Positions

This position holds that hate speech is not a matter for the law at all. It argues the government should not dictate what people say, that banning hate speech is hypocritical and unworkable, and that—since it has always existed—different cultures handle it in their own ways.

Elections should take place on a single day, and wider use of early and postal votes introduces unnecessary and undesirable room for error in elections. Voting in person on election day leads to the most democratically legitimate outcome.

This position predicted Donald Trump would not concede the 2020 election but would ultimately be forced from office. Its argument noted that, after recounts confirmed Biden's win, prominent Republicans joined Democrats and world leaders in recognising the result, leaving Trump little choice.

This position examines Fidel Castro's role in the Cuban Revolution through the lens of public health. It argues that one of his signal achievements was building a successful free healthcare system, markedly improving the physical wellbeing of ordinary Cuban civilians.

In the US, healthcare is a business. And pharmaceuticals don't come cheap. Why would this change fundamentally simply because the virus extends beyond US borders?

This position holds Trump was not justified in trying to buy exclusive rights to a Covid-19 vaccine, because healthcare is a right. It argues that monopolising a life-saving vaccine would breach the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines a right to health and adequate living.

The healthcare administration and doctors are paid excessively high wages. For the simplest of procedures, a whole system of people is required. Many medical protocols and people have to be involved. Doctors have to increase their number of hours. All of this creates an avalanche of costs that ultimately results in skyrocketing healthcare costs.

This position holds that Asian communities should be helped during the coronavirus pandemic. It argues Asian-owned businesses were among the hardest hit by the demand slump, and that Asian people faced a sharp rise in racism and scapegoating.

This position holds that businesses should be a priority for help during the pandemic. It argues that helping businesses is ultimately a way of helping people — protecting the jobs, livelihoods and communities that depend on those businesses staying afloat.

This position holds that children should be helped during the coronavirus pandemic. It argues that with schools closed, children miss out on vital educational and social opportunities, and that many also depend on the school meals they can no longer reliably access.

This position holds that healthcare providers should be the priority for help during the pandemic. It argues that coronavirus is first and foremost a health crisis, so that strengthening the health workforce and the infrastructure they staff yields better outcomes for everyone.

The elderly population suffers from worse health outcomes if they contract COVID-19. As a result, they are taking fewer risks, isolating more, and need more support.

This position holds that the homeless should be a priority for help during the pandemic. It argues that they are uniquely vulnerable to Covid-19 — often carrying underlying health conditions, immuno-compromised, and with nowhere to isolate or shelter from the virus.

This position holds that the unemployed should be a priority for help during the pandemic. It argues that business closures have thrown many out of work and left them unsure where their next paycheck will come from — unable to support themselves or their families without assistance.

This position holds that you can help others during COVID-19 by supporting your local community. It suggests reaching out to those nearby in need—the elderly, key workers with children, and the vulnerable—with guidance tailored to the US, Canada, UK, and Australia.

This position holds that you should help your neighbours during the coronavirus pandemic. It argues charity starts at home—everyone knows someone nearby who needs support—so that if each person helped their own community and overlooked small local non-profits, nobody would be left without aid.

The English Reformation happened primarily because Henry VIII could not get a divorce. Prior to his fallout with the catholic church over his marriage, Henry was declared defender of the faith. His decision was not based on conscience but on pragmatism. Henry was autocratic by nature and did not want the pope to control him.

This position holds that pursuing herd immunity against coronavirus is a risky bet. It argues there are too many unknowns to trust such a policy — the virus could mutate, undermining acquired immunity — and that the strategy accepts that many people will die along the way.

This position holds that treating herd immunity as a chosen strategy is a misnomer, making the debate largely beside the point. It argues that without a vaccine, pursuing natural herd immunity is a reckless gamble — and that lockdowns are themselves just a slower route to the same end.

This position holds that herd immunity is the best defence against coronavirus. It argues that policy should aim at managing the virus's spread rather than vainly trying to contain it, pointing to the way population immunity has halted the spread of viruses in the past.

This position holds that herd immunity will not work against coronavirus. It argues the approach is dangerous and foolhardy—reaching it would require an impermissible death toll, the disease can be caught more than once, and reinfection may prove even worse the second time.

This position holds that heteronormativity harms everyone. It argues that treating heterosexuality as the default leaves people out of touch with their own desires, enforces rigid gender roles in relationships, and forces anyone not straight into the repeated burden of 'coming out'.

This position holds that heteronormativity is normal rather than harmful. Its argument is that surveys consistently find around nine in ten adults identify as heterosexual, and that social norms naturally form around such statistical regularities, making heterosexual assumptions an expected default.

This position traces the origins of '420' — slang for cannabis — to history. It weighs competing origin stories, from the debunked claim linking the number to Adolf Hitler's birthday to the widely accepted account that a group of 1970s California teenagers, the 'Waldos', coined it.

History isn't solely written by the winners. It is true that the history books in a winner's country will be written from the winner's point of view, but it is also true that history books in the loser's country will be written from the loser's point of view. Somewhere along the line, someone unbiased will come along and create an account of history based on fact-checking and reviewing both accounts. History can be written objectively, because writing history is collaborative and a collective of all the world's views, interpretations, and opinions.

History is indeed written by the winners, and it will always be told from the winners' point of view. If the losers had won, history would be told a different way. The winners will always glorify their own victory in one way or another, and will interpret the losers' loss differently than if it had happened the other way around. Different cultures will also interpret events in different ways. One might see a victory as divine intervention, while the other might see it as a demonstration of the power of the winner. History cannot be written objectively for these reasons and more.

This position holds that history is important. It argues that studying the past gives us a framework for shaping our lives, helps us understand both the present and ourselves, and that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.

This position holds that history is not important — even a waste of time to study. It argues that dwelling on the past distracts from the present and future, that school history is mere rote memorisation of dates and facts, and that it does little to prepare students for their careers.

This position holds that Hitler and his close henchmen bear responsibility for the Holocaust. It argues that the genocide was driven by Hitler together with the senior Nazi leadership who planned and ordered it, rather than by Hitler acting entirely alone or by the German people at large.

This position holds that Hitler was singlehandedly responsible for the Holocaust. It argues that, although antisemitism long predated him, the vision of mass extermination was his — that the Holocaust could not have unfolded without his will and his hold over a mesmerised state.

This position holds that HIV/AIDS is the worst pandemic in history. It argues that governments' refusal to acknowledge the crisis and act allowed infection rates to soar, and that homophobia helped perpetuate the disease, ultimately costing millions of lives.

This position holds that Holocaust comparisons are appropriate only under specific conditions. It argues they can be legitimate as part of a respectful, careful analysis that helps prevent recurrence — and that survivors and their descendants have licence to draw them as they see fit.