Welcome to Debatepedia!
|Revision as of 19:05, 6 June 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 23:18, 8 June 2008 (edit)
Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs)
Next diff →
|Line 64:||Line 64:|
|*''[[Debatepedia:Past editors of the week| Past editors of the week]]''||*''[[Debatepedia:Past editors of the week| Past editors of the week]]''|
|-||<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;"> Argument of the Week. May 19th - 25th.</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;"> Argument of the Week</div>|
|-||*'''[[Argument: Women must control their bodies or risk becoming servants of the fetus| Women must control their bodies or risk becoming servants of the fetus]]''' Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy subjugates a woman to the fetus. Under no circumstances should a woman's right to control her own body be curtailed in this way. Or, in other words, a fetus cannot be said to have rights to a woman's body that enslave the woman and her body in the relationship. This argument is encapsulated in what is known as the '''"dialisis analogy"''', put forward by Judith Jarvis in "A defense of abortion". The argument is that, an individual that hypothetically lives off of another woman's body does not have a right to continue to utilize that woman's body as a kind of "dialisis machine". The woman has a right to "unplug". In the same sense, a woman has the right to "unplug" her body from the fetus, which depends on the woman's body to live, but which does not have rights over the woman's body for its continued existence.||+||*'''[[Argument:Laser pointers have the ability to bring down aircraft and cause major accidents.| Laser pointers have the capability to bring down aircraft and cause major accidents.]]''' It is definitely justified to ban laser pointers to all people in NSW without a permit. And it is in some cases necessary for other states in Australia and around the world to follow. Since laser pointers can bring down aircraft, that can cause major accidents and result in massacre death, they really do need to be banned. Morris Iemma, NSW Premier said after banning laser pointers in NSW said, "I cannot underestimate the potential, the catastrophic consequences if a plane is brought down by one of these fools, these idiots."|
|*''[[Past 'Argument of the Week' Topics]]''||*''[[Past 'Argument of the Week' Topics]]''|
Revision as of 23:18, 8 June 2008
|International Debate Education Association (IDEA) and Georgetown University students and alumni. It is considered by some to be "the Wikipedia of debate and pros and cons". It improves your ability to think through the complicated issues and debates you care about, take a confident stand, and take action as a citizen. An important way to take action is by participating as an editor on the site, where you can create new debates, build and organize pro and con arguments, and present supporting evidence (quotes, studies, links) from your readings all so that you can better deliberate. Your efforts, in turn, will also improve the ability of a wide audience of citizens, leaders, and decision-makers to deliberate and draw reasoned conclusions. As such, we believe Debatepedia will help fix an apparent deficit of balanced reasoning and deliberation within the public and among leaders today. Get started Debatepedia is endorsed by the United States' National Forensic League.|
Browse through Debatepedia's main categories to explore its contents and areas of interest to you. Go to Debatepedia's contents page to see all of its categories, portals, and other contents.
Debatepedia is a "citizen journalism" project. It is an environment where you and other citizen journalists can take action as editors. Citizen Journalism Portal to learn more.
Debatepedia is a small, but growing community of editors. The tasks involved in producing this encyclopedia of debates and arguments are large and important to the community. In order to oversee these tasks, we need to establish a core of administrators on the site with the special powers to regulate the work of the Debatepedia community. Consider editing on Debatepedia and working toward achieving the trust of the community and earning the status of an administrator. Contact Brooks Lindsay to nominate yourself.
At the end of each week, Debatepedia honors an exceptional volunteer editor on the site, by featuring them on the main page. Find out how you can achieve this honor here.
Debatepedia is partnering with the Economist.com, structuring and archiving their new Online Debate Series. These are great demonstrations of how Debatepedia's pro/con "logic tree" can break down a topic for enhanced deliberation.
Lincoln Douglas Debate
Public Forum Debate
A daily supply of high quality debates to help you deliberate, take a stand, take action, and back yourself up.
Recent Daily Debate Digest Topics:
See "editing tasks" for more things you can do
As a wiki like Wikipedia and an open-source movement, Debatepedia's socially important content is developed by editors like you - students, citizens, debaters, professors, experts, and thinkers. Here's why you should join our community of editors:
Because Debatepedia is a wiki, it depends on building a community of editors. Here's some ways for you to join in: