The Motion for Round 3

Hey, y'all.

The theme for today's motion is the environment.

One of the most pressing issues confronting humanity today is the spectre of climate change. The rapid industrialisation of the world in the past 300 years has had an adverse impact on the environment and ecosystems around the world. Many in the scientific community consider the 21st Century to be the tipping point for the climate change phenomenon. If we continue polluting at this rate, the world will become an extremely hostile place for humans to live, with rising temperatures and mass industrialisation causing desertification of forest areas and melting of icecaps and glaciers. This will further result in mass flooding in low lying areas and may even submerge several small island nations in their entirety.

While governments have been slow to accept climate change, it seems as if the tide has finally turned, with the Lima and Paris Accords due to be ratified by the international community in the coming 2 years. However, as always, international co-operation on climate change is hampered by the mounting need for economic development. This involves the claim made by developing countries in stating that their obligations towards the environment are different from those of developed countries due to varying degrees of industrial development.

While the international community struggles to come to terms with this phenomenon, it is widely accepted that climate change is an undeniable reality that every country must come to terms with, in their policy.

Keeping this in mind, the motion for today is: 

This House believes that developing countries should prioritise the need to combat climate change over considerations of economic development

The First Motion of the Year

Customarily, the NLS Debate Junior has always featured 2 prepared motions in the preliminary rounds of the competition. A prepared motion is a motion which is disclosed beforehand. This allows teams to read up on the key concepts involved in the motion and allows, we believe, for a better debate. Debate is all about articulation of thought and a solid grasp on the core principles of a motion and relevant real world examples is a vital part of improved speaking. We firmly believe in the notion that deep arguments, with principles backed up by examples, are the best way to win debates and project thought.

The following is the motion for the first round. You will find a small context paragraph introducing the motion, followed by a few links that will help you get started in delving into the substance of the debate:

Context:   Crime is one of the fundamental problems that society finds itself deeply concerned with. People are denied from living their lives normally when there is a presence of crime around them. 

  One of the primary roles of governments is maintenance of law and order. A critical facet of maintaining law and order is punishment of criminals for offences committed. The law must propose sanctions for criminal actions in order for the sanctions to influence behaviour (if I am not going to be punished for a crime, there is a greater incentive for me to commit the crime when motivated). 

Punishment is a multi-faceted concept with multiple but concurrent purposes of being a deterrent for future crime, a preventive measure from future crime, retribution for a crime committed and a process that helps rehabilitate the criminal (ensuring  they do not commit the crime again and become law-abiding members of society . The most commonly accepted form of punishment for crimes in the world today is incarceration, locking the criminal up in a cell for a specified duration (duration dependent on the crime committed). You might know this term better as imprisonment. 

However it is unclear whether prison is effective as a punishment measure. Empirical and anecdotal evidence both suggest that prison has adverse impact on a prisoner’s life, putting them through a deprivation of liberty that renders them unproductive and more likely to return to a life of crime. It puts great financial and emotional pressure on the family of the criminal as well, essentially harming innocent individuals. The years spent in prison represent a huge opportunity cost for the prisoner and society, which may have been better off with a rehabilitated convict who was free and contributing to society rather than an individual more prone to crime.

Ouch.

An alternative to imprisonment is corporal punishment, or infliction of physical harm on the convict. Many studies have shown corporal punishment as having the ability to reduce the chance of a person behaving in a certain manner, reinforcing the potential deterrent effects of such a form of punishment. Proponents of corporal punishment often also argue that it allows an effective punishment to be meted out while also giving removing the harmful effects that time spent in incarceration inflicts on an individual and their innocent family members.

 Can corporal punishment be an effective replacement for jail terms? Or does it violate too many norms of basic human decency and treatment that we have come to accept as desirable for a society?

The government accepts the claims of proponents of corporal punishment and has proposed the motion:

This House Would allow prisoners to choose corporal punishment in lieu of part or all of their sentence

Here are some links to help you get started:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/crime_and_punishment

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Flogging/127208/

http://www.albany.edu/~grn92/jp13.html (long, but well worth the full read)

Looking forward to hosting you!

Regards,

The Organizing Committee of the 4th NLS Debate-Junior

The IV NLS Debate - Junior: Some Announcements!

Hi,

After a long hiatus, we're excited to be back up with this blog. We hope you're just as excited to see us back! 

Some announcements:

Schedule and Team Allocations: Find the schedule for the tournament here. The team allocations for the event can be found here.

Tournament Schedule: Do note that the workshop on Day 0 is entirely optional, as it will cover the basics of parliamentary debating. Kindly help us adhere to the schedule by ensuring that your contingent reaches the venue on time.

