Debatepedia is essentially the Wikipedia of debates. It is an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes. A project of the 501c3 non-profit International Debate Education Association (IDEA), Debatepedia utilizes the same wiki technology powering Wikipedia to engage you and other editors in centralizing arguments and quotes found in editorials, op-eds, books, and around the web 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.
PRO: Random sobriety tests are a just public safety intervention Robert Solomon, a law professor at the University of Western Ontario and the director of legal policy for MADD Canada, argues that implementing random sobriety tests on roads would be a just impingement on Canadian's lives because of the death and injury toll drunk driving is inflicting there: “We have one of the worst records for impaired driving of any comparable democracies." In a paper he co-authored in 2010, he reported The totals for 2007 as being worse than seven years earlier: 210,000 impairment-related crashes, 1,239 deaths, 73,120 injuries. All of this, he argues, justifies the invasiveness of RBT; it protects people and saves lives.
War on Drugs The executive summary of the Global Commission on Drug Policy report announced: “The global war on drugs has failed,” reigniting the debate on whether the "war" should be abandoned or dramatically changed.
Enhanced interrogation techniques: Following the killing of Osama bin Laden, with useful information obtained through interrogation techniques, some have argued that it was "enhanced interrogations" that lead to Osama bin Laden's death. This has lead to renewed debate over the practice.
This section features strong work done by Debatepedia editors. Consider joining their efforts. User Guide. See Recent changes for all recent community edits.
June 6th. Ggowdy1972 created the following argument against two-party systems: "Two-party systems create false dichotomies. By framing debate in terms of only two-parties or points of view the two-party system gives the false impression that their are only two choices on any given issue. the reality is that issues facing any country are deeply complex with multiple view points. This is particularly harmful when political parties begin to enforce ideological purity and shout down party dissent.