- 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.
Khamenei Hard Liner
This deal is not only a detriment to Iran, but it delays the inevitable. In exchange for relief from US sanctions, Iran has to limit its ability to produce a nuclear weapon and their stockpile of Uranium for 15 years. With the current deal, Iran cannot produce nuclear enriched material above 3.67%. This not only limits their development to strictly energy resources but they cannot even provide X-Rays as this requires enriched nuclear material at around 20%. During negotiations Iranians admitted to concealing nuclear sites. The US is delaying the inevitable development of nuclear weapons and possibly encouraging the Iranians to develop in secret. Regardless of Iran's intentions with nuclear material, under Islamic law nuclear weapons were considered illegal by Ayatollah Khamenei. The US is bullying the Iranian people to give up nuclear development for a defenseless, undeveloped country of cheap oil.
We should tolerate intolerance. First of all, by prohibiting intolerance we essentially have the government telling people what they can or cannot think or do. While a small issue at first, it could quickly escalate to the government being in complete control of our lives. Under our current laws dangerous or inflammatory speech is no more protected by the first amendment than "fighting words" as established first in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and while some may have unpopular or distasteful opinions, is that really means to limit what other people think? We should allow for a marketplace of ideas rather than limit unpopular opinion. If I do not agree with someone I'm not going to try and shape their opinion to reflect my own. Why should we let a third party step in and regulate our "marketplace of ideas"? What gives them that power? Just because someone is a Christian for example, and refuses to serve a homosexual in their business, should the government really try to step in and change their beliefs or even bar them from said beliefs? Conflicting opinions are just a part of life and if we have the government step in and shape people's views, does anyone really have an opinion? By not tolerating intolerance, we have some third party or the government step in and try to assimilate everyone to having the same opinion.
I agree with your position. I completely think as a country we should establish a no fly zone over the US. Perhaps even construct said wall to reach heights of over 40,000 feet to hinder these planes from entering our loving, hospitable country. I also agree that our currency should be changed from US Dollars to Bitcoin backed by dirt so we have an infinite monetary supply and we can build our wall of "useless and ineffective pile of junk".
It is about time to build the wall. Our current border "wall" is a series of walls and fences along the US/Mexico border. It is not contiguous, but rather groupings of assorted walls and fences with a "virtual fence" with a system of senors and cameras that the US Border Patrol can monitor. Is this system really efficient? According to the Migration Policy Institute, about 500,000 illegal immigrants cross the border each year and more specifically 484,072 immigrants in 2011 crossed the border. Walls are old news anyways. Romans built Hadrian's Wall about 120 AD to protect the Roman province of Britain from the "heathens" or "barbarians" who lived in what is now present day Scotland. The Peace Walls in Belfast, Ireland were built to ease tensions between neighboring communities. The walls stopped murders during the "Troubles" period from 1968-1998. Eventually communities subsided and now are on peaceful terms. Isreal built walls to separate themselves from Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Giza. The Israel Defenses Force has released information that in areas where the wall has been completed terrorist attacks and invasions have dramatically declined. Hungary is even on track to build a border wall to keep out would be immigrants. America, it is time we learn from meager fences and build a solid,impenetrable and YUGE border to keep out these "Bad Hombres". Let's face it America, the wall just got 10 feet higher.
The TPP is a bad idea. If we look at precedent created from NAFTA, what initially seemed like a good idea failed and harmed the US and Mexico badly. For the US, in 1992 Gary Hufbauer from the institute of international economics predicted that NAFTA will create a $7-9 billion surplus that would create around 170,000 jobs in the first year alone. Quite the opposite occurred causing a US trade deficit with both Canada and Mexico costing the US 150,000 jobs in 1994. As of 2007, the trade deficit with Mexico reached an all time high of $74 billion. As of 2011, the US has lost over 700,000 jobs due to NAFTA. While bad for the United States, NAFTA hurt Mexico if not as much more. The wage gap in Mexico has grown and continues to grow. From 1994-2000 the poverty rate grew from 45.6 percent to 50.3 percent. As of 2010 the most recent poverty rate report from the world bank was 51.3 percent. Also due to sharply declining food prices in Mexico, 2 million farm workers lost their jobs and 8 million small scale farmers had no choice but to sell their land at exuberantly low prices or to desert it. Since the US subsidizes domestically produced agricultural products to be sold in Mexico for prices 30 percent below the cost of production, NAFTA essentially caused the US to be the main food supplier of Mexico rendering their corn crop useless and non-competitive. We should withdraw from the TPP in the best interest of everyone involved to prevent a repeat of the harm NAFTA caused.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!