freedom of speech. Maybe, "That we should criminalize public opinon contrary of majority beliefs"

Blackflag: Well opinion but not denial implies freedom of thought, which is harder for the aff. Of course there are other interpretations, but the topic is whether the government should regulate your right to say them in public. It's not about God or anything, just that the state should control what you can say about controversial scientific issues.

I feel like the topic should be set in a particular context, not just majority beliefs. Too broad. Would climate change be better? Would affirmation be better than denial?

admin: Climate Change would definitely be met with less resistance. I think the topic is less controversial as well.

Blackflag: Really? In NZ our climate change minister is literally on the record as saying that climate change is just a UN conspiracy.

I really don't understand why one is better than the other but I'll change it if you honestly think it will make a difference.

admin: There's no good arguments for denying climate change. Polls showed over 90% of people believe in climate change, and 98% scientists affirm it as real.
That's good enough for me. The majority of climate change denial stems from the UK and US according to Vice.

By the way, a good topic in the future could regard Lebanon's controversial confessionary democracy. I was going to debate it, but it would make a nice random topic as well.
"Lebanon should retain its confessionary form of government".

Blackflag: I could find similar polls for evolution. I don't believe there are good arguments for affirming God either but I could run a pretty good case for why churches should be allowed.