political debate essay

Debate Topics

Need to write an argumentative essay? Preparing for an upcoming debate? ProCon.org has over 100 topics complete with pro and con arguments, quotes and statistics from experts, historical information, and other pertinent research.

Abortion – Should abortion be legal?

Alternative Energy – Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

American Socialism – Should the U.S. become socialist?

Animal Dissection – Should K-12 students dissect animals in science classrooms?

Animal Testing – Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Artificial Intelligence – Is artificial intelligence good for society?

Banned Books – Should parents or other adults be able to ban books from schools and libraries?

Binge-Watching – Is binge-watching good for you?

Cancel Culture – Is cancel culture (or callout culture) good for society?

CBD for Pets – Is CBD good for pets?

Cell Phone Radiation – Is cell phone radiation safe?

Cheerleading – Is cheerleading a sport?

Churches & Taxes – Should churches (including mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?

College Education – Is a college education worth it?

Congressional Term Limits  – Should term limits be imposed on U.S. Senators and Representatives?

Constitutional Carry of Handguns – Should permitless, “constitutional carry” of guns be legal?

Corporal Punishment – Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools?

Corporate Tax Rate – Should the federal corporate income tax rate be raised?

Cuba Embargo – Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?

DACA & Dreamers – Are DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the DREAM Act good for America?

Daylight Saving Time – Should the United States keep daylight saving time?

DC AND Puerto Rico Statehood – Should Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico be granted U.S. statehood?

Death Penalty – Should the death penalty be legal?

Defund the Police – Should police departments be defunded, if not abolished?

Dress Codes – Should dress codes be implemented and enforced?

Drinking Age – Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?

Drone Strikes – Should the United States continue its use of drone strikes abroad?

Drug Use in Sports – Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

Election Day National Holiday – Should the election day be made a national holiday?

Electoral College – Should the United States use the electoral college in presidential elections?

Employer Vaccine Mandates – Should employers be able to mandate vaccinations?

Felon Voting – Should people who have completed felony sentences be allowed to vote?

Fighting in Hockey – Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Filibuster – Should the U.S. Senate keep the filibuster?

Fracking – Should the United States continue fracking

Free College – Should public college be tuition-free?

Fur Clothing Bans – Should fur clothing be banned?

GMOS – Should genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be grown?

Gold Standard – Should the United States return to a gold standard?

Golf – Is golf a sport and are golfers athletes?

Gun Control – Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Historic Statue Removal – Should historic statues be taken down?

Homework – Is homework beneficial?

Illegal Immigration – Should the U.S. government provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

Internet – Is the internet “making us stupid?”

Kneeling during the National Anthem – Is kneeling during the national anthem an appropriate form of protest?

Mandatory National Service – Should the United States have mandatory national service?

Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) – Should medical aid in dying be legal?

Medical Marijuana – Should medical marijuana be legal?

Milk – Should humans consume dairy milk?

Minimum Wage – Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

Net Neutrality – Should the U.S. have net neutrality laws?

Obesity – Is obesity a disease?

Olympics – Are the Olympic games an overall benefit for their host countries and cities?

OTC Birth Control Pills – Should birth control pills be available over-the-counter (OTC)?

Penny – Should the penny stay in circulation?

Pit Bull Bans – Should breed-specific legislation (“pit bull bans”) be enacted?

Pokémon – Is Pokémon Go good for our society?

Police Body Cameras – Should police officers wear body cameras?

Prescription Drug Costs – Should the U.S. federal government regulate prescription drug prices?

Presidential Election, 2024 – 2024 Presidential Election Site

Private Prisons – Should prisons be privatized?

Recreational Marijuana – Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Reparations for Slavery – Should the federal government pay reparations to the descendants of slaves?

Right to Healthcare – Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?

Sanctuary Cities – Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding?

Santa Claus – Is there really a Santa Claus?

Saturday Halloween – Should Halloween be moved permanently to Saturday?

School Uniforms – Should students have to wear school uniforms?

Single-use Plastics Ban – Should single-use plastics be banned?

Social Media & Digital Addiction – Does social media spur digital addiction and other social ills?

Social Security Privatization – Should social security be privatized?

Space Colonization – Should humans colonize space?

Standardized Tests – Do standardized tests improve education in America?

Student Loan Debt – Should student loan debt be eliminated via forgiveness or bankruptcy?

TikTok Bans – Should TikTok be banned?

Uber & Lyft – Are ride-sharing companies a benefit to society?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) – Should the United States implement a universal basic income?

U.S. Supreme Court Packing – Should packing the U.S. Supreme Court ever be considered?

Vaccines for Kids – Should states be allowed to mandate vaccines for school attendance??

Vaping E-Cigarettes – Is vaping e-cigarettes safe?

Vegetarianism – Should people become vegetarian?

Video Games & Violence – Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Voting Age – Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

Voting Machines – Are electronic voting machines the best method for voting?

Zoos – Should zoos exist?

Archived Topics

Please note that ProCon no longer updates these debates.

ACLU – Is the ACLU good for America?

Big Three Bailout – Should the big three car manufacturers be bailed out by the U.S. government?

Born Gay – Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Climate Change – Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

College Football Playoffs – Should college football replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a playoff system?

Dakota Access Pipeline – Should the Dakota Access Pipeline be completed?

D.A.R.E. – Is the D.A.R.E. program good for America’s kids (K-12)?

Gay Marriage – Should gay marriage be legal?

Congressional Insider Trading – Should insider trading by Congress be allowed?

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Obamacare – Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) good for America?

Paying College Athletes – Should colleges and universities pay college athletes?

President Bill Clinton – Was Bill Clinton a good president?

President Ronald Reagan – Was Ronald Reagan a good president?

Presidential Election, 2008 – Which candidate would make the best U.S. president?

Presidential Election, 2012 – Which candidate should be U.S. president in 2012?

Presidential Election, 2016 – The candidates and where they stand on the issues

Presidential Election, 2020 – 2020 Presidential Election Site

Prostitution – Should prostitution be legal?

School Vouchers – Should states have school voucher programs?

Tablets v. Textbooks -Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools?

Teacher Tenure – Should teachers get tenure?

Under God in the Pledge – Should the words “under god” be in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance?

U.S. Drone Shot down by Iran – Was the U.S. drone shot down by Iran over international waters?

U.S.-Iraq War – Should the U.S. have attacked Iraq?

WTC Muslim Center – Is it appropriate to build a muslim community center (aka the ”ground zero mosque”) near the World Trade Center site?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Essay Papers Writing Online

Learn the best strategies and tips on how to write an effective and persuasive debate essay for your academic success.

When it comes to expressing opinions, engaging in a debate can be an effective way to communicate and support your stance on a particular issue. A debate essay, or argumentative essay, allows you to showcase your critical thinking skills and present a well-reasoned argument. This type of essay requires careful planning and organization to effectively persuade your audience. By following a step-by-step approach, you can develop a strong debate essay that presents your point of view clearly and convincingly.

Before diving into the writing process, it’s essential to understand the purpose of a debate essay. The goal is not only to express your own opinion but also to address counterarguments and anticipate potential objections. Your aim is to convince your audience to understand and accept your perspective by presenting strong evidence and logical reasoning. To achieve this, you need to research and gather relevant information on the topic, evaluate different viewpoints, and outline a clear structure for your essay.

One of the key components of a successful debate essay is a strong thesis statement. This statement presents the main argument or claim that you will be defending throughout your essay. It should be clear, concise, and impactful. Your thesis statement should express your position on the topic and provide a preview of the main points you will be discussing. A well-crafted thesis statement sets the tone for your essay and helps guide your writing process, ensuring that every point you make supports and strengthens your overall argument.

Understand the topic and choose a side

Before diving into the debate essay writing process, it is crucial to thoroughly understand the topic at hand and carefully consider which side you will argue for. This step is essential as it sets the foundation for a well-reasoned and persuasive argument.

Take the time to read and research extensively on the topic to gain a comprehensive understanding of its different aspects and perspectives. Look for reliable sources such as books, scholarly articles, and reputable websites to gather information and insights. By doing so, you will be able to familiarize yourself with various arguments, counterarguments, and evidence presented by experts in the field.

Once you have gained a deep understanding of the topic, it is time to choose a side. Consider the different arguments presented by both sides and evaluate which one aligns with your own beliefs, values, and knowledge. Think about the strengths and weaknesses of each argument, as well as the evidence supporting them. Reflect on your own experiences and personal views to help you make an informed decision.

Choosing a side does not necessarily mean that you have to agree with it wholeheartedly. It simply means that you will be presenting and defending that particular perspective in your debate essay. Keep in mind that choosing a side does not imply being closed-minded or dismissive of the opposing viewpoint. A well-rounded debate essay will acknowledge and address counterarguments, showing a balanced and thoughtful approach to the topic.

Once you understand the topic and have chosen a side, you can move on to the next step of the debate essay writing process: gathering evidence and constructing a persuasive argument.

Research and gather supporting evidence

In order to write a strong and convincing debate essay, it is essential to conduct thorough research and gather relevant supporting evidence. Research serves as the foundation for an effective argument, providing credible information that strengthens your position and persuades your audience.

When conducting research, it is important to explore multiple sources to ensure a well-rounded understanding of the topic. This can include peer-reviewed articles, academic journals, books, and reputable websites. By utilizing a variety of sources, you can gain different perspectives and enhance the credibility of your argument.

During the research process, it is crucial to critically analyze the information you gather. This involves evaluating the credibility and reliability of your sources. Look for evidence that is backed by reputable experts, institutions, or organizations. Additionally, consider the timeliness of the information to ensure that you are presenting the most current and relevant data.

As you gather evidence, it is also important to keep track of your sources. This will allow you to properly cite and reference your information in your debate essay. Utilize a citation style guide, such as APA or MLA, to ensure consistency and accuracy in your citations.

When selecting evidence to support your argument, consider the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of information. Choose evidence that is logical, well-reasoned, and directly relevant to your argument. Avoid using biased or unreliable sources that may weaken your position.

In conclusion, research and gathering supporting evidence is a critical step in writing a debate essay. Thorough research and careful evaluation of sources will strengthen your argument and enhance your credibility. By selecting well-reasoned and relevant evidence, you can effectively persuade your audience and present a compelling debate essay.

Organize your arguments

When writing a debate essay, it is crucial to organize your arguments in a clear and logical manner. By doing so, you will be able to effectively present your ideas and support your stance on the given topic. Organizing your arguments not only helps you convey your message more effectively, but it also makes it easier for your readers to comprehend and follow your line of thinking.

One way to organize your arguments is to group them based on similarities or themes. This can be done by identifying common elements or ideas among your arguments and grouping them together. For example, if you are arguing in favor of stricter gun control laws, you might have separate arguments related to reducing gun violence, preventing accidental shootings, and deterring criminals. By grouping these arguments together, you can present a more cohesive and convincing case.

Another way to organize your arguments is by presenting them in a logical order. This can be done by arranging your arguments from the strongest to the weakest or from the most general to the most specific. By structuring your arguments in this way, you can build a strong foundation and gradually persuade your readers as they progress through your essay. Additionally, presenting your arguments in a logical order makes it easier for your readers to follow your reasoning and understand the progression of your ideas.

Furthermore, it is important to provide evidence and examples to support your arguments. This can be done by incorporating research findings, statistics, expert opinions, and real-life examples into your essay. By including evidence, you not only strengthen your arguments but also make them more persuasive and credible. However, it is crucial to ensure that the evidence you present is reliable and relevant to your topic. Additionally, you should clearly explain how the evidence supports your arguments so that your readers can understand the connection.

In conclusion, organizing your arguments is a crucial step in writing a debate essay. By grouping your arguments based on similarities or themes, presenting them in a logical order, and providing evidence to support them, you can effectively convey your ideas and persuade your readers. Remember to stay focused on your main point and to present your arguments in a clear and concise manner. With proper organization, your debate essay will be more impactful and convincing.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

The Best Controversial Topics for Debates and Essays

General Education

Controversial topics are a good choice for an essay or debate because they immediately draw in the reader or listener. The adage that “controversy sells” is so rooted in society that even the rapper Chamillionaire named his second album after it! Controversial issues are also a good topic because it’s easier to write a strong thesis and find sources to back up your argument . After all, when something is controversial, everybody wants to have their say over it.

However, it’s also important that you address controversial issues with sensitivity and care. Because controversial topics tend to raise emotions, you must walk a thin line between opinion and fact in order to build trust between you and your reader/listener.

In this article, we’re going to give you the best controversial topics you can use for essays and debates—and we’ll explain the controversies for you, too! We’ll also discuss when to use controversial topics, the pros and cons of choosing a controversial issue, and tips for making sure you’re treating a controversial topic with sensitivity and respect.

That’s a lot to cover, so let’s get started!

Controversial topics are issues that can really get people up in arms. (Yes, it's a dad joke. No, we're not sorry.)

What Are Controversial Topics?

If you’ve flipped on a television lately, you’ve probably seen people on the news arguing different sides of an issue. (Occasionally, these arguments can get pretty emotional!) When you see this happening, there’s a good chance that the people you’re watching are discussing a controversial topic. 

Controversial debate topics include subjects that create strong differences of opinion. They are issues that can affect politics, society as a whole, individuals on a personal level, the environment, or any other area of life that people feel strongly about. Additionally, controversial issues often have no clear answer because people’s feelings and personal beliefs are often strongly involved.

3 Pros and 3 Cons of Using Controversial Topics in Essays or Debates 

It might be tempting to pick any old controversial topic and run with it. Not so fast! While controversial topics definitely give you a lot to talk about in an essay or debate, there are some definite drawbacks to dealing with hot-button issues.

