Personal tools
 
Views

Welcome to Debatepedia!

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 16:23, 13 June 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 16:38, 13 June 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 61: Line 61:
This section features strong work done by Debatepedia editors. Consider joining their efforts. '''[[Debatepedia User Guide| User Guide]].''' See '''[http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Special:Recentchanges Recent changes]''' for all recent community edits. This section features strong work done by Debatepedia editors. Consider joining their efforts. '''[[Debatepedia User Guide| User Guide]].''' See '''[http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Special:Recentchanges Recent changes]''' for all recent community edits.
 +*'''June 13th.''' Founder [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]] created [[Debate: Dowries]], without arguments (open for editing).
*'''June 6th.''' Ggowdy1972 created the following argument against [[Debate: Two-party system| two-party systems]]: "Two-party systems create false dichotomies. By framing debate in terms of only two-parties or points of view the two-party system gives the false impression that their are only two choices on any given issue. the reality is that issues facing any country are deeply complex with multiple view points. This is particularly harmful when political parties begin to enforce ideological purity and shout down party dissent. [http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=231] *'''June 6th.''' Ggowdy1972 created the following argument against [[Debate: Two-party system| two-party systems]]: "Two-party systems create false dichotomies. By framing debate in terms of only two-parties or points of view the two-party system gives the false impression that their are only two choices on any given issue. the reality is that issues facing any country are deeply complex with multiple view points. This is particularly harmful when political parties begin to enforce ideological purity and shout down party dissent. [http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=231]
*'''June 3rd.''' A number of arguments were added to [[Debate: Safe injection sites for heroin addicts]] by Ikassamsha. *'''June 3rd.''' A number of arguments were added to [[Debate: Safe injection sites for heroin addicts]] by Ikassamsha.

Revision as of 16:38, 13 June 2011

http://www.nflonline.org/

Debatepedia is essentially the Wikipedia of debates. It is an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes. A project of the 501c3 non-profit International Debate Education Association (IDEA), Debatepedia utilizes the same wiki technology powering Wikipedia to engage you and other editors in centralizing arguments and quotes found in editorials, op-eds, books, and around the web into comprehensive pro/con articles. This helps citizens and decision-makers better deliberate on the world's most important questions. Debatepedia is endorsed by the National Forensic League.

The Debate Digest

Our latest and best pro/con articles to help you develop a position on the world's most important issues.

Serbian drunk driver failing alcohol test on YouTube

Featured pro and con arguments from this article:

  • PRO: Random sobriety tests are a just public safety intervention Robert Solomon, a law professor at the University of Western Ontario and the director of legal policy for MADD Canada, argues that implementing random sobriety tests on roads would be a just impingement on Canadian's lives because of the death and injury toll drunk driving is inflicting there: “We have one of the worst records for impaired driving of any comparable democracies." In a paper he co-authored in 2010, he reported The totals for 2007 as being worse than seven years earlier: 210,000 impairment-related crashes, 1,239 deaths, 73,120 injuries. All of this, he argues, justifies the invasiveness of RBT; it protects people and saves lives.
Recent Debate Digest articles

See Past Debate Digest topics

Debates In The News

More Debates in the News

Editorial News and Tasks

This section features strong work done by Debatepedia editors. Consider joining their efforts. User Guide. See Recent changes for all recent community edits.

  • June 13th. Founder Brooks Lindsay created Debate: Dowries, without arguments (open for editing).
  • June 6th. Ggowdy1972 created the following argument against two-party systems: "Two-party systems create false dichotomies. By framing debate in terms of only two-parties or points of view the two-party system gives the false impression that their are only two choices on any given issue. the reality is that issues facing any country are deeply complex with multiple view points. This is particularly harmful when political parties begin to enforce ideological purity and shout down party dissent. [2]
  • June 3rd. A number of arguments were added to Debate: Safe injection sites for heroin addicts by Ikassamsha.

See Past editorial news and tasks | Follow recent edits and updates on Twitter | See other editing tasks you can do.

Category Browser

Browse through Debatepedia's main categories to explore its contents and areas of interest to you. Go to Debatepedia's Main categories to see all of its categories, portals, and other contents.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.