SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Should education be made completely free at all levels?

Proposition (For Free Education)

1.​ Ensures equal access to education for all, regardless of financial background.
2.​ Reduces student loan debt, allowing graduates to start their careers without financial
burdens.
3.​ Increases the number of educated individuals, boosting national productivity.
4.​ Helps bridge the socio-economic gap by giving everyone equal learning opportunities.
5.​ Encourages lifelong learning and career development.
6.​ Governments can benefit from a more skilled and knowledgeable workforce.
7.​ Higher education leads to lower crime rates and a healthier society.
8.​ Many developed nations (e.g., Germany, Norway) have successfully implemented free
education.

Opposition (Against Free Education)

1.​ Funding free education would require higher taxes, burdening taxpayers.
2.​ Could lead to overcrowding in universities, reducing education quality.
3.​ May reduce the perceived value of education if students don’t have to invest financially.
4.​ Private institutions might suffer from a decline in enrollment.
5.​ Could result in government mismanagement of education funds.
6.​ No financial accountability may lead to a lack of motivation among students.
7.​ Could shift the burden from students to the government, which might cut other essential
services.
8.​ Quality of free education may not match that of paid institutions.

2. Should standardized testing be the primary method of assessing student

ability?

Proposition (For Standardized Testing)

1.​ Provides an objective and measurable way to assess students.

2.​ Allows for nationwide and international comparisons of student performance.
3.​ Helps identify areas where students and schools need improvement.
 4.​ Encourages accountability for teachers and institutions.
5.​ Ensures consistency in evaluation across different schools and regions.
6.​ Can highlight gaps in the education system that need policy intervention.
7.​ Prepares students for real-world scenarios where standardized tests (SAT, GMAT) are
necessary.
8.​ Reduces subjectivity in grading, ensuring fairness.

Opposition (Against Standardized Testing)

1.​ Encourages rote memorization rather than critical thinking.

2.​ Does not account for different learning styles and talents.
3.​ Puts unnecessary stress on students, leading to mental health issues.
4.​ Can lead to teaching to the test rather than holistic education.
5.​ Standardized tests often favor students from privileged backgrounds.
6.​ Creative and vocational skills cannot be measured through standardized exams.
7.​ Can be culturally biased, disadvantaging minority groups.
8.​ Encourages cheating and unethical academic practices.

3. Should vocational training be prioritized over traditional academic

education?

Proposition (For Vocational Training Focus)

1.​ Provides students with practical job-ready skills.

2.​ Reduces unemployment by aligning education with job market demands.
3.​ Encourages entrepreneurship and self-employment.
4.​ Requires less time and cost compared to traditional academic education.
5.​ Countries with strong vocational systems (e.g., Germany) have lower unemployment
rates.
6.​ Not everyone needs a university degree to be successful.
7.​ Helps industries struggling with skill shortages.
8.​ Creates a balance between white-collar and blue-collar jobs.

Opposition (Against Prioritizing Vocational Training)

1.​ Limits career flexibility, making it difficult to switch industries.

2.​ Vocational jobs may pay less compared to careers requiring a degree.
3.​ Academic education promotes research and innovation, which vocational training lacks.
4.​ May reinforce class divisions by pushing certain groups into trades instead of
academics.
5.​ Traditional degrees provide broad knowledge that is valuable in many fields.
6.​ Many high-paying jobs still require a university education.
7.​ The future job market is shifting towards knowledge-based industries.
 8.​ Automation and AI may replace many vocational jobs in the future.

4. Should AI be integrated into the classroom as a primary teaching tool?

Proposition (For AI in Education)

1.​ Personalized learning through AI adapts to students' strengths and weaknesses.

2.​ Reduces teacher workload, allowing them to focus on individual students.
3.​ Can provide instant feedback and track progress efficiently.
4.​ AI tutors are available 24/7, unlike human teachers.
5.​ Helps students in remote areas access quality education.
6.​ Improves engagement through interactive learning experiences.
7.​ Can analyze vast amounts of data to improve teaching methods.
8.​ Reduces administrative tasks, allowing teachers to focus on teaching.

Opposition (Against AI in Education)

1.​ Reduces human interaction, which is crucial for social development.

2.​ AI cannot replace the emotional support provided by human teachers.
3.​ Over-reliance on technology may weaken students’ problem-solving skills.
4.​ Could widen the digital divide between wealthy and underprivileged students.
5.​ AI-based education may lack creativity and adaptability.
6.​ Raises concerns about student data privacy and security.
7.​ Technology failures could disrupt learning processes.
8.​ Teachers play a mentorship role that AI cannot fulfill.

5. Should students be allowed to design their own curriculum?

Proposition (For Student-Designed Curriculum)

1.​ Encourages creativity and independence in learning.

2.​ Allows students to focus on subjects they are passionate about.
3.​ Increases engagement and motivation.
4.​ Prepares students for real-world decision-making.
5.​ Can be tailored to different career goals and personal interests.
6.​ Eliminates unnecessary subjects that may not be relevant to a student’s future.
7.​ Encourages self-discipline and responsibility.
8.​ Gives students a sense of control over their education.

Opposition (Against Student-Designed Curriculum)

1.​ Students may lack the maturity to choose the right subjects.
 2.​ Essential subjects like math and language could be neglected.
3.​ Could lead to knowledge gaps in critical areas.
4.​ Hard to standardize education if students have different curricula.
5.​ Might reduce college and employer confidence in student qualifications.
6.​ Could create logistical challenges for schools in structuring classes.
7.​ Teachers may struggle to provide personalized guidance for every student.
8.​ Learning broad subjects provides well-rounded development.

6. Should private schools be banned to ensure equal education for all?

Proposition (For Banning Private Schools)

1.​ Ensures equal access to quality education regardless of wealth.

2.​ Reduces social inequality by preventing segregation of the rich and poor.
3.​ Forces governments to improve public schools instead of relying on private alternatives.
4.​ Ensures that all students receive the same standard of education.
5.​ Prevents the commercialization of education, which prioritizes profit over learning.
6.​ Encourages diversity and inclusivity in classrooms.
7.​ Redirects resources from private to public schools, improving overall quality.
8.​ Countries like Finland, which prioritize public education, have high education success
rates.

Opposition (Against Banning Private Schools)

1.​ Limits parental freedom to choose the best education for their children.
2.​ Private schools encourage competition, which improves overall education standards.
3.​ Reduces diversity in education styles, making learning less flexible.
4.​ Public schools may struggle to accommodate all students effectively.
5.​ Private schools offer specialized programs that public schools often lack.
6.​ Eliminating private schools does not guarantee public schools will improve.
7.​ High demand for public schools could lead to overcrowding.
8.​ Wealthier families might move abroad for better education options.

7. Should homework be abolished in schools?

Proposition (For Abolishing Homework)

1.​ Reduces student stress and mental health issues.

2.​ Encourages students to develop interests outside of academics.
3.​ Helps maintain a healthy school-life balance.
4.​ Studies show excessive homework does not significantly improve learning outcomes.
 5.​ Encourages more interactive and practical learning within school hours.
6.​ Reduces academic pressure on parents who have to assist with homework.
7.​ Prevents wealthier students from gaining an unfair advantage through private tutors.
8.​ Countries like Finland, with minimal homework, rank highly in education.

Opposition (Against Abolishing Homework)

1.​ Reinforces learning and retention of new concepts.

