Debatepedia is "the Wikipedia of pros and cons". Its mission is to "clarify public debates and improve decision-making globally". Debatepedia is a project of the International Debate Education Association (IDEA), a 501c3 non-profit. It utilizes the same wiki technology powering Wikipedia to engage you and other citizen-editors in clarifying public debates by centralizing them into a single pro/con encyclopedia. This helps you, other citizens, and leaders better weigh ALL the pros and cons, develop positions, and make more informed decisions, votes, etc... And this significantly improves democracy and people's lives. Get startedJoin our Facebook group Debatepedia is endorsed by the National Forensic League.
The Debate Digest
A steady supply of pro/con articles to help you deliberate, take a stand, take action, vote, and back yourself up.
Debate: War on Drugs - Is the American War on Drugs succeeding or should it be abandoned? - March 19th, 2010.
"A younger Barack Obama on the War on Drugs and marijuana."[1]
Featured pro and con arguments from this article:
PRO: War on Drugs has been effective in many placesBen Perin. "We are winning war on drugs, say police." Swindon Advertiser. March 11th, 2010: "The war on drugs is being won by Swindon Police after a number of successful raids. [...] It comes after one of the biggest cannabis factories was discovered in the town centre by officers at the former West Bromwich Bank on the junction of Morley Street and Commercial Road on Tuesday. [...] Two men were arrested – a 20 and 40-year-old from Vietnam – at the scene in connection with cultivating the 2,000 plant crop at various stages of growth. [...] Now the head of the dedicated drugs squad Sergeant Scott Hargreave, based at Gablecross Police Station, said his team was winning the war on drugs in Swindon. 'In the 10 months we have been up and running as a drugs team we have arrested in excess of 60 people,' he said. 'Out of these 46 have been charged with intent to supply. We have executed 46 warrants and 80 percent have been positive searches, whereby drugs have been found."
CON: Drug prohibition does not correlate with decreased use"How to stop the drug wars." The Economist. Mar 5th 2009: "fear [of legalisation] is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates."
Recent Debate Digest articles
Gay marriage - Should gay marriage be legalized? - March 3rd, 2010.
Capitalism vs socialism - Which is the superior system, capitalism or socialism? - February 19th, 2010.
Corporate personhood - Should corporations be treated as legal persons with equivalent rights? - February 10th, 2010.
Unlimited spending in elections - Should corporations be able to spend w/o limit on election ads as ruled by SCOTUS? - February 4th, 2010.
Big government - Is big, more liberal government better than small, conservative government? - January 27th, 2010.
This section features strong work done by Debatepedia editors. Consider joining their efforts. User Guide. See Recent changes for all recent community edits.
March 19th: Debate: War on Drugs was posted to the Debate Digest. It was left, though, with many sections blank or under-developed in order to give other users a greater opportunity to write and document arguments.
March 16th: JusticeForAll. made an extensive argument on Talk:Debate: Gay marriage. "To understand Christ's view on marriage, it is worthwhile to consider his own words. In particular Matthew 19 which covers Christs general notes on marriage and divorce. Matthew 19:12: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:12&version=KJV "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." In Christs day, the Greek word Eunukos was used for gay people. The same word is used in Daniel 1:4-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%201:4-9&version=KJV which concludes "Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. [...] So why do so-called "Christians" use out of context passages to punish innocent taxpaying citizens for what they are? Certainly Christ himself would be "rolling over in his grave" to see this type of behavior. Or perhaps it is simply a test of who understands the Word, and who doesn't."
Browse through Debatepedia's main categories to explore its contents and areas of interest to you. Go to Debatepedia's Main categories to see all of its categories, portals, and other contents.