Here are the pros and cons you should consider before deciding to use a controversial topic in your work. 

Pro #1: It’s Usually Easy to Find Sources

Everyone wants to have their say on controversial topics, which is great when you need sources to include in your paper! A quick library or Google search will turn up tons of information. It can make that part of writing (or preparing for a debate) much easier. 

Con #1: It Can Be Hard to Find Good Sources

When you Google a controversial source, the results can be overwhelming. While you’re probably going to have tons of hits, they'll be from a wide range of sources like social media, personal blogs, podcasts, and message boards (like Reddit and Quora). Just because something appears high in a Google result doesn’t make it a good source that you can site in a paper or speech.

Good sources are ones that are written by credentialed authors (they are experts in their field) and include reliable, cited evidence. A good place to find good sources are scholarly databases, like JSTOR and ProQuest, since the articles on these databases have been vetted by other experts before they are published. Reputable news outlets can also be good resources, too. 

Pro #2: It’s Easier to Talk About Things That Interest You 

If you care about a topic you probably already know a little bit about it. This is especially true for many controversial issues. After all, they tend to be controversial because many people have opinions on them! If you pick a controversial issue that’s near and dear to your heart, you’ll find that you have a lot to say about it. 

Con #2: It’s Hard to Keep Your Emotions In Check 

If it is a topic you care about a lot, you probably already have strong opinions formed. But in order to build trust with your reader/listener and to be accurate, you need to use neutral language so that your reader/listener can draw their own conclusions based on your work. While it’s tempting to call people out or get heated, those are both pitfalls you should avoid . 

Pro #3: Controversial Issues Capture Attention 

Tackling a subject like mass incarceration, the death penalty, or abortion is a good way to get your audience to sit up and take notice. People want to hear your opinion to see how it does—or doesn’t—match their own. 

Con #3: You Open Yourself Up to Criticism 

On the flip side, if your argument doesn’t align with their beliefs, the people reading or listening to your argument may criticize your opinion or belief because it is not the same as theirs. You’ll have to spend extra time making sure you’ve created a strong argument since people have often spent more time thinking about a controversial topic and are better able to challenge your position. 

How to Pick Good Controversial Topics for Teens

When picking what topic to write about, it’s important that you pick a good strong topic that is relevant and that has an amount of easy to find good sources. When deciding on a topic, try to keep these tips in mind! 

Tip #1: Choose a Topic That Interests You 

It’s easier to work on a subject you enjoy. Don’t use a topic you find boring or have no interest in. Write about a topic you are passionate about, since your own interest will shine through in your writing or speech. Also, when you pick a topic you like, the assignment can actually be fun. Imagine that! 

Tip #2: Be Passionate...But Not Too Passionate

Stay away from topics where you might be too passionate about one side since it can be tough to distance yourself enough to see both sides of the argument. You’ll want to know what good arguments the other side has so that you can defend your position against them. If you're too passionate about a subject, you might miss key details that help you defend your position. Every side has good points—that’s why there’s an argument in the first place!

Tip #3: Make Sure There’s Hard Evidence

Pick a topic where there’s evidence, not just a “he said, she said” kind of thing. Avoid arguments that don’t have any facts or figures backing them up or they are entirely opinion based. Examples of topics that are controversial but lack compelling evidence include government conspiracies or theories that have been proven false, like the Earth being flat or that pineapple belongs on pizza (it doesn’t).

Tip #4: Know Your Audience

If you are writing about controversial debate topics, ask yourself who it is you are trying to persuade. Is it your teacher? A certain segment of the population? If you know who your audience is, you can better tailor your argument to hit on the points they care about. 

For example, say you’re writing an essay about how teacher’s unions are unnecessary. If your audience is your teacher—who's probably in a union!—you’re going to have to work harder to prove your point since they’re more likely to be in favor of unions. (You’ll also need to make sure you’re being fair and respectful to avoid offending your teacher. We’ll talk more about how to do that in a minute.) 

In the example above, knowing your audience can (and should) change the way you write your argument in order to make it as persuasive and convincing as possible. 

Tip #5: Narrow Down Your Topic 

Make sure your topic is broad enough that you have plenty of information sources to choose from but narrow enough that you aren’t overwhelmed by the amount of information. An easy way to narrow a broad topic is to limit it to a time period or geographical location. For instance, let’s say that you want to write an argumentative essay about climate change. Climate change covers a lot of ground, so you could narrow it down to only writing about climate change in the last 15 years. You could narrow it down even more by writing about how climate change has affected a small geographical location, like California or your own city, in the last 15 years.

Gun control is a perennially controversial topic in the United States.

The Best Controversial Topics of 2019

Here are some of the most controversial topics discussed this year. Many of these issues are evergreen topics, which means you’ll be able to find plenty of information for them! 

These are topics related to current political subjects both in the US and abroad. 

Is Brexit a good or bad idea? 

In 2016, the United Kingdom voted to settle the question of whether or not they should leave the European Union. Proponents of Brexit argue that leaving the EU would save money for the nation as they would no longer need to pay a membership fee to the EU. Opponents argue that the UK will lose money due to new trade restrictions. 

Did Russia interfere with the 2016 Presidential Election? 

After Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election , there were several investigative reports published that suggested that Russia used targeted Facebook ads to encourage people to vote for Trump , and Russia may have been the ones who hacked the Democratic National Convention. Trump supporters have been quick to rebuff this claim, arguing that the election results reflect the will of the American population. However, those who are anti-Trump argue that Trump did not legitimately win the election and that the results were due to Russian interference. They cite the fact that Hilary Clinton had a larger popular vote than Trump to support this. 

Should there be stricter gun control?

The United States has experienced more than 200 mass shootings in 2019, and each new incident brings up controversial questions about gun control. Those in favor of gun control argue that more gun laws would reduce gun deaths. Those against gun control argue that the Second Amendment protects their right to own guns and any legislation for stricter gun control would be unconstitutional. 

Should America allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens? 

As more and more immigrants arrive at America’s borders, the debate over immigration becomes even more heated. On the pro side, people argue that illegal immigrants help the economy by paying taxes and that most immigrants came here as asylum seekers, which is legal. Opponents argue that these immigrants have crossed the border illegally and that a large portion of these immigrants are violent criminals and should be sent back to protect American citizens. 

Should the death penalty still be allowed?  

Many states have done away with the death penalty, yet some states still support it. Many have questioned if the death penalty is a moral, ethical, and effective way to deal with crime. On the pro side, the argument is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime and can help bring closure to families affected by heinous criminal activity. On the con side, the argument is that it violates the 8th amendment and that sometimes innocent people have been put to death. 

Should abortion be allowed? 

Recently, several states have enacted new legislation limiting access to abortion. The pro-choice/pro-abortion side argues that women should be allowed to control their bodies without any interference from the government or religious authority. The pro-life/anti-abortion side argues that abortion is murder and inflicts pain and suffering on the unborn fetus. They are also opposed to Roe vs. Wade , a court decision that made abortion legal in the United States.  

Should doctor-assisted suicide be allowed? 

In January of 2019, Hawaii will join six other states in enacting Death with Dignity laws for patients with terminal illnesses . However, unlike in countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, and the Netherlands, doctor-assisted euthanasia is still illegal according to US federal laws. Many believe it should also be legal on the federal level. Those for doctor-assisted suicide argue that allowing those with chronic pain or terminal illnesses to end their lives is a compassionate act that relieves their suffering. Those opposed argue that it violates the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm,” and allowing euthanasia is a slippery slope that will lead to doctors deciding who is worthy of life and who is not. 

Should the government legalize recreational marijuana?

As of 2018, there are 11 states that have legalized recreational marijuana: Alaska (2014), California (2016), Colorado (2012), DC (2014), Maine (2016), Massachusetts (2016), Michigan (2018), Nevada (2016), Oregon (2014), Vermont (2018), and Washington (2012). Legal marijuana proponents argue that the War on Drugs was a failed initiative that unfairly affected minority communities,and that marijuana isn’t any worse for you than drinking alcohol. Those against legal marijuana argue that the drug is addictive and leads to a higher percentage of school dropouts, car accidents, and crime.

These are topics based on current controversies happening in the scientific field.

Are humans causing global warming?

As the polar ice caps continue to melt, people question whether or not human activity is responsible for raising the temperature of the Earth . Proponents of this idea argue that due to human-generated waste and carbon dioxide, we are responsible for this rise in temperature. Opponents argue that the earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles and that human activity is not to blame.

Are GMOs good or bad?

  In recent years there has been an increase in the number of controversial questions raised by GMO, or genetically modified, crops. Those in favor of GMOs, which stands for genetically modified organisms, argue that without genetically modified crops and animals, there would be food shortages; they also argue that GMOs have been around for millennia. Those opposed to GMOs argue that GMOs could be the cause of the rise of cancers and that the pesticides needed to grow GMO crops contribute to pesticide-resistant pests. 

Will work done on artificial intelligence eventually lead to our demise? 

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more sophisticated, which raises questions about the ethics and eventual outcome of creating artificial intelligence . Proponents believe artificial intelligence will keep us safer and solve many of the world’s problems; but opponents believe that developing AI might not be ethical, they ask whether or not robots programmed with AI count as  conscious beings and should be given rights, or if AI will eventually lead to humanity’s downfall. 

Should we allow gene editing on human beings? 

2017 saw exciting advances in the science of gene editing with the arrival of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing method. However, it’s also raised some controversial debate topics regarding the ethics of allowing gene editing. Gene editing proponents argue that gene editing will allow us to cure genetic diseases and prolong life. But opponents argue that the technology will create more social inequity because only the rich will be able to afford it. They also argue that editing the genes of human embryos is tantamount to playing God. 

Are self driving cars really safe?  

In 2018, a car accidentally ran over and killed a pedestrian as she was crossing the street in Tempe, AZ. Despite this, driverless car manufacturers like Tesla and transportation companies like Uber argue that driverless technology is ultimately safer than human piloted transportation. This is due to the fact that driverless cars would feature many sensors and safety features whereas human drivers have a tendency to get distracted or sleepy while driving, and some may be driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There are many pro and con arguments about the controversial issues related to driverless technology , which makes this a great controversial topic for essays and debates! 

Should anti-vaxxers be forced to vaccinate their kids?

Recently a measles outbreak has spread throughout Europe. According to the World Health Organization, there have been at least 40 measles-related deaths associated with the outbreak. Many blame anti-vaxxers, or parents who believe vaccines cause autism and other illnesses, for the spread of this disease. Those who are pro-vaccine argue that vaccines save lives and by not vaccinating their children , anti-vaxxers are putting others at risk. Anti-vaxxers argue that vaccines can cause serious side effects like autism, seizures, or Guillain-Barre Syndrome. They also argue that getting vaccinated is a personal choice that should be respected by the government.

Do we really need a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)? 

In April of 2016, the European Union enacted the General Data Protection Regulation, which is designed to protect EU citizens’ personal data. Proponents for the GDPR argue that it will prevent the number of wide-scale data breaches and hacking that occurs on a day to day basis. Opponents argue that the GDPR doesn’t do enough to protect data and that it will negatively impact the economy because of the fines that will be enforced if a company fails to comply with GDPR guidelines. 

Should we grow our meat in a lab? 

Recent advances in technology have allowed scientists to experiment with lab-grown, edible meat that doesn’t require animal slaughter. Supporters of lab grown meat claim it is better for the environment and does away with the moral issues surrounding animal husbandry, including animal abuse and inhumane farming practices. Opponents claim lab grown meat may have adverse health effects on people who eat lab-grown meat, especially since the technology is so new. Opponents also argue that lab-grown meat could end the farming industry and put thousands of people out of work. 

Uber is great when you need a lift...but does it treat its employees fairly?

Society & Culture

These are current topics that involve our day to day lives. 

Should transgendered people be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice? 

Earlier last year, North Carolina passed a law that prohibited transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice based on their expressed gender rather than their biologically assigned sex . The “bathroom bill” is the first of its kind to specifically address the issue of transgender public restroom access. Proponents for the bill argue that allowing biological males and females to use the same restroom will lead to a higher percentage of sexual assault and was a risk to public safety. Opponents argue that the bill is discriminatory.

Is it still okay to use UBER? 

In 2017, UBER was rocked by claims of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and false advertising. The hashtag #DeleteUber went viral in January 2017, and many users and drivers boycotted the company. This situation raises two controversial questions. First, what rights do contract workers have in this new, emerging gig economy ? And second, is UBER the victim of cancel culture , or do customers have an ethical obligation to boycott companies with shady practices? 

Cultural appropriation or cultural appreciation? What’s the difference?

Katy Perry has been criticized for her 2017 music video "This Is How We Do” because the singer wore cornrows in her hair. Many have claimed the appearance of a Caucasian woman with a traditionally black hairstyle is cultural appropriation . These opponents argue that because people of color have been discriminated against for wearing traditionally black hairstyles, white women who sport the same hair styles profit from it. However, some argue that without cultural appropriation, many elements of minority cultures have become popularized, like rap music and R&B .  

Should we give men accused of sexual misconduct a second chance? 

In 2017, comedian Louis CK was accused of sexually harassing his female colleagues . Since these accusations went public, Louis CK has tried to rehabilitate his image, and h e has since publicly apologized. But this raises the question of whether we should give men accused of sexual misconduct a second chance if they seem to have learned their lesson. 

Is social media ruining society? 

According to a 2018 survey, approximately 70% of Americans use at least one social media site including Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter . Those in favor of social media argue that it  promotes a sense of community and helps create social interactions. But social media detractors argue that sites like Facebook or Reddit waste time, trigger mental illnesses, and encourage dangerous bullying.

