This is a rather large issue in the United Kingdom at the moment, later this year the Scots to the north will get their own refurendum asking them whether they want to remain a part of the UK or try going solo.
This debate just asks whether Scotland should become independent or not.
For the purpose of this debate 'additional political news media' shall be defined as media in which an opinion is applied to a political event.
Political news media is when an news sources reports a poltical event, for instance a news channel announcing the passing of an Act of Government or records and footage of the Government in action, thus additional political media is a programme that takes political events and discusses them, often with individuals applying their own biases, this could range from comedians commentation on panel shows to a debating programme with a varity of experts.
The term 'democracy' and 'democratic' can also have differing interpretations across the globe, thus for the purpose of the debate it means getting the population and electorate more involved in politics, this could be evidenced by voting statistics (etc.).
I'm aware that political media varies in all countries, same nations may have a larger government involvement in media than others, therefore it would help if you could state in your argument specific examples to support your view. Additionally it is acknowledged that primary sources of politicial news will often be biased in more subtle manners, however it would be preferred if this primary sources did not become the focus of the debate.
Either way, I hope this debate will be a nice break from the religious related argument tsunami this site seems to be drowning in.
The "objective" being whatever a nation believe it should be steering towards, many politicians have some sort of fantastical utopia and focus all their policies to achieving that utopia.
However, what this debate is suggesting is that modern (western) politics is too focused on aiming that nations have a perfectly functional, democractic system. But does this lead to other goals which are more important being diminished? Is democracy actually that grand? Is pure democracy even practical?
I hope you'll all be able to consider these questions and partake in this debate fully.
Well, it looks like we (the British) will not going to war.
Earlier today, MP's in Great Britain's House of Commons voted against using military intervention to stop the crisis within Syria, subsequently preventing the Prime Minister siding with the United States and declaring war. With Germany also out of the picture it currently leaves only France to join the US in any military action.
Do you believe that the UK's absence will have any repurcussions on the proceedings? Will the U.S lose legitimacy in the justification for war as their closest ally abstains from any conflict?
The American's spying agencies seem to be on a private mission to annoy their nation's allies. They first bugged the ministerial offices of many European nation's and now they've seemed to have ticked of the UN.
This is an attempt to help provide the site with clear evidence that it is a debating site and note some social networking rubbish. To ensure that a decent debate occurs, some rules have been introduced.
All arguments must be at least 1 paragraph long, they are to be serious arguments backed up with some sort of tangible evidence that actually brings something into the debate, your argument should consist of an interpretation of this evidence or reasons on why it supports your argument.
There is to be no personalisation of arguments, I know this is extreme but it to avoid any conflict between individuals within the debate, these debates are supposed to be thought and language developing activities, one shouldn't leave a debate feeling that their beliefs were violated or that they hate somebody for life. Thus, there will be no insults within this debate nor any personal remarks, please do not openly state your opinion, but instead appear to be open-minded and neutral on the matter, allowing debaters to arrive at a consensus. Avoid speaking in the first person.
Swearing and other fowl language should be kept to a minimal, its understable that some may feel a need to aggressively express themselves. But ultimately, debating is supposed to enhance language not to dirtify it.
When disputing try to address all of the points of the other person made, even if there is nothing else you can say other than an acknowledgement that they are correct, it can often been fustrating when a person disputes you and ignores half of your argument.
If there are any concerns that a debater has ignored some of the rules please put "Inquiry into Debate Etiquette" or (IDE) at the top of your disputing argument, many of you will probably have different ideas on what constitutes as 'evidence'. I will then attempt to look into it and take the matter to them personally. Please refrain from trying to interpret the rules yourselves as this tends to lead to the debate sidetracking on the subject of debating. Users will only be banned from the debate in extreme cases and if you have any disagreements or suggestions for the rules, please message me.
I hope these rules and guidelines are agreeable, I've tried to provide restrictions with the aim of augmenting the debating experience and I hope they haven't scared some of you away. Thank you for reading these rules.
