- 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.
Lifting sanctions is more than ink on paper. There propagating effects. For example, lifting sanctions on Iran right now could somewhat hurt the US economy. The top two leaders of pistachio exports are Iran and the US, where Iran leads by less than 200,000 tonnes. Sanctions now will ruin the US's chances of catching up and excelling in another market. Sanctions should be kept until the ideal time to benefit the US.
Trump Conservative Hardliner
A good-as any introduction to the Nuclear deal with Iran has been said by a USNews contributor and member of the US House of Representatives Reid Ribble."[The Iranian nuclear deal] is not just a bad deal, but a dangerous one." This, for one, is clearly supported by the stale fact that conflict of some sort always results when when the United States attempts to exert explicit influence on a country. To elaborate, this can be exemplified with the Iranian coup in 1953, where the US helped overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh. The US's purpose for this was to maintain Iran as a rentier state. This may not have had any initial detrimental effects; however, it established and ensured Iran's crippling dependency on oil. In addition, the sanctions build up the tension and will probably soon than later be released. Moreover, with the possible reelection of the conservative Ahmadinejad, the tension will become a jihadist backlash.
Obama made his decision on how to deal with Iran, and he chose the disastrous deal. The sanctions on Iran have clearly been successful if they are willing to make a deal with the US. This is why the sanctions should be kept. A more involved approach will be detrimental to both parties.
This nation was founded on the belief that everyone has unalienable rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, people should practice whatever it is that makes him or her happy, so long as they do not infringe upon other peoples right. There should be little tolerance for intolerant groups. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions. However, once the intolerant take action to make their beliefs reality at the price of anyone's peace and happiness, there should be a retaliation against the intolerant. The popular and the less known peculiarities of the last five decades or so are now the ordinary. This results in a variety of individual opinions ranging from indifference to extremes. At times, the extremes' opinions lead to violence and oppression on the perceived to be "intolerable". It as this moment when that the intolerant's beliefs are no longer valid. It should be the people's right to practice what they believe in with the limit being as long as no one is exposed to danger or someone's unalienable rights is being infringed upon. If a truly private goods business does not wish to serve someone who is against its beliefs, it should not be forced to do so. If one wants a place where everyone has the same mindset as others, there is this place that would be great for said person. It is a country between the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan, just south of and sharing a boarder with China on the eastern side.
The world is torn between two ideologies: Jihad and McWorld. McWorld, globalization, can be seen as the dominating perspective, and that is not a malevolent result. Globalization is inevitable and its consequences are economically beneficial; whereas isolationism, Jihad, is not. In this situation of building a wall on the Mexican boarder, the isolationists are acting on xenophobic motives; for the major reason some support the wall is because they believe that a majority of the immigrants are criminals. Their foundation is based on opinion rather than fact. Such a perspective is detrimental to both civil and economic systems in the US. It is detrimental to the civil system because it engenders prejudice in the public by using immigrants as a scapegoat for different issues, and it is detrimental to the economic system by forcing it remain isolated from opportunities of prosperity. Through globalization, the US's economy would be exposed to new and foreign markets diversifying and strengthening its assets. Building a boarder wall would publicly display the US's decision to isolate itself. Such a gesture would mar international relationships. Moreover, building a wall 1,900 miles long is a little expensive, about $25 billion, but President Trump administration has claimed that Mexico will pay for it by taxing Mexican imports. While this may sound like a good idea at first, It is really ploy to hide the fact that no one but the US will pay for the wall. Taxing Mexican imports only increases the prices of the products, so really the buyers, us Americans, will be paying for the wall. Really it would be easier and faster if every single person, from infants to senior citizens, in the United States donate about $80 to the Trump administration to satisfy one persons unrealistic, radical, xenophobic emotions.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was much different from other regional trade agreements such as NAFTA. A major detriment inflicted on the US from NAFTA was due to the lack of regulations imposed by the deal. The TPP required that business award fair pay to its worker, where a NAFTA did not. Consequently, US business decided to relocate where they received a greater net profit. The TPP was constructed to benefit all citizens and economies of the participating countries. Moreover, the TPP exposes the US to new promising markets that will benefit the US's economy by broadening its possibilities to profit, rather than relying on the same market for extensive periods of time.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership was agreement regarding trade signed by countries, not corporations. On February 4, 2016, democratic president Barack Obama signed the agreement. His decision was a wise for the civil and economic benefits. The TPP places regulations on exporting businesses such as fair pay for the workers. These regulations not only benefit all citizens, but also restrict business from unfairly dominating any market. Moreover, 98% of the 300,000 business that export their goods from the US are small businesses that have fewer than 500 employees (McBride). That leaves only 2% of large companies, such as Coca-Cola, that benefit from this agreement.
Globalization is steadily progressing and is inevitable. Considering all of the reasons, it is understandable why that is. As a wise man once said, "Today a teenager in the United States has more in common with a teenager in Japan than he or she does with his grandmother". Globalization is a force that is sweeping the world, and it would be the optimal decision to travel through the slipstream rather attempt counteract it. The force of globalization, however, is not a negative one. Previous presidents, such Barack Obama, understood the benevolence of globalization and worked along with it to reap its benefits. A major decision Obama has made to for globalization was on February 4, 2016, when he signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The TPP produces more substantial benefits than negligible contradictions making it a necessary trade agreement.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is more than an agreement to benefit large businesses or the countries involved; it is an agreement to benefit all constituents as well. Unlike other agreements that may seem similar such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) that the United Sates has also been involved in, the TPP is more than just centered around economic desires; it incorporates the governed's quality of life. For example, the TPP places regulations on countries forcing governments to establish fair pay for workers and ensure other civil rights.
An argument that the opposition makes to the TPP is that it's economic effects are extremely detrimental to the US's economy. The TPP, however, has many economic benefits. A specific argument is that the agreement encourages foreign business to dominate the United State's market. While the argument is valid, it is overestimated. The result would just be a little competition that pushes business leaders to be better. Furthermore, the competition produced between business would force one to innovate or fail which would ultimately lead to more jobs. Moreover, in thrusting the United States into globalization through the trade agreement, the United States would be exposed to new markets which would produce new American businesses; and with the low tariffs that the agreement offers, the American business could easily expand internationally. The United States does not have many barriers for international trade compared to other countries who do in fact have a lot. With the TPP, those international barriers will be lowered facilitating the American trade. America's exports are worth $2.3 trillion which supports 11.7 trillion jobs. Contrary to popular belief, the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not only benefit large business. Ninety-eight percent of companies that export internationally are small business, businesses that have less than 500 employees. They are the ones that truly benefit from this agreement.
It would be an inane decision to attempt to counter the TPP for fear of its economic effects. Globalization is spreading and it is best to tag along.
As the former President Obama said, "Building walls to isolate ourselves from the global economy would only isolate us from the incredible opportunities it provides."
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!