Personal tools

Welcome to Debatepedia!

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 16:24, 26 September 2011; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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: UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution. 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: Palestinian UN statehood push undermines bilateral talks. 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."[1]
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