NUJS Parliamentary Debate 2011 - MOTIONS

Round I: Lies

THBT diplomatic leaks cause more good than harm in the long run.

THBT the environmental movement should publish outright lies about the extent of environmental harm to promote their cause.

THBT it is acceptable for countries to lie about their nuclear programs.

Round II: Children

THW not impose an age restriction for the driving license test.

THBT children should be legally obligated to care for their parents on reaching adulthood.

THBT the present generation holds no obligations whatsoever to preserve natural resources for future generations.

Round III: Sci-Tech

THW mandate a government controlled internet kill-switch in democratic nations.

THBT social networking websites can do without privacy settings.

THBT private communication companies must be mandated to divulge their encryption schemes to state regulatory authorities.

Round IV: Governance

THBT the right to self-defence should include pre-emptive action.

THW do away with fines as a means of punishment for criminal offences.

THW not restrict the number of terms for the Head of State of democratic countries.

Round V: Sports

THBT Olympic events that require subjective judging are not sports. (eg. gymnastics, synchronised swimming etc.)

THW legalise ball tampering in cricket.

THBT bilateral sporting ties must not be severed irrespective of diplomatic ties.

Quarter-Finals: Hypotheticals

1. You are Thakur in the movie Sholay and you have been handed custody of two notorious criminals Jai and Veeru. While moving from Bombay to Delhi, your train has to pass through the Chambal valley and a gang of dreaded dacoits has attacked your train. You are asked by Jai and Veeru to let them free so that they can fight the dacoits. You are, however, not permitted by law to release criminals for any reason whatsoever. Motion: Free Jai and Veeru hoping that they do not run away and fight the dacoits instead.

2. You are a juror trying the following case. Four people are exploring a cave when it caves in. The explorers know (don’t challenge) that help will arrive too late for them to survive but if they kill one of their own and eat him, the rest will survive. The men agree to draw lots to determine which one would be killed. At the last minute, Bob decides he wants to withdraw. The other men ignore his protests and draw for him as well (It was a perfectly fair draw) and as luck would have it, his number was drawn. They kill and eat him. They are subsequently tried for murder. Motion: Acquit them of the charges.

3. You (FIFA) are tasked with appeals against the results of matches in the UEFA Champions League. The Semi-Final this year featured Manchester United against the Turkish champions Galatasaray. The first leg held at the Istanbul was one of the most acrimonious matches in recent years. Manchester United rested key players for this match as they were facing fierce competition in the English Premier League (EPL). Due to two controversial refereeing, they found themselves two goals behind and down to nine men inside ten minutes. The match ended 5-1 to Galatasaray. With the EPL won, all their stars rested and playing in their citadel, Old Trafford, Manchester United were confident of winning the second leg by the 4-0 margin that they needed. Strangely enough though, the Turks that lined up consisted of youngsters from the opposing youth academy. Inside two minutes two men were off the pitch butthis time, they were Turks who had purposely got themselves sent off. Only two minutes later when the Turks had two more men dismissed did Manchester United begin to understand… too late. Within six minutes, five Turks had been given red cards. Under FIFA regulations, since Galatasaray had less than 7 players on the pitch, the match had to be abandoned and awarded to Manchester United by a margin of 3-0. Galatasaray go through on aggregate goals in both legs 5 goals to 4. Manchester United appeals to you asking for Galatasaray to be disqualified or at least for the match to be replayed. Motion: Let the result stand.

Semi-Finals and Novice Finals: International Relations

THW support a power sharing agreement with the Taliban in return for their disarmament.

THBT non-democratic nations must not have voting rights in international organisations.

THW decline requests for political asylum by deposed dictators.

Finals: THBT the Indian government should auction street names to the highest bidder.

