- 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 US and China are much too involved with each other economically to go to war, and both know they must continue to cooperate to have successful economies. The US and China are two of the largest economies in the world, and need eachother to grow. The US is China’s largest export destination, and the US economy depends on these cheap imports. In fact, US and China’s bolster trades total $649 billion. Finally, China’s foreign direct investment in the US totals over $60 billion dollars, which is essential to both countries. Both the US and China know that they need each other to continue economic growth and stability, which is why going to war is not an option for either country.
The pros of NAFTA completely outweigh the cons. First of all, NAFTA quadrupled trade for the US, as the US's exports increased from $140 billion to $520 billion. Imports from Canada and Mexico increased from $150 billion to $590 billion, which accounts for 26% of our imports. Also, GDP growth raised by as much as 0.5% each year. Those arguing that the US is losing jobs, NAFTA has actually created 5 million US jobs.
The Iran Deal is the best deal we are going to get with Iran. Not only does it allow the United States to regularly make sure Iran is not creating nuclear weapons, it also keeps the door open for potential diplomacy with Iran in the future. Iran hasn't violated the deal so far, and we have no reason to get rid of it. If we truly consider Iran our enemy, this deal is the best way to make sure they are not secretly creating a nuclear arsenal to go to war with us. Furthermore, the vast majority of American citizens are for the Unites States negotiating with Iran instead of just placing harsh economic sanctions on them. In fact, about 60% of Americans are for the deal.
The states all have equal voting power under the Articles, one vote each, so the states are equal. I fail to see how a strong central government keeps the US better educated, or more organized. A strong central government run by elites can be too easily turned into one man taking all the power, and turning into a tyrant. Under the Articles, that could never happen, and the interests of the average American are protected.
Unless we fought for our independence from a tyrant to become an aristocracy, or even a monarch, we should keep the Articles of Confederation. Federalists want a central government that will assume the states' debt and have a standing army. The only reason the elites want a central government to assume the states' debts is to have power over them, and turn the United States into an aristocracy, where us, the hardworking Americans, are taken advantage of. A standing army will be used against us to bully us into submission, and we will be no better off than we were before we gained our independence. Most of this country is made up of farmers and artisans, so the thoughts and opinions of them should be taken with more weight, as they would be under the Articles. Under the new constitution, only the rich elite will truly have any power to make change, and do you think they will help out the average, hard-working American? Think about all the lives that will have been wasted in the Revolution if we allow ourselves to turn right into an oligarchy.
While I agree negotiations isn't the best way to approach North Korea as it has historically failed, a preemptive strike would be much worse. A preemptive strike prompt North Korea to send a nuclear missile to South Korea, Japan, or even Alaska. You say that we would be leaving Japan and South Korea vulnerable, but North Korea has absolutely no reason to attack them, they also know they would lose. North Korea isn't suicidal, and the leaders want to stay in power. Further, if the United States is ever truly forced into defending another country from North Korea, we have bases in Guam and Hawaii to deal with it. North Korea built nuclear weaponry to prevent the U.S. from trying to topple their regime, and have succeeded. They know firing a nuke will eventually get them destroyed, and I guarantee you they want to stay in power. If we leave them alone, they will leave everyone else alone.
Option 4 is the best approach to dealing with North Korea. While some might say as the world's lone superpower the United States is obligated to protect smaller countries like South Korea, the United States' first responsibility is to it's people's safety and not other countries. Pulling all the troops stationed around North Korea, publicly announcing we won't mess them, and removing all sanctions on North Korea, we will send a message that we are not a threat to North Korea. In history, the United States has tried to take down communist regimes. Whether it be through infiltration (For example, the Bay of Pigs, which was obviously a miserable failure) or brute force, the United States has done anything in its power to stop communism from spreading. Historically, the only way these countries have been able to stop U.S. intervention has been through threat of nuclear war. North Korean leaders aren't stupid, they know their only way of stopping us is through the same threat. That's why they have nuclear weaponry in the first place, and they won't use it if we completely pull out of North Korea. Every single troop should
be sent back home, no more flybys, and no more threats. Some may say North Korea will then just wage war against South Korea, but they're not suicidal, they know they can't win. If the United States is ever forced to intervene, they have bases in Japan, Guam, and Hawaii to deal with it. Option 4 keeps the United States' best interests at heart, which should truly be prioritized over everything else.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!