2.​ Teaches students responsibility and time management.
3.​ Prepares students for the workload of higher education.
4.​ Allows teachers to assess student understanding outside of class.
5.​ Helps parents stay involved in their child’s education.
6.​ Provides additional practice, which is necessary for subjects like math and science.
7.​ Reducing homework could lead to students wasting time on unproductive activities.
8.​ Homework prepares students for real-world responsibilities and self-discipline.

8. Should sex education be mandatory in all schools?

Proposition (For Mandatory Sex Education)

1.​ Provides accurate and reliable information about sexual health.

2.​ Reduces teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
3.​ Helps students make informed decisions about relationships.
4.​ Encourages respect and consent in relationships.
5.​ Reduces misinformation spread through social media and peers.
6.​ Helps LGBTQ+ students understand their identities in a safe space.
7.​ Prepares students for adulthood and responsible sexual behavior.
8.​ Studies show that countries with strong sex education programs have lower teen
pregnancy rates.

Opposition (Against Mandatory Sex Education)

1.​ Parents should have control over what their children learn about sex.
2.​ May expose children to topics they are not ready for.
3.​ Could contradict cultural and religious beliefs.
4.​ Some students may find the topic uncomfortable or distressing.
5.​ Focus should be on academic subjects rather than personal matters.
6.​ The internet provides sufficient information on sexual health.
7.​ Poorly designed programs could send the wrong message.
8.​ Encourages sexual activity rather than preventing it.
9. Should schools implement a later start time to improve student
performance?

Proposition (For a Later School Start Time)

1.​ Improves student sleep quality and overall health.

2.​ Enhances concentration and academic performance.
3.​ Reduces morning stress and rush for students and parents.
4.​ Lowers rates of absenteeism and tardiness.
5.​ Studies show that teenagers have different sleep cycles and need more rest.
6.​ Decreases reliance on caffeine and unhealthy energy boosters.
7.​ Reduces accident rates among teenage drivers in the morning.
8.​ Schools in the U.S. that implemented later start times saw improved grades and
behavior.

Opposition (Against a Later School Start Time)

1.​ Disrupts parents’ work schedules.

2.​ Shortens after-school activities and extracurriculars.
3.​ Can interfere with students who have part-time jobs.
4.​ Transportation schedules would need adjustments, increasing costs.
5.​ Could lead to students staying up later, negating the benefits.
6.​ Standardized testing and college exams are scheduled in the morning.
7.​ Most workplaces and businesses operate on an early schedule.
8.​ School day extensions could affect family time in the evening.

10. Should coding be a mandatory subject in schools?

Proposition (For Mandatory Coding in Schools)

1.​ Prepares students for the digital job market.

2.​ Enhances problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
3.​ Provides a valuable career skill, even for non-technical jobs.
4.​ Encourages innovation and technological advancement.
5.​ Helps students understand how technology works in their daily lives.
6.​ Coding jobs are in high demand, making it a useful skill.
7.​ Countries that prioritize STEM education see higher economic growth.
8.​ Encourages creativity through game design and app development.

Opposition (Against Mandatory Coding in Schools)

1.​ Not all students are interested in or suited for coding.

2.​ Takes away time from other important subjects like arts and humanities.
 3.​ Technology evolves quickly, making current coding skills outdated in the future.
4.​ Could increase screen time, leading to health concerns.
5.​ Basic computer literacy is enough for most non-technical careers.
6.​ Not all schools have the resources or trained teachers for coding education.
7.​ Focus should be on traditional math and science instead of coding.
8.​ Other life skills, such as financial literacy, may be more useful than coding.

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

1. Should governments make renewable energy mandatory for all
industries?

Proposition (For Mandatory Renewable Energy Use)

1.​ Reduces greenhouse gas emissions and fights climate change.

2.​ Ensures long-term sustainability of energy sources.
3.​ Encourages innovation in clean energy technologies.
4.​ Lowers reliance on imported fossil fuels, increasing energy independence.
5.​ Creates new jobs in the renewable energy sector.
6.​ Reduces health problems related to air pollution.
7.​ Renewable energy costs are decreasing, making it an economically viable option.
8.​ Many countries have successfully transitioned to mandatory renewable policies.

Opposition (Against Mandatory Renewable Energy Use)

1.​ Transition costs are high, which could burden businesses.

2.​ Some industries (e.g., heavy manufacturing) struggle to operate on renewables alone.
3.​ Renewable energy sources like solar and wind are intermittent and unreliable.
4.​ May lead to energy shortages if the infrastructure is not ready.
5.​ Fossil fuel-dependent regions would suffer economic collapse.
6.​ Requires significant investment in energy storage solutions.
7.​ Developing countries may not have the resources to comply.
8.​ Market-driven approaches may be more effective than government mandates.

2. Should nuclear power be expanded as a clean energy source?

Proposition (For Expanding Nuclear Power)

1.​ Produces zero carbon emissions, making it environmentally friendly.

2.​ Provides a reliable and consistent energy supply, unlike solar and wind.
 3.​ Nuclear energy is more efficient than most renewables.
4.​ Can help countries achieve energy independence.
5.​ Modern reactors are safer and have lower risks of meltdowns.
6.​ Reduces the need for fossil fuel consumption.
7.​ Advances in nuclear waste management are making disposal safer.
8.​ Several countries (e.g., France) successfully rely on nuclear energy.

Opposition (Against Expanding Nuclear Power)

1.​ Risk of catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

2.​ High costs of building and maintaining nuclear plants.
3.​ Produces radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for thousands of years.
4.​ Can be used for nuclear weapons proliferation.
5.​ Public fear and opposition make it politically challenging.
6.​ Takes too long to build compared to renewables like solar and wind.
7.​ Potential terrorist targets, increasing security risks.
8.​ Safer alternatives like hydro, wind, and solar are becoming more viable.

3. Should fossil fuel subsidies be completely eliminated?

Proposition (For Eliminating Fossil Fuel Subsidies)

1.​ Encourages transition to clean energy.

2.​ Reduces government spending and reallocates funds to renewable projects.
3.​ Fossil fuels contribute heavily to climate change.
4.​ Reduces unfair market advantage for polluting industries.
5.​ Makes renewable energy more competitive in the market.
6.​ Prevents environmental damage caused by oil spills and mining.
7.​ Improves public health by reducing air pollution.
8.​ Countries like Sweden have successfully phased out fossil fuel subsidies.

Opposition (Against Eliminating Fossil Fuel Subsidies)

1.​ Could cause a rise in energy prices, affecting low-income households.

2.​ Industries reliant on fossil fuels may face economic collapse.
3.​ Could lead to job losses in the fossil fuel sector.
4.​ Developing nations may struggle to transition quickly.
5.​ Renewable energy is not yet ready to fully replace fossil fuels.
6.​ Could lead to energy shortages, especially in colder climates.
7.​ Phasing out subsidies should be gradual rather than immediate.
8.​ Fossil fuel industries contribute significantly to government revenues.
4. Should countries be penalized for failing to meet clean energy targets?

Proposition (For Penalizing Countries That Fail Clean Energy Targets)

1.​ Holds governments accountable for climate commitments.

2.​ Encourages faster transition to renewables.
3.​ Prevents countries from delaying action on climate change.
4.​ Creates a level playing field in global climate policies.
5.​ Can generate funds for clean energy research through penalties.
6.​ Protects vulnerable nations from the consequences of climate inaction.
7.​ Sets a strong precedent for future environmental policies.
8.​ The Paris Agreement already pushes for similar accountability.

Opposition (Against Penalizing Countries That Fail Clean Energy Targets)

1.​ Developing nations may lack the resources to meet targets.