Should people get fired for what they say on social media?

Recently, James Gunn, the director of Guardians of the Galaxy , was fired by Disney because there were several tweets on his Twitter feed they believed were offensive. He is not the only one, either: Roseanne was fired by Netflix after she made an offensive tweet towards politician Valerie Jarrett. This has raised some controversial questions, like whether someone be held professionally accountable for what they say on social media . Proponents for social media accountability argue that what someone posts on social media is a reflection of who they are as a person. Opponents argue that posting on social media is protected by free speech and that the context of the posting should matter. 

Is the #MeToo movement helping or hurting women? 

The #MeToo movement began in 2017 with a series of articles that accused Harvey Weinstein of rape and sexual assault. These articles led to Weinstein’s ostracization from Hollywood and eventually led to criminal investigations into his behavior. The #MeToo movement has brought down several powerful men with accusations of sexual misconduct. But some argue the movement has set the feminist movement back by discouraging companies from hiring women due to their fear of lawsuits. 

Is Gen Z worse than previous generations? 

Someone is always complaining that the generation after them is worse than their generation. As members of Gen Z mature and reach adulthood, they face many criticisms from the preceding generations. For example, d etractors have accused Gen Z of being lazy and introverted. However, others think Gen Z might be the generation that saves the world.  

Arts & Entertainment

These are topics that are currently affecting sports, tv, Hollywood, literature, music, and art.

Should movies and television shows be forced to hire more diverse casts? 

Hollywood has come under fire for “whitewashing” or the act of casting a white actor when the role should have gone to a person of color. An example of this is when Rupert Sanders, director of Ghost in the Shell , cast Scarlett Johansson as the Asian protagonist Major . Opponents of this practice argue that “whitewashing” takes jobs away from deserving POC actors. However, others argue that art should be free of any restrictions or boundaries . 

Should the show 13 Reasons Why have removed its controversial scenes?  

In 2017, Netflix released an original show based on the young adult novel 13 Reasons Why , which focuses on the suicide of 17-year-old Hannah Baker. Parents and educators opposed the release of this show due to the fact that it involved several controversial topics for teens such as suicide and rape. But those that support the show have argued that it provided a way to start conversations with teens about these tough topics . Ultimately, Netflix went back and edited out the controversial scenes. This topic gives you the opportunity to talk about whether mature content like suicide and rape is appropriate in shows aimed toward teenagers. You can also discuss whether Netflix’s removal of the offending scenes is the right decision or not. 

Should male and female actors make the same amount of money? 

In 2018, Hollywood came under fire after the internet learned that Michelle Williams was paid substantially less for her role in “All The Money In The World” than her male co-star, Mark Wahlberg. Some argue that as the bigger star, Whalberg deserved to be compensated at a higher rat e. Others argue that Williams did the same amount of work as Wahlberg and should receive the same amount of pay. This issue plugs into the larger social issue of pay discrepancies based on race and gender.

Should athletes be allowed to kneel during the national anthem? 

People have started to boycott Nike for their commercial featuring Colin Kaepernick . Kaepernick is a San Francisco 49ers quarterback who has received a lot of press for being the first athlete to kneel during the national anthem in protest the treatment of African Americans and minorities in the United States. President Trump has publicly stated that any athlete who kneels during the national anthem is being disrespectful and should be fired. Yet others defend kneeling during the anthem, regarding it as an expression of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment. 

The 5 Best Tips for Treating Controversial Topics With Sensitivity and Respect

In order to write a good argument and convince your reader/listener to agree with you, you will need to treat your controversial issue with sensitivity and respect. This helps the reader/listener to trust you. 

But that can be really hard when you feel passionately about your topic and your opinions! Here are the best tips for making sure you stick to the facts, not the feelings. 

Tip #1: Avoid Charged Language

An author is accused of using loaded language when they substitute words with positive or negative connotations instead of using more neutral language. Some examples of this are using the word “superior” instead of better, calling the opposition “stupid,” or using biased terminology (“infanticide” vs. “abortion”). While emotional appeals are a great tool to persuade people to your point of view, when they’re used in the wrong way, they come across as overly aggressive and biased. 

Tip #2 : Avoid Logical Fallacies

A logical fallacy is an error in your argument’s logic because it presents the topic’s information in a deceptive way. Below are some common logical fallacies to watch out for.

Straw Man Fallacy: this is when you ignore your opponent’s real argument and instead argue that your opponent believes something easily ridiculed or proved false.

Slippery Slope: this is when you argue that something seemingly benign will lead to an unlikely extreme. 

Generalizations: generalizations are statements about an idea that do not have any facts to support them. They tend to play into stereotypes and often rely on exaggerations or over the top statements.

For more information on logical fallacies and how to avoid them, check out this resource. 

Tip #3: Do Not Attack Your Opponent Personally

This is called an ad hominem fallacy, and is often referred to as “mud-slinging” or “bashing.” When you do this, it implies that the only way you can counter your opponents viewpoints is through personal attacks. (Also, it’s just not cool.) Instead, stick to using facts and figures to show why their argument is wrong.

Tip #4: Avoid Hyperbole, Stereotypes, and Clichés 

These are common issues that crop up in argumentative writing that ultimately weaken your position.

Hyperbole happens when you exaggerate. When you use hyperbole, you risk misrepresenting the issue at hand—which is an argument killer. For example, take this statement: “If we don’t stop climate change now, we’ll all be dead in 10 years.” While climate change is definitely a huge risk to humanity, saying everyone on Earth will die in a decade if we don’t fix is a significant exaggeration. It would be better to say something like, “If we don’t start to solve climate change now, we’re risking the livelihoods and safety of future generations.” This is a more moderate statement that you can back up with facts, like scientists’ belief that climate change will put coastal cities underwater. 

Stereotypes are oversimplified, misinformed, or prejudiced assumptions held about other people or things. For example, a common stereotype is that all women love pink. (Spoiler alert: they don’t.) While stereotypes like this seem harmless, most are not. For example, a stereotype like the idea that all immigrants are criminals is extremely harmful. Stereotypes are not only false, they make you seem biased and ill-informed. 

Finally, clichés are overused or commonplace phrases, themes, or expressions . These are often phrases that have been said so much that they’ve lost all real meaning. For example, the idea that people can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” is a textbook example of a cliché. Instead, it’s better to explain the idea behind the cliché in more detail. In this case, it would be better to say that people—no matter their station in life—can create opportunities for themselves through hard work.

Tip #5 : Don’t Beat a Dead Horse

Remember that your job is to present them with the facts in an open and honest way. If you have done a good job, your reader or listener will come away with the same opinion as you, or at least more informed. It’s okay to state your opinion in your paper as long as you use other sources to back your opinion up and are fair to the other side. (Also resist the urge to restate your opinion every other sentence—it’s monotonous and doesn’t do much to win your reader over!)  

5 Resources for Finding More Controversial Debate Topics

If you’re not inspired by the topics we’ve already mentioned, don’t worry. There are many other controversial topics out there! Here are some other places you can look to find a topic that’s perfect for your essay or debate. 

#1: ProCon.Org 

You probably noticed that we’ve included links in this article that take you to ProCon.org . That’s because this website is a treasure trove of controversial issues! The website has lists of ideas that they break down into general pro/con lists, and each topic links you research starters. 

#2: National & Local News 

Much of the modern news cycle is devoted to discussing hot-button topics of our time. If you’re looking for topics related to current events, news sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post will help! Also, don’t discount your local news resources, either. They’ll give you valuable information about what’s going on in your community and how larger, national issues are impacting where you live. 

#3: They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing (Fourth Edition) by Cathy Birkenstein & Gerald Graff  

Writing argumentative papers where you have to pick (and defend) your perspective is a skill you’ll use throughout high school, college, and beyond. They Say/I Say walks you through everything you need to know to write an argument. Even better: the book uses controversial issues as a way to teach writing, so you’ll get expert instruction on how to use them to write an amazing paper.

#4: Documentaries

Documentaries provide more in-depth perspectives on topics—both historical and contemporary—that have shaped the world. A great documentary can give you a thorough overview of an issue, and often they dig into different perspectives around an event, idea, or historical moment. The PBS series, Frontline , is a good place to start, but don’t be afraid to look at critically acclaimed films (like The Times of Harvey Milk or How to Survive a Plague ) for inspiration as well.  

#5: The Learning Network

The Learning Network , a blog run by The New York Times, is a great resource for students and teachers. They have lots of great resources, and their article on 200 prompts for argumentative writing is amazing for anyone looking for essay or debate topics. The article split into categories by topic and links to articles that can help explain each issue. It’s a great place to find a topic that interests you.

What’s Next?

Controversial topics are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things you can research and write about for class. Check out our list of 113 amazing research paper topics to put you on the path to an A+ paper grade! ( If you’re looking for speech topics or argumentative essay topics , we’ve got you covered, too.)

Researching a controversial topic is just the first step in the argumentative process. You also have to be able to persuade your reader or listener to believe in your point of view. Here are 3 killer tips to help you write an amazing argumentative essay.

Learning how to read critically, come up with an argument, and communicate it is one of the fundamental skills you’ll need to tackle the writing portions of the SAT and ACT. To make sure you’re prepared, check out our step-by-step guide to the essay portion of the SAT ( and the ACT ).

These recommendations are based solely on our knowledge and experience. If you purchase an item through one of our links, PrepScholar may receive a commission.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

How to Write a Debate Essay: Simple Principles to Follow

Debating means almost the same as arguing. You have a standpoint on a certain issue and want everybody else to accept it. To have a better understanding of what debates are all about, we advise you to watch some videos of political debates. These are the best examples of how one should argue for a certain point.

However, oral debates between people are certainly different from debating on paper and writing a good debate essay. If this is your next written assignment and you face some difficulties with it, we are ready to provide necessary assistance.

So, if you want to know how to write a debate essay and win the “battle”, follow these simple principles.

⭐ Know the features of a good debate

👀 choose debate essay topics wisely, 🔎 investigate background of the problem, 🗣️ collect arguments and counterarguments.

A winning debate has several characteristics that you should know and use when writing own debate essay:

• a certain position on an issue;
• proofs and evidences;
• refuting arguments;

Basically, a good debate essay topic is any current issue that is of great interest to public and causes… heated debates. Yet, it does not mean you should pick any burning issue for discussion. It should be something you feel strongly about and will be able to argue for in your debate essay.

It is very important to study the topic of your debate essay thoroughly. What are the causes of the problem? What makes it so important to people? Why does this issue call opposing views?

Needless to say, you have to study as many materials devoted to the problem as you can and collect your arguments. However, you should also take into account all the counterarguments so that to refute them later in your debate essay.

If you lack ideas for your debate essay, read our articles about an essay on Affirmative Action and essay on animal experimentation.

• The Saturday Paper
• The Monthly
• Australian Foreign Affairs
• Give as a gift
• News & Events
• News & Events
• Give a Gift
• Renew a subscription
• Shop Online
• Read essays online
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Get our App
• Online access
• iTunes eBook
• Kindle eBook
• Media Contact

Current Issue

Joëlle Gergis

Highway to Hell

Climate change and australia's future.

Australia is in peril. Do we truly grasp the impact of a warming planet – in particular, what it will mean for our sunburnt country? As temperatures rise, the climates of our capital cities will change. The sea will rise, and we will see increased fire and drought. In this powerful essay, Joëlle Gergis, a leading climate scientist, depicts the likely future in vivid and credible detail. Working from the science, she discusses the world’s and Australia’s efforts to combat climate change. She outlines how far Australia is from keeping its promises to cut emissions. She takes aim at false solutions and the folly of “adaptation” rather than curbing fossil fuel use. This is an essay about government paralysis and what is at stake for all of us. It’s about getting real, in the face of an unprecedented threat. “How many disasters does it take to wake people up to the fact that Australia’s climate is becoming more extreme, with today’s destruction set to be dwarfed by things to come? Do people realise that adapting to climate change won’t be possible in some parts of the country?” — Joëlle Gergis,  Highway to Hell

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joëlle Gergis is an award-winning climate scientist and writer. She served as a lead author for the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report and is the author of  Humanity's Moment: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope  and  Sunburnt Country: The history and future of climate change in Australia . Joëlle also contributed chapters to  The Climate Book  by Greta Thunberg, and  Not Too Late: Changing the climate story from despair to possibility , edited by Rebecca Solnit and Thelma Young Lutunatabua.

READ AN EXTRACT

Why not also add these?

Quarterly Essay News

Sign up to receive the latest news in our newsletter

On the US election

Don Watson offers a report from America that catches the madness and the politics of an election like no other.

This is a deeply historically informed, characteristically mordant account of Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and a divided country. Watson considers how things reached this pass, and what might lie ahead.

An essential essay about a crucial moment of choice.

Don Watson is the author of many acclaimed books, including  Caledonia Australis, Recollections of a Bleeding Heart, American Journeys  and  The Bush .

See all past essays

• Log in with Facebook
• Log in with Twitter
• Log in with Google

By logging in you agree to our Terms and conditions and Privacy policy .

If you're an existing print subscriber, and you have never logged in, you may need to activate your Schwartz Media account .

Want some assistance?

We're here to help. Email us at [email protected] Freecall 1800 077 514 (Australia only)

• About The Journalist’s Resource
• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Presidential debates and their effects: Research roundup

2016 updated literature review of political science insights on American presidential debates and their effects.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway and John Wihbey, The Journalist's Resource September 20, 2016

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

The news media often anticipate televised presidential debates as a national event of great importance — a kind of Super Bowl of American democracy. But political scientists have noted that, in contrast to the party conventions, the general election debates do not typically have dramatic effects on voters.

