Debate test?

This article aims to expose all the pros and cons of the debate “Debate test?”, to allow everyone to form a critical and informed opinion. Further reading: Founding Principles

The title of this debate is non-standard. The question posed does not have the possible answer “yes” or “no”. Reframe the question as a pro/con debate.

The title of this debate should be simplified. It is formulated in an unnecessarily complex way. Find a clear and compact title.

The title of this debate is to be explained. The question asked is unclear or ambiguous. Find a title that clearly highlights the problem.

This page is a debate draft. This is a more or less organized list of arguments. Please feel free to contribute to this draft.

This debate is sensitive. Arguments relayed on this page may shock. Reminder: these arguments are only relayed insofar as their presence can be attested in the public space. They are endorsed neither by the editors of the site, nor by the association which administers Wikidebates.

This debate is considered fanciful. Its presence in the public space is not obvious. Please provide citations to the talk page showing that conflicting opinions are held on the matter. Reminder: according to the founding principles, an argument has its place on Wikidebates only insofar as its presence can be attested in the public space.

This debate is redundant. It duplicates another debate on the site. Choose the more comprehensive of the two and add interesting content from the other.

This debate is unbalanced. One of the “pro” or “con” sides is treated less well than the other. It needs to be supplemented or improved.

The plan of this debate needs to be improved. Arguments are redundant, need to be unraveled, or its structure can be clarified. Do not hesitate to review it.

PROS Pro argument test 1 Pro argument test 2 Pro argument test 3 Pro argument test 4 Pro argument test 5 Pro argument test 6

CONS Con argument test 1 Con argument test 2 Con argument test 3 Con argument test 4 Con argument test 5

Keywords: test.

To understand the debate

fsdfds

This part is too long.

It can be written in a more concise way or be divided into different subsections.

This part is to be developed.

It is incomplete or too telegraphic. How about taking it back?

This part is unclear.

It is too obscure or jargon. What if you made it more understandable?

This part is not neutral.

It favors one of the two sides (“pro” or “con”) to the detriment of the other. The introduction should not take sides, but simply provide useful information for understanding the debate.

This part lacks references.

Some little-known facts or quotes are not sourced. References should be added in notes.

The style of this part needs to be reviewed.

This part is written in a personal way (“I think that…”) or too familiar. It needs to be rewritten.

dfdsfdsx

See also: Abortion and Universal basic income on Wikipedia [ edit ]

Pros

What are the pros of abortion?

• Pro argument test 1
• Pro argument test 2
• Pro argument test 3
• Pro argument test 4
• Pro argument test 5
• Pro argument test 6

Cons

What are the cons of abortion?

• Con argument test 1
• Con argument test 2
• Con argument test 3
• Con argument test 4
• Con argument test 5

To go further

Bibliography

“Pro” side

• Achille Dupas, Le Monde.

“Con” side

No references have been entered yet.

Neither “pro” nor “con”

No references have been entered yet.

Webliography

“Pro” side

• Auteur 1, Auteur 2, Auteur 3, Wiki.
  Broken link

  The page no longer exists at this address. How about updating the link?
  Insufficient quality reference

  More rigorous or better argued content can be found for this argument.
  Incomplete reference

  Some important fields have not been filled in. What if you complete them?

“Con” side

No references have been entered yet.

Neither “pro” nor “con”

No references have been entered yet.

Videography

“Pro” side

• dsfdsxdsx, Auvidéo.
  Broken link

  The page no longer exists at this address. How about updating the link?
  Insufficient quality reference

  More rigorous or better argued content can be found for this argument.
  Incomplete reference

  Some important fields have not been filled in. What if you complete them?

“Con” side

No references have been entered yet.

Neither “pro” nor “con”

No references have been entered yet.