2.​ Penalizing could discourage international cooperation.
3.​ Some energy infrastructures take longer to transition.
4.​ Economic conditions may prevent countries from meeting goals.
5.​ Countries with higher emissions should bear greater responsibility.
6.​ Fines or penalties might not necessarily lead to cleaner energy.
7.​ Cooperation and incentives work better than punishment.
8.​ Some energy challenges are beyond a country’s control (e.g., natural disasters).

5. Should large-scale hydropower projects be restricted due to

environmental concerns?

Proposition (For Restricting Large Hydropower Projects)

1.​ Disrupts ecosystems and harms aquatic life.

2.​ Displaces communities living near dam sites.
3.​ Large reservoirs contribute to methane emissions.
4.​ Risk of dam failures can lead to disasters.
5.​ Can lead to conflicts over water resources between regions/countries.
6.​ Small-scale hydropower is a better alternative.
7.​ Other renewables like wind and solar have fewer environmental impacts.
8.​ Many rivers are already over-dammed, reducing their natural flow.

Opposition (Against Restricting Large Hydropower Projects)

1.​ Provides a stable and renewable energy source.

2.​ Unlike wind and solar, it can produce power 24/7.
3.​ Supports water management and irrigation.
 4.​ Helps prevent floods by controlling river flow.
5.​ Hydropower plants have long lifespans and low operating costs.
6.​ Can boost economic development in rural areas.
7.​ Some environmental impacts can be mitigated through better planning.
8.​ Countries like Norway use hydropower successfully with minimal impact.

6. Should electric vehicles (EVs) be made mandatory by 2040?

Proposition (For Making EVs Mandatory)

1.​ Reduces carbon emissions and air pollution.

2.​ Lowers dependence on fossil fuels.
3.​ EV technology is advancing, making them more affordable.
4.​ Long-term savings on fuel and maintenance costs.
5.​ Encourages infrastructure development (e.g., charging stations).
6.​ Many countries have already announced EV targets.
7.​ Improves public health by reducing pollution-related diseases.
8.​ Automakers are shifting towards EVs, making it feasible.

Opposition (Against Making EVs Mandatory)

1.​ EVs still rely on electricity, which may come from fossil fuels.
2.​ High upfront costs make them unaffordable for many people.
3.​ Battery production has environmental concerns.
4.​ Charging infrastructure is still insufficient in many places.
5.​ Some regions lack stable electricity for EV adoption.
6.​ Enforcing a mandate could be economically disruptive.
7.​ Hybrid and alternative fuel options may be better.
8.​ Consumers should have the freedom to choose their vehicles.

7-10 (Other Topics Covered Briefly)

7.​ Should energy-rich countries be responsible for supporting energy-poor nations?

8.​ Should urban centers be required to run entirely on renewable energy?
9.​ Should governments ban new oil and gas drilling projects?
10.​Should developing countries receive financial aid for clean energy projects?
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
1. Should the four-day workweek be adopted worldwide?

Proposition (For a Four-Day Workweek)

1.​ Improves employee work-life balance and mental health.

2.​ Increases productivity by reducing burnout and fatigue.
3.​ Reduces carbon emissions due to fewer commuting days.
4.​ Encourages businesses to optimize workflow efficiency.
5.​ Enhances employee satisfaction and retention rates.
6.​ Countries like Iceland and Japan have seen success with shorter workweeks.
7.​ Provides more time for family, hobbies, and skill development.
8.​ Helps reduce unemployment by distributing work hours.
9.​ Supports gender equality by allowing better household management.
10.​Advances technology adoption to maintain efficiency.

Opposition (Against a Four-Day Workweek)

1.​ Could reduce total output, especially in high-demand industries.

2.​ Might increase work intensity, causing more stress during fewer workdays.
3.​ Not all jobs (e.g., healthcare, public services) can function on a four-day schedule.
4.​ Could negatively impact customer service and availability.
5.​ Might lead to salary cuts if fewer hours are worked.
6.​ Small businesses may struggle to adapt due to limited resources.
7.​ Employees might need to work longer hours on working days.
8.​ Global competitiveness might decline if other nations don’t adopt the same policy.
9.​ Transition costs for restructuring businesses could be high.
10.​Economic sectors dependent on hourly wages could see income losses.

2. Should unpaid internships be banned?

Proposition (For Banning Unpaid Internships)

1.​ Exploits young workers without proper compensation.

2.​ Limits opportunities for lower-income students who can’t afford unpaid work.
3.​ Reduces motivation and engagement due to lack of financial incentive.
4.​ Companies use unpaid interns to replace full-time employees, hurting job
markets.
5.​ Creates a wealth gap where only privileged individuals can gain experience.
6.​ Legal ambiguity allows companies to abuse unpaid internship programs.
7.​ Devalues labor and discourages fair wages.
8.​ Paying interns leads to better work quality and professional development.
 9.​ Countries like Germany and France have strong regulations against unpaid
internships.
10.​Encourages businesses to offer structured, meaningful learning experiences.

Opposition (Against Banning Unpaid Internships)

1.​ Gives students valuable work experience, even if unpaid.

2.​ Some industries (e.g., journalism, NGOs) rely on unpaid interns to function.
3.​ Helps students build resumes and networks.
4.​ Banning unpaid internships could reduce internship availability.
5.​ Some students prefer unpaid internships in prestigious companies over paid ones
in less-known firms.
6.​ Certain fields (e.g., research, arts) don’t generate enough revenue to pay interns.
7.​ Provides an opportunity for career exploration without commitment.
8.​ Many unpaid internships lead to paid job offers.
9.​ Companies might replace internships with volunteer positions, avoiding legal
issues.
10.​Instead of banning, regulations should focus on ensuring fair learning
opportunities.

3. Should governments enforce a universal basic income (UBI)?

Proposition (For Universal Basic Income)

1.​ Provides financial security and reduces poverty.

2.​ Helps workers transition during job losses or automation.
3.​ Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation by reducing financial risk.
4.​ Simplifies welfare systems by consolidating various assistance programs.
5.​ Reduces income inequality and boosts economic mobility.
6.​ Improves mental health by reducing financial stress.
7.​ Stimulates economic growth through increased consumer spending.
8.​ Encourages individuals to pursue education and upskilling.
9.​ Has shown positive results in pilot programs in Finland and Canada.
10.​Ensures dignity and freedom by reducing dependency on unstable jobs.

Opposition (Against Universal Basic Income)

1.​ Could disincentivize work, leading to labor shortages.

2.​ High cost may make it unsustainable for governments.
3.​ Might require higher taxes, impacting businesses and workers.
4.​ Could lead to inflation, reducing the value of money.
5.​ Some individuals may misuse UBI on non-essential items.
6.​ Would be difficult to determine a fair and sufficient amount.
 7.​ Might reduce incentives for companies to offer fair wages.
8.​ Money could be better spent on targeted welfare programs.
9.​ Implementation challenges in ensuring fair distribution.
10.​Could lead to social resentment if certain groups receive more than others.

4. Should gig workers (Uber drivers, freelancers) receive employee

benefits?

Proposition (For Providing Employee Benefits to Gig Workers)

1.​ Protects workers from exploitation and unfair labor practices.

2.​ Ensures access to healthcare, paid leave, and retirement plans.
3.​ Provides income stability, reducing financial insecurity.
4.​ Gig workers contribute significantly to the economy and should be protected.
5.​ Encourages long-term career sustainability in gig work.
6.​ Increases worker rights and bargaining power.
7.​ Reduces worker dependence on multiple jobs to survive.
8.​ Helps prevent unfair contract terminations.
9.​ Similar models exist in European countries with positive effects.
10.​Raises overall labor standards in the economy.

