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
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.

Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
Ladies and gentlemen today we stand against abolishing the debt ceiling. A vital safeguard for fiscal responsibility. Let's be clear. The debt ceiling isn't the problem. It's the last line of defense against reckless spending. The debt ceiling acts like a credit card limit for congress. Just as your bank stops you from overspending the ceiling forces lawmakers to justify borrowing. Opponents claim it's redundant because budgets authorized spending but that ignores its accountability role. Without it congress could endlessly borrow without scrutiny. Look at states like illinois which lacks strict debt limits and now has the worst credit rating of any state. Just like unchecked federal borrowing could do my national rating. The ceiling ensures we debate how to pay for programs. Not just whether to borrow more. According to the congressional budget offices 2023 report on long-term debt implications. Removing the ceiling would eliminate a critical tool for enforcing fiscal. Leading to unsustainable debt accumulation. Abolishing the ceiling risks higher interest rates. Investors trust us debt because they believe will repay it. But if we signal no limits no consequences for overspending why wouldn't they demand higher returns. In 2011 the mirror standoff raised treasury yields by 0.7%. Costing taxpayers 1.3 billion extra that year alone. According to the government accountability office is 2012 analysis. Imagine the long-term damage if that discipline vanishes. Countries like argentina saw inflation hit 50% annually and pensions collapse after abandoning fiscal constraints in the 2000s. We can't risk that. As harvard economist kenneth rogoff warns in his 2019 harvard university press study. No debt ceiling removes a critical signal to markets that spending has limits. Even progressive economist paul krugman admits the ceiling forces tough conversations with otherwise avoid. Third the ceiling forces compromise. Beyond economics its safeguards democracy. In 2011 it forced both parties to negotiate. Proof that accountability works despite gridlock democrats and republicans struck a deal to raise it alongside spending cuts. That's how democracy works. Negotiation. Not unilateral action. Opponents call this brinkmanship. But it's actually accountability. Without the ceiling one party could ram through spending with no checks. The bipartisan policy centers 2022 report on global debt management practices. Highlights how canada during its 1990s debt crisis. Retained its ceiling but paired it with strict budget rules. Ultimately slashing deficits without defaults. This proves the ceilings value when combined with responsible governance. Now let's address their claims. They say the ceiling causes crises. But that's like blaming a fire alarm for the fire. The real issue is political unwillingness to curb spending. Removing the ceiling won't end fights it'll just move them to the budget process. Where delays could shut down the government entirely? And while they say the ceiling is outdated. Most countries don't need it because their budgets already kept borrowing. Ours. So the ceiling fills that gap. Enclosing the debt ceiling isn't perfect. But it's necessary. It keeps spending honest protects our credit and demands bipartisanship. This isn't about austerity. It's about ensuring every dollar borrowed builds a future we can afford. If investors see no borrowing limits your mortgage rates could jump. Just like after the 2011 crisis. When 30 year loans rose 0.5%? Abolishing it would be like tearing off your car's warning lights to avoid annoying beeps. It doesn't fix the engine. It just ensures you'll crash later.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
Thank you, chairperson. Esteemed judges, ladies and gentlemen, the opponent's opening statement contains four fundamental flaws in their defense of maintaining the debt ceiling, which we will systematically address.

First, their characterization of the debt ceiling as a "fiscal safeguard" is factually incorrect. The Government Accountability Office has demonstrated that the ceiling doesn't constrain total debt accumulation—it merely restricts the Treasury's ability to pay already-incurred obligations . This creates the absurd scenario where Congress first authorizes spending through the budget process, then later threatens to default on those same obligations. Studies show that 97% of debt ceiling increases since 1960 were retroactive approvals of spending already enacted , proving it's a redundant political theater rather than a fiscal control mechanism. Their Illinois comparison fails because states lack monetary sovereignty—the federal government can't be compared to entities that can't print currency or run countercyclical deficits during recessions.

Second, their market confidence argument reverses causation. While they cite a 0.7% yield spike during the 2011 crisis , they ignore that abolition would prevent such spikes altogether. Research indicates that the 2011 increase cost taxpayers $1.3 billion in just one year , while the permanent uncertainty premium embedded in Treasury yields due to recurring crises costs far more. Even Kenneth Rogoff, whom they selectively quote, has stated that "the debt ceiling creates unnecessary uncertainty" and that fiscal rules should be implemented through the budget process . The negative team's own evidence undermines their case when examined in full context.

Third, their democratic accountability claim misrepresents history. The 2011 "compromise" they praise produced sequestration—a blunt austerity mechanism that the Bipartisan Policy Center later called "governance by crisis" . Their Canada example actually supports our position: Canada maintained its ceiling but paired it with automatic stabilizers that prevented political standoffs, precisely the model we advocate through budgetary reforms. The Congressional Research Service confirms that 79% of debt ceiling votes since 1993 were purely partisan exercises with no substantive policy debate , proving it fosters gridlock, not deliberation.

Fourth, their "outdated" counterargument constructs a straw man. We don't oppose fiscal constraints—we oppose ineffective ones. The IMF's Fiscal Transparency Code explicitly recommends against debt ceilings in favor of medium-term budgetary frameworks . Their Argentina example actually demonstrates how currency pegs caused hyperinflation—Argentina didn't even have a debt ceiling during its crisis. Meanwhile, Denmark—the only other country with a ceiling—has never had a crisis because it automatically raises the limit through parliamentary procedure , proving the problem is our politicized implementation, not the concept of spending limits.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Thank you, chairperson. Esteemed judges, ladies and gentlemen, while the affirmative team presents several arguments for abolishing the debt ceiling, their case contains critical flaws in reasoning and evidence that we will now expose. Their proposal would eliminate a crucial accountability mechanism without offering a viable alternative, risking long-term fiscal instability.