To the extent that the debates are important in terms of persuasion, the format may slightly favor the challenger, about whom the public knows less. The classic example cited is John F. Kennedy (though research from political scientist Sydney Kraus confirms the proverbial notion that he won over the television audience but not the radio listenership). Moreover, gaffes can potentially hurt candidates, as with Gerald Ford’s faulty knowledge of Eastern Europe, George H.W. Bush’s looking at his watch and Al Gore’s audible sighing.

Though reporters often look for a winner and loser, viewers experience the debate differently, making two simultaneous judgments: One, whether or not the candidate seems “big enough” to be president; and two, whether one of the candidates is a better choice.

As political scientist Thomas Holbrook has pointed out, the earlier debates are more powerful in terms of voters’ learning about candidates. In his study “Political Learning from Presidential Debates,” Holbrook states: “The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the most important debate, at least in terms of information acquisition, is the first debate … The first debate is held at a time when voters have less information at their disposal and a larger share of voters are likely to be undecided.”

Reflecting on the Obama-McCain race of 2008, scholars Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Jeffrey A. Gottfried note that in a “transformed media environment” — where traditional news has ceded ground to non-mainstream media sources — the televised debates continued to play a unique role, as they have through history. “For almost five decades, studies have confirmed the power of presidential debates to increase voter knowledge, and 2008 was no exception,” they write. “The debates’ two-sided clash of competing ideas, unmediated by interpretation from reporters, spiked voter knowledge. In these often disparaged encounters, the presidential and vice presidential nominees took on the deceptions perpetrated by the other side, including those on health care and taxing proposals.”

One noteworthy area of potential impact of the debates is their capacity for what political scientists call “agenda setting”: The salience of a given policy or campaign issue in the public mind can rise as a result, and this may play to the strength or weakness of a particular campaign.

As the Pew Research Center has consistently found through the years, nearly two-thirds of voters often say the debates were “very” or “somewhat” helpful in decision-making, while voters say the candidates’ commercials were not helpful. However, some scholars think that, when asked about the influence of debates, citizens are predisposed to assign them outsized significance — they conform to ideas of rational deliberation — and to downplay the power of negative ads and other such opinion-shaping communications.

In any case, the 2008 book  Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High-Risk TV , by Alan Schroeder of Northeastern, as well as the 2012 book The Timeline of Presidential Campaigns: How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter , by Robert Erikson of Columbia and Christopher Wlezien of Temple, shed light on these and related issues.

Below is a mix of academic studies that provide diverse insights about debates. For more recent research, please also check out our newest piece focusing on the issue, “US presidential debates: 3 studies journalists should know about.”

Special thanks to political scientists Thomas Patterson  of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center , Marion Just of Wellesley College/Shorenstein and John Sides of George Washington University for their input on this overview.

“Presidential Debates: What’s Behind the Numbers?” Holz, Jo; Akin, Heather; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. White Paper of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, September 2016.

Summary: While the number of households watching presidential and vice-presidential debates has grown substantially since 1960, the proportion of participating households has dropped. This white paper takes a close look at debate viewership, including why audiences watch debates, the changing demographics of viewership and alternate ways to measure viewership. Among the key takeaways from the report: Twenty-nine percent of people surveyed said that presidential debates were more helpful in helping them decide how to vote than news coverage of the campaign, political talk shows, campaign rallies, campaign advertising spots and watching broadcast interviews with the candidates.

“On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates” Cho, Jaeho; Ha, Yerheen Ha. Political Communication , 2012, Vol. 29, No. 2, 184-204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233.

Abstract: “Previous research on presidential debates has largely focused on direct effects of debates on viewers. By expanding the context of debate effects to post-debate citizen communication, this study moves beyond the direct and immediate impact of debate viewing and investigates indirect effects of debate viewing mediated by debate-induced citizen communication. Results from two-wave panel data collected before and after the 2004 presidential debates show that, as previous literature has suggested, debate viewing leads to partisan reinforcement and that these debate effects are in part mediated through post-debate political conversation. These findings provide a new layer of complexity to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying debate effects.”

“The Effects of HDTV on Perceptions of Obama and McCain in a 2008 Presidential Debate” Bos, Angela, L.; van Doorn, Bas W.; Smanik, Abbey C. Communication Research Reports , 2012, Vol. 29, Issue 2. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.666769.

Abstract: “As high-definition television (HDTV) becomes more prevalent, it may affect how people perceive politicians. This study experimentally tests the effects of HD on people’s perceptions of John McCain and Barack Obama during their second presidential debate, hypothesizing that the HD format will hurt McCain. Consistent with the authors’ expectations, it was found that the HD format negatively influenced global evaluations toward McCain. In addition, HDTV viewers free-listed more negative responses to McCain, including several pertaining to his age. This report discusses why these findings were observed, and implications for candidate strategy and the study of media effects are discussed.”

“Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates in 2008: A Profile of Audience Composition” Kenski, Kate; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. American Behavioral Scientist , 2011, Vol. 55, No. 3, 307-324. doi: 10.1177/0002764210392166.

Abstract: “In this study, the authors examine the composition of the audiences for the presidential and vice presidential debates in 2008. Results from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey show that the size of the vice presidential debate-viewing audience in 2008 exceeded the sizes of the presidential debate-viewing audiences, which is atypical from prior campaign seasons. The same general demographic and political characteristics that have driven political debate viewing in the past were operative during the 2008 presidential and vice presidential debate season, with debate viewing by Blacks being a notable exception. Contrary to our predictions, females were not more likely than males to watch the vice presidential debate. Debate watching was significantly associated with the favorability ratings of the candidates on the Democratic ticket, but it was not associated with the ratings of the Republican nominees.”

“Social Influence on Political Judgments: The Case of Presidential Debates” Fein, Steven Fein; Goethals, George R.; Kugler, Matthew. Political Psychology , April 2007, Vol. 28, Issue 2.

Abstract: “Four experiments investigated the extent to which judgments of candidate performance in presidential debates could be influenced by the mere knowledge of others’ reactions. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants watched an intact version of a debate or an edited version in which either ‘soundbite’ one-liners or the audience reaction to those soundbites were removed. In Experiment 3 participants saw what was supposedly the reaction of their fellow participants on screen during the debate. Participants in Experiment 4 were exposed to the reactions of live confederates as they watched the last debate of an active presidential campaign. In all studies, audience reactions produced large shifts in participants’ judgments of performance. The results illustrate the power of social context to strongly influence individuals’ judgments of even large amounts of relevant, important information, and they support the categorization of presidential debates as ambiguous stimuli, fertile ground for informational social influence.”

“Social Influence in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy” Davis, C.J.; Bowers, J.S.; Memon A. PLoS ONE , March 2011, Vol. 6, Issue 3, e18154. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018154.

Findings: The researchers examine the results of an experiment performed on a random sample of 150 undecided voters the night of the final United Kingdom election debate. The participants were divided into two groups and shown the live debate featuring on-screen graphical “worms” — the real-time visual display of a rising and falling line that responds to audience reactions– that were manipulated by the researchers. One worm favored the incumbent, Gordon Brown, while the other favored Nick Clegg. The third debate participant, David Cameron, was favored by neither worm. Nearly half the participants in the group with the Brown-biased worm (47%) said he won the debate, while 35% and 13% reported that Clegg and Cameron won, respectively. More than three-quarters of the group with the Clegg-biased worm (79%) said he won the debate, compared to 9% and 4% for Brown and Cameron, respectively. These numbers indicate that the groups chose winners “consistent with the bias of the worm that they viewed.” Cameron’s perceived performance in the experiment was much lower than that for the public at large — in a survey, the majority of the U.K. population felt that he won the debate. “His poor performance here is consistent with the fact that the worm was biased against him in both groups.” The proportion of participants who said that they were undecided decreased from around 33% before the debate to 10% after the debate: “Most of these undecided voters were swayed in the direction of the worm.”

“Not Your Parents’ Presidential Debates: Examining the Effects of the CNN/YouTube Debates on Young Citizens’ Civic Engagement” McKinney, Mitchell S.; Rill, Leslie A. Communication Studies , 2009, Vol. 60, Issue 4. doi: 10.1080/10510970903110001.

Abstract: “During the 2007-2008 U.S. presidential primaries, CNN partnered with YouTube to create the first nationally televised presidential debates where citizens interrogated the candidates via video questions posted to the Internet. The creators of these debates claimed their novel use of Internet technology “would change the face of presidential candidate debates.” The CNN/ YouTube debates were designed expressly to engage citizens in the campaign dialogue, and specifically to engage young citizens who are frequent users of YouTube yet not always among the viewing audience for a televised presidential debate. The current study examines the effects of viewing the CNN/YouTube debates, and particularly the debates’ influence on young citizens’ ‘normative’ democratic attitudes. Building on previous research designed to test differences in debate formats, this study compares young citizens’ reactions to the CNN/ YouTube debates and also to a more traditional presidential debate with candidate questioning controlled by a journalist. Results suggest that while exposure to candidate debates in general yields positive effects on young citizens’ normative democratic attitudes, there was very little difference found in the effects of exposure to the CNN/YouTube debates when compared to a traditional journalist-controlled presidential debate.”

“Will the ‘Real’ Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand Up? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image” Warner, Benjamin R. American Behavioral Scientist, March 2011, Vol. 55, No. 3, 232-252 . doi: 10.1177/0002764210392160.

Abstract: “This study of the 2008 first presidential and vice presidential debate builds on past research on viewers’ perceptions of candidate images. Going back to the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, image research has been conducted in most presidential election cycles. Findings consistently show that viewers enter the debates with perceptions of candidates’ character and leadership qualities and that the debates tend to reinforce rather than change images unless the viewers are undecided or not well informed about a candidate. The results of the 2008 study confirmed trends from past research but also provided some surprises in that most changes in image perception were for senator Joe Biden, the longest-serving public official in the race. The study concludes that media often assume knowledge about candidates that might not exist and that in the 2008 match-ups, the debates did not provide the “game changer” that the McCain-Palin ticket needed to overcome a growing movement toward the Obama-Biden ticket that began shortly before the first debate.”

“The Effect of Fox News and CNN’s Post-debate Commentator Analysis on Viewers’ Perceptions of Presidential Candidate Performance” Brubaker, Jennifer; Hanson, Gary. Southern Communication Journal , 2009, Vol. 74, Issue 4. doi: 10.1080/10417940902721763.

Abstract: “Television news coverage following a presidential debate often presents the debate as a contest between winners and losers by employing a horse race paradigm. The use of this paradigm can help viewers form their assessments of the candidates’ performances, but its overuse can limit serious campaign discourse on the issues. This study examines the effect of post-debate analysis by two cable news networks on the perceived outcome of a 2004 presidential debate and the perceptions of the candidates, finding perceptions of the outcome differing between viewers of the two networks. This finding contributes to our understanding of viewer interaction with post-debate television coverage by focusing on the importance of the sources of information.”

“A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates” Benoit, William L.; Hansen, Glenn J.; Verser, Rebecca M. Communication Monographs , 2003, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 335-350. doi : 10.1080/0363775032000179133.

Abstract: “Televised debates are now an expected component of the American presidential election campaign. A meta-analysis was used to cumulate the research on the effects of watching presidential debates. General campaign debates increase issue knowledge and issue salience (the number of issues a voter uses to evaluate candidates) and can change preference for candidates’ issue stands. Debates can have an agenda-setting effect. Debates can alter perceptions of the candidates’ personality, but they do not exert a significant effect on perceptions of the candidates’ competence (leadership ability). Debates can affect vote preference. Primary debates increase issue knowledge, influence perceptions of candidates’ character, and can alter voter preferences (the effect sizes for these variables are larger in primary than general debates). The effect sizes for the dependent variables with significant effects were heterogeneous (except for effects of debates other than the first on vote preference). No support was found for several possible moderator variables on issue knowledge, character perceptions, candidate competence, and vote preference: nature of subject pool (students, nonstudents), study design (pretest/posttest, viewers/nonviewers), number of days between debate and election, or data collection method (public opinion poll or experimenter data). The first debate in a series had a larger effect on vote preference than other debates, but was not a moderator for other dependent variables. The possibility that other moderator variables are at work cannot be rejected.”

“Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy” Hillygus, Sunshine D.; Jackman, Simon. American Journal of Political Science , 2003, Vol. 47, No. 4, 583-596. doi: 10.1111/1540-5907.00041.

“Disentangling Media Effects from Debate Effects: The Presentation Mode of Televised Debates and Viewer Decision Making” Cho, Jaeho. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, June 2009, Vol. 86, No. 2, 383-400. doi: 10.1177/107769900908600208.

Abstract: “This experiment examines whether the presentation mode of televised debates impacts how viewers assess the issues debated. Participants were exposed to a segment of televised debate on either a single- or split-screen. Candidate character and party attachment were more important in how viewers formed opinions of the debated issue with the split-screen than with the single-screen. On the other hand, in the split-screen condition, viewers relied less on pre-existing notions when forming opinions of the debated issue than they did with the single-screen condition. Such modality effects were particularly pronounced for those with low-levels of political attentiveness.”

“Issue Knowledge and Perceptions of Agreement in the 2004 Presidential General Election” Kenski, Kate; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Presidential Studies Quarterly , June 2006, Vol. 36, Issue 2, 243-259. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.00301.x.

