Reference no: EM133163220

Question 1: Should people who call attention to unethical/illegal government activity by disclosing classified information (to the public or through official channels) be protected from prosecution?

Should comedians be restricted from making jokes that cause offence, either by law or through de-platforming?

Should comedy have additional protections from defamation compared with other forms of public speech?

Should gender identity rather than biological sex be used as the criteria when determining who should be able to access women-only spaces and activities, specifically toilets, prisons, refuges and sporting events?

Should university staff, students or activists be able to shut down discussion of trans issues on university campuses if they believe that the perspectives expressed are offensive or view them as harmful?

Does the presence of false information and conspiracy theories on social media platforms justify censorship either by the companies or via government regulation?

Are children and teenagers harmed by use of social media and should social media companies be responsible for the effects their platforms have on children and teenagers?

Does surveillance of people's activities online pose a threat to civil rights? (You can choose to focus on either corporate or government surveillance or both).

Is the claim that global warming poses an existential threat to humanity false or exaggerated?
Should nuclear energy be part of the approaches to mitigate global warming?

In this long-form research paper we want you to briefly outline your view of what is at stake in the case or topic you have chosen. You will then describe and present the key ideas, claims and evidence you claim supports your interpretation or representation of the issue and reflect on some of the assumptions you are relying on. Then you will present a strong case for the opposing position, one that could be reasonably expected to be accepted as legitimate by proponents of this position. You then need to explain why this argument is it's not convincing by critically assessing the claims, evidence and assumptions. This will require you to make a careful well-evidenced assessment of how well aligned the claims, kinds of evidence and reasoning andassumptions are.