Opposition (Against Providing Employee Benefits to Gig Workers)

1.​ Gig work is meant to be flexible, and benefits could make it rigid.
2.​ Employers might cut gig jobs instead of providing benefits.
3.​ Higher costs for companies could lead to price hikes for consumers.
4.​ Could discourage entrepreneurship and independent freelancing.
5.​ Gig workers voluntarily choose non-traditional employment.
6.​ Some gig workers prefer higher pay over traditional benefits.
7.​ Would require complex legal reforms to redefine employment.
8.​ Might force companies to limit work hours to avoid benefit requirements.
9.​ Could reduce innovation in the gig economy.
10.​Rather than forcing benefits, a middle-ground policy could be more effective.

5. Should child labor be completely banned, even in developing countries?

Proposition (For Completely Banning Child Labor)

1.​ Protects children from exploitation and abuse.

2.​ Ensures children focus on education rather than work.
3.​ Reduces health risks associated with hazardous labor conditions.
 4.​ Helps break cycles of poverty by prioritizing education.
5.​ International conventions emphasize child rights and welfare.
6.​ Strengthens a country’s reputation and economic relations.
7.​ Increases skilled labor in the long term, improving national productivity.
8.​ Prevents psychological trauma and developmental issues.
9.​ Ethical companies and consumers demand child-labor-free products.
10.​Encourages investment in social programs to support vulnerable families.

Opposition (Against Completely Banning Child Labor)

1.​ In extreme poverty, families rely on children’s income to survive.

2.​ Not all child labor is harmful (e.g., family-run businesses, apprenticeships).
3.​ Banning child labor could push children into more dangerous illegal work.
4.​ Economic hardship may increase child trafficking and exploitation.
5.​ Governments may struggle to enforce the ban effectively.
6.​ Some industries (e.g., agriculture) rely on family labor.
7.​ Bans should be gradual and paired with strong education policies.
8.​ Some cultures have traditions of children working alongside parents.
9.​ Formal employment laws might not reach informal or rural economies.
10.​Instead of banning, focus should be on regulating and improving conditions.

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

1. Should governments invest more in space exploration?

Proposition (For Increased Space Exploration Investment)

1.​ Advances scientific knowledge and technological innovation.

2.​ Helps address global challenges (e.g., climate monitoring, asteroid defense).
3.​ Encourages international collaboration and diplomacy.
4.​ Creates new industries and job opportunities.
5.​ Drives STEM education and inspiration for future generations.
6.​ Supports economic growth through commercial space ventures.
7.​ Potential for space-based resources (e.g., asteroid mining).
8.​ Enables human expansion beyond Earth, ensuring species survival.
9.​ Spin-off technologies benefit other industries (e.g., medical, transportation).
10.​Many countries have successfully developed space programs, proving its value.
Opposition (Against Increased Space Exploration Investment)

1.​ Diverts funding from urgent Earth-based issues (e.g., poverty, healthcare).
2.​ High costs with uncertain return on investment.
3.​ Space debris and environmental risks from failed missions.
4.​ Risk of weaponizing space and military conflicts.
5.​ Ethical concerns about exploiting extraterrestrial resources.
6.​ Private companies (e.g., SpaceX, Blue Origin) should take the lead, not governments.
7.​ Technical failures and human safety risks.
8.​ Space exploration benefits only a few advanced nations.
9.​ Climate change should be the priority instead of space expansion.
10.​There are unresolved legal issues regarding space resource ownership.

2. Should governments impose stricter regulations on artificial intelligence

(AI)?

Proposition (For Stricter AI Regulations)

1.​ Prevents AI bias and discrimination.

2.​ Ensures ethical development and accountability.
3.​ Protects jobs from mass automation.
4.​ Prevents AI from being used for malicious purposes (e.g., deepfakes, cybercrime).
5.​ Increases transparency in AI decision-making.
6.​ Protects privacy and prevents mass surveillance.
7.​ Ensures AI development aligns with human rights.
8.​ Regulates AI in military applications to avoid autonomous weaponry risks.
9.​ Encourages fair competition among businesses.
10.​Reduces risks of AI replacing human decision-making in critical areas.

Opposition (Against Stricter AI Regulations)

1.​ Could slow innovation and technological progress.

2.​ Overregulation might harm small businesses and startups.
3.​ AI is crucial for efficiency and economic growth.
4.​ Regulation could give an advantage to less-regulated countries (e.g., China).
5.​ AI bias issues can be addressed through better training data.
6.​ Too many restrictions might hinder AI’s potential benefits in medicine and science.
7.​ AI regulations might be outdated quickly due to rapid advancements.
8.​ Government interference could increase bureaucracy and inefficiency.
9.​ Market forces and ethical AI development by companies should guide progress.
10.​AI development is inevitable, and regulations might not be enforceable globally.
3. Should developing countries focus on industrialization over
environmental protection?

Proposition (For Prioritizing Industrialization Over Environment)

1.​ Industrialization drives economic growth and poverty reduction.

2.​ Creates jobs and improves livelihoods.
3.​ Increases self-sufficiency and reduces reliance on imports.
4.​ Environmental concerns can be addressed later with better technology.
5.​ Many developed nations industrialized first and focused on the environment later.
6.​ Attracts foreign investment and enhances global competitiveness.
7.​ Encourages infrastructure development (e.g., roads, factories).
8.​ Generates revenue for governments to fund social programs.
9.​ Industrialization leads to innovation and technological advancements.
10.​Developing countries have a right to economic progress like developed nations.

Opposition (Against Prioritizing Industrialization Over Environment)

1.​ Leads to deforestation, pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

2.​ Climate change disproportionately affects developing countries.
3.​ Short-term economic gains may result in long-term environmental destruction.
4.​ Industrial waste and emissions harm public health.
5.​ Sustainable industries (e.g., green energy) can provide economic benefits without
harming the environment.
6.​ Countries that ignore environmental concerns face international trade sanctions.
7.​ Natural disasters worsened by climate change (e.g., floods, droughts) can erase
industrial gains.
8.​ Sustainable development is possible with eco-friendly industries.
9.​ Public demand for environmental responsibility is growing.
10.​Industrialization without environmental policies can lead to future costly clean-up efforts.

4. Should governments subsidize electric vehicle (EV) production?

Proposition (For Subsidizing EV Production)

1.​ Reduces carbon emissions and air pollution.

2.​ Encourages a transition away from fossil fuels.
3.​ Lowers costs for consumers, increasing EV adoption.
4.​ Creates jobs in the clean energy sector.
5.​ Encourages competition and innovation in the automotive industry.
6.​ Helps meet climate goals and international agreements.
7.​ Reduces dependence on oil imports, improving energy security.
8.​ Advances battery technology for broader applications.
 9.​ Improves public health by reducing respiratory diseases from pollution.
10.​Countries that invest early will gain a competitive advantage in the global EV market.

Opposition (Against Subsidizing EV Production)

1.​ EV subsidies are costly and burden taxpayers.

2.​ Electricity for EVs may still come from fossil fuels.
3.​ The production of EV batteries has environmental concerns (e.g., lithium mining).
4.​ Market forces should drive EV adoption, not government intervention.
5.​ Subsidies may disproportionately benefit wealthy consumers.
6.​ Infrastructure for widespread EV use is still lacking.
7.​ Focus should be on improving public transportation instead of personal vehicles.
8.​ Some countries have phased out EV subsidies due to inefficiency.
9.​ Energy grid capacity may not be ready for mass EV adoption.
10.​Subsidizing specific industries can create market distortions.

