Welcome to Debatepedia!
|Revision as of 04:32, 23 September 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 16:18, 26 September 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.|
|-||*'''<big>[[Debate: American Jobs Act]]</big>''' - September 17th, 2011.||+||*'''<big>[[Debate: UN recognition of Palestinian statehood]]</big>''' - September 26th, 2011.|
|'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''||'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''|
|-||*'''PRO: Jobs Act could create over 100,000 jobs per month.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/politics/jobs-bill-could-help-economic-growth-some-forecasters-say.html Jacki Calmes and Binyamin Applebaum. "Bigger Economic Role for Washington." New York Times. September 13th, 2011]: [[Image:Jobs rally.jpg|right|200px]]"The jobs package of tax cuts and spending initiatives could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month over the next year, according to estimates from several of the country’s best-known forecasting firms; the potential Fed actions could add 15,000 more jobs a month over two years.[...] the firm projected that the plan would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to gross domestic product and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. JPMorgan Chase estimated that the plan would increase growth by 1.9 points and add 1.5 million jobs. Most bullish is Moody’s Analytics, which forecast that the package would add 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point, and increase growth by two percentage points."||+||*'''PRO: UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution.''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_906934.html MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011]: "Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state."|
|-||*'''CON: Increasing taxes on successful corps will do harm.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/business/economy/in-the-real-world-will-the-jobs-plan-make-a-difference.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=global-home Motoko Rich. "Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur." New York Times. September 9th, 2011]: "David Catalano, who helped found Modea, a digital advertising company in Blacksburg, Va., said that he was wary of the president’s pledge to ask the 'wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.' His company was organized as an S Corporation, in which profits are passed through to shareholders, so it would face higher taxes under the president’s proposal, he said. He added: 'My partner and I have reinvested 100 percent of the profits that our agency has made over the last five years back into the company. If the government takes a bigger share of that from me, it directly impedes my ability to grow the agency.'"||+||*'''CON: Palestinian UN statehood push undermines bilateral talks.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63607.html John Barrasso. "Block Palestinians' end run at U.N." Politico. September 15th, 2011]: "The best path to a true and lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the two parties — not through manipulations at the U.N. The consequences to the peace process are grave. The ability to move forward with an agreement is greatly diminished by these tactics. Instead of embarking on a time-consuming campaign to gain support in the U.N., the Palestinian leadership should be working directly with Israel on creating a real and sustainable peace agreement. The U.N. must refrain from intervening on issues that are part of the direct negotiations by the parties. The decision about borders and statehood should be achieved through a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians."|
|+||:US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "If it accelerated the negotiations, we would say yes. The reality is quite the opposite. The process that must occur will be that much more complicated in the wake of this kind of one-sided action."[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/22/140712053/ambassador-rice-palestinian-bid-is-unwise-and-counterproductive]|
|<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: American Jobs Act| American Jobs Act]]''' - September 17th, 2011.|
|*'''[[Debate: Keystone XL US-Canada oil pipeline| Keystone XL US-Canada oil pipeline]]''' - September 5th, 2011.||*'''[[Debate: Keystone XL US-Canada oil pipeline| Keystone XL US-Canada oil pipeline]]''' - September 5th, 2011.|
|*'''[[Debate: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook| Teacher-student friendships on Facebook]]''' - September 2nd, 2011.||*'''[[Debate: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook| Teacher-student friendships on Facebook]]''' - September 2nd, 2011.|
Revision as of 16:18, 26 September 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.