This House Would Raise Gender Neutral Children

The 14th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 13th of February in the Senate Room. It was co-hosted by QUB LGBT+

Ellen Murray and Fionn Rodgers took the proposition. Murray argued that gender is such a big part of our lives that separates us into boxes from the day we are born. These boxes can later affect what people do with their lives with society not accepting gender imbalances. If children were raised as gender neutral then they would learn to not discriminate between each other. Rodgers argued that it shouldn’t be up to the parent to force a preconceived idea of gender onto a vulnerable child that is open to learning whatever it is told. By raising children as gender neutral you’d be giving them the right to do what they want.

Charlie Barnes and Brendan Kelters opposed the motion. Barnes argued that it is the gender binary that is the problem and that gender is not, and should not, be a social construct. Instead of raising children as gender neutral he suggested we get parents to realise that there is a spectrum when it comes to gender. Kelters closed the debate. He suggested that gender neutrality is in itself a distinct gender and that the gender binary is rudimentary psychology that shouldn’t be something where you are classified as one or the other. By raising children as gender neutral, it could lead to confusion about how they interpret themselves.

The debate then went to the floor. Both sides summarised and the motion went to a vote. The motion was defeated.    

This House Supports Drone Warfare

 

drone

The 13th Ordinary meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 6th of
February in the Senate Room.

Alex Horkan and Ryan Jones supported the motion! Horkan argued that no weapon can be said to be used ethically but that war is inevitable so drone warfare must be considered. While warfare should be a last resort, drones allow better and more informed decisions when it comes about. Ryan Jones continued saying he hearts drones. There were some memorable quotes *cough* ‘whether your beliefs are communism, fascism or feminism’ *cough*.He said that like all advances in warfare, drones are necessary as it’s not about how many men you have in war but about how advanced your weapons are.

Henry Adams and James McAlister took the floor in opposition! Adams compared the cause and effect of the situation.  He argued that staying silent about the use of drones and having a lack of transparency would result in dangerous consequences due to an indifference to casualties. McAlister closed the debate. He told the House that it is just a way of allowing the government to make a kill list and carry out secret executions instead of giving trials and that it could escalate to a point where there is a disregard for human life.

We then went to the floor, a vote and the motion passed.

This House Would Ban Designer Babies

designer

The 6th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 7th of November in the Senate Room. We were joined by the University of Ulster for a war between universities!

Professor McClure ‘set the scene’ by explaining a bit about genetics. There was a little bit of UU hating.

Representing QUB on proposition were Patrick Mallon, Aisha Sobey, Nathan Cantley and James McAlister. Mallon urged the House to embrace natural differences as designer babies would doom our society. Sobey went on to explain that designer babies would only be an option for the rich, resulting in an elite ruling class. Nathan Cantley asked the House how far? He explained that since many genetic disorders are connected to the environment it would not be possible to fully get rid of genetic disorders. McAlister commented that these designer babies would either suffer from low self-esteem or would have a false sense of superiority, e.g. a generation of douchebags.

Representing University of Ulster on opposition were Greene, Catterson, Thomas and Smyth (first names have…disappeared, sorry!) Greene spoke of the advantages of legalising it for medical uses for carriers of a disease who may choose not to have children for fear of passing it on. Catterson talked of our right to freedom and that we could not force a decision on a parent. Thomas highlighted the need for genetic engineering for medical use as it would be a great tool to prevent future suffering. Smyth explained that genetic engineering could remove some of the strain on the NHS in the future and would also prevent pain and suffering.

We then got to hear from Professor McClure again who was really kind of mean to everyone, it was beautiful and sassy. The motion then went to a vote and passed 34 to 32.