Motion 1: This House Would hold football clubs responsible for the behaviour of their fans Some background information Football is one of the most popular spectator sports in the world. While most fans behave well a minority sometimes engage in bad behaviour. Some football matches lead to violence, either because of riots or fans organising fights against the opposing team s fans. Other times fans chant unacceptable things, such as racist or homophobic abuse. Innocent spectators can be caught up in the violence and can be injured, property is damaged and people are hurt and upset by abuse. Of course, the perpetrators should be punished, but there are calls for additional punishments for the clubs they support. Football clubs can make a lot of money from the passion and intensity of their fans and the tickets and merchandise they buy. They can influence fan behaviour in some ways and yet at other times fans seem to be completely outside of club control. Hardcore fans care an awful lot about their club, and so it is suggested that the threat of punishment might control them. But would they think about it in the heat of the moment? It might also lead to fans policing each other, but would it always be good to have fans trying to enforce rules themselves? Do you think football clubs should be punished as well as the person who did the damage? Key facts - The top 20 clubs in Europe brought in between 130 million and 515 million last year. Fines for fans racism are normally below 100,000. - Clubs spend millions of fan outreach and on policing and stewarding at matches to control behaviour. - In many countries in Europe groups of fans with links to violent fascist groups are common. Activities for the class or club Discussion point: What circumstances can make someone responsible for others actions? Why? Use the activity below as a starting point for this discussion.
1/ Draw a line on the board, and label it as below: Most responsible Should be held fully accountable Least responsible It would be totally unfair to punish 2/ In small groups, or as a whole class, students should place the following scenarios along this line: A friend shares some sweets with you that you think he stole from a shop. You dare a friend to do swear and they do it. Your little sister looks up to you as a role model. When she tells you she s going to do something bad you just laugh and walk away. You notice another student showing their paper to a friend during an exam, and see a couple of answers you didn t know. Some older students are bullying a student, but you don t want to get involved so you walk past and pretend you don t notice. 3/ In pairs, small groups or as a class, students should now discuss what they could change about each scenario to send it further to the left or right of the line. For example, discussing the first scenario: A friend shares some sweets with you that you think he stole from a shop. Students might suggest that if you know the sweets were stolen it would increase responsibility, whereas if you give the sweets away instead of eating themselves it might reduce it. 4/ Using the previous discussion as a starting point, students should now complete the following table: Factors that make someone more responsible Factors that make someone less responsible
Questions for students to ask themselves How might this change the behaviour of football clubs? How might this change the behaviour of football fans? Do football clubs do anything that contributes to their fans violence? Do they encourage fans to dislike other team s fans? Some further resources telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/9614255/how-uefa-has-dealt-with-racismcompared-to-other-issues.html independent.co.uk/voices/football-violence-euro-2016-france-marseille-brexit-tribalism-eureferendum-a7083171.html mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-fan-banned-over-racist-6946348
Motion 2: This House Believes That Democracy should be imposed on countries Some background information Democracy has become the most widespread and successful system of governance we have today. It provides and protects individual liberties, and gives space for economies to provide jobs and better lives for their citizens. However, not every country is run as a democracy and not all people want it. Many democratic countries are keen to spread this system around the world. Countries and international bodies use a range of methods including diplomatic pressure, sanctions and even military force to push non-democratic nations to embrace democracy. Not everyone in these countries wants to change the system to democracy, however. Some might like their current system because it gives them power, while others value the traditions and hierarchies they are used to. Still others might worry about becoming a minority in a democratic system that might be overlooked or abused. People also question whether those imposing democracy have other motives and want to benefit themselves. When people resist and push back against democratic imposition is can lead to tension, conflict and even outright violence. Ongoing conflicts in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya can be linked to attempts to impose democracy. Freedom for everyone is a noble goal, but should we try to force people into freedom? Key facts - Around half of the world s population lives under non-democratic political regimes. - Average citizens in democratic countries tend to have more rights, a higher income and longer life expectancy than those in non-democratic ones. - Some of the most unstable regions in the world have previously seen interventions promoting democracy. Activities for the class or club There are lots of things we might think are good for people, but that doesn t always mean we can force them to accept. List of actors our government, foreign governments, parents, form tutor, religious leaders, an older sibling, police, Doctor, university Professor In small groups students should discuss which of the list of actors should be allowed to make people to do something in each of these scenarios. A child should eat plenty of fruit and vegetables People who earn lots of money should give some of it to pay for healthcare and other needs for the poor
People over 18 should vote for the MP they want to represent them You should brush your teeth twice per day You should treat others how you would like them to treat you Now ask each group to choose one scenario and imagine that people refuse, or even start to resist. What measures would it be acceptable for each of their chosen actors to take to enforce their decision? Why? For example, discussing the first scenario A child should eat plenty of fruit and vegetables Students might suggest that parents and siblings can make a child eat fruit and veg. However, perhaps parents can use punishments like withholding pocket money and grounding to make them if they refuse, whereas siblings can only strongly encourage and shouldn t do more than that. This could be because parents are responsible for their children in a way that siblings are not, and it would be dangerous to give siblings so much power. Using the above discussions as a starting point, try to decide as a class in what situations we can and can t try to force someone to things that are good for them. Questions for students to ask themselves Are there other forms of government that might be worth having that are not democratic? Might it be worth keeping those forms of government if the costs of changing are too high? What might those costs be? Can you impose freedom on others? Who would be the best actor to impose this, and why? What might their weaknesses be? Some further resources ourworldindata.org/democracy/#share-of-world-population-living-in-democracies foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/25/why-is-america-so-bad-at-promoting-democracy-in-other-countries/