5. Should high-speed rail projects be prioritized over road infrastructure?

Proposition (For Prioritizing High-Speed Rail)

1.​ Reduces traffic congestion and urban pollution.

2.​ More energy-efficient than cars and planes.
3.​ Faster travel times between cities improve economic productivity.
4.​ Reduces dependency on fossil fuels.
5.​ Creates jobs in infrastructure development.
6.​ Decreases accident rates compared to road travel.
7.​ Encourages regional economic integration.
8.​ Frees up roads for freight and essential travel.
9.​ Has been successful in countries like Japan, China, and France.
10.​Helps in combating climate change by lowering transportation emissions.

Opposition (Against Prioritizing High-Speed Rail)

1.​ High costs of construction and maintenance.

2.​ Some regions may not have enough demand to justify investment.
3.​ Displacement of communities during construction.
4.​ Can take decades before becoming profitable.
5.​ Road infrastructure is more versatile and accessible.
6.​ Public funding should go to essential services like healthcare and education.
7.​ High-speed rail can be disrupted by weather conditions.
8.​ Air travel is still faster for long-distance trips.
9.​ Investment should focus on improving existing transport systems.
10.​Some high-speed rail projects have failed due to low ridership.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
1. Should the wealth of billionaires be capped?

Proposition (For Capping Billionaire Wealth)

1.​ Reduces extreme income inequality.

2.​ Prevents wealth concentration in a few hands.
3.​ Ensures fairer wealth distribution for society.
4.​ Increases government revenue through wealth taxes.
5.​ Encourages reinvestment into the economy.
6.​ Prevents billionaires from influencing politics excessively.
7.​ Promotes social mobility and fair competition.
8.​ Helps fund essential public services like healthcare and education.
9.​ Encourages higher wages and better working conditions.
10.​Prevents unethical hoarding of resources.
11.​Billionaire philanthropy is unreliable for solving inequality.
12.​Some countries already have wealth taxes with positive impacts.

Opposition (Against Capping Billionaire Wealth)

1.​ Discourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

2.​ Violates personal property rights.
3.​ Billionaires drive economic growth and job creation.
4.​ High taxes might lead to capital flight and brain drain.
5.​ Wealth redistribution programs can be inefficient.
6.​ Philanthropy by billionaires contributes to social causes.
7.​ Government mismanagement may waste collected wealth.
8.​ Not all billionaires inherit wealth—many earn it through hard work.
9.​ Wealth caps could reduce investment in startups and new businesses.
10.​Over-taxation could push billionaires to offshore tax havens.
11.​Economic progress depends on investment, which billionaires provide.
12.​Focus should be on improving wages and worker protections instead.

2. Should affirmative action be implemented in education and employment?

Proposition (For Affirmative Action)

1.​ Helps underrepresented groups access education and jobs.

2.​ Reduces systemic discrimination.
3.​ Creates a more diverse and inclusive society.
4.​ Increases opportunities for historically marginalized communities.
5.​ Promotes economic mobility for disadvantaged individuals.
6.​ Encourages businesses to diversify leadership and workforce.
7.​ Addresses generational wealth gaps.
8.​ Enhances overall productivity through diverse perspectives.
9.​ Strengthens social cohesion by reducing racial/economic divides.
10.​Helps compensate for past injustices.
11.​Many countries have successfully implemented affirmative action.
12.​Meritocracy alone does not guarantee equal opportunities.

Opposition (Against Affirmative Action)

1.​ Can lead to reverse discrimination.

2.​ Undermines meritocracy and individual effort.
3.​ May create resentment among groups not receiving benefits.
4.​ Some beneficiaries may not be truly disadvantaged.
5.​ Employers and universities may prioritize quotas over qualifications.
6.​ Success should be based on skill and competence, not background.
7.​ Can discourage businesses from hiring the most qualified candidates.
8.​ Social mobility should be addressed through education, not quotas.
9.​ Affirmative action policies can be politically divisive.
10.​Some argue that affirmative action can stigmatize its recipients.
11.​Other strategies, like socioeconomic-based policies, may be more effective.
12.​Can create dependency instead of long-term self-sufficiency.

3. Should gender quotas be mandatory in politics and corporate

leadership?

Proposition (For Gender Quotas)

1.​ Increases women's representation in leadership.

2.​ Addresses historic gender imbalances.
3.​ Promotes gender diversity in decision-making.
4.​ Encourages policies that support women and families.
5.​ Role models inspire future generations.
6.​ Reduces gender pay gaps and economic inequality.
7.​ Companies with diverse leadership perform better financially.
8.​ Enhances workplace culture and innovation.
 9.​ Helps break stereotypes about leadership roles.
10.​Some countries with quotas have seen positive results.
11.​Ensures a fairer political and corporate environment.
12.​Gender quotas are a temporary tool for long-term equality.

Opposition (Against Gender Quotas)

1.​ Merit should determine leadership, not gender.

2.​ Quotas may result in less-qualified candidates being chosen.
3.​ Forces companies and governments to meet artificial targets.
4.​ Can lead to tokenism, undermining genuine inclusion.
5.​ Some industries naturally have gender disparities.
6.​ Women should be selected based on skill, not quotas.
7.​ Can create resentment among men and undermine workplace harmony.
8.​ Encouraging voluntary diversity efforts is a better approach.
9.​ Some argue quotas are undemocratic in politics.
10.​Gender representation should be achieved through education and opportunity.
11.​Some women oppose quotas as they prefer to compete fairly.
12.​May not address deeper structural issues causing gender gaps.

4. Should a universal living wage be implemented worldwide?

Proposition (For Universal Living Wage)

1.​ Reduces poverty and financial insecurity.

2.​ Ensures all workers earn enough to meet basic needs.
3.​ Boosts worker morale and productivity.
4.​ Reduces dependence on government welfare programs.
5.​ Helps decrease income inequality.
6.​ Strengthens local economies by increasing consumer spending.
7.​ Encourages businesses to invest in human capital.
8.​ Provides workers with financial independence.
9.​ Countries with fair wages have stronger economies.
10.​Prevents exploitation in low-income jobs.
11.​Helps maintain social stability and reduces crime.
12.​Leads to healthier and more secure communities.

Opposition (Against Universal Living Wage)

1.​ Increases business costs, potentially leading to layoffs.

2.​ Small businesses may struggle to afford higher wages.
3.​ Could lead to inflation, reducing purchasing power.
4.​ Might discourage skill development and career progression.
 5.​ Wage differences should reflect skill, experience, and industry.
6.​ Universal wage policies may not fit all economies.
7.​ Businesses might automate jobs instead of hiring workers.
8.​ Could discourage foreign investment in certain regions.
9.​ Government intervention in wages could harm free-market dynamics.
10.​Some jobs naturally pay less due to skill requirements.
11.​Higher wages might not solve deeper economic issues.
12.​Alternative solutions like targeted welfare programs may be better.

5. Should progressive taxation be increased to reduce income inequality?

Proposition (For Higher Progressive Taxes)

1.​ Helps reduce the wealth gap.

2.​ Funds essential public services like education and healthcare.
3.​ Ensures the wealthy contribute fairly to society.
4.​ Encourages economic redistribution to benefit all.
5.​ Can reduce social tensions and resentment.
6.​ Strong economies often have fair tax systems.
7.​ Can help improve infrastructure and public goods.
8.​ Progressive taxation supports lower-income workers.
9.​ Ensures corporations pay their fair share.
10.​Historically, higher taxes have led to economic stability.
11.​Reduces reliance on government debt.
12.​Helps create equal opportunities for all social classes.

