Debate Pairwise Comparison

Welcome to the Debate Evaluation!

You'll be evaluating a debate where two sides discuss a topic. Your opinion matters - you'll vote how persuasive each side is in each stage. We will use your feedback to improve the debate quality.

What to Expect:

Debate Structure

The full debate includes:

Opening: 4 min audio per side
Rebuttal: 4 min audio per side
Closing: 2 min audio per side

You'll evaluate a portion of this debate.

Your Evaluation Tasks

For each stage, you'll:

Rate the persuasiveness of each side's statements
Update your position after hearing each argument
Provide optional feedback

Final Comparison

In the final stage:

You'll see two versions of each side's closing statement
Rate each version independently
Select which version you found more persuasive

Important: Before beginning, you'll vote for the side you initially support. After each stage, you'll have the opportunity to reconsider and update your position based on the arguments presented.

Note: Throughout the evaluation, you'll encounter attention check questions to ensure data quality. Participants who demonstrate thoughtful engagement will receive compensation as agreed. If you're unable to commit to providing quality responses, you may exit the survey at any time without penalty.

Second Questionnaire: This questionnaire takes around 10 minutes. After submitting this questionnaire, you will be automatically redirected to the next questionnaire, which will take around 15 minutes. If both questionnaires are completed, you will receive the compensation as agreed. If you are unable to commit to completing both questionnaires at this time, please feel free to exit. We understand that your time is valuable and appreciate your participation thus far.

Rating Guide for Persuasiveness:

Poor

Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak

Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate

Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong

Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling

Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

Output A - For Side

(Optional) For - Transcript A

The debt ceiling isn’t just broken—it’s actively sabotaging our economy and hurting families. Today, we show why Congress must abolish it. This arbitrary legal limit on how much the U.S. government can borrow to pay bills it has already approved doesn’t promote fiscal responsibility—it manufactures crises. Abolishing it doesn’t mean unlimited spending; it means removing a cap that forces unnecessary economic chaos. The real question is: Does this limit help or hurt America? The answer is clear: it hurts, and here’s why.

First, the debt ceiling creates unnecessary political crises that harm the economy. Think of it like locking your car *after* crashing it—it doesn’t prevent the crash, it just stops you from fixing the damage. Every few years, Congress debates whether to pay bills we’ve already racked up, spiking uncertainty in financial markets. According to *a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office*, the 2011 debt ceiling standoff increased Treasury bond rates by 0.7%, costing taxpayers $19 billion annually in higher borrowing costs. Even the threat of default hurts consumer confidence and business investment. Research from *Standard & Poor’s* shows the 2011 crisis led to the first-ever U.S. credit rating downgrade, which made loans more expensive for everyone from homeowners to small businesses. Critics claim abolition risks overspending, but budgets—not debt ceilings—determine fiscal discipline. The ceiling is a relic that adds chaos where none should exist.

Second, this chaos hits the most vulnerable the hardest. When government payments are delayed or shutdowns loom, who suffers? Not Wall Street. It’s low-income families relying on Social Security, veterans waiting for benefits, and kids depending on school lunches. These Americans can’t afford missed paychecks or paused services. They’re the ones left scrambling when politicians play chicken with the debt ceiling. A policy that punishes those already struggling isn’t just flawed—it’s unjust.

Third, the debt ceiling doesn’t even do what it’s supposed to. As *Dr. Laura Blessing, Senior Fellow at Georgetown University*, testified, "There is little evidence that the debt ceiling provides fiscal restraint." It doesn’t control spending—that happens during budget decisions. The ceiling just stops us from paying bills we’ve already agreed to cover. The *Government Accountability Office* explains it clearly: "The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits... it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred." Abolishing the ceiling doesn’t greenlight spending—it ensures Congress debates budgets *before* spending, not after.

So what’s the alternative? Simple: abolish the debt ceiling. Let Congress debate spending when they approve budgets, not after the fact. Countries like Denmark replaced its rigid ceiling in 1993 with dynamic debt monitoring—resulting in zero crises and lower borrowing costs than the U.S. This isn’t about reckless borrowing—it’s about paying what we owe without manufactured crises.

Abolishing the ceiling won’t fix all fiscal challenges—but it removes a recurring roadblock to solving them. The debt ceiling is a relic that creates economic instability, hurts the vulnerable, and fails at its only job. Tell Congress: Stop holding our economy hostage. Text ‘ABOLISH’ to 52886 to connect with your representative—it takes 30 seconds to help end this crisis. Thank you.

How persuasive is Output A in supporting For side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*

Poor: Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

Weak: Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

Moderate: Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

Strong: Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

Compelling: Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

(Optional) Additional comments for Output A's For side:

Output B - For Side

(Optional) For Transcript B

In this debate, we shall argue that Congress should abolish the debt ceiling, defined as the statutory limit on the total amount of national debt the U.S. Treasury can incur. This mechanism, intended to control borrowing, has proven counterproductive by creating political gridlock and economic instability.

Our judging criteria is **economic stability and government efficiency**, as the debt ceiling's primary impact is on fiscal policy and macroeconomic health. The abolition of the debt ceiling should be evaluated based on its ability to reduce unnecessary risks, promote long-term economic stability, and improve fiscal governance.

First, abolishing the debt ceiling eliminates unnecessary economic risks and uncertainty. The debt ceiling has historically triggered artificial crises, such as in 2011 and 2023, which disrupted financial markets and increased borrowing costs. For instance, the 2011 debt ceiling standoff caused stocks to plunge by 14% over four weeks and led to the first-ever downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by Standard & Poor’s . Research from the Brookings Institution confirms that these crises threaten critical programs like Social Security and Medicare, creating avoidable instability . By abolishing the ceiling, the U.S. would align with most developed nations and ensure stable debt management .

Second, the debt ceiling is an outdated tool that fails to enforce fiscal discipline. Economists widely agree that the ceiling does not curb spending but instead serves as political theater. As noted in testimony before the House Budget Committee, the debt ceiling "does not serve any useful purpose" and has not imposed meaningful fiscal restraint . Alternative measures, such as budget caps or spending limits, could achieve fiscal responsibility without the risk of default. For example, Denmark’s debt ceiling is set so high that it has never constrained borrowing, demonstrating its redundancy . Abolishing the ceiling would refocus Congress on substantive fiscal reforms rather than symbolic battles.

Third, removing the ceiling improves government efficiency and creditworthiness. Political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling wastes legislative time and delays critical policymaking. The 2023 crisis, for instance, pushed the U.S. to the brink of default, risking a recession that could have killed 7 million jobs and shrunk the economy by over 4% . The Congressional Budget Office warns that such disruptions increase borrowing costs and undermine investor confidence . By abolishing the ceiling, the U.S. would streamline fiscal decision-making and safeguard its reputation as the issuer of the world’s safest assets .

In conclusion, the debt ceiling is a relic that jeopardizes economic stability, fails to achieve its intended purpose, and hampers efficient governance. Congress should abolish it to eliminate unnecessary risks, align with global norms, and focus on real fiscal challenges.

How persuasive is Output B in supporting For side? Rate the performance based on the following principle. ^*