Welcome to Debatepedia!
|Revision as of 23:17, 7 October 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 13:39, 11 October 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: UN recognition of Palestinian statehood]]</big> - September 26th, 2011.'''||+||*'''<big>[[Debate: Does Obama deserve a second term?]]</big> - October 10th, 2011.'''|
|'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''||'''Featured pro and con arguments from this article:'''|
|+||*'''PRO: Obama did best possible to solve crisis with limited info/time.''' [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64904_Page2.html Steven Rattner. "Ron Suskind’s inaccurate revisionism." Politico. October 1, 2011]:[[Image:Obama in White House.jpg|right|200px]] "amid all the titillating tidbits, let’s not forget the important substantive point: This new president was confronted with a set of economic challenges greater than any in more than 75 years. If he had known then everything that we know now about how the economic recovery would unfold, would he have made all the same decisions? Almost certainly not. But I firmly believe that dealing with the facts as they were known– not to mention the impossible politics of Congress – he got an exceptionally high percentage of the decisions right."[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64904_Page2.html#ixzz1ZlJxrWyo]|
|-||*'''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]:[[Image:Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations.jpg|right|210px]]"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: Obama has failed to grow the economy.''' [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304657804576401653113017130.html Karl Rover. "Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012." Wall Street Journal. June 22nd, 2011]: "Unemployment is at 9.1%, with almost 14 million Americans out of work. Nearly half the jobless have been without work for more than six months. Mr. Obama promised much better, declaring that his February 2009 stimulus would cause unemployment to peak at 8% by the end of summer 2009 and drop to roughly 6.8% today. After boasting in June 2010 that "Our economy . . . is now growing at a good clip," he laughingly admitted last week, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." The humor will be lost on most. In Wednesday's Bloomberg poll, Americans believe they are worse off than when Mr. Obama took office by a 44% to 34% margin. The last president re-elected with unemployment over 7.2% was FDR in 1936. Ronald Reagan overcame 7.2% unemployment because the rate was dropping dramatically (it had been over 10%) as the economy grew very rapidly in 1983 and 1984. Today, in contrast, the Federal Reserve says growth will be less than 3% this year and less than 3.8% next year, with unemployment between 7.8% and 8.2% by Election Day."|
|-||*'''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: UN recognition of Palestinian statehood| UN recognition of Palestinian statehood]]''' - September 26th, 2011.|
|*'''[[Debate: American Jobs Act| American Jobs Act]]''' - September 17th, 2011.||*'''[[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.|
Revision as of 13:39, 11 October 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.