Welcome to Debatepedia!
|Revision as of 14:59, 3 August 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 13:40, 5 August 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: Obama executive order to raise the debt ceiling]]''' - August 1st, 2001.||+||*'''[[Debate: US debt ceiling deal| US debt ceiling deal]]''' - August 5th, 2011.|
|'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''||'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''|
|-||*'''[[Argument: Debt unquestionable under 14th; Obama can raise ceiling| Debt unquestionable under 14th; Obama can raise ceiling]]''' [[Image:Meeting of Washington Leaders.jpg|right|220px]]In 1935, the Supreme Court held that despite the Civil War context, the amendment clearly referred to all federal debt, providing a justification for Obama acting to uphold US public debt obligations in 2011: "While [the 14th Amendment] was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html]||+||*'''Deal needed only start deficit reductions.''' Some seem to have grandiose expectations for the debt deal; that it somehow failed to fully address all US economic, tax, and deficit problems. Yet, all it really needed to do was prevent default and make a solid first step in addressing the deficit problems. It does this. More can be done later, but a commitment to cut $2.4 trillion over the next decade certainly sets the right tone. It is also designed so that the cuts are less significant in the next couple of years when the economic recovery would suffer most from deeper cuts.|
|-||*'''CON: 14th Amendment applies only to Civil War debts.''' ''Larry Darter. "Invoking 14th Amendment to Raise Debt Ceiling Would be Unwise." Suite101.com. July 27th, 2011:'' "the part that is not being talked about or aired in the media is important in understanding the history and intent behind the portion being bandied about by Democrats: 'But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.' One need not be a constitutional lawyer to see after reading Section 4 in its entirety that the 14th Amendment was post-Civil War Reconstruction legislation."||+||:[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/compromise-achieved-reforms-the-next-chapter/2011/08/02/gIQAXQBMqI_story.html Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary. "Compromise achieved, reform’s the next chapter." Washington Post. August 3rd, 2011]: "Already, some are asking if we cut too much. Others want to know if we did enough about the long-term problem of a rising debt burden. This agreement is the beginning of restoring fiscal sustainability. It is a substantial down payment, but not the end of the debate. The government’s ability to make smart, long-term budget choices has long been broken. This gives us a chance to fix it."|
|+||*'''CON: [[Argument: Debt deal doesn't cut spending enough to solve deficit| Debt deal doesn't cut spending enough to solve deficit]]''' [http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=18486&format=html Jerry Moran, Sen R-KS. "Debt deal not good for America." KSALLink.com. August 2nd, 2011]: "This plan may be considered a good deal in Washington, D.C., but it is not a good deal for the future of America. There are virtually no spending cuts in this bill – in fact, it only slows slightly the growth of spending. The amount of spending that is reduced is about $21 billion next year. Given the fact that we borrow $4 billion more each day than what we take in – those savings will disappear in less than a week. It’s unfortunate the country has been through this long drama about raising the debt ceiling and it’s even sadder that the accomplishments are so few.”|
|<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: Obama executive order to raise the debt ceiling| Obama executive order to raise the debt ceiling]]''' - August 1st, 2011.|
|*'''[[Debate: Pornography| Pornography]]''' - July 27th, 2011.||*'''[[Debate: Pornography| Pornography]]''' - July 27th, 2011.|
|*'''[[Debate: Legality of coca production and consumption| Legality of coca production and consumption]]''' - July 20th, 2011.||*'''[[Debate: Legality of coca production and consumption| Legality of coca production and consumption]]''' - July 20th, 2011.|
Revision as of 13:40, 5 August 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:
This section features strong work done by Debatepedia editors. Consider joining their efforts. User Guide.
Browse through Debatepedia's main categories to explore its contents and areas of interest to you. Go to Debatepedia's Contents Guide to see all of its categories.