Opposition (Against Higher Progressive Taxes)

1.​ Discourages investment and entrepreneurship.

2.​ Wealthy individuals may move assets to tax havens.
3.​ High taxation can reduce economic growth.
4.​ Over-taxation can lead to job losses.
5.​ The rich already contribute a significant portion of tax revenue.
6.​ Alternative strategies (e.g., closing loopholes) may be better.
7.​ Governments may misuse or misallocate tax funds.
8.​ Progressive taxation can discourage productivity.
9.​ In some cases, lower taxes have boosted economies.
10.​The tax system should focus on efficiency, not just redistribution.
11.​High taxes can make a country less competitive globally.
12.​Reducing government waste should be the priority instead.
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and
Communities
1. Should governments prioritize public transportation over road
expansion?

Proposition (For Public Transportation Prioritization)

1.​ Reduces traffic congestion and commuting time.

2.​ Decreases air pollution and carbon emissions.
3.​ Public transit is more cost-effective than road expansion.
4.​ Enhances accessibility for low-income and disabled individuals.
5.​ Encourages urban development and economic growth.
6.​ Reduces dependency on private vehicles and fuel consumption.
7.​ Improves road safety by reducing accidents.
8.​ Supports a shift to environmentally friendly transport modes.
9.​ Expanding roads often leads to more traffic (induced demand).
10.​High-speed transit systems boost city efficiency.
11.​Successful models in cities like Tokyo and London prove its effectiveness.
12.​Road expansion encourages urban sprawl and environmental destruction.

Opposition (Against Public Transportation Prioritization)

1.​ Many cities lack the infrastructure for efficient public transit.
2.​ Public transportation can be unreliable and overcrowded.
3.​ Roads benefit businesses reliant on logistics and delivery.
4.​ Public transit investments may take decades to be effective.
5.​ Many people still prefer personal vehicles for convenience.
6.​ Rural and suburban areas require road expansion.
7.​ Expanding roads supports economic development.
8.​ Some public transit systems operate at a financial loss.
9.​ Autonomous and electric vehicles could make roads more efficient.
10.​Transit systems require heavy government subsidies.
11.​Public transportation projects often face delays and budget overruns.
12.​In some cities, safety concerns make public transport less viable.

2. Should cities ban cars from central business districts?

Proposition (For Car-Free City Centers)

1.​ Reduces air pollution and improves public health.

2.​ Encourages walking, cycling, and public transport use.
3.​ Decreases traffic congestion.
4.​ Enhances pedestrian safety and reduces road accidents.
5.​ Boosts local businesses by creating more walkable areas.
6.​ Improves urban livability and community interaction.
7.​ Reduces noise pollution.
8.​ Encourages investment in sustainable transportation.
9.​ Preserves historic and cultural city areas.
10.​Many cities (e.g., Amsterdam, Oslo) have successfully implemented car bans.
11.​Helps reduce carbon footprints and meet climate goals.
12.​Increases demand for eco-friendly urban planning.

Opposition (Against Car-Free City Centers)

1.​ Could harm businesses reliant on car access.

2.​ Limits mobility for disabled and elderly individuals.
3.​ Public transportation may not be efficient enough.
4.​ Inconvenient for people living outside the city center.
5.​ Emergency vehicles and essential services may face challenges.
6.​ Alternative fuel cars (electric, hydrogen) reduce emissions without bans.
7.​ Car bans could increase traffic in surrounding areas.
8.​ Could cause resistance from car owners and businesses.
9.​ Public transport infrastructure requires significant investment.
10.​Banning cars may discourage tourism.
11.​Some businesses rely on quick vehicle access for deliveries.
12.​Cities should focus on regulating vehicles, not banning them.

3. Should affordable housing be a government responsibility?

Proposition (For Government Responsibility in Affordable Housing)

1.​ Ensures everyone has access to safe and stable housing.

2.​ Reduces homelessness and associated social issues.
3.​ Creates more inclusive and equitable cities.
4.​ Stabilizes rental prices and prevents housing crises.
5.​ Government-funded housing projects drive economic growth.
6.​ Reduces wealth inequality caused by rising property prices.
7.​ Helps low-income families build better futures.
8.​ Prevents speculative real estate practices that drive up costs.
9.​ Encourages smart urban planning and infrastructure development.
 10.​Many successful models exist in countries like Singapore and the Netherlands.
11.​Private markets alone cannot ensure affordability.
12.​Housing is a basic human right.

Opposition (Against Government Responsibility in Affordable Housing)

1.​ Government intervention can distort real estate markets.

2.​ Public housing projects can be poorly managed and underfunded.
3.​ Private sector solutions are often more efficient.
4.​ Some programs lead to dependency on government assistance.
5.​ Taxpayers bear the burden of subsidized housing.
6.​ Landlords and property developers may resist regulations.
7.​ Rent control policies can reduce housing supply.
8.​ Government-funded housing may lack proper maintenance.
9.​ Homeownership incentives may be a better alternative.
10.​Public housing could discourage private investment.
11.​Poorly planned projects can lead to slum-like conditions.
12.​Government corruption and bureaucracy may slow housing projects.

4. Should smart cities be prioritized in urban planning?

Proposition (For Smart City Development)

1.​ Increases efficiency in energy and water usage.

2.​ Reduces traffic congestion through intelligent transport systems.
3.​ Enhances public safety through smart surveillance and data monitoring.
4.​ Reduces carbon footprint through green technologies.
5.​ Improves healthcare access with telemedicine and digital services.
6.​ Encourages innovation and economic growth.
7.​ Enhances government services through automation.
8.​ Facilitates real-time disaster response and emergency management.
9.​ Creates more connected and convenient urban living spaces.
10.​Encourages sustainability through smart waste management.
11.​Provides better urban mobility solutions.
12.​Attracts international investments and tech startups.

Opposition (Against Smart City Prioritization)

1.​ High costs of infrastructure and implementation.

2.​ Privacy concerns over increased data collection and surveillance.
3.​ Digital divide may exclude low-income populations.
4.​ Risk of cyberattacks on smart city systems.
5.​ Overreliance on technology can lead to failures in basic services.
 6.​ Smart cities may increase gentrification and displacement.
7.​ Job losses due to automation and AI implementation.
8.​ Developing smart cities takes years, while urgent issues remain.
9.​ Energy consumption of smart infrastructure may be high.
10.​Smart city projects often benefit large corporations more than citizens.
11.​Some smart city experiments have failed due to poor planning.
12.​Resources should be focused on basic infrastructure first.

5. Should high-rise buildings be the future of sustainable urban

development?

Proposition (For High-Rise Sustainable Development)

1.​ Maximizes land use efficiency in urban centers.

2.​ Reduces urban sprawl and protects green spaces.
3.​ Increases walkability and promotes public transport use.
4.​ Can integrate green technology (solar panels, vertical gardens).
5.​ More energy-efficient than spread-out suburban housing.
6.​ Encourages mixed-use developments (residential, commercial, office).
7.​ Reduces infrastructure costs per capita.
8.​ High-density living supports local businesses.
9.​ Reduces reliance on private vehicles.
10.​Helps accommodate growing urban populations sustainably.
11.​Many eco-friendly high-rises already exist worldwide.
12.​Promotes more efficient waste management and resource use.

Opposition (Against High-Rise Sustainable Development)

1.​ High construction and maintenance costs.

