Welcome to Debatepedia!
|Revision as of 15:39, 3 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 17:38, 8 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
Next diff →
|Line 13:||Line 13:|
|Our latest and best pro/con articles to help you develop a position on the world's most important issues.||Our latest and best pro/con articles to help you develop a position on the world's most important issues.|
|-||*'''[[Debate: Mandatory ultrasounds before abortions]]''' - June 30th, 2011.||+||*'''[[Debate: Ban on sale of video games to minors]]''' - July 8th, 2011.|
|-||:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyldVhqYLNI Rachel Maddow on 2010 Oklahoma law mandating ultrasounds before abortions]||+||:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qGk7D2XNe4 Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Violent Video Games] <center><youtube>4qGk7D2XNe4</youtube></center>|
|'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''||'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''|
|-||*'''PRO: [[Argument: Ultrasounds help women make informed decisions on abortion| Ultrasounds help women make informed decisions on abortion]]''' [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-05-10-editorial10_ST1_N.htm Lisa Billy, R member of Oklahoma House of Reps. "New Law Empowers Women." USA Today. May 9th, 2010]: "For women facing an unplanned pregnancy, there is often a sense of panic, distress and fear that can lead to hasty decisions. That is why I authored House Bill 2780, which requires that women be given information obtained from an ultrasound before an abortion is performed. Many clinics already perform ultrasounds before abortions — something they have acknowledged in legal filings — but women have told me over the past 20 years that they have not had access to that information. Women should have the choice to see that image. I have personally visited with women who obtained an abortion in a panic and were devastated years later to see a friend's ultrasound and realize: That child is the same age as my baby when ... It is a devastating moment of intense sorrow and regret. I filed this bill to empower women, no matter what their circumstance, to have as much information as possible before making a life-altering decision."||+||*'''PRO: [[Argument: If sex images can be banned for youths, so can violence| If sex images can be banned for youths, so can violence]]''' [http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2011/jul/02/TDOPIN02-albanese-supreme-court-got-it-wrong-on-vi-ar-1146804/ Jay Albanese. ¨Albanese: Supreme Court got it wrong on violent video games.¨ Richmond Times Dispatch. July 2nd, 2011]: "Legal definitions and prosecutions for obscene materials in the United States always have been directed at depictions of sexual conduct. Violence has never been part of that definition, and the Supreme Court continues in its belief that depictions of sex are harmful, but depictions of violence are not. [...]Objectively more harmful than gratuitous sex are depictions of gratuitous violence. A significant social concern arises when sex is depicted in a way that involves force against an unwilling victim, against children, or even when unjustified violence without sex is depicted. A similar case can be made for depictions of violence resulting from hate, due to race, ethnicity or sexual orientation."|
|-||*'''CON: [[Argument: Mandating ultrasounds insults women's intelligence| Mandating ultrasounds insults women's intelligence]]''' [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/28/870757/-Laws-that-mandate-ultrasounds-prior-to-abortions-dont-work Ferretlas. "Laws that mandate ultrasounds prior to abortions don't work." Daily Kos. May 28th, 2010]: "I have always consitered ultrasound mandates to be insulting to a woman's intelligence and ability to make informed decisions without governmental interference. To me, they don't give a woman more information that would influence a mind already made up."||+||*'''CON: Violent video games are protected by the first amendment.''' Justice Scalia wrote in June 2011 "opinion of the court" against the California ban on the sale of video games to minors: "Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Consti-tution, “esthetic and moral judgments about art and lit-erature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approvalof a majority.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 818 (2000). And whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, “the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do notvary” when a new and different medium for communication appears. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 503 (1952)."[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf]|
|<div style="margin:0;background:#fF9D1C;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #010101;text-align:left;color:#000;padding-left:0.4em;padding-top:0.2em;padding-bottom:0.2em;"> Recent Debate Digest articles </div>||<div style="margin:0;background:#fF9D1C;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #010101;text-align:left;color:#000;padding-left:0.4em;padding-top:0.2em;padding-bottom:0.2em;"> Recent Debate Digest articles </div>|
|+||*'''[[Debate: Mandatory ultrasounds before abortions| Mandatory ultrasounds before abortions]]''' - June 30th, 2011.|
|*'''[[Debate: US intervention in Libya| US intervention in Libya]]''' - June 19th, 2011.||*'''[[Debate: US intervention in Libya| US intervention in Libya]]''' - June 19th, 2011.|
|*'''[[Debate: Should colleges ban fraternities?|Should colleges ban fraternities?]]''' - June 15th, 2011.||*'''[[Debate: Should colleges ban fraternities?|Should colleges ban fraternities?]]''' - June 15th, 2011.|
Revision as of 17:38, 8 July 2011
Debatepedia is the Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues. A project of the 501c3 non-profit International Debate Education Association (IDEA), Debatepedia utilizes the same wiki technology powering Wikipedia to centralize arguments and quotes found in editorials, op-eds, political statements, and books 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.
Our latest and best pro/con articles to help you develop a position on the world's most important issues.
Featured pro and con arguments from this article:
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.