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
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Lhop21

Reward Points:8
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.
100%
Arguments:8
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
8 most recent arguments.
1 point

NAFTA also led to an increase of 5 million American jobs. There may have been a loss of jobs but the gain in jobs exceedingly surpasses that so this can't be viewed as a negative.

2 points

NAFTA has helped boost the US economy in many different ways. It created an increase of about 5 million US jobs along with increasing the average wage. NAFTA was also good for the US's GDP, adding 0.5%, that's around 8 billion dollars. NAFTA is one of the greatest trade agreements in history.

1 point

I agree. Iran does have a bad history of breaking deals so the US should think on this deal more and not trust that Iran will fully comply. What makes the US so different that we'll be the one time that Iran does comply?

1 point

The nuclear deal with Iran is a bad deal. Iran must not have a nuclear weapon in 10 years, 15 years or ever – and this agreement will not prevent a nuclear Iran. Under the terms of the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of 10,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms – again, for only 15 years. What the deal does not say is where and how this reduction will take place. Should Iran be allowed to manage the reduction itself, I am concerned that we will be unable to ensure its compliance. Iran's past dealings show that they have not complied fully with agreements laid out. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. What's to stop Iran from using the billions of dollars we have agreed to give them in use to help terrorists groups like Assad and Hezbollah. This deal could also be bad for our allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran's actions speak louder than its words. The agreement should be based off its actions and not its words.

2 points

I think we should keep the Articles because there would be more power to the people individually and what would be the point of leaving a country where you're being ruled by someone else to look for freedom and end up right back in the previous situation (the president is just another form of a dictator). The Constitution will just lead to a dictatorship. Any problems federalists have with the Articles could be revised and we could still keep the general points of the Articles. Everyone could be satisfied without having to move to a new Constitution.

lhop21(8) Clarified
1 point

I agree with you. Negotiating in the past did not solve many problems. Taking action now could stop them from furthering their nuclear weapons and increasing the threat to the US and allies.

1 point

Negotiating in the past has not proven to help in these types of situations. We cannot wait and try to negotiate with someone who does not want to be negotiated with. If we were to get rid of their nuclear weapons all together then it would solve the problem of them attacking their neighbors and our allies. Although, they wouldn't be in much danger because the US has troops stationed nearby in case of an attack.

1 point

Lyrick

Option 1

I think Option 1 would be the best because it will eliminate the problem of them having nuclear bombs all together. If they have no bombs, they have no leverage and won't put them in the position to threaten us. They have already warned that they would bomb South Korea and US troops stationed in Guam. Negotiating with them after they have threatened us is not the best idea and gives other countries the view that they can do it as well and get away with it. Patience is also not a good strategy because while we are waiting and trying to negotiate, they could be making more and selling them to terrorists. North Korea does not want a war. The US does not want a war. Simply negotiating could work, if they would agree to negotiate. Seeing as they are not we must act now or they will act on their threats. This is the best option.

Lhop21 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