Statement: Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years as against five years at present?

Arguments:

1. No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources.
2. Yes. This will help the voters to change non-performing representatives without much delay.
3. No. The elected representatives will not have enough time to settle and concentrate on developmental activities.

Arguments:

1. No. Ours is a secular state.
2. Yes. Teaching religion helps inculcate moral values among children.
3. No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfil its role in the 21st century.

Arguments:

1. Yes. This will help secure the investor's money as these big banks will be able to withstand intermittent market related shocks.
2. No. A large number of people will lose their jobs as after the merger many employees will be redundant.
3. Yes. This will help consolidate the entire banking industry and will lead to healthy competition.

Arguments:

1. No. Mere literacy is no guarantee of political maturity of an individual.
2. Yes. Illiterate people are less likely to make politically wiser decisions of voting for a right candidate or party.
3. No. Voting is the constitutional right of every citizen.

Arguments:

1. No. This will render thousands of workers jobless.
2. Yes. The firecracker manufacturers use child labour to a large extent.
3. Yes. This will be a concrete step to reduce noise and air pollution.
4. No. Use of firecrackers makes certain special occasions more lively and joyful.

Arguments:

1. Yes. The enemies of India are improving their weapons continuously and it becomes imperative to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
2. No. Instead the money should be diverted to development activities.
3. No. The international community will isolate Indians and this will bring a setback to Indian economy.
4. No. It will be against our policy of maintaining world peace.

Arguments:

1. Yes. Our government employees are having the maximum number of holidays among the countries of the world.
2. Yes. It is a sign of British legacy, why should we carry it further?
3. Yes. It will speed up work and all the pending jobs can be completed well in time.
4. No. Employees must be given ample spare time to spend with their family.

Arguments:

1. Yes. This will motivate the children to study and get higher marks, and thus more knowledge can be imbibed at a younger age.
2. No. The children will be forced to study and won't enjoy the process.
3. Yes. In today's competitive world the children need to be prepared right from the beginning to face such difficult examinations.
4. No. This will add pressure on tender aged children and leave very little time for them to play.

Arguments:

1. Yes. It is a rule and rules should be followed strictly by all.
2. No. Each individual knows how to protect his own life and it should be left to his discretion.
3. No. It does not ensure safety as only the head is protected and rest of the body is not.
4. Yes. It is a necessity as head, being the most sensitive organ, is protected by the helmet.

Arguments:

1. Yes. The students are the best judge of their capabilities and there should not be restrictions for joining post-graduate courses.
2. No. The students need to study relevant subjects in graduate courses to enrol in post-graduate courses and the students must fulfil such conditions.
3. No. There are not enough institutes offering post-graduate courses which can accommodate all the graduates desirous of seeking post-graduate education of their own choice.

Arguments:

1. Yes. All the progressive nations do so.
2. No. We cannot impart it in co-educational schools.
3. Yes. It would certainly help in eradicating the existing misunderstanding and make the younger generation physically and mentally healthier.
4. It will destroy the moral fibre and the highly esteemed value system which we have inherited from our forefathers.