Statement and Argument Questions

• Statement: Should HIV+ kids be facilitated with 'in-house school ' instead of allowing to continue 'outside school'? Arguments: I. Yes, this preventive step will ease the tension of majority of parents who send their wards to 'outside schools'? II. No, 'in-house school' facility will isolate the children from the outside world; the move will harm the basic purpose of education and do the children more harm than good.
• Statement: Should foreign collaborations in higher education be allowed without proper scrutiny? Arguments: I. No, no association should be allowed without proper scrutiny because sometimes these collaboration turn out to be frauds. There are cases where the association promises job securities and other facilities for students but which, in reality, are nothing but a shame. II. No, our country is already facing the problem of 'brain drain'. Many foreign universities and institutes lure talented and hardworking students to join their courses which subsequently leads to 'brain drain' as they promise jobs in foreign countries.
• Statement : Should there be reservation for the very poor among the upper castes? Arguments: I. Yes, the purpose of reservation is to uplift the standard of the life of the weaker section of the people, which includes the very poor among the upper castes also. II. No, the move will divide people of upper castes and will harm age-old social structure too.
• Statement: Should conditional access system (CAS) be put in place in India? Arguments: I. Yes, this will enable television viewers of India the freedom to access the channel of their choice and pay for only the ones selected. II. No, the system negates the basic requirements such as the rights and obligations of broadcasters, cable operators and consumers. Besides, instead of offering a real choice to consumers at reasonable costs, the system promotes commercial interests of broadcasters or set-top manufacturers.
• Statement: Should doctors and engineers be banned from civil services examination? Arguments: I. No, banning engineers and medicos from joining civil services means denying the best talent in the land to work for the welfare of the society. II. Yes, taxpayers money is being used to finance the studies of doctors and engineers, particularly in government institutes. The money spent on them goes down the drain once a medico or engineer shifts tracks to civil services.
• Statement: Should fishery be banned during monsoon season? Argument: I. Yes, it is the time when fishes reproduce. II. No, the move will increase the prices of fishes enormously.
• Statement: Should cricket be made a national game for India, replacing hockey? Arguments: I. Yes, our performance in hockey, both at national and international levels, is very dismal in comparison with cricket. II. Yes, recognition of cricket and cricket players is more than hockey and hockey players.
• Statement: Should National Human Rights commission be armed with penal powers? Arguments: I. Yes, it is the only way to restrict the violation of human rights which is increasing at a fast pace. II. No, if this happens people will prefer to keep distance from human rights activists and will not cooperate with them because of the fear of red-tapism of law.
• Statement: Should Indian restart bus service between India and the neighboring country, which is supposed to be the epicenter of cross- border terrorism in Indian? Arguments: I. Yes, it will increase the scope of getting better health services, quality products, and doing good business, besides easing tension between the two countries, and give impetus to mutual harmony. II. No, it will be used for smuggling of fake currency, spurious drugs, sophisticated arms etc.
• Statement: Should Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates who have failed to secure the qualifying marks of 40 per cent in the MBBS examination be selected for reserved seats in medicine? Arguments: I. Yes, reserved seats of the categories must be filled with the students of the respective categories to fulfil the constitutional norms. II. No, this will harm the purpose of qualifying marks.
• Statement: Should the sole evidence of a rape victim be supposed enough to prove the guilt? Arguments: I. Yes, rape is a heinous offence. II. No, the move will increase the chances of conviction of innocent persons.
• Statement: Should funds for social justice and empowerment be released to the NGOs by Central government if state machinery fails to make requisition to the ministry concerned of the Central government? Arguments: I. Yes, Various NGOs have a strong base among the people and experience of utilising funds issued by the Central government though the state government. II. No, the ministry will not be able to ascertain the works of the NGOs and will face practical problems.
• Statement: Should the Centre consult the government of a state before deploying the army in its territory for the maintenance of law and order? Arguments: I. Yes, if the state government is taken into confidence, the purpose of deploying the army will be more meaningful. II. No, the Centre occupies position above the states and enjoys more power than the states.
• Statement: Should India make it compulsory to sterilise every woman going for second delivery? Arguments: I. Yes, this is the only way to reduce the growth rate of population at faster pace. II. No, it will be a cruel act against nature.
• Statement: Should the Indian Railways be corporatised? Arguments: I. Yes, the move will make it an autonomous entity, which will bring in enormous changes like quick decision-making . II. No, it is futile unless we put an end to the handling of archaic rules in the appointment of favourites to the top positions.
• Statement: Should there be a law against superstition in India? Arguments: I. Yes, it is a belief in magical and similar influences, in idea or practice based on this. II. No, it has been recognised by our forefathers and has a strong base in our society.
• Statement: Should there be death punishment for those who are involved in manufacturing spurious drugs? Arguments: I. Yes, mass murder for the sake of profit should be treated only by one law -death penalty. II. No, the main objective of the punishment is to bring reform in a convicted person by punishing him/her.
• Statement: Should companies' donation to political parties be banned in India? Arguments: I. Yes, it was banned during 1969 and 1985 also. II. No, donation to political parties is not a new thing in the country and has been in existence right from 1956.
• Statement: Should there be uniform civil code in India? Arguments: I. Yes, many personal laws relating to marriage, inheritance, guardianship, divorce, maintenance and property relations in all communities are unjust, especially unjust to women. II. No, India has a rich cultural mosaic and any artificial singularity, sought to be achieved through a common civil code, would only make the society more fragmented.
• Statement: Should all Mig-21 fighters be banned owing to frequent accidents of this aircraft? Arguments: I. Yes, it has become flying coffin. II. No, almost all the accidents were due to human error.