Motion 3: This House Believes That the press should be regulated by the Government, instead of being left to regulate themselves Some background information Historically, newspapers and other media have been self-regulated. This has meant that the industry has set their own standards of acceptable behaviour and created commissions to enforce these rules, judge and punish breaches. However, it is disputed how well this system works. Self-appointed regulators lack real power and there can be conflicts of interest which leave them seeming toothless in the face of media owners. This lack of regulation has been blamed for scandalous behaviour by some media outlets, like widespread hacking of phone messages by The News of the World and bribing of police officers by newspapers, among others. As a result, there are many who would prefer a government body to oversee the press. This would be to make sure the press report responsibly that they do not mislead people, or do unethical things (like hacking people s answerphones). Other think that this would give the government too much power over the press. Would the media still scrutinise and challenge politicians in the same way if they also had regulatory power? It might also ensure that just a few newspapers don t dominate the market. Do you think the Government should be in charge of this oversight, or the newspapers themselves? Key facts - In 2011 the Leveson Inquiry was created to examine the ethics and culture of the UK press after the exposure of a phone hacking scandal. - Leveson recommended the Press Complaints Commission be replaced by a new body with new legal powers but the government decided not to implement this. Instead a new self-regulatory body was set up called the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Not all major newspapers are signed up to it. Activities for the class or club For this exercise, you should ask pupils to bring in two or three pieces of print media from home. They should try to choose things they consider interesting or important. (If this isn t possible you can print out a selection of media pieces with a range of sources and purposes.) Discuss with the class the different roles of the press and the things they are trying to achieve. This might include informing people, holding authorities to account, providing entertainment, making money for their owners and more.
In small groups ask students to consider the articles they have brought in and how they fit these different roles. They should try to find the most extreme in each category. Feed back to the class, examining the extreme examples in each area. Are there common themes between them? Do they overlap in their scope? Discuss how do these different media roles conflict. Is it possible for media companies to fulfil all of them at once? If not, would you trust the government to fix the problems? Questions for students to ask themselves If the Government could control what the newspapers say, what sorts of things might they be interested in hiding? Would this be good or bad for democracy and the country? How would people react if they found out Governments were hiding things? How might they find out the Government was doing this? If the newspapers regulate themselves, what incentive do they have to stop their own bad behaviour if it gets them big news stories? Can you think of any alternative models to regulate the media that might avoid these problems? Some further resources independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-should-i-answer-to-david-cameron-leveson-said-muchthat-was-sensible-and-much-that-wasnt-8372315.html theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/14/leveson-conflict-statute-regulator-work hackinginquiry.org/
Grand Final Motion: This House supports Scottish independence Some background information Scotland has been formally part of the United Kingdom since 1707, and for much of the time since some people have wanted independence. Scotland has its own rich history, culture and identity which in many ways conflicts with English equivalents. On the other hand, the countries also share over three centuries of shared experiences and culture. In policy terms the different parts of the UK often have different needs and conflicting priorities, and yet together they have done well over time. Since 1997 Scotland has had its own devolved parliament and can make significant choices on policy in areas including most issues of day-to-day life in Scotland such as education, local government, law and order, sports and the arts. The UK Parliament in Westminster retains control over UK-wide and international issues, like immigration, defence and foreign policy. There is uncertainty about what an independent Scotland might look like, what currency it might use, if it would be an EU member and many other things. The No camp suggest these issues would be major problems for Scotland, while Yes campaigners dismiss this as exaggerated fearmongering. In 2014, the Scottish people voted in a referendum on the question of independence. The Yes campaign were close but ultimately the majority voted against independence. What should Scotland s future be? Key facts - In 2014 45% of voters said Yes to independence, while 55% voted No. - 62% of Scottish voters wanted to remain in the EU in the recent referendum, while in England 53% voted to leave. - The average wealth per person in Scotland is lower than that of the UK as a whole, and the costs of public services is great for each person. Activities for the class or club For this exercise students will need access to research facilities. This can either be done in class or as a homework exercise. Split the class in half, one half will be researching Scottish positions and the other UK wide. Now split each side into three working groups. These will be allocated responsibility for domestic policy (including education, healthcare and policing), foreign policy (including the EU and nuclear weapons) and culture and identity.
Give them some time to research the current position, policy demands and problems within their given area. Matching working groups from both sides now come together to try and negotiate compromise agreements. Encourage creative bargaining and horse-trading of issues to try and resolve differences. Groups don t have to agree but should be able to explain why they have (or haven t) reached compromise. Ask a representative from each of the six working groups to lead a class discussion on the question Should Scotland vote for independence now? Questions for students to ask themselves When are two places different enough that they would benefit from being different countries? Is there something about the identity of being Scottish that justifies independence? Do you feel more English or British? Would you like England to be independent? Why is it good that a country can set its own laws and other policies, like tax rates? Would that be beneficial to Scotland? There is a lot of trade and travel between the UK and Scotland. Would being different countries threaten Scottish economic prosperity? Some further resources parliament.scot/visitandlearn/12506.aspx bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39266333 independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-referendum-indyref-2-nicolasturgeon-vote-date-latest-a7654591.html