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.
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. | 95% |
Arguments: | 8 |
Debates: | 0 |
I disagree with you , because everyone in Iran isn't a terrorist. I think that by stereotyping the entire country , before ; actually trying the deal will only cause a wide range of controversy that we don' t need. If it doesn't work , we can always try to address the problem another way .
I am for the deal with Iran . Not only will the deal give , United States time to confiscate and regulate the amount of uranium produced , but it will build trust between the United States and Iran. It will also benefit U.S. citizens, because if Iran complies with the deal major sanctions on oil will drop . The deal will break up the trend of the constant " zero some game " that we always end up moving towards . If we can get Iran to trust us and we trust them ; then the Iran deal will be a success.
From a federalist point of view , the Articles of Confederation gives entirely to much power to the states . We should create the constitution , because it would make us a federal government and we would have a checks and balances system . A checks and balances system is a system that doesn't allow one group or set of people to have too much power.
I think we need the federalist constitution, because it would make our country stronger. It would give our country a better structure , and the constitution will stop us from becoming a unitary democracy. The constitution will allow our country to come together as one , and we will be able to figure things out better. Meaning that we won't have to always fight in the states , because we will have distinct laws that have to be followed by everyone .
To clarify my argument , president , Donald Trump , could try to make a better version of the Clinton agreement . He could try to find something that the North Koreans need and see if Kim Jong-in would be able to negotiate a deal and give up the nuclear warfare. As I said in my following comment, Kim Jong-in isn't willing to sacrifice his country by fully attacking the United States . He understands that if he attacks the United States , he will start a war that his country might not win.
Hi ! I disagree, because we have promised all these other countries that we would be their support system if North Korea tried to bomb them . Therefore , if we remove our troops we would be falling through with our agreement . Not only could they make nukes that would help them fight against North Korea , but they would be upset with us , so they could possibly get angry enough to want to nuke us.
I chose option 3 , because I think that Donald Trump and Kim Jong-in could possibly come to an agreement one day . Although they are both threatening to use nuclear war fare, Kim Jong-in understands that the Us could wipe out his entire country with one nuke. I think that we should host a supervised meeting between Donald Trump and King Jong-in , and they would have to come up with an agreement that would stop North Korea from using nuclear weapons and we would have to come up with a better deal on supplying them with food .
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |