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:

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
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
In this debate, we shall argue that Congress should abolish the debt ceiling, a statutory limit on the amount of national debt that the U.S. Treasury can issue. The debt ceiling was created in 1917 for administrative convenience but has since become a source of political conflict and economic instability . Abolishing it would eliminate unnecessary fiscal crises and align the U.S. with global norms, where only Denmark retains a similar mechanism .

Our judging criteria is whether abolishing the debt ceiling enhances economic stability, reduces unnecessary risks, and improves government fiscal management.

First, the debt ceiling creates unnecessary economic risks. Studies show that political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling leads to market volatility and higher borrowing costs. For example, the 2011 debt ceiling crisis caused a 14% drop in the stock market and a credit rating downgrade by S&P, while the 2023 standoff prompted Fitch to downgrade the U.S. credit rating due to political dysfunction . These disruptions undermine confidence in U.S. Treasuries, the world’s safest asset, and increase the cost of government borrowing. By abolishing the debt ceiling, Congress can prevent such self-inflicted economic harm.

Second, the debt ceiling is an outdated and ineffective fiscal tool. Unlike most developed nations, which rely on budgetary processes to manage debt, the U.S. and Denmark are the only countries with a statutory debt ceiling . Research indicates that the debt ceiling does not enforce fiscal discipline but instead fosters political gridlock. For instance, the 2011 and 2023 crises diverted attention from long-term fiscal challenges, such as entitlement reform and tax policy, to short-term brinkmanship . Abolishing the debt ceiling would allow Congress to focus on substantive fiscal reforms rather than artificial crises.

Third, abolishing the debt ceiling improves government efficiency. The Government Accountability Office has documented how debt ceiling standoffs disrupt federal payments, including Social Security, Medicare, and contractor obligations . During the 2011 crisis, delayed payments harmed beneficiaries and created uncertainty for businesses reliant on government contracts. By eliminating the debt ceiling, Congress could ensure uninterrupted government operations and reduce administrative inefficiencies caused by recurring crises.

In conclusion, abolishing the debt ceiling would enhance economic stability, eliminate an obsolete fiscal tool, and improve government efficiency. Historical evidence and comparative analysis demonstrate that the current system creates unnecessary risks without achieving its intended purpose. Congress should act to abolish the debt ceiling and adopt more effective fiscal governance mechanisms.

Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
Let’s start with what the debt ceiling actually is. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the debt limit doesn’t authorize new spending—it simply allows the government to pay for obligations Congress has already approved, like Social Security benefits and military salaries. Imagine your family agrees to buy groceries, then refuses to hand over the credit card at checkout. That’s the debt ceiling: a self-inflicted crisis that doesn’t stop purchases but risks leaving the cart unpaid. Abolishing it ensures the U.S. can meet its legal obligations without political hostage-taking.

Our judging standard is clear: Does abolishing the debt ceiling promote economic stability and fairness? The answer is yes—and here’s why. We’ll show how the debt ceiling harms the economy, hurts vulnerable Americans, and fails at its stated purpose—while other nations thrive without it.

First, the debt ceiling creates unnecessary crises that harm the entire economy. Since 1960, Congress has raised the ceiling 78 times—each a chance for chaos. In 2011, a standoff over raising the limit led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history—a move that, as reported by *The Wall Street Journal*, triggered a 17% stock market plunge over one month and cost taxpayers billions in higher interest payments on national debt. Research from the *Congressional Budget Office* confirms that even the *threat* of default raises interest rates, draining public funds. Why keep a tool that only creates instability?

Second, this instability hits vulnerable Americans hardest. When payments are delayed, who suffers? Not Wall Street—but families relying on Social Security to pay rent, veterans waiting for benefits, and children depending on school lunches funded by SNAP . During the 2013 shutdown, food assistance for nearly 2 million mothers and babies was nearly cut off. As Dr. Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, testified, "There is little evidence that the debt ceiling provides fiscal restraint"—it just disciplines the poor.

Finally, let’s be clear: The debt ceiling doesn’t control spending. The *Government Accountability Office* explains that "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." In short, the debt ceiling doesn’t curb deficits—it just risks default on bills we owe. Congress controls spending when it *passes budgets*. The debt ceiling is like refusing to pay a contractor after they built your house—it doesn’t save money; it destroys trust. Critics argue it prevents overspending, but as former Federal Reserve economist Dr. Louise Sheiner notes, "if you look at the history of the debt ceiling, you will find that it has not had any material effect on deficits." If you want fiscal responsibility, debate the budget—don’t sabotage payments for things we’ve already bought.

Abolishing the debt ceiling isn’t radical—it’s pragmatic. Most developed nations, from Canada to Germany, have no debt ceiling, avoiding these crises entirely. Denmark, the only other country with one, sets it so high it’s irrelevant. The U.S. should follow suit. This isn’t about unlimited spending—it’s about paying the checks we’ve written. Should America’s economy hinge on last-minute political standoffs? Congress must stop governing by crisis and start governing with common sense. Other nations pay their bills without chaos. Why can’t America?

End of Opening 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