Personal tools
 
Views

Welcome to Debatepedia!

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 22:06, 27 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 22:09, 27 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 75: Line 75:
<div style="margin:0;background:#6C8FB9;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;"> Category Browser </div> <div style="margin:0;background:#6C8FB9;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;"> Category Browser </div>
-Browse through Debatepedia's main categories to explore its contents and areas of interest to you. Go to Debatepedia's '''[[Main categories| Main categories]]''' to see all of its categories, portals, and other contents.+Browse through Debatepedia's main categories to explore its contents and areas of interest to you. Go to Debatepedia's '''[[Debatepedia:Contents Contents Guide]]''' to see all of its categories.
*'''[[Past Daily Debate Digest topics| Highest quality]]''' *'''[[Past Daily Debate Digest topics| Highest quality]]'''

Revision as of 22:09, 27 July 2011

http://www.nflonline.org/

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.

The Debate Digest

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:

  • PRO: Pornography does not count as adultery.
    Julian Sanchez. "Porndultery." June 19th, 2008: "What counts as adultery is a function of the understanding, explicit or implicit, a particular couple has. Some couples, after all, go in for “voyeuristic gratification” together. So what we’re really talking about is what we think a reasonable modal implicit contract is about. One obvious reason adultery is typically ruled out is the risk of contracting a disease from or impregnating (or becoming pregnant by) another partner, which obviously isn’t an issue here. [...] If we don’t stand strong in defending the traditional definition of adultery as the union of one man and one woman, we risk rendering the institution meaningless. After all, if adultery can mean anything, then it ultimately means nothing."
  • CON: Watching pornography can amount to adultery Porn is a "continuum of betrayal." By sharing that private, sexual experience with someone other than one's partner, it is infidelity. In the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth says: “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”[1]
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 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 Debatepedia:Contents Contents Guide to see all of its categories.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.