- 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.
"...engaging directly with the Iranian government on a sustained basis, for the first time in decades, has created a unique opportunity -- a window -- to try to resolve important issues." This deal is not a perfect one, it is a preliminary action that allows for the expansion of diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Although the initial agreement of this deal ensured total termination of Iran's nuclear programs, through discussions with the other participating countries it became clear that completely halting Iran's uranium enrichment would create excessive tensions between Iran and the countries writing the deal. Instead the aim of this deal is to expand US relations with Iran in the hopes of Iran having a more diverse and stable economy. However completely doing away with this deal will do more harm than good for America and the world.
Since the enactment of this deal Iran has received billions of dollars in sanction relief in exchange for shipping out its enriched uranium, therefore if the US was to remove itself from this deal whose to say that Iran could not restart its centrifuges. But this deal provides America the opportunity to gain support of liberals and reformers in Iran by creating friendly relations with them, and with their support collectively we can loosen the grip of the clerics on Iranian society. With a less theocratic government Iran will gain legitimacy on the world stage and from that Iran may attract more FDI, helping to boost their GDP growth rate.
Yes in America we have the freedom of religion and speech and those rights need to be respected by all, including the government. How foolish would America seem if we retract the part of our Constitution (that we've had for decades) that allows for those freedoms? In the eyes of immigrants seeking asylum America would become just another place where they are persecuted and America would lose some legitimacy as a free and democratic nation. While I realize that not all countries have a constitution that protects the rights of its citizens, since America has one we should honor and uphold it. By creating limits as to what people of certain beliefs or cultures can do we are creating necessary tension between those groups, which can be avoided if we respect their 1st Amendment rights.
This tension can result in radical feelings towards Americans, which can develop into more than feelings if the oppressed feel inclined to revolt. I do believe however that in order to protect the majority the government may step in if laws are broken or threats of violence take form. But the action that the government takes should not limit one's 1st Amendment rights or else America will find itself in a situation where it will have to prioritize over the minority or majority.
America is founded on freedom and diversity, so it would completely contradict every thing we stand for if we all become bigots. I believe that as long as there are no laws being broken and no citizens being harmed, we have no right to ban an act based solely on ones beliefs or preference.
If it is an essential part of democracy for people to feel protected then how would restricting Muslim religious freedom protect them? By being intolerant of their religion or culture then wouldn't you agree a person being persecuted doesn't feel safe in a country where that happens? And religious freedom is in the Constitution, which is the law of the land.
Have we forgotten about the poor countries who are locked into the TPP? There are 6 countries-Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, and Vietnam- involved in the TPP who are categorized as poor and developing and if approved it could lock all of them into their current states of rampant poverty and economic strain. The TPP was written by and for the rich countries and the poor countries were left in the dark. The tax reforms in the TPP harm poor and developing countries because it prohibits levying taxes on a countries exports; this encourages the goods to stay in home but lessens the value of the good. This means that poor countries who's economies rely on the collection of those taxes will suffer even more. This agreement encourages international competition, which is great for the rich countries but hurts the poor countries because they cannot compete. The TPP essentially forces countries to perform economically on the world stage, even if they aren't ready. If the developing countries get left behind all parties suffer, and the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will have to pick up their slack, on top of dealing with their own economic problems. We don't let toddlers playin the NFL for good reason.
Apologies my fellow Federalist. The Articles of Confederation were very much NOT like Constitution. This was due to two facts. Taxation and Military. Under the Articles, the federal government did not have the authority to tax the states. They could only ask for taxation. The federal government was also forced to depend on state militias for protection as they did not have the power to build a standing army. Both of these issues were addressed and corrected when the Constitution was created.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!