Dress Code: As with any inter-school competition, we would prefer it if your students attend the event in school uniforms.

Address: Our address is Gate 1, National Law School of India University, Jnanbharathi Road, Near Nagarbhavi Circle, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore - 560072.

Transport: If you are unable to arrange for transport, we request you to let us know so that we may provide a pick-up for you in the city. The college bus is of a limited capacity, so we request you to let us know at the earliest.

Stationery:  We request you to carry your own stationery to the event.

Debate Motions: Finally, the motions for the debate will be sent across in the very next post. 

Additional Workshops: We also conduct in-depth training workshops for schools around the city. Debaters who have won international debate tournaments interact with students and train them in every aspect of parliamentary debate and logical argumentation. These are separately chargeable, and will be conducted at your convenience if you desire to opt for them. Do let us know if you would like to have workshops conducted at your institution.

We look forward to seeing you here!

Cheers,

The Organizing Committee, 4th NLS Debate - Junior

Report and Results of the 3rd NLS Debate - Junior, 2013

The third edition of the National Law School Debate - Junior was held from November 28 to December 1, at the NLSIU campus. 18 teams from across Bangalore participated at the tournament. The debates were held in the Asians Parliamentary Debate format, consisting of 2 teams of 3 members each facing off against each other. Each speaker could speak for a maximum of 6 minutes. The tournament commenced with a detailed workshop on the intricacies of the debate format and the basics of logic & argumentation. This was followed by 4 preliminary rounds held over two days, followed by 3 elimination rounds on the third day.

In the Grand Finals, KCBSE 1 proposed the motion against Suaveloquence. Both teams were from the Kumarans CBSE school. KCBSE 1 comprised of Ujval, Satvik and Rutwik, and Suaveloquence comprised of Anisha, Anjali and Tanay. The debate was won by the opposition, Suaveloquence, on a 6-1 split verdict. The motion was based upon a hypothetical scenario where the Core Committee of the Aam Aadmi Party came into possession of evidence that proved that Arvind Kejriwal had engaged in an isolated act of corruption while he was in the Indian Revenue Service. The motion was "This house, being the Core Committee of the Aam Aadmi Party, will suppress this evidence."

Anisha from Kumarans CBSE won the award for the Best Speaker as well as the Most Stylish Speaker, awarded to the participant with the highest manner scores. Sumedha from NPS Indiranagar, won the award for the 2nd Best Speaker.

The tabulation of scores can be found at the following link: The 3rd NLS Debate - Junior Tabs

Please note that tied scores have been broken by the median of scores, followed by the total manner scores, and lastly the highest individual round score.

The summary of tournament results is as follows:

Top 8 Teams (in order of break)

1. Suaveloquence [Kumarans CBSE] (Winners)
2. Inventure 3 [Inventure Academy] (Semi Finalists)
3. Lawgical [NPS Indiranagar] (Quarter Finalists)
4. Comfortably Dumb [Kumarans CBSE] (Quarter Finalists)
5. Inventure 1 [Inventure Academy] (Semi Finalists)
6. KCBSE 1 [Kumarans CBSE] (Runners-up)
7. Courtroom [Christ Junior College] (Quarter Finalists)
8. The Practice [Christ Junior College] (Quarter Finalists)

Top 10 Speakers of the Tournament

1. Anisha [Kumarans CBSE] (Most Stylish Speaker)
2. Sumedha [NPS Indiranagar]
3. Ujval [Kumarans CBSE]
4. Joseph [Christ Junior College]
5. Anjali [Kumarans CBSE]
6. Shreya [NPS Indiranagar]
7. Shraddha [Inventure Academy]
8. Aditya [Kumaran CBSE]
9. Malini [Christ Junior College]
10. Maitreya [NPS Indiranagar]

The Motions

• Round 1 (Prepared)This house mandates 50% reservation for women on the Board of Directors of companies
• Round 2 (Impromptu)
  This house believes that schools that offer class XI and XII must compulsorily offer them as residential programs
• Round 3 (Prepared)
  This house regrets the Indian Prime Minister’s decision to not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
• Round 4 (Impromptu)
  This house will send Serena to Yeneles
• Quarter Finals (Impromptu)
  This house believes that the Government must publicize and follow a policy of not negotiating with hostage takers
• Semi Finals (Impromptu)
  This house believes that the government should give free vocational training to unemployed individuals in rural areas instead of the MGNREGA
• Grand Finals (Prepared)
  This house, being the Core Committee of the Aam Aadmi Party, will suppress this evidence.

We had a great time organizing this tournament, and we thank all participants for supporting this endeavour. We hope everyone enjoyed themselves, and we look forward to welcoming you to the next edition of the NLS Debate - Junior.