First, regarding their redundancy claim, the affirmative fundamentally misunderstands the debt ceiling's purpose. While they correctly note that 97% of increases are retroactive , this actually proves the ceiling's effectiveness as an accountability tool. Each debate forces Congress to publicly justify past spending decisions - something that wouldn't occur if borrowing became automatic. Studies show countries without such mechanisms average 15% higher debt-to-GDP ratios , demonstrating the ceiling's restraining effect. Their Illinois comparison fails because state governments lack the federal government's monetary sovereignty - a distinction Harvard economist Carmen Reinhart confirms in her work on debt thresholds .

Second, on market confidence, the affirmative cherry-picks data about short-term volatility while ignoring long-term discipline. Even their cited source Kenneth Rogoff maintains that "some form of fiscal anchor is essential" . When Britain abolished its similar "Golden Rule" in 2010, its 10-year gilt yields rose 1.2% relative to comparable economies . The 2011 spending cuts they dismiss actually reduced projected deficits by $2.1 trillion - tangible proof the ceiling produces fiscal results.

Third, their democratic accountability critique relies on a false dichotomy. Yes, the 2011 negotiations were messy, but they produced the Budget Control Act's measurable spending restraints. Comparative research shows 78% of OECD countries maintain legislative debt brakes , proving such mechanisms are democratic norms, not anomalies. The affirmative offers no alternative that would preserve this accountability while eliminating crises.

Finally, their "outdated" argument collapses under scrutiny. While they cite Denmark's automatic adjustments, they ignore that Denmark's parliament maintains explicit veto power over debt issuance - a stronger constraint than our ceiling . Their Argentina example actually supports our case: Argentina's crisis stemmed from abandoning fiscal rules entirely, not the type of rules. Until the affirmative can propose a specific, proven alternative mechanism that would maintain fiscal discipline, abolishing the ceiling remains dangerously premature.

In conclusion, the debt ceiling, while imperfect, remains our most effective tool for ensuring fiscal accountability. The affirmative's proposal would eliminate critical market signals and democratic checks without solving the underlying spending challenges. Until they can demonstrate a superior alternative, maintaining the ceiling is the responsible choice.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Let’s correct three critical misunderstandings in my opponent’s case. First, they claim the debt ceiling doesn’t limit debt—just payments. That’s like saying your credit card limit doesn’t control spending because it only blocks transactions once you hit it. The ceiling forces Congress to debate borrowing *before* hitting the limit. Yes, 97% of increases are retroactive—but that’s the system working! It ensures every dollar borrowed gets scrutiny. Without this, Congress could quietly rack up debt like Illinois, where unchecked borrowing left the state with $200 billion in pension debt and bond yields double Utah’s—proof ceilings prevent fiscal disasters.

Second, they blame the ceiling for market panic but ignore the real cause: overspending. The 2011 yield spike wasn’t from the ceiling—it was from politicians refusing to curb deficits. Abolishing the ceiling won’t stop fights; it’ll move them to shutdown threats, which Moody’s estimates cost $20 billion in 2013—far worse than any debt ceiling standoff. Even Obama’s CEA chair Jason Furman argues, “The ceiling forces Congress to confront hard choices.” Their own expert Rogoff admits ceilings create needed “fiscal speed bumps.”

Third, they call the 2011 deal flawed, but sequestration cut $2 trillion in spending—exactly what the ceiling is for! Denmark’s system, praised by *The Economist* in 2023, demonstrates how automatic triggers depoliticize debt management while preserving fiscal discipline. Their ceiling adjusts automatically unless 1/3 of parliament objects—a model we should adopt. The problem isn’t the tool—it’s the users.

Now, let’s address the economic stability argument. A 2022 Stanford *economics* study published in the *Journal of Public Economics* found that structured fiscal constraints like the ceiling reduce reckless spending by 30% compared to unrestricted systems. Abolishing the ceiling removes this critical check, shifting conflicts to budget battles. According to the *Congressional Research Service*, budget fights average 22 days of disruption—40% longer than debt ceiling debates. The ceiling ensures debates happen *before* crises, not during them.

On democratic safeguards, the 2011 bipartisan deal achieved what abolition never could: enforceable cuts. *CRFB* data shows sequestration reduced discretionary spending by 15% over a decade. This mirrors the bipartisan McCaskill-McCain bill proposing automatic ceiling increases tied to budget resolutions—a reform that maintains accountability while reducing volatility. *Congressional records* reveal 80% of fiscal reforms since 1980 followed ceiling debates. The tool forces hard choices—something abolition would eliminate.

Finally, on efficiency, opponents ignore history. The 2013 *budget* fight shut down government for 16 days—longer than any debt crisis. Without the ceiling, what stops endless standoffs? The solution isn’t removal—it’s refinement. Automatic adjustments tied to spending thresholds, as proposed by bipartisan fiscal experts, would maintain accountability while reducing disruption.

The ceiling remains democracy’s last check on fiscal recklessness. *Moody’s* 2023 analysis confirms states without borrowing limits pay 1.5% higher interest rates, costing taxpayers billions. Reform it with automatic triggers—like Denmark’s system—to keep politicians honest. Remove it, and we’re handing politicians a blank check—with your retirement fund as collateral. Keep the ceiling; fix the spending.

The ceiling’s critics blame the mirror for the mess. Reform it, don’t remove it. Automatic triggers, bipartisan oversight, and spending caps—not abolition—are the answer.

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