To many, the torture debate begins and ends with the Geneva Conventions: As a signatory to the treaties, it is illegal for agents of the United States to torture. Period. What's more, many view the notion of U.S. operatives resorting to torture as downright un-American. It diminishes our standing in the world, they argue, and doing so potentially exposes our troops, when captured, to retaliatory torture. As if that weren't bad enough, the argument goes, torturing our enemies isn't even worth the potential backlash: Information gleaned by torture is notoriously unreliable.

Nonetheless, other circles view torture as an essential weapon in fighting terrorism. Unlike traditional state aggressors, today's terrorists are undeterred by the threat of massive retaliation against a state's infrastructure. If terrorists cannot be deterred, then our success in this conflict lives and dies with our ability to stop attacks before they occur. That means our operatives need every intelligence-gathering tool at their disposal—including, some argue, torture. As stateless combatants, the argument continues, terrorists do not honor and are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Further, as nonstate actors who regularly torture and behead their captives, it is laughable to imagine that a terrorist cell—once it knew that the United States had renounced torture—would afford its prisoners the same respect.

Fifty years after their ratification, the Geneva Conventions may still be in effect, but the nature of war has changed. The United States is embroiled in an unconventional conflict with a stateless enemy, prompting many to ask: Should the United States loosen its prohibition on torture?

Think you know where you stand on this issue? Vote now.

The United States consumes more oil than any other nation in the world, and about 60 percent of it is imported. Record-high oil prices and growing frustrations over U.S. foreign policy's being driven by oil interests have reignited a years-old debate over whether the United States should be relying on foreign oil. Meanwhile, 2008 presidential candidates, left and right, promise voters "energy independence."

On one side of the debate, there are the arguments that our dependence on foreign oil has turned the U.S. military into an oil security force (particularly in the Middle East); that we're so accustomed to bellying up to gas stations that alternative fuels get short-changed; that importing oil negatively affects our economy; and that no matter what the country source, expenditures on any foreign oil support repression and corruption.

Many look at these figures and worry. Surely we can’t afford to accommodate so many new arrivals. Who is going to pay for their education, health care, housing? Where will they find jobs? Where are the food, water and electricity they need going to come from? And how can we be sure that our enemies aren't among them?

But is eliminating foreign oil imports for so-called energy independence strategically smart or even logistically feasible? There are those who maintain that buying and consuming oil helps to maintain our global military and economic prestige. Meanwhile, oil pragmatists argue that reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a chimera: Since the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and alternative fuels are in their infancy, cutting back on foreign oil is impossible.

Think you know where you stand on this issue? Vote now.

The figures are dramatic: There are now 300 million people living in the United States. That’s twice as many as in 1950, four times the total of 1900. And the numbers will only rise going forward.

Why? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population increases by one individual every 30 seconds due to immigration alone: That’s more than a million people per year. The Pew Research Center estimates that 82 percent of population growth between 2005 and 2050 will be caused by immigration, both by people who arrive during that time and by their descendants.

Many look at these figures and worry. Surely we can’t afford to accommodate so many new arrivals. Who is going to pay for their education, health care, housing? Where will they find jobs? Where are the food, water and electricity they need going to come from? And how can we be sure that our enemies aren't among them?

But is increased regulation of who crosses our borders really in our best interests? Where will industry and agriculture find enough workers? What about the valuable contributions immigrants make in terms of culture, ideas, hard work and taxes? And can we ever really keep out those who are determined to harm us, no matter how secure we make our borders?

Think you know where you stand on this issue? Vote now.

Since World War II, individual income tax has constituted more than 70 percent of all federal tax revenue. For most Americans, dread of Form 1040 and April 15 are as American as apple pie. But is the federal income tax the best way to generate revenue for the government?

On the one hand, some argue, income taxes and all of the complications that accompany them are a necessary evil: A complex federal government demands a complex tax code, and only a complex tax code can accommodate changes in revenue needs, generate the billions of dollars needed to sustain the government of a nation with more than 300 million people and decrease the deficit. Alter the tax code, some argue, and say "bye-bye" to things that we Americans take for granted: interstates, meat inspection and flak jackets in Fallujah.

But on the other hand, there's the alarming argument that given the demands of a $500 billion war in Iraq and a $9.2 trillion deficit, something's got to give, and that something will likely be taxes as we know them. Others maintain that because the federal tax code is incredibly unwieldy — impenetrable to most Americans and even lawmakers — the current income tax system should be abolished in favor of a nationwide federal sales tax or a flat tax system that would not just simplify our lives, it would boost the economy. Finally, it's hard to dismiss arguments that the current income tax regime punishes savers and encourages greed and corruption in the government and private sector.

Think you know where you stand on this issue? Vote now.

In 2006, the number of Americans without health insurance coverage rose to 47 million -- up from 39.9 million just eight years ago. This includes 9 million children under the age of 19 and 12.6 million women of childbearing age.

To many critics, it's inexcusable that a country as wealthy and powerful as the United States does not provide comprehensive health care, particularly when many other industrialized capitalist democracies have proven that it can be done.

Advocates of a single-payer system -- under which a government-run organization collects all health care fees and pays out all health care costs -- argue that it would provide comprehensive care, improve the doctor-patient relationship and reduce costs.

Opponents argue a single-payer system would increase bureaucracy and taxes while ultimately undermining the quality of health care in the United States. The beleaguered Medicare system, they argue, proves that an American single-payer system is doomed to fail due to bureaucracy and inefficiency.

Think you know where you stand on this issue? Vote now.