On the matter of the debate topic, you are free to interpret the point any way you wish. One could look at it from a economic point of view and state that most wars have been for the economic benefits of the elite at the cost of lives for the masses. But wars can also have been said to prevent tyranny and evil from dominating the globe. Either way, please provide examples, preferably historical, but as said in the rules and sort of evidence can be used.
In 2009, the United States of America received their first black President, is this a sign that a person's race is no longer an issue in American society? Or is ethnicity still a key part in dividing the United States?
For those of you who think that racism in America ended with slavery, please keep in mind recent events such as the Trayvon Martin shooting.
This will probably be a tad helpful to my A2 politics course, so I hope some of you will be able to provide some interesting points.
The US Consitution was one of the first codified constitutions in the world, but by being entrenched in American democracy reform of the constitution is very difficult. It may also be helpful if you stated whether you believed the US Constitution is good for American Democracy.
Tryanny: 'cruel and oppressive government or rule' (Oxford English Dictionary)
Democracy: 'a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives' (Oxford English Dictionary)
Many people seem to believe in the illussion that democracy automatically prevents tyranny and these leads to further conclusions that institutions which aren't democratic must be tyrannical. The purpose of this debate is to discuss whether democracy does prevent tyranny and whether it is possible for forms of democracy to remove any chance of tryanny in a state.
For further discussion, you may argue whether it is a good for society that democracy is often represented in a positive light.
Important Historical Events which should be part of your national history curriculum.
I've always been an advocate of a great historical curriculum, I find the one we have here in the U.K to be extremely limited. Anyway this debate is just to see how other people feel about the national curriculums in their countries and how they would change them.
While this debate is technically seeking opinions, people are allowed to disagree (with a certain degree of respect) with your argument. I'm not going to have people claim that just because it is their opinion nobody can legitimately dispute them.
Anyway, an example of the preferred argument structure will be posted by myself below.
Today, on the 8th of April 2013, Baroness Margaret Thatcher died peacefully, she was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 11 years and the first Prime Minister to be a female, during her administration there were several global events such as the Falklands War and the transfer of Hong Kong.
To make this more of a debate and less of a random post, the question posed is do you think she was a good person/prime minister? Was her actions in the Falklands War bad? Or her stance on the trade unions?
Overall, I hope that everyone discusses her passing with the respect it deserves.
A pure democracy being one where all members of the electorate have an equal say in all political issues every day. How such a system is implemented is open to your interpetation.
Lets just aim to keep this debate clean and serious (but not too serious).
I was under the impression that this had all been sorted out decades ago and that after a little conflict it have been generally agreed that the Falkland Islands will remain under British Sovereignity.
But then I see this...
Now while these articles may have been written a few months ago and and the reliablity of the sources may be questionable, I think it strange that a country that calls itself the "land of the free" is willing to ignore the will of a population and prefer to settle the matter by haggling over land like fuedal lords.
I'm finding it rather difficult to express my question, but I can provide some examples of others ages.
The development of the steam engine; the utilisation of coal; invention of trains and railways, brought us the industrial era. Computers, electricty and many other factors brought us this "modern" era, what would you consider to be the key ideas and inventions that will be the sign of a new era for mankind. It could be something that has been invented or you assume could be invented, things that will cause such a large amount of change that it will lead to great social and economic change as humanity has to adapt to new ideas.
Apparently CreateDebate is under attack from this virtual terrorist chap, going by the name of User(Insert number here). Are we to just ignore this bloke and the several debates he's starting to make, or should we just abuse him until he leaves?
So some guy decides to count how much military campaigns we Britons had. It turns out that we have had military in over 9 out of 10 countries in the world, this includes all places where we had a military presence either by force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment.
Instead of naming all the countries we 'invaded', I'll just list the ones we haven't:
Andorra, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Rupublic of Congo, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan, Liechenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Marshall Islands, Monoco, Mongolia, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Vatican City.
We probably haven't invaded these countries due to either (1) we didn't know they existed, or (2) they weren't worth invading.