2.​ Can contribute to heat island effects in cities.
3.​ Less access to green spaces for residents.
4.​ Natural disasters (earthquakes, fires) pose higher risks.
5.​ Not everyone prefers high-density living.
6.​ Psychological impacts of crowded environments.
7.​ Can lead to social inequality if only the wealthy can afford high-rise living.
8.​ Infrastructure strain (water, electricity, waste disposal).
9.​ Alternative models (eco-villages, mid-rise housing) may be better.
10.​Requires significant changes to zoning laws.
11.​Gentrification concerns as high-rises increase property values.
12.​Some traditional neighborhoods resist high-rise development
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and
Communities
1. Should governments prioritize public transportation over road
expansion?

Proposition (For Public Transportation Prioritization)

1.​ Reduces traffic congestion and commuting time.

2.​ Decreases air pollution and carbon emissions.
3.​ Public transit is more cost-effective than road expansion.
4.​ Enhances accessibility for low-income and disabled individuals.
5.​ Encourages urban development and economic growth.
6.​ Reduces dependency on private vehicles and fuel consumption.
7.​ Improves road safety by reducing accidents.
8.​ Supports a shift to environmentally friendly transport modes.
9.​ Expanding roads often leads to more traffic (induced demand).
10.​High-speed transit systems boost city efficiency.
11.​Successful models in cities like Tokyo and London prove its effectiveness.
12.​Road expansion encourages urban sprawl and environmental destruction.

Opposition (Against Public Transportation Prioritization)

1.​ Many cities lack the infrastructure for efficient public transit.
2.​ Public transportation can be unreliable and overcrowded.
3.​ Roads benefit businesses reliant on logistics and delivery.
4.​ Public transit investments may take decades to be effective.
5.​ Many people still prefer personal vehicles for convenience.
6.​ Rural and suburban areas require road expansion.
7.​ Expanding roads supports economic development.
8.​ Some public transit systems operate at a financial loss.
9.​ Autonomous and electric vehicles could make roads more efficient.
10.​Transit systems require heavy government subsidies.
11.​Public transportation projects often face delays and budget overruns.
12.​In some cities, safety concerns make public transport less viable.

2. Should cities ban cars from central business districts?

Proposition (For Car-Free City Centers)

1.​ Reduces air pollution and improves public health.

2.​ Encourages walking, cycling, and public transport use.
3.​ Decreases traffic congestion.
4.​ Enhances pedestrian safety and reduces road accidents.
5.​ Boosts local businesses by creating more walkable areas.
6.​ Improves urban livability and community interaction.
7.​ Reduces noise pollution.
8.​ Encourages investment in sustainable transportation.
9.​ Preserves historic and cultural city areas.
10.​Many cities (e.g., Amsterdam, Oslo) have successfully implemented car bans.
11.​Helps reduce carbon footprints and meet climate goals.
12.​Increases demand for eco-friendly urban planning.

Opposition (Against Car-Free City Centers)

1.​ Could harm businesses reliant on car access.

2.​ Limits mobility for disabled and elderly individuals.
3.​ Public transportation may not be efficient enough.
4.​ Inconvenient for people living outside the city center.
5.​ Emergency vehicles and essential services may face challenges.
6.​ Alternative fuel cars (electric, hydrogen) reduce emissions without bans.
7.​ Car bans could increase traffic in surrounding areas.
8.​ Could cause resistance from car owners and businesses.
9.​ Public transport infrastructure requires significant investment.
10.​Banning cars may discourage tourism.
11.​Some businesses rely on quick vehicle access for deliveries.
12.​Cities should focus on regulating vehicles, not banning them.

3. Should affordable housing be a government responsibility?

Proposition (For Government Responsibility in Affordable Housing)

1.​ Ensures everyone has access to safe and stable housing.

2.​ Reduces homelessness and associated social issues.
3.​ Creates more inclusive and equitable cities.
4.​ Stabilizes rental prices and prevents housing crises.
5.​ Government-funded housing projects drive economic growth.
6.​ Reduces wealth inequality caused by rising property prices.
7.​ Helps low-income families build better futures.
8.​ Prevents speculative real estate practices that drive up costs.
9.​ Encourages smart urban planning and infrastructure development.
 10.​Many successful models exist in countries like Singapore and the Netherlands.
11.​Private markets alone cannot ensure affordability.
12.​Housing is a basic human right.

Opposition (Against Government Responsibility in Affordable Housing)

1.​ Government intervention can distort real estate markets.

2.​ Public housing projects can be poorly managed and underfunded.
3.​ Private sector solutions are often more efficient.
4.​ Some programs lead to dependency on government assistance.
5.​ Taxpayers bear the burden of subsidized housing.
6.​ Landlords and property developers may resist regulations.
7.​ Rent control policies can reduce housing supply.
8.​ Government-funded housing may lack proper maintenance.
9.​ Homeownership incentives may be a better alternative.
10.​Public housing could discourage private investment.
11.​Poorly planned projects can lead to slum-like conditions.
12.​Government corruption and bureaucracy may slow housing projects.

4. Should smart cities be prioritized in urban planning?

Proposition (For Smart City Development)

1.​ Increases efficiency in energy and water usage.

2.​ Reduces traffic congestion through intelligent transport systems.
3.​ Enhances public safety through smart surveillance and data monitoring.
4.​ Reduces carbon footprint through green technologies.
5.​ Improves healthcare access with telemedicine and digital services.
6.​ Encourages innovation and economic growth.
7.​ Enhances government services through automation.
8.​ Facilitates real-time disaster response and emergency management.
9.​ Creates more connected and convenient urban living spaces.
10.​Encourages sustainability through smart waste management.
11.​Provides better urban mobility solutions.
12.​Attracts international investments and tech startups.

Opposition (Against Smart City Prioritization)

1.​ High costs of infrastructure and implementation.

2.​ Privacy concerns over increased data collection and surveillance.
3.​ Digital divide may exclude low-income populations.
4.​ Risk of cyberattacks on smart city systems.
5.​ Overreliance on technology can lead to failures in basic services.
 6.​ Smart cities may increase gentrification and displacement.
7.​ Job losses due to automation and AI implementation.
8.​ Developing smart cities takes years, while urgent issues remain.
9.​ Energy consumption of smart infrastructure may be high.
10.​Smart city projects often benefit large corporations more than citizens.
11.​Some smart city experiments have failed due to poor planning.
12.​Resources should be focused on basic infrastructure first.

5. Should high-rise buildings be the future of sustainable urban

development?

Proposition (For High-Rise Sustainable Development)

1.​ Maximizes land use efficiency in urban centers.

2.​ Reduces urban sprawl and protects green spaces.
3.​ Increases walkability and promotes public transport use.
4.​ Can integrate green technology (solar panels, vertical gardens).
5.​ More energy-efficient than spread-out suburban housing.
6.​ Encourages mixed-use developments (residential, commercial, office).
7.​ Reduces infrastructure costs per capita.
8.​ High-density living supports local businesses.
9.​ Reduces reliance on private vehicles.
10.​Helps accommodate growing urban populations sustainably.
11.​Many eco-friendly high-rises already exist worldwide.
12.​Promotes more efficient waste management and resource use.

Opposition (Against High-Rise Sustainable Development)

1.​ High construction and maintenance costs.

2.​ Can contribute to heat island effects in cities.
3.​ Less access to green spaces for residents.
4.​ Natural disasters (earthquakes, fires) pose higher risks.
5.​ Not everyone prefers high-density living.
6.​ Psychological impacts of crowded environments.
7.​ Can lead to social inequality if only the wealthy can afford high-rise living.
8.​ Infrastructure strain (water, electricity, waste disposal).
9.​ Alternative models (eco-villages, mid-rise housing) may be better.
10.​Requires significant changes to zoning laws.
11.​Gentrification concerns as high-rises increase property values.
12.​Some traditional neighborhoods resist high-rise development
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and
Communities
1. Should governments prioritize public transportation over road
expansion?

