Glenn Beck has been one of the most vocal critics of the proposed healthcare bill, calling America's current healthcare system "the best in the world." Does Glenn Beck truly believe both his own opinion of the current healthcare system and his opposition to the proposed healthcare bill, or is he simply playing politics and arguing against a democrat's idea of a new healthcare system. For your viewing pleasure, I present a video at the following link: http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/08/14/jon-stewart-owns-glenn-beck-on-healthcare-hypocrisy/ The video in question is the top one, and regardless of your view on The Daily Show, I suggest you give the short video a few minutes of your time. Please be aware that I am not implying that all people who oppose the healthcare plan are hypocritical, and I understand that there are those who are opposed who truly believe in their reasons for opposition. I believe that Glenn Beck, however, is not one of those people, and this debate is specifically about Glenn Beck's hypocrisy with regards to this issue. Is Glenn Beck simply playing politics and blindly defending the majority Republican view without truly believing it?

Michael Jackson died today aged 50 from a suspected cardiac arrest. The singer has been surrounded by controversy for claims of indecent behaviour around children. Will he ultimately be remembered for his huge musical talent, or for the aforementioned controversies?

With regards to the recent bailouts and economic stimulus packages put forward by the US and UK, millions of people across the world suddenly became armchair economists. But could you actually do a better job of presenting a realistic and actionable economic stimulus package? Which companies would you have supported, and which areas would you have increased and decreased funding to? What I'm looking for in the initial arguments within this debate are well presented and sizeable economic strategies that you would have put in place to aid your respective country (UK, US, or a country of your choosing) through the current recession. Sub-arguments will then be used to discuss the strategies presented within each plan. Remember, it's far easier to criticise than to present viable alternatives.

A recent study by the International Commission of Jurists has found that Anti-terror measures worldwide have seriously undermined international human rights law, and many states used the public's fear of terrorism to introduce measures that were illegal, counter-productive or seriously impinged on civil liberties. What are your opinions on this subject? Is it okay to impinge on certain civil liberties for the sake of national security, and if so, at what point do you have to draw the line? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_02_09_ejp_report.pdf

I've recently considered the prospect of giving up Christmas. This would mean no present giving or receiving, no card sending, no christmas decorations, no christmas songs and no christmas based activities (carol singing, or anything else christmas related). As an atheist who believes that all religions are wrong and that there definitely is no god, it has led me to the logical conclusion that celebrating what is (or what should be) a religious holiday is hypocritical, regardless of any arguments revolving around the "cultural" aspect of christmas. I recently argued that the supreme court were wrong in saying that "in god we trust" was a cultural statement and therefore isn't against the first amendment, so the argument can't realistically be used to defend my celebration of christmas as cultural. What are you thoughts on me giving up christmas? Should I do it? Would you find it unusual that someone doesn't celebrate christmas, or do you support my reasoning that it is hypocritical for me to do so? Should all atheists stop celebrating christmas?

The BBC's decision not to air a charity appeal for aid to Gaza has come in for fierce criticism. Director general Mark Thompson has said by airing the appeal the BBC would risk reducing public confidence in its impartial coverage of the conflict. Sky News has similarly declined to show the appeal, also citing incompatibility with its objective coverage of the conflict in Gaza. Politicians have urged a review of the BBC's decision, and a crowd of 2,000 protested outside the BBC's London HQ.   MARK THOMPSON, BBC DIRECTOR GENERAL: "We worry about being seen to endorse something which could give people the impression that we were backing one side. We are passionate about defending the BBC's impartiality and we worry with such an emotive and such a political story - the United Nations this morning describing it as a political crisis with humanitarian consequences. We do want to cover the humanitarian story, we want to cover it in our news programmes where we can put it in context, we can do it in an even, carefully balanced, objective way."  

Gordon Brown has announced that British troops are to leave Iraq by the end of July next year. Military operations will end by 31 May and the remaining 4,100 service personnel will leave within two months. Do you agree that the UK should pull out of Iraq? Is it the right time to withdraw troops? Should there be a full public inquiry into the Iraq war?

The recent publication of The Red List of Threatened Species says populations of more than half of mammalian species are falling, with Asian primates particularly at risk. It predicts that at least 25% of the world's mammal species are at risk of extinction.But what are the causes of this problem, and how can we avert this disaster? Is it simply natural selection taking shape, or should we act? What practical and realistic actions can be taken by people, companies and governments?

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur.But should microevolution and macroevolution be considered seperate fields, or is macroevolution simply the compounded effects of microevolution? Is it right to accept that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't? Is macroevolution proven?

This was originally a debate by JoeCavalry which unfortunately contained malformed characters, but I thought it was extremely interesting and deserved reposting (I also added Tony Blair).Are George Bush, Tony Blair, and their respective administrations guilty of commiting war crimes?