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.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


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

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Nfrontz12345

Reward Points:2
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:7
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
7 most recent arguments.
1 point

The nuclear deal is the best solution to the "missile crisis" going on in Iran. This deal prevents Iran from enriching their uranium to produce nuclear grade weapons which requires the Uranium to be enriched at 3.67% which is 16.33% below medical grade uses. This is all inspected by International Inspectors who manage that they will stay below 3.67% enriched Uranium. But, there are two ways to produce nuclear-grade weapons and that is also covered within the deal. Their Centrifuges were also cut down to 5000 while their low-enriched Uranium was cut down to 300 kilos from 10,000 kilos. These restrictions provide a possible cornerstone to the solution to the nuclear weapons issue in the world today. And fiscally speaking the money that the U.S is funding Iran with is not funding the terrorists of the country it is funding the COUNTRY.

1 point

But, if we give the power all to the Federal Gov'ment then where will the power in the states go. If the head hancho has all of the power then the USA, which preaches life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how could someone who disagrees with the federalist views be happy? I'm saying do not let the US become a monarchy and the states are fine look at what happened in 1777 with the national debt, the Federal Government couldn't handle the debt so the states( all thirteen of them ) paid off the debt of Merica'.

3 points

I think that the states should have some power along with the Federal Gov. aswell because when has a freedom ever started with the head hancho at the steering wheel all the time? I believe that the power should be spread because the 'steering wheel' need to be shared among the states along with the federal gov. The American Revolution happened for a reason, to break away from the king and not become a monarchy. I believe in power distributed and that sovereignty would be stripped of the states.

2 points

Yes, I agree that he is using this as publicity rather than an actual threat but, I do not think the trust between the US and the North Koreans is there. First of all, if we withdraw from the Korean peninsula then that would eliminate the need for negotiation with the country. Kim Jong has been using our presence in South Korea to manipulate the US in order to milk whatever they can out of us. Why subside to the enemy when we could save our troops,money,resources and dignity by withdrawing from the peninsula and end up happier. After what happened when Clinton was in office they wouldn't trust the US or would they? That is a risk (worth whatever the deal would be based on) I would not want to take.

Nfrontz12345(2) Clarified
1 point

Well our presence in South Korea has just fueled an anti-American movement in the country so, the South Koreans already want us out of their country. Then, that's why we have Japan, in Japan we have bases and troops so if anything goes to crap then we will tap into our reinforcements there. But, yes we promised the South Koreans that we would help them out when they actually have a military of 600,000 troops, our contribution is only about 37,000 American soldiers. The time and money wasted getting slandered will not pay off staying in that region. They already hate us, why would they try to join the North Korean side (their enemy) to bomb the "World's Superpower"? Oh yeah, we wouldn't move out of Japan as I previously stated in my original argument because we would be withdrawing from the Korean peninsula my B.

1 point

Has Kim Jong budged in the past eight years? Nope, and he won't budge just because the President sashas himself into an agreement with Kim Jong. North Korea is notorius for the deals it has broken and that is why we should withdraw from the peninsula and take them out with post strategic moves

2 points

I believe that we need to withdraw our troops from the Korean Peninsula, because our troops gives our allies, South Korea and Japan, a warm blanket that they can just cuddle with at the end of the day. If we withdrew from the Korean peninsula then that would force Japan and South Korea to build a nuclear arsenal. Doing this would reduce the weapons NK has focused at us by the US having the upper hand. The North Koreans can not do anything at this point

Nfrontz12345 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