- 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.
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!