Abstract: “Using post-election data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, this study finds that compared to the 2000 election, candidate issue knowledge was relatively high by the end of the 2004 general election. It argues that just as in 2000, voters’ mistakes in matching presidential candidates with their issue positions benefited Republican incumbent George W. Bush more than Democratic challenger John Kerry. Perceived agreement with Bush exceeded actual agreement on four issues tested. Taking six demographic variables, party identification, and ideology into consideration, knowledge about the candidates’ issue positions mattered, as more informed respondents preferred Kerry to Bush. On the three issue knowledge items on which citizens performed the worst, content analyses indicate that citizens could have learned about the candidates’ positions from the debates as well as press coverage. We offer a number of explanations for these incorrect answers.”

“Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance” Lenz, Gabriel S.; Lawson, Chappell. American Journal of Political Science , 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00511.x.

Findings: In gubernatorial races, a voter who watches more television places slightly more importance (7%) on a candidate’s appearance than the typical voter. Among these higher-intensity viewers, those identified as “low-knowledge” voters were 11% more likely to judge a gubernatorial candidate by his or her appearance. A similar effect was seen in Senate races during the same period, with 16% of “low-knowledge,” higher-intensity TV viewing voters more likely to judge a candidate based on appearance. Put simply, “Candidate appearance matters more … when less-informed individuals watch a good deal of television.” Low-information voters are 10% more likely than their high-information counterparts to judge a candidate’s abilities on his or her looks; low-information, higher-intensity TV viewing voters are 32% more likely to judge a candidate by appearance. In summary, “Among low-knowledge individuals (bottom quartile), a 10 percentage point increase in their appearance advantage leads to only a 0.8 percentage point increase in vote share among those who watch little or no television, a 2 percentage point increase among those with average TV viewing, and a 4.8 percentage point increase among those who watch the most TV. Since 10 percentage point differences in appearance advantage are common, as one standard deviation is 20, the effect is considerable.” There is no appreciable difference between high-information voters who don’t watch much TV and those who do: “Television fails to exacerbate the appearance effect among more knowledgeable individuals.”

Keywords: research roundup, presidency, polarization, campaign issues, viewership, audience

About the Authors

Denise-Marie Ordway

John Wihbey

Political debate topics for the classroom

Discussions and debates on politics are a cornerstone of any democratic society, and now it’s easy to make them a cornerstone of your lessons with our list of engaging political debate topics!

Many of these political debate topics are already available in our extensive Topic Library , or you can create your own . And in the same way that politics encompasses different areas of society, these debates link to different curriculum subjects too. So, head over to Kialo Edu now and open the debate chamber in your classroom!

General political debate topics

• Is it okay to end friendships over politics?
• Should monarchies be abolished?
• Should political parties be required to disclose the sources of their campaign funding?
• Should the House of Lords be abolished?
• Should there be a mandatory retirement age for politicians?
• Should there be mandatory training for politicians?
• Should there be quotas for women in government?
• Should there be stricter regulations on lobbying activities?
• What is the best mode of peaceful protest?
• What is the best way to increase political participation amongst marginalized groups?
• What is the most important quality a country’s leader should have?
• What is the most pressing political issue in the country today?
• Which is better: “big” or “small” government?

Political debate topics on democracy

• Can the US regain its position as a full democracy?
• Is a flawed election better than no election?
• Is democracy a good form of government?
• Is Iran a democracy?
• Is proportional representation a better electoral system than the first-past-the-post system?
• National referendums: Should more laws be put to the citizens to accept or reject?
• Should all citizens be required to vote?
• Should citizens have to pass a political knowledge test in order to vote?
• Should IDs be required to vote?
• Should India still be known as the world’s largest democracy?
• Should 16-year-olds be allowed to vote in general elections?
• Should there be term limits for elected officials?
• What are the greatest threats to democracies today?
• Will Hong Kong ever become a democracy?

Political debate topics on economic policy

• Are fair trade schemes actually fair?
• Has China’s global economic power reached its peak?
• Has the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement been successful so far?
• Is the dollarization of Argentina’s economy a good idea?
• Should billionaires be taxed more?
• Should governments provide a job guarantee?
• Should monetary policy be controlled by an independent central bank?
• Should 10-year-olds be allowed part-time jobs?
• Should the African Union have a common currency like the Euro?
• Should there be a universal basic income?
• Should we lower international trade barriers?
• What is the best economic system to live under?

Political debate topics on educational policy

• Are there too many school holidays?
• Do East Asia’s education systems place too much emphasis on rote learning?
• Does higher education in Latin America deepen inequalities?
• Has government investment improved rural schools in China?
• Should schools provide free meals for all students?
• Should schools start later in the day?
• Should students in England still have to take GCSEs?
• Should the government of India spend a greater percentage of its GDP on education?
• Should the US government have more control over charter schools?
• Should university be free?
• What is the best strategy to increase school attendance in East Africa?
• What is the best way for governments in Oceania to address education inequalities for girls?

Political debate topics on environmental policy

• Are capitalism and ecology compatible?
• Are governments doi n g enough to fight climate change?
• Do rich countries have an obligation to help poorer countries weather climate change?
• How can governments ensure a just transition to renewable energies?
• Is it possible to build cities that don’t harm the environment?
• Is it realistic to expect governments in the Global South to prioritize climate change action over everything else?
• Should citizens try to sue corporations and governments over climate change?
• Should Europe expand its reliance on Middle Eastern fossil fuels?
• Should public transport b e free?
• Should single-use plastics be banned?
• Should we ban air travel to help fight climate change?

Political debate topics on human rights

• Do children need privacy?
• Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights meet the needs of every country?
• Has the Maputo Protocol been effective in improving women’s rights in Africa?
• Should all women have the right to an abortion?
• Should foreign intervention be used to protect women’s rights?
• Should governments accord the same importance to cultural rights as they do to human rights?
• Should governments impose population controls?
• Should governments pay reparations to women?
• Should human rights be part of politics?
• Should LGBTQ+ people automatically be granted asylum in “safe” countries?
• Should prisoners have the right to vote?
• Should wealthier countries be forced to accept more refugees?
• What is the best way for international organizations to collaborate with governments to improve LQBTQ+ rights?

Political debate topics on international relations

• Do the political advantages of joining a supranational organization outweigh the political disadvantages?
• Is globalization a good thing?
• Is the US embargo of Cuba justified?
• Should countries have strict limits on immigration?
• Should governments spend money on foreign aid?
• Should we discourage nationalism?
• Was Brexit a good idea?
• What are the political implications of Russia increasing its influence over African nations at the expense of France?
• What is the main cause of political polarization in South and Southeast Asia?
• What is the main driver of Iranian-Russian cooperation?

Political debate topics on media

• Are online “buzzers” and “bots” the biggest political threat in Southeast Asia?
• Can online movements like the Milk Tea Alliance really influence political decisions?
• Does traditional media help or hinder public understanding of political issues in the US?
• Is a fragmented internet inevitable?
• Is it a bad idea to mix entertainment with news?
• Is negative political advertising bad for democracy?
• Is social media a threat or benefit to democracy?
• Is the right to privacy more important than freedom of the press?
• Should advertising be allowed to target children?
• Should kids be able to have social media?
• Should news outlets that spread misinformation be shut down?
• Should the government limit the time kids can spend playing video games?
• What has been the biggest impact of social media on African politics?
• What is the best way to prevent digital authoritarianism? 
• Which social media platform would be best to ban?

Political debate topics on national security

• Is Japan justified in updating its security policies?
• Is there likely to be military conflict over the Taiwan Strait?
• Is torture justifiable in the name of security?
• Is war ever justifiable?
• Should societies prioritize freedom over security?
• Was China justified in implementing the national security law in Hong Kong?
• What is the best way to deal with abusive governments and armed groups?
• What is the biggest threat to global security?
• Will the African Union’s Peace and Security Council be effective in improving security in Africa?

Political debate topics on public health

• Should menstrual products be provided by the government?
• Should substance use be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal one?
• Should the MENA governments prioritize recruitment and retention of medical professionals?
• Should there be a tax on junk food?
• Should vaccines be mandatory?
• What is the best way for the UK government to reduce NHS waiting times?
• What is the best way for the US government to make healthcare more affordable?
• What is the most critical public health problem facing African governments?
• Will government investment in digital healthcare technologies improve the quality of healthcare in Southeast Asia?

Political debate topics on religion

• Can religion and politics be separated?
• Is Christianity compatible with democracy?
• Is Islam compatible with democracy?
• Is Judaism compatible with democracy?
• Should governments allow religious symbols to be worn in public spaces?
• Should governments be allowed to place restrictions on religions?
• Should modern justice systems include religious principles?
• Should political leaders be allowed to express their own religious beliefs?
• Should religious holiday displays be allowed in public places?
• Should religious organizations be tax-exempt?
• Should there be legal exemptions for religious individuals?

Political debate topics on the law and justice systems

• Do African governments need to create child-friendly justice systems?
• Do Netanyahu’s plans to weaken the courts threaten Israel’s democracy?
• Should judges be elected by the people?
• Should jury trials be abolished?
• Should the Japanese government end the “hostage justice” system?
• Should the US have stricter gun control?
• Should there be a death penalty?
• Should undocumented migrants face prosecution? 
• Which purpose of the criminal justice system is most important?

Looking for debate topics in more languages ? We’ve got you covered! Explore our extensive collection to spark captivating class discussions with students, no matter the language you’re teaching in .

Want to try Kialo Edu with your class?

Sign up for free and use Kialo Edu to have thoughtful classroom discussions and train students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills.

Political Science

• Background Research
• Legislative Documents
• Executive Documents
• Judicial Documents
• Legal Publications
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict, Peace & Security
• Elections & Voting
• Historical & Primary Document Resources
• Political Behavior & Psychology
• Public Opinion Data & Survey Research
• Electoral Data
• Political Conflict Data
• Political Economy
• Political Theory
• United Nations This link opens in a new window

College & University Videos

Political debate video, pro/con debate resources, public policy research databases, u. s. government public policy research.

• The Cambridge Union Society Established in 1815, the Cambridge Union Society is the oldest debating society in the world. Along with student debates videos, online videos include public debates and celebrity guest speakers from various disciplines.
• Cross Examination Debate Association Founded in 1971 as the Southwest Cross Examination Debate Association, CEDA is now the primary national association promoting policy topic intercollegiate academic debate. CEDA holds an annual National Championship tournament of over 175 individual debate teams from across the United States to compete on the basis of research, persuasive speaking, argumentation, and philosophy.
• Oxford Union Society The Oxford Union Society was founded in1823 when the discussion of religion and politics were off limits within Oxford University. The forms of debate are similar to that in the House of Commons, with all remarks addressed to the President or Chairman, and Members referred to as “honorable”, standing on each side of the house to oppose each other.
• C-SPAN C-SPAN (Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network) is a private, non-profit public cable television channel that covers U.S. politics. Developed by the American cable industry as a public service, the C-SPAN website provides access to daily unedited video and live sessions of Congressional proceedings, debates, and hearings. CSPAN also offers live and recorded debates from the British House of Commons and the Prime Minister’s Questions. Also available are videos of the Annual British Youth Parliament Debates.
• Prime Minister’s Questions A part of C-SPAN’s international programming covering foreign legislatures, C-SPAN airs Prime Minister’s Questions live every week. Prime Minister’s Question Time, also referred to as PMQs, gives MPs the chance to question the Prime Minister. PMQs takes place at midday every Wednesday when the Commons is sitting.
• Intelligence2 A nonpartisan, nonprofit policy organization and debate series. IQ2 makes available over 100 debates covering a wide range of political and public policy topics.
• CQ Researcher This link opens in a new window The CQ Researcher is a collection of reports covering political and social issues, with regular reports on topics in health, international affairs, education, the environment, technology and the U.S. economy.
• Pro/Con Freely accessible website of full-text reports and essays that provide differing views on controversial issues and topics. The reports are authored by the organization’s staff and include directly referenced footnotes and sources used for research. Each report provides a “Did You Know?” section with cited statistical information followed by a pro/con argument section presenting both sides of the issue. A detailed background of the issue is provided along with a video gallery of news or organizational videos.
• Columbia International Affairs Online (CIAO) This link opens in a new window Columbia International Affairs Online (CIAO) is a source for theory and research in international affairs. It includes scholarship, working papers from university research institutes, occasional papers series from NGOs, foundation-funded research projects, proceedings from conferences, books, journals, case studies for teaching, and policy briefs.
• PAIS International This link opens in a new window PAIS International contains journal articles, books, government documents, statistical directories, grey literature, research reports, conference reports, publications of international agencies for public affairs, public and social policies, and international relations.
• Policy File This link opens in a new window Policy FIle offers access to U.S. foreign and domestic policy papers and gray literature, with abstracts and links to timely reports, papers, and documents from think tanks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutes, advocacy groups, agencies, and other entities.
• << Previous: United Nations
• Last Updated: Aug 15, 2024 10:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/polisci

• Alternatives

Top 70 Controversial Debate Topics For Critical Thinkers in 2024

Jane Ng • 07 June, 2024 • 7 min read

Whether you love or hate them, controversial debate topics are an inescapable part of our lives. They challenge our beliefs and push us out of our comfort zones, forcing us to examine our assumptions and biases. With so many controversial issues, you needn't go far if you're looking for a compelling debate. This blog post will provide you with a list of controversial debate topics to inspire your next discussion.

Tips for Better Engagement

• Student Debate Topics
• Social Issue Examples

Start in seconds.

Get free student debates templates. Sign up for free and take what you want from the template library!

Table of Contents

What are controversial debate topics, good controversial debate topics, fun controversial debate topics, controversial debate topics for teens , social controversial debate topics, controversial debate topics on current events .

• Key Takeaways 

Frequently Asked Questions

Controversial debate topics are subjects - that can spark strong opinions and disagreements among people with different beliefs and values. These topics can cover various subjects, such as social issues, politics, ethics, and culture, and may challenge traditional beliefs or established norms.

