This House Would Clone Extinct Species

clone

The 23rd Ordinary Meeting of the Literary and Scientific Society took place on the 8th of May in the Senate Room.

Viorel Vlad, Owen Wright and Beth Malcolmson stood in proposition of cloning extinct species. Vlad stated that many aspects of biology being researched are linked and come together and we won’t know how much we can achieve until we do something. Owen continued by stating that by cloning extinct species we would rectify some of humanities mistakes. By increasing biodiversity we could be lead to medical cures. Malcolmson stated that the fact it is possible is reason enough to clone and that it is a process that will constantly improve. She said it was our responsibility to bring back species but that it should be a heavily regulated process.

Nic Brinza, Nick Millington and Derek Crosby spoke for opposition. Brinza admitted that in the past he got caught up in the awesome prospect of having pet dinosaur but that this just showed our susceptibility to only seeing the good but ignoring the dangers. Millington told the House that all cloning extinct species would do was to perfect the technique, but that our environment would gain nothing by bringing a species back. Crosby’s closing remarks focused on cloning angering God and that’s why he hit dinosaurs with a giant rock and some stuff about humans being a hardcore species covered in the hide of others.

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

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.