Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

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.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Abbym1011

Reward Points:6
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.
Efficiency Monitor

6 most recent arguments.
1 point

Against the deal

This deal with Iran is good for the US right now, but later this deal could turn very bad. After 10-15 years of rebuilding their economy and providing them with billions of dollars, Iran will be able to go back to enriching Uranium to Atomic Bomb levels. They could easily spend their money on supporting terrorist organizations, too. Not only that, but there is nothing that forces Iran to get rid of any nuclear facilities, and it allows them to continue their research and development of missile technology. Iran is an unstable country, and is known for many acts of violence. After this deal, they will be strong enough to go to war. How do we know they won't actually do it? It makes no sense to limit some weapon development of a violent, unstable country, and then set them free once they have over 400 billion more dollars, missal research, and more. This deal is not good, and should not be carried out.

2 points

We should keep the articles! The power needs to stay in the states! If the elite rule, then the farmers, artisans, and merchants will all live in fear that they will go bankrupt and loose their land! This is not fair at all. The constitution is way to vague as well. Fixing the articles is the right way to go.

accidentally posted this onto Jacobs profile, discard that.

abbym1011(6) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, option 2 has the potential to be America's peaceful way out. We would not give North Korea anything they need until they abide by our negotiation in the company of Russia, South Korea, China, and Japan. If we pressure North Korea to return to the six-party negotiations, we would eliminate the threat of all their weapons, the selling their weapons to third party groups like terrorists, and we would protect American interests. Former US defense secretary said he found the North Koreans to be 'seriously interested in the prospect of normalizing relations with the U.S.'. If we put this problem onto China as well, North Korea would probably accept our deal under Chinese pressure and American inducements combined. Yes, there are some risks, but far less than if we were to start a war with them.

1 point

Yes, in the past China was unwilling to destabilize the North Korean Regime, but there is a way we could get China to cooperate. China is afraid of the North Korean Regime collapsing. They are scared that massive refugees would flow into their country, and that the South would take over the North and become one big powerful American ally. This is enough to make China take the risk for peace, I believe. According to the article, There is a peaceful way out of the North Korean Crisis- The Atlantic, "Agreement to withdraw THAAD and American troops following Korean reunification would be huge elements of strategic reassurance for China." By forcing China to step up, and stop hiding in the shadows, we could have peace. Option 2 is possible, and I think it could work.

1 point

After more research, I am changing my option. Would delete it, but I don't know how.. Anyways, I think option 2 would be the best. A military strike would cause too many problems, and it is also too violent. Not only that, but we would not even be able to destroy all the bombs and things they have hidden. A military strike would, as stated in The Atlantic, "And so it could bring on the worst of all scenarios, a furious military response from North Korea with its nuclear arsenal still intact, putting millions of lives in South Korea and potentially Japan as well at imminent risk." If we instead pressure North Korea to return to the six-party negotiations, we could get rid of their weapons, contain the spread of their weapons, and protect the US Citizens. Also, China could threaten North Korea with their economic assistance. There are more people to help assist in the delegations between the US and North Korea with option two. This would be a peaceful way out.

Supporting Evidence: There Is a Peaceful Way Out of the North Korea Crisis (
0 points

I think option 1 is the best. Negotiating with them has not worked, as we saw with Clinton. Also, an expert on US-China relations and East Asia policy at the Council on Foreign Relations even said that North Korea will not stop their threats and settle for peace anytime soon. Another thing, I do not believe that starving out the country would be a good idea, either. If we eliminate their nuclear capability, then we would show other countries nuclear proliferation is unacceptable, stop weapons from being sold to terrorists, and also kick start the downfall of the Kim Jong-II regime.

Supporting Evidence: "China's North Korea problem is worse than ours" (
Abbym1011 has not yet created any debates.

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here