Syria : Almost a hell

Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, and allied with Russia and Iran. Under the leadership of Bashar Assad and his principles of ruling, today Syria is facing mass murder and destruction with no help whatsoever from any concerned nation. The UN did pass a resolution which could cure Syria's condition but thanks to the veto issued by Russia and China, the resolution was repealed. Now, the question arises - Should the United States interfere in Syria despite the rejection of the UN resolution against the whims of its two permanent members- Russia and China or step into Syria to help restore order against the brutal dictatorship of Bashar? Will this interference mean a direct indication by US to fight a Third World War against Russia and China? Will Syria attain political stability post-interference? All these questions desperately need to be answered.
Israel is a bad example post-interference. Afghanistan is a good example. History gives us detailed accounts of issues which arose when a third party interfered in a nation's sovereignty. So what is sovereignty exactly? What I understand of it is, sovereignty is a "right" enjoyed by a "ruler" as long as the people he's ruling are complacent. Also, it implies that no nation can interfere in that nation's mechanics. But, if there is any serious Human Rights violation in that nation which supercedes the benchmark of sovereignty, other nations "acquire" a right to interfere because now the sovereignty enjoyed by the ruler of that nation no longer stays his right but it becomes an "acquired right" (Genocide Convention).
In the case of Syria, this benchmark is crossed by Bashar's policies. His regime has taken a bloody route, which is why on grounds of urgency and practicality it seems fair for the US (or NATO to be exact for US is preparing herself for the upcoming November Elections) to interfere in Syria to protect it's citizens. Moreover, the lengthy civil war happening there is fetching no obvious results. Mayhem is in it's worst state. So shifting Mr Assad from power as fast as possible is essential. It is too late for him to negotiate an accommodation with his people by overseeing reform and an increase in democratic ideals fast gaining popularity, thanks to the influence of the western liberal democracies. But why, despite everybody wants to dethrone Bashad, he's as powerful as ever? The main reason is lack of unity. This lack of unity is not only at the United Nations and in the Arab League but also among Syria's opposition. The Syrian National Council is a divided gaggle of exiles, with only limited authority in a place they still call home, which is a pity.
So what is the solution?
Yes, the rebels need to unite. There's no way that their scattered groups can win against Bashar Assad in a head-on fight, for Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps, as well as tanks, heavy artillery and an air force. The remedy is not providing weapons to the opposition. A country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence that the world was seeking to avoid. (The guns that flooded into Afghanistan to arm locals against the Soviet Union helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.) With a single voice and a credible leader, the opposition could seek to reassure the merchants, Kurds and Christians who back Mr Assad that they will be safer and more prosperous without him.
Now, let's understand the possible reasons why Russia and China simply vetoed the resolution which claimed to end all miseries being endured by the innocent civilians of Syria, victimized by the brutality of Assad. Russia and China are not great fans of democratic-style of governance. If the US invades Syria, it is obvious that it will try to establish democracy in that region which these two countries are against. So, on a larger perspective it becomes insane that such great countries have such narrow ideologies. But, nevertheless, they have an ideology which, if challenged, can definitely mean trouble for the world. Moreover, both these countries sell arms to Bashar's armies. So, if he is ousted, Russia and China directly lose a great part of their income which, obviously, they won't wish to happen.

Now let's analyze if USA's interference in Syria's matter against the whims of Russia and China can cause a World War or not. Definitely, there is a major difference between the situation back then and now. Then, nuclear wars weren't very probable or extensive but today any country which uses nuke possesses the capacity to cause a major damage. So, it seems unlikely that Russia and China are going to risk their safety for the offense USA can inflict if she decides to poke into something they totally disprove of. Also, democratic ideals weren't that popular then. With Russia suffering from a major governmental breakdown, the only Communist superpower today would be China and since almost the entire world supports Democracy, again, China won't risk herself on account of Syria.
Definitely Mr.Assad's brutal days are numbered but if the United States outrightedly disobeys the outcome of the UN resolution, it can number all of our days as well for it's certain that if there is a World War-3 at all for any reason whatsoever, only cockroaches will survive and rule our charred world.

Why am I here?

Ok, my first post in this blog won't challenge the fragile nerves of your 1500 cc brain in an unpleasing way. I accept, as the critics proclaim, my words have the much needed effrontery to damage the equilibrium of patience in a mortal. But you can laugh this obligation away with the most delightful tone of a noisy guffaw.

I'm here not to trouble you, but to make you see the world through my eyes. You may like this world, you may not like it, you may find my vision goofy or you may fall deep into the excellence of what my little eyes persevere quite enigmatically. Whatever may, I expect a feedback of your response. You may call me a 'Critical Thinker'. I hope you and I will be friends and our relation won't tremble until my blog expires. Till then, have a good time. Adieu.