I did not bring up the point that Iran is evil, but merely another country who had the ability to destroy millions of lives with nuclear weapons. Although nuclear weapons may be forbidden now, how will the issue be dealt with as Iranian culture is more modernized with future generations. It is a precaution, and there is not a leader of a country who is willing to risk his or her own country by attacking a defenseless nation. Not with the threat of the 'imposing power of America', along with other nations that want world-wide stability. Although I agree with you to the point of the minimal uranium enrichment, and that Iran should have the opportunity to conduct its own research and development, I do not know enough about the science to know any other effects. The overall goal of the deal, however, is good in that it keeps the safety and stability of the world as a whole in mind.
Obama/Liberal
There will be a lot of arguments against the deal, claiming that it unfairly benefits Iran, puts them in danger, etc. However, the US goal is to prevent other countries, especially countries with a hostile attitude towards the US, from having nuclear weapons. This is a stepping stone keeping the threat of nuclear war at bay. Although there is the fright that Iran is left defenseless against other countries with the ability to send nukes, the US would not let that happen. After all, the US wants world-wide stability, so the threat of attack is not a true threat. There is also the issue of uranium enrichment. The enrichment level for nuclear weapons is 90%, and for R&D;is 20%. The deal keeps the enrichment at 3.67%. Although some will say it is too low, and will do the country no good, this is false. It provides Iran the opportunity to keep their country powered, while they work on improving economy, relations, etc., instead of improving nuclear stockpile.
This is a very intersting topic, and really makes you think. Is someone really born? Is this all real? If not, then of course he should not celebrate his birthday, because he is not real. However, it is scientifically proven that Grenache is born, so if going by logic, he should celebratate his birthday.
One inarguable point about Grenache is that he is a hard worker. Let's just take a look at the stats. 2717 rewards points. 2759 arguments. 69 arguments. Impressive. If this goes without being celebrated, it will not only be unfair to Grenache and his rock hard determination, but a crime against humanity. We, as the proud people of CreateDebate, can not allow this important day to pass without celebration, or we will only have ourselves to blame. I urge Grenache to remember that he deserves to be celebrated, and to never forget.
Sure, these are good arguments, but what about the fact that:
The tax will make Mexican goods more expensive, and with stagnated wages, harm trade between the US and Mexico.
The wall will run north into the US because of geographical problems, and even leave gaps open along the border.
There are other ways to get into the US!! What's to stop them from going right around our expensive wall?
Would the government be completely restricting speech, or simply taking precautions against what could happen with dangerous speech? People still have the freedom to say what they want. The line they cross is when they take action on their words.
Taking these precautions will not prevent anyone from worshiping how they please. And although I agree with you about your argument on the tyranny of the majority, you are honing in on a specific religion, when it envelopes more than just the one.
Let me clarify that I did not intend to infer that all Muslims are extreme. I am well aware that terrorism at the hands of a Muslim is relatively low. The argument was not meant to target a specific religion, but to simply provide an example.
My overall argument is that intolerance should not be tolerated. Not intolerance by Muslims should not be tolerated. No matter what ethnicity or religion you are, intolerance, for the basic safety of people, can not be tolerated. No, Christians should not be bomb these places because yes, it is the murder of innocent people. There is no perfect answer, and there can not be absolute freedom and privacy while still keeping the average person completely safe. I believe that there should still be freedom to worship as you please, but limited restrictions to prevent the possibility of something happening.
No, intolerance should not be tolerated. Yes, there will be arguments defending basic rights and laws set in place, such as freedom of speech or religion. However, where is the line drawn? If a Christian were to be killed by a Muslim, and it could have been prevented by some intolerance, or supervision, would precautions not be taken? In no way is this restricting the first amendment of freedom of religion, but simply protecting the average person from any danger that can be originated from tolerating the intolerant.
Let's take the example of a sermon during time of worship in a mosque. During the sermon, the people are being convinced that they should act violently towards men of other religions. Later, a Christian is killed based on what they heard earlier. If the person is to be arrested, who says that this will not happen again? If this is tolerated, then it very well might happen. Another innocent person could be killed. However, this could be prevented by having some intolerance. By having some restrictions, while still allowing freedom of religion and speech.
In the end, it boils down to absolute freedom vs. the safety of the average person. Does having total and absolute freedom worth the lives of innocent people?
The TPP is a very controversial matter, with very solid arguments for and against it. However, in this case, the benefits of the deal outweigh the consequences. The deal will not only strengthen diplomatic ties, but boost the economies and create mutually beneficial deals between all of the countries involved.
There are countries involved in the deal, Japan and Vietnam, that the US have a, to say the least, shaky past with. However, this deal is an opportunity that can not be overlooked. Initiating the largest trade deal in history, effectively boosting the flow of money and services, will be huge in relieving tensions that go back decades. Although this is almost a 'side' benefit, the real opportunity comes into play in another form.
According to the Washington Post, in the past 5 decades, the trend of the export of goods and services has increased. Today, these exports account for more than 13% of the US GDP and supports 1 in 12 US jobs. Also, workers in the export-manufacturing field make 18% more money than workers in other manufacturing fields. Instead of turning our backs on the trend, embracing the TPP will further improve this flow of products, bringing in more money to the US economy. Also, there are roughly 18,000 tariffs in place that the trade deal would virtually eliminate. With these tariffs gone, products would become cheaper, and consumers would buy more, furthering the flow of money in the economy.
My last argument is a very interesting point I ran across in research. There is no question, the world is becoming digitized. Today, you can look up and see a 10 year old with an iPhone, while only 100 years ago this technology would probably have scared people. This only goes to show how quickly the world is advancing, and the trend that it is following. The TPP would set up a secure framework for digital commerce, and allow data flow across borders. This is not only essential for American businesses, but for the future of advancement.
Although there is no set answer, there are too many faults in the endeavor of building an 'impenetrable' wall along the US/Mexico border. Is it realistic that a 2000 mile long wall will be built, when factoring in the major geographical issues, tremendous cost, and possible ineffectiveness that this wall could cause?
During the 2nd term of former president George W. Bush, congress authorized that hundreds of miles of fencing would be built along the border. Even with this much less intimidating endeavor, there were many obstacles. Because of issues of treaties and flood zones, construction is forced to move north into the US. However, many private land owners were not interested in buyouts. If this is the case, ethics comes into play. Will this land be taken forcefully to fulfill the need of the wall? Can it? And if not, what are the alternative solutions to work around these areas?
We've all heard the statistics about the wall many times. About 2000 miles long, stretching across four states, and the mentioned costs have ranged from about ten billion to twenty-five billion. Realistically, the costs seem to favor the latter. Not only this, but the 20% increase on imported Mexican goods will not only possibly cause an outrage, but also make everyday living more difficult, especially since American wages have stagnated in the past few decades. Now, there are quite a few arguments to challenge this, but the question remains. Will the possible ineffectiveness of the wall make this tariff worth it?
As I said before, the Bush administration built fencing along the border that was meant to do the same job. Keep illegal immigrants out. However, this was merely an obstacle for the masses of immigrants who found their way over. Although there is the argument that the fencing can not be compared to the wall in security standards, a desperate family will find a way into the US. The wall merely stands in the way, but it can only do so much against the ones who have their mind set to get out of the country.
