Statement: Should government jobs in rural areas have more incentives?

Arguments:

1. Yes. Incentives are essential for attracting government servants there.
2. No. Rural areas are already cheaper, healthier and less complex than big cities. So? Why offer extra incentives!

Arguments:

1. No. All employees will lose their jobs, security and earning, what would they do?
2. Yes. In a competitive world the rule is 'survival of the fittest'.

Arguments:

1. Yes. Trappers are making a lot of money;
2. No. Bans on hunting and trapping are not effective.

Arguments:

1. Yes. It is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country.
2. No. Nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.

Arguments:

1. No. We have still not achieved the target for literacy.
2. No. We will have to face the problem of unemployed but highly qualified people.

Arguments:

1. No. It will also help in success of compulsory education programme.
2. Yes. It will help to eliminate the adult illiteracy.

Arguments:

1. Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgement for casting their vote.
2. No. In a democracy any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions.

Arguments:

1. Yes. It is an essential concomitant in a capitalist economy.
2. No. It leads to wastage of resources.

Arguments:

1. Yes. They will be able to devote more time for the country.
2. No, nobody will contest election.

Arguments:

1. No, our need is 'bread' for everyone, we cannot follow western models.
2. Yes. We cannot compete in the international market without equipping our children with computers.

Arguments:

1. Yes, this will improve the ambience of the colleges as all the students will be decently dressed.
2. No. The college students should not be regimented and they should be left to choose their clothes for coming to the college.