Statement: Should mercy death be legalized, i.e., all those who are suffering from terminal diseases be allowed to end their lives if they so desire?

Arguments:

1. No. Nobody should be allowed to end his/her life at his/her will as this goes against the basic tenets of humanity.
2. Yes. Patients undergoing terrible suffering and having absolutely no chance of recovery should be liberated from suffering through mercy death.
3. No. Even mercy death is a sort of killing and killing can never be legalized.

Arguments:

1. No. We get vital information regarding education through television.
2. Yes. It hampers the study of children.
3. Yes. Young children are misguided by certain programmes featuring sex and violence.
4. No. This is the only way to educate the masses.

Arguments:

1. Yes. This is the only way to teach discipline to the employees.
2. No. Government cannot deprive its citizens of their basic rights.
3. Yes. This is the only way to ensure maximum productivity without disruption of work.

Arguments:

1. No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.
2. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.
3. No. There is no such curb in western countries.
4. Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.

Arguments:

1. Yes. This will help the government to augment its resources for implementing the development programmes.
2. No. The private companies will not be able to run these units effectively.
3. Yes. There will be a significant improvement in the quality of services.
4. No. There would not be job security for the employees at all the levels.

Arguments:

1. No. The death penalty should be given only in very rare and exceptional cases.
2. Yes. This is the only way to punish such people who take others' lives or indulge in inhuman activities.
3. Yes. Such severe punishments only will make people refrain from such heinous acts and the society will be safer.
4. No. Those who are repentant for the crime they committed should be given a chance to improve and lead a normal life.

Arguments:

1. No. It would be an injustice to those juniors who are more deserving and suitable for higher positions than their senior counterparts.
2. Yes. Otherwise senior employees do feel humiliated.
3. Yes. Senior employees are more experienced and must be rewarded for the same.

Arguments:

1. Yes. It will be beneficial for those candidates who are unable to bear the expenses of entrance tests.
2. Yes. Many deserving candidates securing high marks in their qualifying academic examinations do not perform well on such entrance tests.
3. No. The standard of examinations and assessment conducted by different Boards and universities are not comparable and hence there is a need to conduct entrance tests to calibrate them on a common yardstick.

Arguments:

1. Yes. This would give more opportunities of development to the weaker sections of the society and thus help reduce the gap between the affluent and the downtrodden in India.
2. No. The private sector does not get any government assistance and therefore they should not be saddled with such policies.
3. No. Nowhere else in the world such a practice is being followed.
4. No. The management of the private sector undertaking would not agree to such compulsions.

Arguments:

1. Yes. It is the present management theory.
2. No. Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of any value.
3. Yes. Employees-owned companies generally have higher productivity.
4. No. Employee-union ownership drives up salaries and wages.

Arguments:

1. Yes. They are equally capable.
2. No. They have to shoulder household responsibilities.
3. Yes. They should also go into the outside world.