Intelligence Squared

In light of America's involvement in controversial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the American government's use of torture and rendition, the panel question America's moral authority. Speaking for the motion are Professor John Gray, Matthew Parris and Will Self. Arguing against the motion are Simon Schama, Martin Amis and Howard Jacobson.

The panel debate whether the West is provoking a new Cold War with Russia. Arguing in favour of the motion are Alexey Pushkov, Anatole Kaletsky and Norman Stone. Alexey Pushkov begins by arguing that Russia has been extremely supportive of the US since 9/11, yet the Americans have not reciprocated. He suggests that by encouraging other members to join NATO, pulling out of the ABM treaty and interfering in Moldavian politics the West has shown itself to be the aggressors. Anatole Kaletsky argues Russia no longer believes it holds the moral high-ground, and it no longer wants to impose its values on the rest of the world. He believes that Russia’s issues are internal, and that its choice not to live by our political standards, whilst regrettable, is understandable, and should not be interpreted as a hostile act. Norman Stone argues that in the late eighties, at the height of its failure, the West had no plan for Russia. Now, however, Russia is succeeding again, yet it is no longer oppressing other people. Furthermore, he believes that the West is constantly provoking and criticising Russia. Arguing against the motion are Edward Lucas, Dr Lilia Shevtsova and Ronald D. Asmus. Edward Lucas begins by describing a ‘thought experiment’ using the Third Reich as a model, to demonstrate the relationship between modern Russia and her neighbours. He suggests that eastern Europeans are rightly worried about their futures considering Russia’s desire to dominate its empire and divide and disrupt the Atlantic alliance. Dr Lilia Shevtsova continues by suggesting that Russia wants the West to not meddle in their domestic affairs and endorse their regime, recognise their areas of influence and allow Russia to play according to its own rules. While recognising that both sides are responsible for a revival in Cold War attitudes, she suggests that Russians are not anti-Western – as demonstrated by the elite’s desire to ‘live in Kensington and send their children to Cambridge’. Finally, Ronald D Asmus argues that the motion is based on a historical fallacy. He believes that the United States has not broken any of their promises to Russia. Arguing from his own experience in the Clinton administration, he believes that the US wants to consolidate democracy in central Europe, reach out to Russia and try to ‘pull it West’. First Vote: 158 For, 359 Against, 236 Don't know Final Vote: 181 For, 528 Against, 43 Don't know The motion is defeated by 347 votes

Speakers for the motion are Lord Lamont, Neil O'Brien and Andrew Roberts Speakers against the motion are Vernon Bogdanor, Sir Stephen Wall and David Aaronovitch Chaired by Andrew Neil

Proponents of the motion argue that the risk of Iran obtaining, and possibly using, nuclear warheads, justifies pre-emptive strikes by the West; its detractors say that only diplomacy should be used in international disputes and that the risk of Iran having nuclear warheads is not sufficient to justify a preventative strike. Chaired by Richard Lindley. Arguing in favour of the motion are Emanuele Ottolenghi, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bruno Tertrais. Arguing against the motion are Professor Ali Ansari, Sir Richard Dalton and Simon Jenkins.

The panel present their views on the current situation in Iraq, and discuss which strategy, out of three motions proposed, the Allies should pursue in Iraq. The panel include William Shawcross, Lt. Peter Hegseth, Sir Christopher Meyer, Ali Allawi, Tony Benn and Rory Stewart.

Whilst some argue that Britain has no need for the American nuclear missle system Trident, others argue that the maintenance of a modern nuclear arsenal is the only prospective deterrent that Britain has to protect itself from future threats. Chaired by Jonathan Freedland. Arguing in favour of the motion are Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Angus Robertson MP and Dr Rebecca Johnson. Arguing against the motion are Sir Michael Quinlan, Oliver Kamm and Sir Malcom Rifkind MP.

The panel debate whether capitalism offers a viable solution for the challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and whether carbon trading can solve the climate change crisis without damaging economic growth. Arguing in favour of the motion are Tim Harford, John Redwood, and Eric Bettelheim. Arguing against the motion are Lord Lawson, Frances Cairncross, and David Rieff.

