debate – Page 7 – The Literific

This House Would Prepare for the Apocalypse

Posted on 22/05/201422/05/2014 by The Literific in Uncategorized

The 5th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 31st of October in the Senate Room. It was Halloween night, everyone was dressed up in…weird costumes. A banana, Thatcher, Freddie Mercury’s nipples…

Ms Christine Fleming, Tara Pouryahya and Matthew Allen were up for proposition! Ms Fleming urged the House that if you don’t prepare you deserve to die horribly in the apocalypse. We are apparently skipping second prop. and finally we think Mr Allen looked at the motion from a religious and anthropological view, and also from the view of wanting the apocalypse to happen. There were a lot of big words and quotes.

Mr Fionn Rodgers, Mr Harry Adair and Mr Nick Millington wet for opposition. Rodgers said that there was no point preparing for the apocalypse because if it is going to happen then we’re all going to die. Cheery. Mr Adair believed in giving rights to zombies and not discriminating against them. Mr Nick Millington basically said that either it would be so bad that we’d have no chance of survival or someone would save us so not to worry. Yeah… no worries.

The debate then went to the floor

The House then went to a vote to shouts of ‘shameresign’ and ‘show us the nibbles’.
The motion was defeated.

This House Doesn’t Mind Being Watched

Posted on 22/05/2014 by The Literific in Uncategorized

The 4^th Ordinary Meeting of the 165^th session of the Literific took place on the 24^th of October in the Senate Room.

The motion was This House Doesn’t Mind Being Watched.

Ms Evie Netto and Mr Ryan Jones sided with the proposition. Ms Netto argued that safety is a human right that should be taken just as seriously as freedom. She told the House that government surveillance has saved lives and that CCTV is nothing to fear. Mr Jones rationalised that so much of what we do is already in the public domain and that we should take the extra step to allowing government surveillance for our own safety.

Mr George Martin and Mr Henry Adams took to the floor in opposition. Mr Martin explained that he no longer trusts the government and that hem having all our information leaves us in a position to be dominated. He stated if we passed the motion there would be no way to take back our privacy. Mr Henry Adams closed the debate for the opposition. He countered that we shouldn’t be okay with surveillance just because it’s legal as there are many bad laws. He explained that the fact surveillance can be misused and abused is enough reason to not allow it.

Questions were waved and the motion went to a vote.
The motion was defeated.

This House Would Ban All Forms of Animal Testing

Posted on 22/05/201422/05/2014 by The Literific in Uncategorized

The 3^rd Ordinary Meeting of the 165^th Session of the Literific took place on the 17^th of October in the Senate Room. It was in conjunction with IDEA.

A vote was taken before the debate: there were 2 abstentions, 8 people for and 34 against.

Mr James McAlister, Mr Jonathan Irwin and My Joshua Wilburn came forward in proposition. Both McAlister and Wilburn explained that equality shouldn’t be reserved for humans. They questioned why it is acceptable to test on animals that are equally aware, intelligent and can feel pain. Wilburn compared animals to orphaned newborns and asked whether we should raid orphanages. Mr Irwin explained that we should be protecting animals, he told the House that the majority of animal testing doesn’t lead to medical advances and that testing is cruel.

Mr Robert Bentall, Mr Brendan Kelters and Mr Nick Millington spoke for the opposition. Robert claimed testing on animals is a necessity and that the animals involved are not in pain. He valued human life more than animal life. Mr Kelters questioned the logic of the proposition. He supported the banning of animal testing for frivolous things but that ethically it is needed for medical research. Mr Nick Millington closed the debate with admitting that animal testing is not the best model but that there is currently no alternative as science has not yet advanced enough.

Another vote was taken, there were 3 abstentions, 8 ayes and the motion was defeated with 36 nayes and it was off to the bar!
The motion failed.