Proposition (For Public Transportation Prioritization)

1.​ Reduces traffic congestion and commuting time.

2.​ Decreases air pollution and carbon emissions.
3.​ Public transit is more cost-effective than road expansion.
4.​ Enhances accessibility for low-income and disabled individuals.
5.​ Encourages urban development and economic growth.
6.​ Reduces dependency on private vehicles and fuel consumption.
7.​ Improves road safety by reducing accidents.
8.​ Supports a shift to environmentally friendly transport modes.
9.​ Expanding roads often leads to more traffic (induced demand).
10.​High-speed transit systems boost city efficiency.
11.​Successful models in cities like Tokyo and London prove its effectiveness.
12.​Road expansion encourages urban sprawl and environmental destruction.

Opposition (Against Public Transportation Prioritization)

1.​ Many cities lack the infrastructure for efficient public transit.
2.​ Public transportation can be unreliable and overcrowded.
3.​ Roads benefit businesses reliant on logistics and delivery.
4.​ Public transit investments may take decades to be effective.
5.​ Many people still prefer personal vehicles for convenience.
6.​ Rural and suburban areas require road expansion.
7.​ Expanding roads supports economic development.
8.​ Some public transit systems operate at a financial loss.
9.​ Autonomous and electric vehicles could make roads more efficient.
10.​Transit systems require heavy government subsidies.
11.​Public transportation projects often face delays and budget overruns.
12.​In some cities, safety concerns make public transport less viable.

2. Should cities ban cars from central business districts?

Proposition (For Car-Free City Centers)

1.​ Reduces air pollution and improves public health.

2.​ Encourages walking, cycling, and public transport use.
3.​ Decreases traffic congestion.
4.​ Enhances pedestrian safety and reduces road accidents.
5.​ Boosts local businesses by creating more walkable areas.
6.​ Improves urban livability and community interaction.
7.​ Reduces noise pollution.
8.​ Encourages investment in sustainable transportation.
9.​ Preserves historic and cultural city areas.
10.​Many cities (e.g., Amsterdam, Oslo) have successfully implemented car bans.
11.​Helps reduce carbon footprints and meet climate goals.
12.​Increases demand for eco-friendly urban planning.

Opposition (Against Car-Free City Centers)

1.​ Could harm businesses reliant on car access.

2.​ Limits mobility for disabled and elderly individuals.
3.​ Public transportation may not be efficient enough.
4.​ Inconvenient for people living outside the city center.
5.​ Emergency vehicles and essential services may face challenges.
6.​ Alternative fuel cars (electric, hydrogen) reduce emissions without bans.
7.​ Car bans could increase traffic in surrounding areas.
8.​ Could cause resistance from car owners and businesses.
9.​ Public transport infrastructure requires significant investment.
10.​Banning cars may discourage tourism.
11.​Some businesses rely on quick vehicle access for deliveries.
12.​Cities should focus on regulating vehicles, not banning them.

3. Should affordable housing be a government responsibility?

Proposition (For Government Responsibility in Affordable Housing)

1.​ Ensures everyone has access to safe and stable housing.

2.​ Reduces homelessness and associated social issues.
3.​ Creates more inclusive and equitable cities.
4.​ Stabilizes rental prices and prevents housing crises.
5.​ Government-funded housing projects drive economic growth.
6.​ Reduces wealth inequality caused by rising property prices.
7.​ Helps low-income families build better futures.
8.​ Prevents speculative real estate practices that drive up costs.
9.​ Encourages smart urban planning and infrastructure development.
 10.​Many successful models exist in countries like Singapore and the Netherlands.
11.​Private markets alone cannot ensure affordability.
12.​Housing is a basic human right.

Opposition (Against Government Responsibility in Affordable Housing)

1.​ Government intervention can distort real estate markets.

2.​ Public housing projects can be poorly managed and underfunded.
3.​ Private sector solutions are often more efficient.
4.​ Some programs lead to dependency on government assistance.
5.​ Taxpayers bear the burden of subsidized housing.
6.​ Landlords and property developers may resist regulations.
7.​ Rent control policies can reduce housing supply.
8.​ Government-funded housing may lack proper maintenance.
9.​ Homeownership incentives may be a better alternative.
10.​Public housing could discourage private investment.
11.​Poorly planned projects can lead to slum-like conditions.
12.​Government corruption and bureaucracy may slow housing projects.

4. Should smart cities be prioritized in urban planning?

Proposition (For Smart City Development)

1.​ Increases efficiency in energy and water usage.

2.​ Reduces traffic congestion through intelligent transport systems.
3.​ Enhances public safety through smart surveillance and data monitoring.
4.​ Reduces carbon footprint through green technologies.
5.​ Improves healthcare access with telemedicine and digital services.
6.​ Encourages innovation and economic growth.
7.​ Enhances government services through automation.
8.​ Facilitates real-time disaster response and emergency management.
9.​ Creates more connected and convenient urban living spaces.
10.​Encourages sustainability through smart waste management.
11.​Provides better urban mobility solutions.
12.​Attracts international investments and tech startups.

Opposition (Against Smart City Prioritization)

1.​ High costs of infrastructure and implementation.

2.​ Privacy concerns over increased data collection and surveillance.
3.​ Digital divide may exclude low-income populations.
4.​ Risk of cyberattacks on smart city systems.
5.​ Overreliance on technology can lead to failures in basic services.
 6.​ Smart cities may increase gentrification and displacement.
7.​ Job losses due to automation and AI implementation.
8.​ Developing smart cities takes years, while urgent issues remain.
9.​ Energy consumption of smart infrastructure may be high.
10.​Smart city projects often benefit large corporations more than citizens.
11.​Some smart city experiments have failed due to poor planning.
12.​Resources should be focused on basic infrastructure first.

5. Should high-rise buildings be the future of sustainable urban

development?

Proposition (For High-Rise Sustainable Development)

1.​ Maximizes land use efficiency in urban centers.

2.​ Reduces urban sprawl and protects green spaces.
3.​ Increases walkability and promotes public transport use.
4.​ Can integrate green technology (solar panels, vertical gardens).
5.​ More energy-efficient than spread-out suburban housing.
6.​ Encourages mixed-use developments (residential, commercial, office).
7.​ Reduces infrastructure costs per capita.
8.​ High-density living supports local businesses.
9.​ Reduces reliance on private vehicles.
10.​Helps accommodate growing urban populations sustainably.
11.​Many eco-friendly high-rises already exist worldwide.
12.​Promotes more efficient waste management and resource use.

Opposition (Against High-Rise Sustainable Development)

1.​ High construction and maintenance costs.

2.​ Can contribute to heat island effects in cities.
3.​ Less access to green spaces for residents.
4.​ Natural disasters (earthquakes, fires) pose higher risks.
5.​ Not everyone prefers high-density living.
6.​ Psychological impacts of crowded environments.
7.​ Can lead to social inequality if only the wealthy can afford high-rise living.
8.​ Infrastructure strain (water, electricity, waste disposal).
9.​ Alternative models (eco-villages, mid-rise housing) may be better.
10.​Requires significant changes to zoning laws.
11.​Gentrification concerns as high-rises increase property values.
12.​Some traditional neighborhoods resist high-rise development