Motions for Rounds 1 & 3 - The 2nd NLS Debate - Junior

Here are the motions for the first and third rounds of the tournament. While rounds 1, 3 and the finals are prepared, we release the motions for the rest half an hour before the match begins.

Round 1

In December last year, Kapil Sibal, then the Minister for Telecommunications, made comments calling for the ‘regulation’ of content on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter since certain content posted on such websites can hurt ‘sentiments’ (both religious as well as, ahem, political). While it is true that sometimes content posted by users on these websites may be inflammatory to certain sections of society, does that necessitate regulation of content? Where would this regulation end? Do we not fear going down the same road as governments in politically repressive societies such as China and Iran? At the same time, should social networking sites not have a duty to their users to ensure that deeply offensive content be restricted and the sentiments of their users respected? Should social media websites place restrictions on and be held liable for free speech? Are they even responsible? Who are the real culprits in this increasingly ubiquitous and significant controversy?

This house believes that social networking sites ought to be held responsible for inflammatory content posted by their users

Round 3

With recent advances in the field of precision warfare, targeted killing has been a new addition to the arsenal of military tactics employed by countries such as the USA. Targeted killing refers to the intentional killing of an enemy by a government or its agents, often outside the state’s borders. States usually claim that such individuals indulge in terrorist activities and are a direct threat to their security. In the post-9/11 world, where the United States considers itself to be in a state of  armed conflict against the Al-Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorist networks, it has used Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (i.e. drones) to kill prime terrorist targets, most prominently in Pakistan and Afghanistan, without the consent of these governments. Not only have these killings incited a heavy debate about their legality, they have also resulted in serious moral questions being raised on their use, with the unfettered power it gives to a soldier of one country, remotely operating these drones from thousands of miles away, to kill someone in another country. Should the US be allowed to safeguard its own interests and be let off for any collateral damage, especially when most of the people being killed might be terrorists anyway? Are wars even subject to such moral and ethical enquiries?

This house condemns the use of drones for targeted killing

These two preliminary round motions are highly relevant in today’s world and raise some very important questions. The finals motion will be released soon, so in the meantime, start reading up! The side you will be representing will be released only once the preparation time for the round begins, so a prepared speech won’t really be much help.