Dibarah, Great, great editorial work on the Falkland Islands debate. I'm excited to see your writing style in action. As we move forward, I would like to see you also integrate quotations from key leaders and scholars involved in these public debates, and start creating argument pages for this. Yet, you've made a great start. What debate article are you interested in working on right now. If you don't have one in mind, I can assign you one, in addition to some assignments. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:26, 11 August 2008 (CDT)
Active editor status
I've listed you as an editor Debatepedia:Active editors. Keep up your good work each week, and I'll move you up to "active editor status". In general, I treat interns just the same as other editors, when it comes to the structures that we have in place for the broader community (like the active editors page). -- Brooks Lindsay 17:16, 11 August 2008 (CDT)
- The Plug-In Hybrids, though does not require fossil fuels can increase the need for electricity. Electricity is expensive and the production is hardly pollution-free. The additional electrical utilization required to recharge the plug-in vehicles could push many households in areas that do not have off-peak tariffs into the higher priced tier and negate much of the benefits.
This argument should look like this, isolating the argument around pollution, not costs (and adopting our bolding style for the initial sentence "claim":
- Plug-In Hybrids increase demand for dirty electricity. Electricity is expensive and the production is hardly pollution-free. A study by the ACEEE predicts that widespread PHEV use in heavily coal-dependent areas would result in an increase in local net sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions, given emissions levels from most coal plants currently supplying power to the grid.
go back through the con side of the debate article and try to apply these rules, isolating specific arguments in each "bullet-point" and applying our bolding style. Good work. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:39, 22 September 2008 (CDT)