Arguments: 1. Only a decentralised price system can achieve this via the institution of private property and associated duties and rights .
2. Centralised planning can not possibly sort through the myriad of way of arranging resources to arrive at the most efficient usage .
3. For example , it would be a mistake to combine Arnold Schwarzenegger with medical equipment and have him perform brain surgery .
4. And almost all of them are useless .
5. The number of different ways to use , combine and recombine these resources is unimaginably vast .
6. The world contains trillions of different resources : my labour , iron ore , Hong Kong harbour , pine trees , satellites , car factories etc. .
7. This is a virtually impossible task .
8. A planned economy requires that the planners have the information necessary to allocate resources in the right way .

Debate: This House Believes Socialism is Dead


Arguments: 1. 16 April 2010 .
2. -LSB- 7 -RSB- China again heads EUs dangerous products list , .
3. Shifting the burden of ensuring safety standards away from companies and onto consumers , who have significantly less information , is a threat to consumers health and safety .
4. This means that people may buy dangerous products from unidentifiable , and thus legally unaccountable , companies .
5. Any company , real or fake , can sell products online without them having been approved .
6. Through 3D printing this becomes a global problem .
7. Such is the case in China , where consumer protection regulations are inefficient .
8. Without proper regulations , standards are quickly dropped to save money and the health of thousands of consumers is put at risk .
9. The great appeal of 3D printers is that they make consuming more efficient than normal methods : however , normal methods are inefficient in part because they undergo important checks and balances .

Debate: This House would ban the sale of 3D printers to households


Arguments: 1. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment , the vast majority of animals used , must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment .
2. Animal research , by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals .
3. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation , releasing domesticated animals into the wild , would be a death sentence , and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals , often mice or rats , might be readily moveable into the pet trade .
4. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue .
5. Even if the opposition counterargument , that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer , is believed , research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals .
6. It is prima fasciae obvious , that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed , or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful .

Debate:
This House would ban animal testing