The panel examine the controversial topic of the perceived culture divide between the West and 'the rest', debating whether or not the West is justified in asserting the superiority of its own values. Proposing the motion are Ibn Warraq, David Aaronovitch, and Douglas Murray. Ibn Warraq proposes the motion by pointing out some of the bases of western civilisation - rational thinking, self-criticism, the search for truth, the ability to separate cultural and secular values and so on - and how these values have improved the societies that have imported them, such as in China and Japan. His main argument is that Western civilisation respects the rights of women, homosexuals and members of non-western religions, whereas other cultures, and particularly those influenced by Islam, do not. The Qur’an is not, he says, a document that promotes equality. David Aaronovitch argues that Western values may not always be applied very well by all Western societies, but that the conduct of, for example, the British and American governments in allowing imprisonment and torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, is not advocated by the majority of the population. Douglas Murray draws a distinction between asserting values peacefully, as in this debate and asserting them violently. He suggests that there are no Islamic governments that Westerners would choose to live under. The West endorses a dialogue, he argues, that is not reciprocated by the non-Western world - if we do not assert our Western values then there is no help for those people suffering civil and human rights abuses in other parts of the world. Opposing the motion are Charles Glass, Tariq Ramadan, and William Dalrymple. Charles Glass suggests that the West does not so much assert or export its values as 'shove them down people's throats' and that a culture which gave the world two world wars and colonial rule all over the world has no right to assert its superiority. Tariq Ramadan argues that the West asserts its own values because it is scared of losing its 'European' identity, and that, anyway, perceiving 'The West' and 'The Rest' as separate worlds is an historical and scientific mistake. He notes that Western values are often misused in the West, and points to the way immigrants are often treated badly even in Europe. William Dalrymple points out that the concept of 'Western' values is in some way flawed, as they are based on Judeo-Christian ideals, which are not Western at all. The first law codes, he notes, were laid down in Iraq, and the concept of reason originated with Arabic philosophers. The West also perpetrated such historical events as the Spanish Inquisition, and western ideals such as Marxism, Fascism, and Nazism, have caused millions of deaths. By asserting 'western' values, he argues, we are cherry-picking our favourite values and claiming them as our own. First Vote: 313 For, 221 Against, 207 Don’t Know Final Vote: 465 For, 264 Against, 18 Don’t Kno

This debate comprises a discussion of the history of Zimbabwe, focusing on how successive British governments have acted in relation to Zimbabwe and in what way future British policies can offer a solution to the current economic and political crisis. Chaired by Richard Linley. Arguing in favour of the motion are Peter Godwin, Tendai Biti MP and RW Johnson. Arguing against the motion are John Makumbe, Chenjerai Hove and David Coltart MP.

Is British popular culture really in such dire straits? Arguing in favour of the motion are Toby Young, David Elstein, and Tim Gardam. Arguing against the motion are Stephen Bayley, Lloyd Evans, and Howard Jacobson. For more details click here

The panel discuss the pros and cons of the prison system and examine the effectiveness and plausibility of alternatives. Speaking in favour of the motion are Dr Charles Murray, Theodore Dalrymple, and Dr David Green. Charles Murray begins by pointing out that, whilst prisons are not entirely effective as rehabilitation facilities, they do reduce crime rates. He points to the fact that England in the 1950s was one of the safest countries in the world, and that it is no coincidence that it also had one of the strictest legal systems in the world. He also notes that the people who choose to let prisoners go free (i.e. judges) are often not the people who have to live alongside them. Theodore Dalrymple points out some of the horrific crimes that reoffenders are capable of committing. He points out that it is often not the poor who suffer from criminals or reoffenders: "Failure to imprison is", he says, "a regressive tax imposed upon the poor by the wealthy". David Green highlights the ineffectiveness of community programmes, and suggests that the way to reduce reoffending rates in prisons is to keep prisoners inside for periods that are sufficient to effectively rehabilitate them, and to improve the quality of education and vocational training they receive. Arguing against the motion are Lords Woolf and Ramsbotham, and Juliet Lyon. Lord Woolf begins by disagreeing with Charles Murray's comments, stating that prison is not working because people do not feel safe. He points out that 67% of criminals reoffend within two years of being released. His suggestion, in light of the government’s dwindling resources for dealing with criminals, is to make our approach fit the resources, tackling the problem at source, and focussing attention on the worst offenders. Lord Ramsbotham suggests that we are imprisoning the wrong people. Too many prisoners, around 70%, have underlying psychological conditions that could be treated. Similarly, many people are imprisoned simply for breaching ASBO's. For these individuals, prison is not always the right answer, says Lord Ramsbotham. He goes on to argue for a system whereby prisoners are integrated more successfully into their local community, not imprisoned hundreds of miles from home. Juliet Lyon suggests that prison should only be used as a last resort. Instead she advocates better supervision by parents, treatment for drug addicts and alcoholics, and mental healthcare for those that need it. She also points out that aftercare can be effective: reoffending rates are much lower when individuals have a job, stable housing, and a good contact with their family and the community. First Vote: 170 For, 288 Against, 249 Don’t Know Final Vote: 351 For, 337 Against, 38 Don’t Kno

