CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Johnmarquez4

Reward Points:14
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
92%
Arguments:15
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
2 points

Obama Liberal - This deal has strong positive results for the US while coming at a minimal cost. The US has managed to denuclearize another country without having to sacrifice anything other than lifting economic sanctions. Iran is allowed to keep nuclear power only to the enrichment of being able to use it for energy, 3.67%. Iran is also down in cerntrifuges and is under strict international inspection to prevent any attempt at use for bombs. Before the deal, Iran had enough Uranium for ten nuclear bombs. Now they don't have enough to complete 1. To maintain peace internationally, the US needs to do its best to retain stability. Adding another country with nuclear power would destabilize international relations. This is a win for both sides. The US will help keep international stability while Iran can finally lift the economic sanctions tearing through their economy.

It is not just against one religion. It just so happens that that religion is the one posing a threat, so they seem to be the forefront when in actuality this will be a system put in place for all of them.

There is a limit to where we as Americans can tolerate no more. We are granted rights as citizens of the United States, so we should be held accountable to follow that code. People should be allowed to practice their religion, but if that practice becomes an actual danger to those around them then they must be stopped. The role of the government is to protect the people, and that especially includes against murder, no matter the reasoning behind it. More government isn't a bad thing. Complete freedom is not possible, so we need to accept stop having that picture in our mind. It is better to be well protected than striving for a false sense of complete freedom.

Supporting Evidence: Gov (www.governmentisgood.com)
Johnmarquez4(14) Clarified
1 point

Mr. Thames, accidentally was logged into this account but this is my argument. Izzy Strickler

Although is may be hypocritical not to tolerate the intolerant because then we are being intolerant, but to allow to extremist to extend their freedom of speech and successfully suppress the speech of others with opposing views is contradictory as well. So, intolerance should be tolerating in some situations, but the line needs to be drawn when people are getting harmed and hate speech is being blasted influencing other generations to hate. Such as Muslims preaching to their followers to kill people and justify it with their religion. But allowing someone to voice their opinion on how they hate gays is a step back from what America has worked so hard to get, although their speech in this case shouldn't be limited. A healthy alternative is they should be made aware of their illogical beliefs with a rational discussion.

Supporting Evidence: Paradox of Tolerance (en.wikipedia.org)
Johnmarquez4(14) Clarified
1 point

In 2015, Mexico had $24.8 billion in remittance revenues. A crazy stat about that number... It is more than amount of income of their oil revenue. Almost all of this remittance stems from the United States economy. While not all of this is from illegal immigrants, they do play a major role in this staggering number which continues to rise. It rose 4.75% from 2014 to 2015.

Supporting Evidence: Mexico Remittance (www.nbcnews.com)

The Wall is a good idea for the fact that it protects our borders and allows the United States government to fulfill its duty of serving its own citizens. There can be many arguments against the wall such as a raise in the price of Mexican imports, a division between nations, and the fact that some data shows that immigrants are not that bad for the economy. While i do acknowledge these reasons, I do not agree that illigal immigrants deserve the right to enter our country. They create competition, but at the end of the day if they are stealing our citizens lower class jobs because they are willing to work for cheaper we are losing out as a country. They are avoiding federal taxes and leaving many lower class citizens reliant on welfare. In addition, not all the money they make is going back into our economy. A good amount of it is sent back to families in Mexico. Trump has provided us a way to pay to protect our borders with minimal repercussions, not to say there are none at all. We need to come to the realization as a country that while it is okay to sympathize with those less fortunate, we need to keep our own safety and economical interests on the forefront.

Supporting Evidence: Immigrants (www.nakedcapitalism.com)

These are pretty solid selling points, but Mexico isn't our only source of these products. in addition the governments biggest job is to protect its own people, and these immigrants hinder that ability by taking jobs and avoiding Federal taxes. While prices of Mexican imports will rise, that is a price well worth paying when considering the benefits of keeping our borders under control.

The TPP does have positives, but are those positives in favor of the US economy? You say that there are protection requirements, but we are surrendering our own policies by agreeing to the deal and will have to oblige by their terms. A Minimum wage would be a plus as workers in Vietnam are working for as low as $.56 per hour; however, the fear of currency manipulation should trump all. How can we trust these countries not to manipulate their currency to help boost their income from the trades. That is putting alot of trust into a deal that seemingly has no end to it. It is in the best interest for the US to take care of itself before surrendering sovereignty and jobs for the betterment of other countries.

Supporting Evidence: TPP (www.epi.org)
2 points

How is this true? By agreeing to the TPP we would be relying a lot more on foreign imports. Thats where the job loss argument stems from because our jobs would be outsourced to countries who do it cheaper. It may boost overall numbers, but does that take into account the gigantic and continual growth of the gap in wealth distribution?

Johnmarquez4 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here