One thing that makes these topics controversial is that there is often no clear consensus or agreement among people, which can lead to debates and disagreements. Each person may have their own interpretation of the facts or values that influence their perspective. It's difficult for all to reach a resolution or agreement.

Despite the potential for heated discussions, controversial debate topics can be a great way to explore different viewpoints, challenge assumptions, and promote critical thinking and open dialogue. 

However, it is crucial to distinguish controversial topics from controversial opinions - statements or actions that cause disagreement or conflict. 

• For example, climate change can be controversial, but a politician's comment denying the existence of climate change can be controversial.
• Is social media harming society more than it helps?
• Is it appropriate to make marijuana legal for recreational use?
• Should college be provided for free?
• Should schools teach comprehensive sex education?
• Is it ethical to use animals for scientific research?
• Does human activity account for the majority of climate change?
• Should beauty pageants be stopped?
• Are credit cards doing more harm than good?
• Should diet pills be banned?
• Should human cloning be permitted?
• Should there be stricter laws on gun ownership or fewer restrictions?
• Is climate change a serious issue that requires urgent action, or is it overblown and exaggerated?
• Should individuals have the right to end their own lives in certain circumstances?
• Should certain types of speech or expression be censored or restricted?
• Is eating animal meat unethical?
• Should there be more or less strict regulations on immigration and refugee policies?
• Is job security the biggest motivation rather than money?
• Are zoos doing more harm than good?
• Are parents legally responsible for their children's actions?
• Does peer pressure have a net positive or negative impact?

• Is it better to have a small group of close friends or a large group of acquaintances?
• Should you brush your teeth before or after breakfast?
• Should you put mayo or ketchup on the fries?
• Is it acceptable to dip fries in a milkshake?
• Should you brush your teeth before or after breakfast? 
• Is it better to use a bar of soap or liquid soap? 
• Is waking early or staying up late better?
• Should you make your bed every day?
• Should you wear a mask in public places?
• Should teenagers access birth control without parental consent?
• Should the voting age be lowered to 16?
• Should parents have access to their children's social media accounts?
• Should cell phone use be allowed during school hours?
• Is homeschooling a better option than traditional schooling?
• Should the school day start later to allow for more sleep for students?
• Is studying should be voluntary?
• Should schools be allowed to discipline students for social media use outside of school?
• Should school hours be reduced?
• Should drivers be banned from using mobile phones while driving?
• Should the legal driving age be raised to 19 in some countries?
• Should students take classes on parenting?
• Should teenagers be allowed to work part-time jobs during the school year?
• Should social media platforms be held responsible for the spread of misinformation?
• Should schools make drug testing mandatory for students?
• Should cyberbullying be considered to be an offense?
• Should teens be allowed to have relationships with significant age differences?
• Should schools allow students to carry concealed weapons for self-defense?
• Should teens be allowed to get tattoos and piercings without parental consent?
• Is online learning as effective as in-person learning?

• Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws?
• Should the government provide a guaranteed basic income for all citizens?
• Is affirmative action necessary to address systemic inequalities in society?
• Should Violence/Sex on TV be abolished?
• Should illegal immigrants be allowed to receive social welfare benefits?
• Is the pay discrepancy between men and women the result of discrimination?
• Should the government regulate the use of artificial intelligence?
• Should healthcare be a universal human right?
• Should the assault weapons ban be extended?
• Should billionaires be taxed at a higher rate than the average citizen?
• Is it necessary to legalize and regulate prostitution?
• Who is more important in the family, father or mother?
• Is GPA an outdated way of assessing a student's knowledge?
• Is the war on drugs a failure?
• Should vaccinations be mandatory for all children?
• Is the use of social media algorithms to spread misinformation a threat to democracy?
• Should COVID-19 vaccine mandates be implemented?
• Is the use of artificial intelligence ethical in the workplace?
• Should AI be used instead of humans?
• Should companies be required to provide advance notice of lay-offs to employees?
• Is it ethical for companies to lay off employees while CEOs and other executives receive large bonuses?

Key Takeaways

Hopefully, with 70 controversial debate topics, you can expand your knowledge and gain new perspectives. 

However, it is essential to approach these topics with respect, an open mind, and a willingness to listen and learn from others. Engaging in respectful and meaningful debates on controversial topics with AhaSlides' template library and interactive features can help us broaden our understanding of the world and each other, and possibly even lead to progress in finding solutions to some of the most pressing issues of our time.

1/ What are good topics to debate about? 

Good topics to debate can vary widely depending on the interests and perspectives of the individuals involved. Here are some examples of good debate topics:

2/ What are some controversial debates? 

Controversial debates are those that involve topics that can generate strong and opposing viewpoints and opinions. These topics are often contentious and can provoke heated arguments and debates among individuals or groups who hold different beliefs and values. 

Here are some examples:

• Should schools allow students to carry concealed weapons for self-defence?

3/ What is an emotional and controversial topic in 2024? 

An emotional and controversial topic can provoke strong emotional reactions and divide people based on their personal experiences, values, and beliefs. 

For example:

Do you still want to be more explicit about an excellent debater portrait? Here, we'll give a practical and convincing example of a good debater for you to learn and hone your debate skills.

A writer who wants to create practical and valuable content for the audience

Tips to Engage with Polls & Trivia

More from AhaSlides

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S.

Reactions to Trump’s rhetoric: Concern, confusion, embarrassment

Table of contents.

• 1. The climate for discourse around the country, on campus and on social media
• 2. The bounds of political debate and criticism
• 3. Trump’s impact on the tone of political debate, important characteristics for elected officials
• 4. The public’s level of comfort talking politics and Trump
• 5. The personal side of speech and expression
• 6. The challenge of knowing what’s offensive
• Methodology
• Appendix: Measures and scales

The public renders a harsh judgment on the state of political discourse in this country. And for many Americans, their own conversations about politics have become stressful experiences that they prefer to avoid.

Large majorities say the tone and nature of political debate in the United States has become more negative in recent years – as well as less respectful, less fact-based and less substantive.

Meanwhile, people’s everyday conversations about politics and other sensitive topics are often tense and difficult. Half say talking about politics with people they disagree with politically is “stressful and frustrating.”

When speaking with people they do not know well, more say they would be very comfortable talking about the weather and sports – and even religion – than politics. And it is people who are most comfortable with interpersonal conflict, including arguing with other people, who also are most likely to talk about politics frequently and to be politically engaged.

Donald Trump is a major factor in people’s views about the state of the nation’s political discourse. A 55% majority says Trump has changed the tone and nature of political debate in this country for the worse; fewer than half as many (24%) say he has changed it for the better, while 20% say he has had little impact.

Perhaps more striking are the public’s feelings about the things Trump says: sizable majorities say Trump’s comments often or sometimes make them feel concerned (76%), confused (70%), embarrassed (69%) and exhausted (67%). By contrast, fewer have positive reactions to Trump’s rhetoric, though 54% say they at least sometimes feel entertained by what he says.

Pew Research Center’s wide-ranging survey of attitudes about political speech and discourse in the U.S. was conducted April 29-May 13 among 10,170 adults. Among the other major findings:

Broad agreement on the dangers of “heated or aggressive” rhetoric by political leaders. A substantial majority (78%) says “heated or aggressive” language directed by elected officials against certain people or groups makes violence against them more likely. This view is more widely shared among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents than Republican and Republican leaners.

Partisans demand a higher standard of conduct from the other party than from their own. Majorities in both parties say it is very important that elected officials treat their opponents with respect. But while most Democrats (78%) say it is very important for Republican elected officials to treat Democratic officials with respect, only about half (47%) say it is very important for officials from their party to treat Republican politicians with respect. There is similar divide in the opinions of Republicans; 75% say Democrats should be respectful of GOP officials, while only 49% say the same about Republicans’ treatment of Democratic officials.

Uncertainty about what constitutes “offensive” speech. As in the past, a majority of Americans (60%) say “too many people are easily offended over the language that others use.” Yet there is uncertainty about what constitutes offensive speech: About half (51%) say it is easy to know what others might find offensive, while nearly as many (48%) say it is hard to know. In addition, majorities say that people in this country do not generally agree about the types of language considered to be sexist (65%) and racist (61%).

Majority says social media companies have responsibility to remove “offensive” content. By a wide margin (66% to 32%), more people say social media companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content from their platforms than say they do not have this responsibility. But just 31% have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in these companies to determine what offensive content should be removed. And as noted, many Americans acknowledge it is difficult to know what others may find offensive.

Talking about Trump with people who feel differently about him. The survey asks people to imagine attending a social gathering with people who have different viewpoints from theirs about the president. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) of those who approve of Trump’s job performance say they would share their views about Trump when talking with a group of people who do not like him. But fewer (43%) of those who disapprove of Trump say they would share their views when speaking with a group of Trump supporters.

What’s OK – and off-limits – for political debates

While Americans decry the tone of today’s political debates, they differ over the kinds of speech that are acceptable – and off-limits – for elected officials to use when criticizing their rivals.

Some language and tactics are viewed as clearly over the line: A sizable majority (81%) says it is never acceptable for a politician to deliberately mislead people about their opponent’s record. There is much less agreement about the acceptability of elected officials using insults like “evil” or “anti-American.”

Partisanship has a major impact on these opinions. For the most part, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say many of the insults and taunts are never acceptable. For example, 53% of Democrats say it is never acceptable for an elected official to say their opponent is anti-American; only about half as many Republicans (25%) say the same.

As with views of whether elected officials should “respect” their opponents, partisans hold the opposing side to a higher standard than their own side in views of acceptable discourse for political debates.

Most Republicans (72%) say it is never acceptable for a Democratic official to call a Republican opponent “stupid,” while far fewer (49%) say it is unacceptable for a Republican to use this slur against a Democrat. Among Democrats, 76% would rule out a Republican calling a Democratic opponent “stupid,” while 60% say the same about Democrat calling a Republican “stupid.” See Chapter 2 for an interactive illustration of how people’s views about the acceptability of political insults vary depending on whether or not they share the same party affiliation of the elected officials casting the insults.

Large shares have negative reactions to what Trump says

Majorities of Americans say they often or sometimes feel a range of negative sentiments – including concern, confusion, embarrassment and exhaustion – about the things that Trump says.

Positive feelings about Trump’s comments are less widespread. Fewer than half say they often or sometimes feel informed, hopeful, excited and happy about what the president says. A 54% majority says they at least sometimes feel entertained by what Trump says, the highest percentage expressing a positive sentiment.

Democrats overwhelmingly have negative reactions to Trump’s statements, while the reactions of Republicans are more varied. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, at least 80% say they often or sometimes experience each of the seven negative emotions included in the survey.

A 59% majority of Republicans and Republican leaners say they often or sometimes feel concerned by what Trump says. About half also say they are at least sometimes embarrassed (53%) and confused (47%) by Trump’s statements.

By contrast, large majorities of Republicans say they often or sometimes feel hopeful (79%), entertained (78%), informed and happy (76%) and other positive sentiments in response to the things Trump says.

No more than about 10% of Democrats express any positive feelings toward what Trump says, with two exceptions: 17% say they are often or sometimes informed, while 35% are at least sometimes entertained.

Republicans see a less ‘comfortable’ environment for GOP views

Republicans say that members of their party across the country are less comfortable than Democrats to “freely and openly” express their political views. In addition, Republicans are far more critical than Democrats about the climate for free expression in the nation’s educational institutions – not just colleges, but also community colleges and K-12 public schools.

Just 26% of Republicans say that Republicans across the country are very comfortable in freely and openly expressing their political opinions; nearly two-thirds of Republicans (64%) think Democrats are very comfortable voicing their opinions. Among Democrats, there are more modest differences in perceptions of the extent to which partisans are comfortable freely expressing their political views.

There are smaller partisan differences when it comes to opinions about how comfortable Republicans and Democrats are expressing their views in their local communities. Yet these opinions vary depending on the partisan composition of the local community. Republicans and Democrats living in counties that Trump won by wide margins in 2016 are more likely than those in evenly divided counties (or those that Hillary Clinton won decisively) to say Republicans are very comfortable expressing their views.

Republicans’ concerns about the climate for free speech on college campuses are not new . The new survey finds that fewer than half of Republicans (44%) say colleges and universities are open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints; Democrats are nearly twice as likely (87%) to say the same.

Republicans also are less likely than Democrats to say community colleges and K-12 public schools are open to differing viewpoints. By contrast, a larger share of Republicans (56%) than Democrats (40%) say that churches and religious organizations are very or somewhat open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints.

Members of both parties generally view their own local communities as places that are open to a wide range of viewpoints. Large and nearly identical shares in both parties say their local community is at least somewhat open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints (75% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Donald Trump
• Political Discourse
• Politics & Policy
• Trust in Government
• Trust, Facts & Democracy

Harris Energizes Democrats in Transformed Presidential Race

Amid doubts about biden’s mental sharpness, trump leads presidential race, 6 facts about presidential and vice presidential debates, biden, trump are least-liked pair of major party presidential candidates in at least 3 decades, globally, biden receives higher ratings than trump, most popular, report materials.

• Views about the acceptability of political insults
• Across the Table: Would you share your views of Trump over dinner?
• American Trends Panel Wave 48

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Sociology

Political Debate Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Sociology , Education , Politics , Science , Community , Population , Life , Theory

Words: 3250

Published: 11/14/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

The radical conception of power is the failure to keep normative and analytical questions which means that some scholars mistakenly confuse the critique and identification of power relations. In this paper, the argument is that the definition suggested by several authors does not meet their intention. The fundamental conception of power may be made to work within the terms originally expressed by the authors and they are forced to draw a challenging comparison between objective and objective an interest, which makes the identification of third dimensional power value burdened and irrational. At the same time places the analyst in the unsustainable position of being ultimate arbiter of the curiosity of the victims of power.