The panel discuss the pros and cons of religion, and pose the question: would the world be better off without it? Proposing the motion are Christopher Hitchens, Professor Richard Dawkins, and Anthony Grayling. Christopher Hitchens begins by making the case for religion being at the root of many conflicts that have shaped the 20th-21st century world, citing the current situations in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. Here, it has been intra-faith disputes that have caused or aggravated the conflicts and slowed political and social progress. Professor Richard Dawkins focuses his support for the motion on the blind faith that leads even intelligent people to deny key scientific principles, citing many American students' opposition to the theory of evolution as an example. Anthony Grayling illustrates how the Bible's view of what constitutes a good person is at odds with the modern Western view of what constitutes a good person, arguing that it is possible to appreciate the natural world and feel such emotions as empathy, sympathy, and love without holding religious views. Opposing the motion are Dr Nigel Spivey, Roger Scruton, and Rabbi Julia Neuberger. The case against the motion is mainly focussed on religion being a force for good in the world - a force that empowers people spiritually and seeks to provide answers to humankind's purpose and position on earth. Dr Nigel Spivey opens the opposition by offering an archaeological and anthropological perspective. Pointing to the "Creative Explosion" of 40,000 years ago, he suggests that religion is a concept that is part of the human nature, and that a world without religion would be one without such fruits of human creativity as Venice, the Taj Mahal and King’s College Chapel, Cambridge. Rabbi Julia Neuberger argues that whilst atheism preaches certainty and disrespect of other religions, religion preaches uncertainty and tolerance. She suggests that it is certainty and conviction – not religion – that produced the Crusades, fascism, and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism. Roger Scruton argues that rejecting religion on some of its irrational principles does not make sense, and that science is just as capable of producing disasters as religion is. Religion, he says, offers help to people who are affected by man-made or natural disasters, and provides "why" answers – the reason why things happen and what life is for –whilst science can only provides causal explanations. First Vote: 826 For, 681 Against, 364 Don’t Know Final Vote: 1205 For, 778 Against, 103 Don’t Kno

The Panel debate the motion that our misson in Afghanistan is destined to fail, and that NATO should withdraw. Chaired by Matthew Leeming. Arguing in favour of the motion are General Charles Vyvyan, Michael Griffin, and Clare Short. Arguing against the motion are Christina Lamb, Dr Whitney Azoy, and Lawrence Freedman.

The panel debate the motion: Too many people go to university. Chaired by Sir Clement Freud. Arguing for the motion are Claire Fox, Jenna Nicholas and Anatole Kaletsky. Claire Fox begins the defence by suggesting that the university education students are now given access to is a 'pale imitation' of what universities formerly offered. Going to university, she argues, is now treated as a means to end, a way of boosting a student's CV and employability. Jenna Nicholas argues that the government's numerical targets for graduates must not be allowed to get in the way of providing high quality education. She suggests that many university students would be better suited to vocational training, and that too many graduates are leaving university without the qualifications necessary to prosper in the workplace, or even to find employment. Anatole Kaletsky declares from the outset that he differs in opinion from that of his colleagues. He does believe in 'prizes for everyone' and does indeed have a rose-tinted view of university. However, taken from an economic perspective, the exponential growth in numbers of people attending university must surely have negative impacts. Arguing against the motion are Baroness Onara O'Neill, Ceci Mourkogiannis and Mary Ann Sieghart. Onara O'Neill argues that the role of the university has changed over the last fifty years. They are now valuable institutions for poviding students with the correct skills to improve their chances of attaining a job. Even if students do not leave university more qualified, they will at least be more educated. Ceci Mourkogiannis argues that, far from denying people the chance of attending university, we should be allowing more people to attend. University offers individuals a chance to improve themselves, and, by improving individuals' knowledge and employability, provides a valuable service for the economy and scoiety in general. Mary Ann Sieghart compares the UK to other leading global powers, noting that the three most economically prosperous countries of the last decade have a highly educated workforce. She states that we are increasing participation only half as fast as our competitors. First Vote: 458 For, 144 Against, 120 Don't Know Final Vote: 453 For, 280 Against, 3 Don't Know The motion is passed by 173 votes.

The panel discuss the wisdom of the West’s continued donation of aid to developing nations. Arguing in favour of the proposal are Aidan Hartley, Frederik Erixon, and David Rieff. Arguing against the proposal are Ian Goldin, Marucs Manuel, and Rory Stewart OBE