- 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.
NAFTA is not good because it has resulted in mass unemployment, due to hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost overseas. Wages of the middle and lower class have remained stagnant while the upper class has seen their wages skyrocket. It has resulted in the financial boom of the large businesses at the expense of the working class in America. While jobs were created, the losses far outweighed the gains, and workers who were able to keep their jobs in unskilled labor were forced to take lower wages because of cheap labor being used elsewhere.
The deal with Iran is indeed a good one. The benefits of this deal far exceeds the cons of making this deal with Iran. The deal makes them give up 97% of their Uranium. The Uranium that they are allowed to possess is not nearly enriched enough to make a nuclear weapon, which would take up to 90% enrichment. The deal also makes them cut down the amount of centrifuges they possess from 20,000 to 5,000. Even though they still possess 5,000 centrifuges, the deal specifically states that they are not allowed to enrich their Uranium through IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 for at least 10 years, meaning their most efficient centrifuges will not be allowed during the duration of the deal. The deal allows us to do inspections whenever we feel that something is suspicious, allowing us to detect foul play on any facility that we deem suspicious. This deal is beneficial in that it allows us to ensure peace and decreases the chance of an outbreak of nuclear war with a potentially dangerous country. It is a great deal in the sense that we are basically taking all of their nuclear capabilities, and all we have to do in return is release sanctions on money that is rightfully already theirs, contrary to the belief that we are paying them off.
As an Anti-Federalist, I believe that we should stay with the Articles of Confederation. Most of the problems presented by the Federalists are things that are already addressed in the Articles of Confederation. As a nation, we have simply failed to exercised the rights of the national government to its fullest extent. To fix our nation and protect our civil liberties, we should just amend what is already in the Articles of Confederation, rather than rewriting a new Constitution. There is no problem in expanding the Articles of Confederation; however, a national government is dangerous for us as a nation, which is why the Articles of Confederation could be expanded, but the national government does not need to have an excess of power.
I believe that option 1 is the best option. We cannot try a policy of appeasement once again because we do not want history to repeat itself. We cannot sit around and allow them to become more dangerous. They have proven weapons that can reach US cities, so now we must go in and take their weapons. We can not afford to have an attack on our home land. It is imperative that we eliminate North Korea's nuclear capability, and as long as they have nuclear capability and are a threat, the world will not be in complete peace. Going to war and coming out victors would send out a message to the rest of the world that nuclear proliferation will not be tolerated at all. We've tried negotiations several times; however, they have not been dependable on holding their ends of the deals. Instead of pleading and trying to negotiate, I think is time to take action.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!