1. Identify and explain Dahl’s main claim regarding power (in Hay 1997) Dahl’s claim regarding power is that the objective concerns, makes it possible to draw a sharp distinction the identification of power and the critique. The problems of Dahl’s formulation rest in his failure to tell the difference between concerning the recognition of power within the political and social situation and normative issues of investigation of the exercise and allocation of the power identified (Hay, pg193). It may be argued that Hay has erroneous in this disapproval of the work of Dahl because normative inquires come into the analysis of power not primarily for the reason of Dahl’s dedication to analysis, because in a way has been not careful in letting curiosity to creep into his account but for mainly two grounds. For instance, the normative inquiries come into the analysis of power since they are an integral part of the rational grammar of the idea (Hay, pg 19). Dahl says the concept is entrenched in an evaluative and normative condition from that whose powers are seen or recognized as the specific sort of social motives that they are.

2. Identify and explain the way in which Hay (1997) critics Luke’s’ claims about power Hay criticizes Luke’s claims about power by arguing that the subject of power easily replaces the technical interest as the underplaying evaluative foundation from which to categorize the power associations. In this power debate subject, the idea of an artificial consciousness may be simply being taken for granted by Luke, but the predicament is that hoodwinking others is internal to the matter-of-fact reason of the notion. The scrutinizing of exploitation for example trades in dishonesty and at the same time the creation of false manifestations and a difference the real penchants and actual interests. Hay however fails to distinguish between deed and reflection, but he has two points which he follows to take the examination back to his argument that the assessment burdened idea of curiosity does not create a dilemma for Luke (Hay, pg 199).

3. Identify and explain Bacharach and Baratz’ main claims regarding power (in Hay 1997) Bacharach and Bharat claim that the political scientists and the sociologists oriented investigators have over and over again found out that power is highly federal but a few other scholar skilled in political science have regularly come to a conclusion that in their communities, power is extensively gentle. They argue that it is no wonder then that there is an explanation for the reason as to why the latter group terms itself as pluralist while its equivalent is elitist. There is no uncertainty that the sharp different findings of the two groups are the product, not of utter coincidence, but of fundamental differences in both their supposition and research methodology. Bharach and Baratz claim that all forms of political institute have a prejudice in favor of the mistreatment of some sorts of disagreement and the restraint of others for the reason that association is the mobilization of favoritism.

4. Identify and explain the way in which Hay (1997) proposes to redefine power Hay proposes to redefine power by asserting that some subjects are designed out and others are organized into politics. He wonders whether the student should be always alert to its realistic existence in the human organization that he/she is learning as well as being always prepared to scrutinize the forces which brought it into being and manage to maintain it. Hay argues that no matter what the virtues of their own approach to power; the pluralists have successfully laid bare the central weaknesses of the elitist form. The pluralists he avers concentrate their attention, not upon the sources of power, but its exercise. Power to them, he says means the involvement in assessment making and may be analyzed only after cautious assessment of a series of tangible decisions and this results in making the pluralist researcher to be thought to be dispassionate in the dependably powerful (Hay, pg 197).

5. Identify and explain Luke’s’ main claims regarding power (in Hay 1997) Luke’s claims about power and the subject matter are regarded with the comparative lack of the examination of power from many leading organization hypothesis accounts of institutions. He argues that the class of power in organizational industrialists is deemed as a functionalist supposition discount mechanism. He at the same time questions the stress on myths, legitimacy and norms. Luke avers that the significance of a contemplation of unequivocally power in political institution is demonstrated with a relation of the deinstitutionalization of Queensland’s Bjelk-Peterson government. The significance of deinstitutionalization is recommended as the fundamentality of transformation, as well as institutionalization Luke says is far fetched sort of idea. Luke discloses that the latest vocation that has brought agency and power back to the spotlight as well as the centrality of power being the most essential notion of the community sciences is advanced. He adds that the fundamental significance of the state for early organizational accounts, its function in the formation of an audit society and its comparative absence from more present ones that may mainly expand considerably in the wake of the international financial predicament. All types of political institutions have a preconceived notion in favor of the manipulation of some sorts of inconsistency and the restraint of others since institution is the mobilization of predisposition. Luke argues that there is no superior pivot for our evaluation of pluralist representation than Luke’s latest study of power. It may be pragmatic however that Luke does not endeavor in his work to characterize his conception in key political assessment.

6. Identify and explain the way in which Hay (1997) criticizes Bacharach and Baratz’ claims about power Hay criticizes Barcrach and Baratz by arguing that it is rational to expect that the comparative authority over public officials exerted by the notables may be exposed by an assessment of their involvement in these areas of action. There is some difficulty in this statement and it is evident from Bacharach’s own account that Notables are as a matter of fact uninterested in two of the three key decisions he has chosen and in regard to the public school subject for instance. Baratz agrees business leaders may pay no attention to the political parties or public school without any clear understanding that their lack of interest may hurt their pocketbooks. Hay contends that a fresh approach to the study of power is called for which is based upon a recognition of the two faces of power. Under this approach, the investigator may start, not as does the sociologist who asks, who rules? Nor as does the pluralist who asks, does anyone have power? Having examined the dominant values, the establishment political procedures and the myths and the rules of the game, Bacharach may make cautious question into which groups or persons if any are handicapped by it. He may then scrutinize the vibrant of no decision making; which is that he may inspect the extent to which and the manner to which the status quo oriented groups and persons manipulate those community principles and those political organizations which tend to limit the scope of factual decision making to safe subjects.

7. Identify and explain how Doyle (1998) criticizes Hay’s 1997 redefinition of the concept of power and argues that Doyle’s conception of power can be rehabilitated and made to work Doyle it seems by using his knowledge or the restrictive face of power as a basis for examination and as a standard for distinguishing between routine and key political assessments the examiner would after the approach of pluralists examine participation in decision making of concrete subjects. However he rejects in advance as mediocre. The redefinition of the concept of power as the probable condemnation that this approach to lessons of power is likely to prove unsuccessful since it goes beyond an investigation of what is without bias quantifiable (Jean-Louis de Lolme 1789). Doyle’s reacts against the biased aspects of sociological representation of power that the pluralists have made a mistake of removal of the uninestimable elements as illusory. It is paradoxical that, by so doing, they have uncovered themselves to the same basic condemnation which they have so enthusiastically leveled against the elitists; their approach to and supposition about power preconclude their finale and findings (Doyle, pg162) Doyle points out that the expectations of pluralist examiners have seldom been disappointed. He adds that philosophical changes as a consequence of the urban expansion course in ownership physical layout and usage of property in the downtown and industrial opulence of New Haven were all related in an understandable way to the daily concerns businessmen. The critique of the ruling elite model that a subject to be considered as vital and should involve real disagreement in preferences among tow or three groups then it is clear that he has now for party nominations and all practical purposes written off public education as key subject areas. He suggests that the major policy drive of Economic Notables is to resist tax increases and this leads them to oppose expenditures for anything more than nominal conventional city services. Doyle discusses in general terms changes in the level of tax rates assessments subjective selection of what constituted significant decisions in what he felt to be vital subjects since the findings was founded on an excessively narrow test of manipulation. He avoids evaluating power or influence of the decision maker and author on the one hand and of those persons on the other, who can have been not directly influential in preventing potentially perilous subjects from brought up. The fact that the initiator of decisions as well refrains since Doyle hopes adverse reactions from initiating other proposals does not obviously lessen the power of the agent who limited his initiative powers. Doyle however misses the point when he says that it is principally not probable that a secret faction of Notables dictates the public life in New Having been through the means so secret that not one of the fifty significant citizens interviewed in the course of his study implied at the reality of such faction. To conceiving of the elite dominance absolutely in form of alert faction exercising the power of vetoing and decision making, he fails to notice a more delicate form of supremacy; one in which those who factually dominate are not alert of which predetermine their terminations. Doyle’s argument is cast within the outline of the fundamental thesis that there are two features or power, neither of which the sociologists observe and only one which the political scientists perceive. Against the elitist advance to power, several criticisms might be, and have been ranked. One has to do with its fundamental principle that in every human institution there is a well structured scheme of power. The power formation is an essential component and the mirror representation of the institution’s stratification. This hypothesizes the pluralists’ categorically denunciation on the grounds that nothing uncompromising may be taken for granted about the power in any society (Gardner, Gerald C, 1990). Even more so, there appears to be an unspoken perception among the pluralist investigators that at underneath, no one dictates in a town so that their first query is most likely to be ‘does anyone at all governs this neighborhood?’ instead of, ‘have you discontinued beating your wife,?’ in that practically any reaction short of overall reluctance to respond will provide the examiners with a power privilege along the lines precedence by the stratification hypothesis. In the same way, objectionable to pluralists and as concerns as, is the sociologists’ hypothesis that the power structure have a propensity to be steady over time. Pluralists hold that power can be tied to subjects and concerns may be unrelenting or fleeting, provoking coalitions among interested citizens and groups, ranging in their duration from semi-permanent to momentary. Doyle avers that to presume the set of coalitions which exists in the community at any given time is a timely stable aspect of social structure is to introduce systematic inaccuracies into one’s description of social reality (Arendt, 1972). The third criticism of the elitist model is that it wrongly equates reputed with factual power. When a man’s chief life work is banking, the pluralist takes for granted he will spend his time at the bank, and not in influencing community resolutions. This presupposition embraces until the banker’s participations and actions point out otherwise (Doyle, pg 198).

8. In what way does Hay (1999) believe that Doyle has misunderstood his ideas set out in the 1997 article Hay believes that Doyle has misunderstood his ideas and there is no gainsaying that an extermination grounded entirely upon what is specific and visible to the outside observer is more scientific than one based upon pure speculation. That is to say that if we could get a social life in terms of actions, and of nothing else, we have not without a doubt succeeded in measuring it, but we have at least reached a basis upon which an eloquent system of magnitude may be built up, we shall stop to be blocked by the intervention of inestimable fundamentals, which claim to be themselves the authentic grounds of all that is happening and which by their unpredictability make unfeasible any advancement toward the reliable knowledge. The subject in the other hand can be definite in any given circumstances that the immeasurable elements are insignificant and are not of crucial implication. Cast in somewhat diverse words, may a sound notion of power be established on the hypothesis that power is absolutely in material form and completely reflected in tangible decisions or in activity bearing frankly upon their making? Maybe not, since the power is exercised when A, plays a role in the making of judgments that have a consequence on B. Nevertheless, power is exercised when A dedicates his energies to strengthening or building political and social principles and organizational practices that limit the extent of political procedure to public contemplation of only those matters which are reasonably inoffensive to A. To the extent that A thrives in doing this, B is disallowed for all realistic principles from bringing to the fore any matters injurious to A’s set of inclinations (Bachrach,1962). There are conceivably obvious, there are similarities in mutually the duo faces of power. In each contributes in resolutions and by this means negatively affects B. However, there is a vital variation between the two. For instance, A openly contributes in the other, he contributes only in the wisdom that he works to keep up those principles and regulations of modus operandi that help him keep definite subjects out of public realm. True enough, participation of the second kind might in some instances is overt. That is the case for example, in cloture fights in Congress. Nevertheless, the point is that it require not be because when the scheme is most effectively accomplished, it neither engages nor may be recognized with decisions arrived at on definite matters. When the tactic is most effectively executed, it neither involves nor can it be celebrated with assessments arrived at on particular matters (MacMillan, 1978). Hay clarifies that by pre-selecting as matters for study those which are commonly determined to be important, pluralists can test stratification theory, but he is however quiet on how the investigator is to make a decision on what matters are normally agreed to be considerable and on how the examiner is to evaluate the dependability of the conformity.

9. How does Hay (1999) clarify and defend his ideas on power? Hay is guilty here of same error he himself has found with elitist methodology by taking for granted that in any group of people there are considerable subjects in the political arena and he takes for assumption the very query which is in uncertainty. He defends his ideas on power by admitting about matters as subjects that are believed to be issues. Due to this fact, Hay’s clarification are fore-ordained, that even if there is no truly significant theme in the society like ours, a ruling elite may be so significant beliefs, thoughts, and opinions that a sort of false compromise of a totalitarian, terroristic dictatorship but the seemingly and maneuvers of self-imposed devotion to the ambitions and standards of the elite by wide divisions of a society. Luke’s main claim is that the contradiction of liberation is inherent in the slave example which does not pose any insurmountable methodological problem for Hay. The problems arising from this example rest upon a confusion between the existence and the presence of a clash of interest. He avers that if we take indulgence to mean the nonexistence of conflict and when the deficiency of something appear to be present in an experimental sense, then it does not come from the reality that something is not present to the conclusion that there is no independent basis for its existence. To develop upon this point, nevertheless, it is essential to look more intimately at the realistic reason implied in the contented slave instance. Power in whatever terms is truly a subject that needs to be researched further as everyone tends to have differing notions and conceptions (Cotterill, 2002).