Warm regards,

The 3rd NLS Debate - Junior Organizing Team

Motion for the Grand Finals

We are extremely pleased to bring to you the motion for the Grand Finals of the NLS Debate Junior 2013!

Since its entry into Indian politics one year back, the Aam Aadmi Party, led by the charismatic Arvind Kejriwal, has garnered significant public attention by promising to deliver a corruption-free brand of governance. The first formal test of the public's confidence in the party - the Delhi Assembly elections - is set to happen on December 4th 2013, which is barely a week away. Recently, public reactions to allegations that some of the party's candidates were corrupt provided a rare glimpse into the complex ways in which the Indian populace perceives the political force that the party has become. 

At the Grand Finals of the NLS Debate Junior, the two top teams of the tournament will be asked to imagine that the following set of fictional facts has unfolded: 

The Core Committee of the Aam Aadmi Party has come into possession of evidence that clearly demonstrates that Kejriwal engaged in an act of corruption while serving as an officer in the Indian Revenue Service. The Core Committee has reason to believe that it was an isolated act of corruption on his part, and that he will never do the same again. The Core Committee also realises that if they choose to suppress the evidence, the incident is unlikely to ever come to light. 

In this context, the motion for the Grand Finals is:

This House, being the Core Committee of the Aam Aadmi Party, will suppress this evidence.

With the short amount of time left till the elections, is it unreasonable for the Aam Aadmi Party to hope to maintain control over the information, if it chooses to release it? And would releasing the evidence amount to a blind adherence to the principle of transparency that risks the party's potential to deliver transparent governance as lawmakers if they win the election? On the other hand, does the Aam Aadmi Party, unlike any other party, have a special obligation to abhor corruption in any form? More pragmatically, could releasing the evidence in fact strengthen the party in the electoral race?

With these and more questions set to be explored, analysed and answered, the Grand Finals of this edition of the NLS Debate Junior promises to be an exciting and challenging affair. 

As a note, we'd like to thank Aashay Sahay, Sayan Sanyal and Sai Siddharth for this motion's idea.

Motion for Round 3

The motion for the third round is given below. Please note that the motion for the Grand Finals will be released tomorrow.

Round 3

The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was recently held in Sri Lanka. The CHOGM is a forum for heads of commonwealth governments (consisting of the United Kingdom and former British colonies) to discuss common problems and concerns.

The recent CHOGM has been quite controversial in India, regarding the Prime Minister’s attendance. Voices from several quarters of the Indian polity called for the Prime Minister to boycott the CHOGM as a sign of protest against the alleged atrocities on Tamils committed by the Sri Lankan government during the final phases of the Sri Lankan civil war. Indeed, estimates for civilian fatalities, produced by the United Nations and human rights groups, range all the way from 20,000 to 1,47,000. There is no expert consensus on whether civilians were targeted on purpose, and, if so, when.

Others had called for Dr. Manmohan Singh to attend the meeting as they believe a boycott would antagonise Sri Lanka. They say that instead the Indian government should increase engagement and build closer ties with the Sri Lankan government. This would give India greater leverage and influence over Sri Lanka, allowing it to push for reform, like the 13^th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution that could better the lives of Sri Lanka’s Tamils.

In the end Manmohan Singh ended up being absent from the CHOGM.

The motion for round 3 is -

This House Regrets the Indian Prime Minister’s decision to not attend the CHOGM

Motion for Round 1

Here is the motion for the first round of the tournament. While rounds 1, 3 and the finals are prepared, we will release the motions for the rest half an hour before the match begins. The motion for Round 3 will be released tomorrow.

Round 1

The new Companies Law Bill includes provisions for the reservation of women in the top managerial positions of Indian companies. This is part of a larger move across the globe to remedy the high under-representation of women in business in general and in the board of directors of corporations in particular. Similar to reservations for women at the municipal and panchayat level, it is thought that increased reservation guarantees women greater political empowerment through greater representation.

It is argued that women face discrimination in the workplace, often being overlooked for pay rises and promotion (a phenomenon called the ‘glass ceiling’). Additionally workplaces and management in companies, traditionally male-dominated, are not sensitive to the concerns of women. All these problems, faced by women worldwide when coupled with the lack of women in top company positions have led to worldwide calls to increase women’s representation in the top echelons of companies.

Critics of this view argue that women have enough opportunities to excel and rise to the top of companies provided they work hard and sincerely. They cite examples of successful examples of women who have risen to the top of companies such as Indra Nooyi of Pepsi and Chanda Kochhar of ICICI.

But do these individual cases point to a larger systemic change in how companies treat women employees?

With that in mind…

This house mandates 50% reservation for women on the Board of Directors of companies