- 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.
"Under the nuclear deal that we, our allies and partners reached with Iran last year, Iran will not get its hands on a nuclear bomb. The region, the United States, and the world will be more secure."-former president Barack Obama
All that can come in proceeding in a nuclear deal with Iran is benefits for the United States along with weakening those that could possibly hurt us. In this deal, Iran is sure to not be a major threat to the United States because they will be under constant watch to ensure that they fail in their advances to create nuclear weapons. All the United States has to do to ensure our safety is to lift a few sanctions that were placed on Iran and nothing more. Iran's economy is struggling due to the sanctions at pace so this deal can benefit both parties. This deal also allows for the many American men detained by Iran to finally be released and reunited with their families.
Though freedom of religion and speech is important and needed in a society, it only extends as far to where you aren't saying anything or doing anything to harm others. It is an essential part of democracy for people to feel protected and safe. Some speech and religious beliefs can cause for other groups of people to be put in danger. For example, Muslims are turning on other Muslims and killing them based on their beliefs. Freedom of religion and speech should only extend as far to not break the boundaries of the law. The law should be held above religion because the law is made in order to protect the people. Society can be better protected when the law is held above religion. If we were to completely accept intolerance, who is to stop another Hitler from arising? "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
What I was trying to say is that Mexico holds the resources that the United States wants. The United States imports vehicles, electrical machinery, other machinery, mineral fuels, medical instruments, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, wine, beer, snacks and other processed foods all from Mexico. All of the things we import from Mexico add up to be over $200 billion. A lot of the things that people in the United States use on a daily basis in order to have businesses or to live a normal life come from Mexico.
There is no such thing as an impenetrable wall. If someone is determined to cross into United States borders, they will do anything. The US already tried having fences to separate borders in some areas but this was proven ineffective. That wall cost $7 billion that ultimately went to waste. Why would we need to build a bigger wall that costs over twice as much when it won't work? The bigger wall may reduce the amount of people that cross over, but it won't keep all of the immigrants out. This large wall will cause even more Americans to live in a "no mans land." No mans land is when American property has been cut by previous border patrol walls and now has its residents feeling like prisoners. Not only will this wall not work, but it will also entrap American citizens living on the Southern border.
Building a border wall will have many negative effects and the wall is unnecessary. Mexico has been a beneficial factor to the United States economy and building a wall could potentially risk our relationship with them. Building a wall will divide these two nations and could cause for Mexico to feel as we are using a defense mechanism against them. Mexico could potentially raise tariffs on their goods and United States gas prices will go up.
There is also the problem in how the building of this wall is going to be funded. President Trump claims that Mexico will pay for it. However, the Mexican president has outright refused to pay for the wall and he says "there is no scenario" for Mexico to have to pay for the wall. The price of paying for this wall will ultimately fall on the shoulders of the American people and will cause for an increase in taxes. This wall will cost $15-20 billion or more that the United States does not have.
I think they were referring to Americans losing jobs from the jobs possibly transferring overseas. However, the few jobs that TPP could possibly take away do not affect the majority of the country since 80% of the jobs in the US are service jobs that will not be affected by the trade deal.
Free trade means international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions. Trade has been a large factor in the United States economy for years. According to Pew Research.org, the United State $246.5 billion worth of overseas crude last year. This number goes to show how dependent the US is on trade. TPP would give the US trade a boost from the flat line it has been at since 2011 by opening trade markets in Japan, Southeast Asia, and other places. People against TPP argue that it will eliminate jobs in the US and send them overseas. However, 80% of the jobs in the US are service industry jobs such as teachers, lawyers, and other jobs that would still be available. TPP would be an overall good thing for the economy despite the loss of a few jobs.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!