Personal tools
 
Views

Welcome to Debatepedia!

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 01:33, 6 September 2011; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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: US pipeline strategically taps huge Canadian oil reserves.
    Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "It is now estimated that Canada has the world’s second largest oil reserves, only after Saudi Arabia. So, from purely the perspective of the oil market, Canada’s role and the United States’ interests in those tar sands is a very important one - a very important public policy issue for this nation."[1]
  • CON: Keystone XL will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions Russell K. Girling, TransCanada Corporation. "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly." The Hill. July 13th, 2011: "The Canadian government insists that it has found ways to reduce those emissions. But a new report from Canada’s environmental ministry shows how great the impact of the tar sands will be in the coming years, even with cleaner production methods. It projects that Canada will double its current tar sands production over the next decade to more than 1.8 million barrels a day. That rate will mean cutting down some 740,000 acres of boreal forest — a natural carbon reservoir. Extracting oil from tar sands is also much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions."
Recent Debate Digest articles

See Past Debate Digest topics

Debates In The News

More Debates in the News

Editorial News and Notes

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 Contents Guide to see all of its categories.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.