- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The Iran Nuclear Deal has been a topic of debate since its creation. For the purposes of this debate I have been assigned to be against the Iran Nuclear Deal. Prior to the Iran Nuclear Deal, the UN was imposing sanctions on Iran that were beginning to cripple the Iranian economy. This paired with the fact that Iran had their assets (money in banks in other countries) frozen brought them to the point of negotiation. At this point, rather than demand they change their behavior globally, we offered to return their assets and remove the sanctions in return for a strict crackdown on the Iranian nuclear program. Proponents of the deal claimed that this was a crucial step towards peace, but they neglect to mention a key detail. The reason the U.S. and other nation did not want Iran to have the capacity to build and research nuclear weapons is because their government is untrustworthy and somewhat dangerous. Iran undermines the regimes in its area and continuously vows to destroy Israel, our ally . Not only that, but Iran is one of the largest contributors to terrorist organizations in the world. If the U.S and other nations are not willing to force Iran to change its behavior than the deal is pointless.
I believe that we should keep and revise the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists are attempting to create a dictatorship worse than the King. As it stands, Congress already has power under under Article IX of the Articles of Confederation. The people are more afraid of the Federalist's "solution" and the future dictatorship it sends our country hurtling towards. The people would much prefer to revise the articles, then risk our freedom to these new elites.
China has recently implemented heavy sanctions on North Korea. They have also said they will not will not aid us if we strike first. This is further proof that China will be more willing to negotiate, than anything else. Also pulling out our troops will not do anything. That is a too little too late option. We are way past pulling out and laying low.
-power vacuum threat
-congress makes bilateral negotiations impossible
-growing desire to avoid nuclear war
I believe that the United States should engage in six-party negotiation with North Korea. The involved parties would include North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, and the U.S. North Korea is not suicidal. They know that it would be unwise for them to attack a nuclear superpower. That is why they only provoke us. Provoking America allows them to gain the attention needed to inject themselves into the world stage. This means that the issue is best resolved through negotiation.
Some will argue that it is simply easier to nuke North Korea and be done with it. This , however, would strain our relationships with China and South Korea. Both countries prefer avoiding nuclear war at all costs. Attacking North Korea in this manner would leave a failed state susceptible to a power vacuum. This option may in fact make things worse.
Others may argue that Bilateral negotiation is best. I would ask those people to consider the present state of our nation's legislative branch. Even if the president could manage to strike a deal with Kim Jong Un, Congress would prevent him from making the necessary concessions.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!