Bibliography

Bachrach, P 1962, ‘Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review’, 56(4), 947-952. Hay, C 1997, ‘Divided by a common language: Political theory and the concept of power’, Politics, 17(1), 45-52. Doyle, J 1998, ‘Power and contentment. Politics. 17(1), 49-56. Hay, C, 1999, ‘Still divided by a common language: Discontentment and the semantics of power’, Politics, 19(1), 47-50. Cotterill, J 2002, ‘Language and power in court’, Basingstoke: Palgrave. NY. MacMillan, C 1978, ‘Strategy Formulation: political concepts’, St Paul, MN, West Publishing; Gardner, Gerald C 1990, ‘Rhetorical Studies of National Political Debates’, 1 960-1 988 (New York: Praeger, 141. Jean-Louis de Lolme 1789, ‘Constitution of England: Or, an Account of the English Government’, London, and G. Kearsley of Fleet Street; Arendt, H 1972, ‘On Violence, in Crises of the Republic, Florida’, Harcourt, Brace and Company p137

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1796

This paper is created by writer with

ID 276288541

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Book review on alices adventures in wonderland, good example of essay on wan design for delaware office, learning interventions that do not use the zone of proximal development essay, good example of case study on 2015, good example of purpose report, exemplar article review on graph on concretionary fiscal policy to write after, climate change essay sample, sample essay on need analysis, good example of affirmative action argumentative essay, report on construction management economic aspects and design decisions, a childhood memory in my papas waltz by theodore roethke critical thinking sample, good essay on conflict resolution and workplace violence, example of strategic thinking article review, a level article review on zika virus for free use, rational emotive behavior therapy approach essays example, example of research paper on animal intelligence, lee kuan yew essays, koreans essays, nagel essays, collectivist essays, beeson essays, tel aviv essays, standard english essays, messier essays, graze essays, bahmani essays, waiting line essays, palestinian territory essays, the jerusalem post essays, afshin essays, slavery in haiti essays, rochambeau essays, mitsubishi essays, attractable essays, materialists essays, eliminative essays, orthopsychiatry essays, megaloceros essays, giganteus essays, lascaux essays, elaborates literature reviews, drug use literature reviews.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Political Debate Essays

The mountain valley pipeline (mvp), popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Mock sessions and policy briefings: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris launch debate prep

WASHINGTON - As both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump prepare for next week's Democratic national convention, they are also beginning to get ready for the next big campaign event: Their Sept. 10 debate .

Trump has re-begun his unique style of debate preparation involving consultations with advisers and friends, including a prominent former debate opponent of Harris, ex-U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard .

"President Trump has proven to be one of the best debaters in political history as evidenced by his knockout blow to Joe Biden" on June 27, said Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign's national press secretary.

Gabbard, a former Democrat who ran for president in the 2020 election cycle, attacked Harris at length during a primary debate in July of 2019 .

Leavitt said Trump "does not need traditional debate prep but will continue to meet with respected policy advisors and effective communicators like Tulsi Gabbard, who successfully dominated Kamala Harris on the debate stage."

Trump and Harris are scheduled to face off in a Sept. 10 debate in Philadelphia, an event sponsored by ABC News.

Harris has begun more traditional debate preperations, including mock debates at Howard University in Washington, D.C., her alma mater.

Longtime Democratic operative Philippe Reines is portraying Trump in the mock debates, a job he did for presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

The New York Times reported on Friday that "Harris is working on her debate preparations with a small group of advisers, several of whom have known her since before she became vice president."

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Newsletters
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

First Harris-Trump presidential debate will be in Philadelphia on Sept. 10

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.(Photos: Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images; Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

The first debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris will be in Philadelphia on Sept. 10, ABC News announced Friday. The event will be held at the National Constitution Center at 9 p.m. Eastern, with ABC News journalists David Muir and Linsey Davis serving as moderators.

The debate over debates has been ongoing for several weeks. Trump and President Joe Biden, who ended his reelection campaign July 21, had agreed to two debates: one on June 27 on CNN, and another on Sept. 10, that was to be broadcast on ABC News. Trump had said he would debate Biden “anytime, anywhere, anyplace.” Biden had a shaky performance during the June 27 debate, eventually leading to him bowing out of the campaign and endorsing Harris.

But during a July 23 call with reporters when Trump said he would be “willing to do more than one debate” with Harris, he said he was not sure he wanted to take part in the Sept. 10 debate because he “agreed to a debate with Joe Biden,” and not Harris.

Trump initially claimed that the Sept. 10 debate had been “terminated in that Biden will no longer be a participant.” He later agreed to the Sept. 10 debate with Harris, saying at a Mar-a-Lago press conference on Aug. 8 that he thought it was “very important to have debates.”

Vice presidential nominees U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz have agreed to an Oct. 1 debate to be hosted by CBS News.

The qualifications for the presidential debate require candidates to appear on enough state ballots by Sept. 3 to achieve a majority of electoral college votes, and reach at least 15% support in four separate national polls. Details about the format, such as whether there will be a live audience, were not immediately available Friday.

Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kim Lyons for questions: [email protected] . Follow Pennsylvania Capital-Star on Facebook and X .

'Babbling' and 'hoarse': Biden's debate performance sends Democrats into a panic

ATLANTA — President Joe Biden was supposed to put the nation’s mind at ease over his physical and mental capacity with his debate showing Thursday night. 

But from the onset of the debate, Biden, 81, seemingly struggled even to talk, mostly summoning a weak, raspy voice. In the opening minutes, he repeatedly tripped over his words, misspoke and lost his train of thought.  

In one of the most notable moments, Biden ended a rambling statement that lacked focus by saying, “We finally beat Medicare,” before moderators cut him off and transitioned back to former President Donald Trump. 

While Biden warmed up and gained more of a rhythm as the debate progressed, he struggled to land a punch against Trump, much less fact-check everything Trump said as he unleashed a torrent of bad information.

Trump also pounced on Biden, saying at one point that he didn’t understand what Biden had just said with regard to the border. 

“I don’t know if he knows what he said, either,” Trump said.   

Nearly an hour into the debate, a Biden aide and others familiar with his situation offered up an explanation for his hoarseness: He has a cold.

But there were problems aside from the shakiness of Biden's voice. When he wasn't talking, he often stared off into the distance. Trump frequently steamrolled over Biden, accusing him of being a criminal and of peddling misinformation — many times without a response from Biden, though he did fire back with a handful of one-liners throughout.

The Biden campaign acknowledged that the debate would be a critical moment in the election, with officials hoping it could shake up the race to his benefit. Most polls have found the race to be neck and neck, with razor-thin margins that have moved negligibly for months, even after a New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts . 

Questions about Biden’s age and frailty have dragged down his polling numbers for months. The public concerns are exacerbated by deceptively edited videos , some of which have gone viral, that cut off relevant parts of an event, making it appear as if Biden is wandering or confused. This was Biden’s first opportunity since the State of the Union speech to dispel that narrative. 

Instead of a new beginning, many Democrats saw it as a moment for panic. 

“Democrats just committed collective suicide,” said a party strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns. “Biden sounds hoarse, looks tired and is babbling. He is reaffirming everything voters already perceived. President Biden can’t win. This debate is a nail in the political coffin.” 

“It’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t nominate someone else,” a Democratic consultant who works on down-ballot races said. 

Biden did ramp up as the debate progressed. 

“Only one of us is a convicted felon, and I’m looking at him,” Biden said to Trump. That was one moment that tested particularly well in the Biden campaign's internal real-time polling at the time of the debate, according to a person familiar with the polling. 

An aide said that it was “not an ideal start” for Biden at the beginning of the debate but that there was “no mass panic” at the campaign headquarters in Delaware.

The muting of the candidates' microphones at the debate, a stipulation both campaigns agreed to before the debate, added a new dimension to the faceoff. The first Biden-Trump match-up in 2020 was marked by repeated interruptions by Trump, leading to moments of frustration for Biden.

“Will you shut up, man?” Biden complained at that first Cleveland debate. 

Reaction pours in

“I’m thinking the Democrats are thinking about who the Barry Goldwater is who can walk in tomorrow and tell the president he needs to step aside,” said Ben Proto, chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party.

In 1974, after key Watergate tapes were made public, Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., went to see President Richard Nixon alongside other prominent lawmakers, telling Nixon that he would be convicted by the Senate and that he should step aside — which he did.

Biden’s campaign defended his performance, saying he offered a “positive and winning vision” for America.

“On the other side of the stage was Donald Trump, who offered a dark and backwards window into what America will look like if he steps foot back in the White House: a country where women are forced to beg for the health care they need to stay alive. A country that puts the interests of billionaires over working people,” Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a statement. “And a former president who not once, not twice, but three times, failed to promise he would accept the results of a free and fair election this November.”

Some Democrats also defended Biden presidency more broadly after the debate, pointing to his policies over Trump's.

"One thing this debate won’t change is Trump’s base instinct to sell out anyone to make a quick buck or put his own image on a steak, golf course or even the Holy Bible," said Brandon Weathersby, a spokesman with the pro-Biden American Bridge 21st Century super PAC. "Trump puts himself first every time, and that won’t change if he becomes president again."

Trump, meanwhile, has fended off his own questions over whether he’s diminished by age, including his struggles to stay on topic and his meandering when he’s speaking . Biden has posited that Trump “snapped” after his 2020 election loss and is unstable, which he aired again Thursday night.

Trump often gave his typical rambling responses and seemed at times to make up factoids and figures.

“During my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever, and my top environmental people gave me that statistic just before I walked on the stage, actually,” Trump said.

Trump also said he would lower insulin prices for seniors, but it was Biden who signed legislation in 2022 that lowered out-of-pocket costs for people on Medicare to $35 a month and covered all insulin products. 

Setting the stage for the fall

The first debate during the 2020 election cycle was in early September, meaning the first 2024 general election debate was significantly earlier than usual — more than two months ahead of Labor Day, which is often seen as the point when most voters start to pay attention to presidential contests.

“Debates move numbers,” said Matt Gorman, a longtime Republican strategist who worked for presidential campaign of Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. “And with this so early — and the next one not until September — you’re stuck with the narrative for four long months.

“And one and the other’s performance will set the tone for the next one,” he added.

For months, Trump’s team has been hammering Biden’s mental acuity, a strategy that is at odds with how campaigns generally handle the lead-up to debates, when they try to build up opponents as deft debaters to set expectations.

The expectations for Biden were low, and by almost all estimates he was unable to clear them.

“Biden just had to beat himself; unfortunately the stumbling and diminished Joe Biden the world has come to know made Trump look competent and energetic,” said a former Trump campaign official who isn’t working for his campaign this year. “I expect there will be some loud calls from Democrats for a change on the top of the ticket.”

“The floor for Biden was so low,” the person added. “After Biden’s debate performance, it seems the floor is 6 feet under.”

The 90-minute debate hit on a wide variety of topics, but many of the most dominant themes were centered on those that have been most prominent on the campaign trail over the past few months.

Trump hit Biden on two big policy fights that have stubbornly dogged his campaign: immigration and inflation. 

Since Biden took office, 15 million jobs have been created and the unemployment rate sits at a relatively low 4%, but prices for consumer goods have remained high, and they provided a consistent line of attack from the Trump campaign and Republicans more broadly.

In one heated exchange, Trump point-blank said “he caused the inflation.” Biden said in response there was less inflation under Trump because he tanked the economy. 

“There was no inflation when I came into office,” Biden said before that rejoinder — a quote Republicans quickly used as evidence that all of the current price hikes happened on Biden’s watch.

Trump continued to attack Biden over his border policies, which his campaign has used as one of its biggest lines of attack throughout the campaign. That often including amplifying each time an undocumented migrant commits a crime even though the data doesn’t support the idea of a migrant crime wave .

“ We have a border that is the most dangerous place anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

Earlier this year, Trump used his influence over congressional Republicans to block a bipartisan border deal that Biden supported.

Biden also tried to land a punch about Jan. 6, trying to build on the oft-discussed idea that Trump’s returning to the White House would be a threat to democracy.

“He encouraged those folks to go up to Capitol Hill,” Biden said. “He sat there for three hours being begged by his vice president and many colleagues on the Republican side to do something.”

Trump deflected, arguing the Biden should be “ashamed” for arresting those who participated in the attempted insurrection. 

Natasha Korecki is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.

Matt Dixon is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News, based in Florida.

Jonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News.

Advertisement

Supported by

Fact-Checking Claims About Tim Walz’s Record

Republicans have leveled inaccurate or misleading attacks on Mr. Walz’s response to protests in the summer of 2020, his positions on immigration and his role in the redesign of Minnesota’s flag.

• Share full article

By Linda Qiu

Since Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was announced as the Democratic nominee for vice president, the Trump campaign and its allies have gone on the attack.

Mr. Walz, a former teacher and football coach from Nebraska who served in the National Guard, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006 and then as Minnesota’s governor in 2018. His branding of former President Donald J. Trump as “weird” this year caught on among Democrats and helped catapult him into the national spotlight and to the top of Vice President Kamala Harris’s list of potential running mates.

The Republican accusations, which include questions over his military service , seem intended at undercutting a re-energized campaign after President Biden stepped aside and Ms. Harris emerged as his replacement at the top of the ticket. Mr. Trump and his allies have criticized, sometimes inaccurately, Mr. Walz’s handling of protests in his state, his immigration policies, his comments about a ladder factory and the redesign of his state’s flag.

Here’s a fact check of some claims.

What Was Said

“Because if we remember the rioting in the summer of 2020, Tim Walz was the guy who let rioters burn down Minneapolis.” — Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican nominee for vice president, during a rally on Wednesday in Philadelphia

This is exaggerated. Mr. Walz has faced criticism for not quickly activating the National Guard to quell civil unrest in Minneapolis in the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. But claims that he did not respond at all, or that the city burned down, are hyperbolic.

Mr. Floyd was murdered on May 25, 2020, and demonstrators took to the streets the next day . The protests intensified, with some vandalizing vehicles and setting fires. More than 700 state troopers and officers with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ mobile response team were deployed on May 26 to help the city’s police officers, according to a 2022 independent assessment by the state’s Department of Public Safety of the response to the unrest.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .