1. Legal Insider Trading by Congress -"Should insider trading by Congress continue to be legal?" Estimated Launch Date: May 30, 2008

Contact: info@procon.org (all ideas, suggestions, and information are appreciated)

Why This Topic? Insider trading--buying or selling securities based on material nonpublic information--is illegal. But not for congressmen. The issue was first brought to our attention via this March 28, 2006 Wall Street Journal article. A 2004 Georgia State University study revealed that U.S. senators' stocks beat the market by 12 percent. The public is asking whether government officials should be allowed to use tips gathered on the job for personal economic gain. Two U.S. congressional representatives have introduced in 2006 and reintroduced in 2007 a bill, Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, that has not yet been voted on. Congress, the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), and the federal judiciary are in the fight for the power to regulate insider trading. We are here to provide a neutral investigation of this hot issue.

PRO Proponents argue that insider trading applies only to stock trading based on confidential, non-public information and that congressmen have no duty of confidentiality to Congress. In addition, some argue that changing the definition of insider trading to include public officials would be unviable because it would require a fundamental change in our government to implement a new system of confidentiality for all government documents and meetings.

CON Opponents argue that lawmakers and their aides should be prohibited from insider trading because of the vast potential to abuse access to non-public information for economic gain in the stock market. Government officials need to be held to the same standards as all other Americans. In addition, some opponents believe that, for the sake of accountability in the government, officials should be using sensitive information gained from working in the government to serve the country, not for personal profit.

2. Global Warming-"Are human beings causing global warming?" Estimated Launch Date: June 30, 2008

Contact: info@procon.org (all ideas, suggestions, and information are appreciated)

Why This Topic? Many people claim that human activities are causing temperatures around the world to increase, and that these changes will have catastrophic impacts including rising sea levels, severe natural disasters, damage to agriculture, and wide-spread disease. But others argue that if temperature fluctuations exist at all, they are part of a natural cycle and not due to humans. They see actions such as the Kyoto Protocol and the efforts of Al Gore and other celebrities as misguided attempts at preventing economic development. The issue of global warming has become so controversial, so complicated, and so partisan that we needed to get involved.

PRO Proponents of the global warming theory point to scientific studies suggesting that average temperatures around the globe are rising at faster rates than ever before as proof that humans are causing climate change. They claim that even modest increases in temperature will cause more severe weather, melt polar ice caps, disrupt agricultural practices around the world, and spread diseases. They feel that action must be taken to reduce the impact human beings have on the Earth's climate.

CON Opponents of the global warming theory argue that there is inconclusive evidence that temperatures are rising at all, let alone that human activities are causing any change. They state that previous Ice Ages demonstrate that the Earth's climate naturally shifts and note that there is no scientific evidence that efforts like the Kyoto Protocol will have any effect on the world's climate. These people view claims of global warming as sounding a false alarm and attempts to curb social and economic development.

3. Capital Punishment-"Should the death penalty be abolished?" Estimated Launch Date: July 31, 2008

Contact: info@procon.org (all ideas, suggestions, and information are appreciated)

Why This Topic? Throughout history, societies have struggled with issues of life and death. What crimes, if any, are so heinous in nature as to warrant the ending of human life and what system of justice can be created to prevent mistakes are challenging questions. After centuries of debate among philosophers, religious leaders, politicians, and scientists we've decided to devote our time and resources to fully examine capital punishment.

PRO Some opponents of capital punishment claim it is state-sanctioned murder that does nothing to protect society. Some argue it is racist, classist, and creates a system where inevitably innocent people are executed. Some say it is too expensive and ineffective while others would argue that the government should not have the authority to end someone's life.

CON Many proponents of capital punishment claim it is an important tool for protecting law and order that deters crime thereby saving innocent lives. Some argue "an eye for an eye" that is necessary for community and individual healing. Others say that there are crimes so horrible and criminals so callous that execution is the only way to prevent future tragedy.

4. Alternative Energy-"Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels?" Estimated Launch Date: Aug. 25, 2008

Contact: info@procon.org (all ideas, suggestions, and information are appreciated)

Why This Topic? The world's supply of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, will eventually run out. Moreover, many believe that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. Because of these concerns efforts are being made across the globe to develop alternative energy sources. But no one knows whether these alternative energy sources can meet the world's energy demands better than fossil fuels. With no clear solution in sight this issue calls for attention and understanding.

PRO Proponents believe that oil can be replaced with alternative energy sources ranging from ethanol to hydrogen to nuclear energy. They see dependence on fossil fuels as unsustainable and a threat to economic stability. Many also believe that use of fossil fuels is environmentally destructive and that new energy alternatives have fewer risks.

CON Opponents believe that many technological hurdles would have to be overcome before alternative energy can replace even a small portion of the power provided by oil. They say that fossil fuels will last hundreds of years more and that advances in efficiency will keep fossil fuels as the most economical choice. Many also believe that global warming is unrelated to human activity.

Disclaimer Privacy Statement How to Use www.ProCon.org (PDF) Contact Us © ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit -- All rights reserved 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: 310-451-9596 Fax: 310-393-2471