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.

Rating Guide for Persuasiveness:

1
Poor

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

2
Weak

Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

3
Moderate

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

4
Strong

Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

5
Compelling

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

* indicate required question

Motion: Congress Should Abolish The Debt Ceiling


Question 1: Pre-Vote Stage
End of Pre-Vote Stage Comparison
Question 2: Opening Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
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.

Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
In this debate, we shall argue that Congress should not abolish the debt ceiling, as it serves as a necessary fiscal constraint to prevent excessive government borrowing and maintain economic stability.
Our judging criteria is whether retaining the debt ceiling promotes greater fiscal responsibility and long-term economic stability compared to its abolition.

First, the debt ceiling acts as a critical check on government spending, preventing unsustainable deficits. Studies show that when the debt ceiling is enforced, it forces Congress to engage in fiscal discipline. For example, the 2011 Budget Control Act, passed during a debt ceiling standoff, resulted in $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over a decade . This demonstrates that the debt ceiling can effectively curb reckless expenditure. Without this mechanism, there would be no legislative barrier to unchecked borrowing, risking severe fiscal deterioration.

Second, abolishing the debt ceiling could trigger economic instability, including higher borrowing costs and market volatility. Research indicates that the 2011 debt ceiling crisis led to a historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by S&P, which increased Treasury bond yields by 0.7% and eroded investor confidence . The Congressional Budget Office warns that repeated brinkmanship over the debt ceiling could raise long-term interest rates by 1-2%, costing taxpayers billions annually . Removing the ceiling entirely would eliminate even this imperfect safeguard, exposing the economy to greater risk.

Third, superior alternatives exist to improve fiscal governance without abolishing the debt ceiling. For instance, Switzerland’s "debt brake" rule, which limits structural deficits to 0.5% of GDP, has reduced its debt-to-GDP ratio from 55% in 2003 to 41% in 2022 . Similarly, Germany’s constitutional balanced budget amendment has maintained its AAA credit rating despite economic shocks. These models prove that targeted fiscal rules can enhance accountability more effectively than abandoning the debt ceiling.

In conclusion, retaining the debt ceiling—while imperfect—remains essential to enforce fiscal discipline and avert economic crises. Abolishing it would remove a vital constraint on borrowing, jeopardizing both U.S. financial credibility and global market stability.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
Let’s get one thing straight: the debt ceiling isn’t a responsible budgeting tool—it’s a time bomb that keeps hurting Americans. My opponent claims it prevents overspending, but the facts tell a different story.

First, on economic harm: They admit the 2011 crisis caused a credit downgrade and higher borrowing costs—exactly our point! According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 2011 standoff added $19 billion in extra borrowing costs alone. The ceiling doesn’t prevent crises; it creates them. Imagine if your landlord debated whether to pay the mortgage after signing the lease—that’s the absurdity we’re defending. Those costs? That’s your taxes funding political gamesmanship. And let’s be clear: every debt ceiling crisis weakens global confidence in the dollar—the foundation of our economic strength.

Second, the fiscal discipline argument collapses under scrutiny. The 2011 Budget Control Act cuts they praise? The Congressional Budget Office confirmed in 2014 that more than half the promised savings vanished within two years—like a diet where you regain the weight plus more. The debt ceiling doesn’t control spending—Congress does that through budgets. Claiming the ceiling controls spending is like saying a car’s gas gauge prevents speeding—it measures problems but doesn’t solve them. Or better yet, the ceiling is like a fire alarm that sets fires instead of warning about them—creating the very crises it’s meant to prevent. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stated in 2024, “By itself, setting a limit on the debt cannot control deficits because the decisions that trigger borrowing are made through other legislative actions.”

Now, who pays the price? Not Wall Street. Veterans waiting for benefits. Seniors relying on Social Security. Kids needing school lunches. The 2013 standoff delayed SNAP benefits for 47 million Americans—including 22 million children. Take Maria Rodriguez, a single mom who faced empty cupboards when her SNAP benefits were delayed. My opponent talks abstractly about "instability"—we’re talking real families choosing between rent and medicine during shutdowns. That’s not fiscal responsibility—that’s cruelty.

Their "alternatives" point actually helps us. Switzerland’s debt brake works because it caps future deficits—unlike our ceiling, which blocks paying past bills. We’re not against fiscal rules; we’re against this broken one. Denmark abolished its ceiling with zero crises—why can’t we?

Bottom line: The debt ceiling fails at its job while punishing everyday Americans. Keep budget debates where they belong—during budget votes. Let’s stop governing by crisis and abolish this dangerous relic. Text 'CRISIS' to 52886 to demand Congress stop playing politics with our economy.

Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
Thank you, chairperson. Esteemed judges, ladies and gentlemen, the opponent's opening statement contains four critical flaws in their defense of the debt ceiling, which we will systematically dismantle: their mischaracterization of the ceiling as a fiscal discipline tool, their flawed causation between the 2011 Budget Control Act and the debt ceiling, their fearmongering about post-abolition instability, and their misguided comparison to European fiscal rules.

First, the negative team claims the debt ceiling enforces fiscal responsibility, but this reverses cause and effect. Their cited $2.1 trillion in 2011 spending cuts came from budget negotiations—not the ceiling itself, as the Government Accountability Office confirms the limit "does not control deficits" . This is like crediting a fire for inspiring smoke detectors; the real discipline occurs during budget debates. Our side agrees on fiscal restraint—we simply propose enforcing it where it belongs: during appropriations, not through manufactured crises that cost taxpayers $19 billion annually in higher borrowing rates .

Second, their argument that abolition would cause instability ignores who actually creates volatility. The opponent cites S&P's 2011 downgrade as a risk of abolition, but this is textbook circular reasoning—the downgrade resulted from ceiling brinkmanship, not its absence. Studies show Treasury market liquidity dried up during the 2011 and 2023 crises , while Denmark's abolition in 1993 led to lower bond yields than the U.S. [

End of Rebuttal Stage Comparison
(Optional) Question 5: Which factors were most crucial in your assessment?
Additional Question 1 / 2
(Optional) Question 6: How long did you spend on this whole evaluation process (including reading the motion, listening to the debate, and answering the questions)?
Additional Question 2 / 2

If you find that you can't submit the results, please check back to see if you have filled in your name and if you have answered every required question with *. Thank you.

© CMU Debate Team