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.

Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS Ashley-mb

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

Obama Liberal

"...engaging directly with the Iranian government on a sustained basis, for the first time in decades, has created a unique opportunity -- a window -- to try to resolve important issues." This deal is not a perfect one, it is a preliminary action that allows for the expansion of diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Although the initial agreement of this deal ensured total termination of Iran's nuclear programs, through discussions with the other participating countries it became clear that completely halting Iran's uranium enrichment would create excessive tensions between Iran and the countries writing the deal. Instead the aim of this deal is to expand US relations with Iran in the hopes of Iran having a more diverse and stable economy. However completely doing away with this deal will do more harm than good for America and the world.

Since the enactment of this deal Iran has received billions of dollars in sanction relief in exchange for shipping out its enriched uranium, therefore if the US was to remove itself from this deal whose to say that Iran could not restart its centrifuges. But this deal provides America the opportunity to gain support of liberals and reformers in Iran by creating friendly relations with them, and with their support collectively we can loosen the grip of the clerics on Iranian society. With a less theocratic government Iran will gain legitimacy on the world stage and from that Iran may attract more FDI, helping to boost their GDP growth rate.

1 point

Yes in America we have the freedom of religion and speech and those rights need to be respected by all, including the government. How foolish would America seem if we retract the part of our Constitution (that we've had for decades) that allows for those freedoms? In the eyes of immigrants seeking asylum America would become just another place where they are persecuted and America would lose some legitimacy as a free and democratic nation. While I realize that not all countries have a constitution that protects the rights of its citizens, since America has one we should honor and uphold it. By creating limits as to what people of certain beliefs or cultures can do we are creating necessary tension between those groups, which can be avoided if we respect their 1st Amendment rights.

This tension can result in radical feelings towards Americans, which can develop into more than feelings if the oppressed feel inclined to revolt. I do believe however that in order to protect the majority the government may step in if laws are broken or threats of violence take form. But the action that the government takes should not limit one's 1st Amendment rights or else America will find itself in a situation where it will have to prioritize over the minority or majority.

1 point

America is founded on freedom and diversity, so it would completely contradict every thing we stand for if we all become bigots. I believe that as long as there are no laws being broken and no citizens being harmed, we have no right to ban an act based solely on ones beliefs or preference.

1 point

If it is an essential part of democracy for people to feel protected then how would restricting Muslim religious freedom protect them? By being intolerant of their religion or culture then wouldn't you agree a person being persecuted doesn't feel safe in a country where that happens? And religious freedom is in the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

2 points

Have we forgotten about the poor countries who are locked into the TPP? There are 6 countries-Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, and Vietnam- involved in the TPP who are categorized as poor and developing and if approved it could lock all of them into their current states of rampant poverty and economic strain. The TPP was written by and for the rich countries and the poor countries were left in the dark. The tax reforms in the TPP harm poor and developing countries because it prohibits levying taxes on a countries exports; this encourages the goods to stay in home but lessens the value of the good. This means that poor countries who's economies rely on the collection of those taxes will suffer even more. This agreement encourages international competition, which is great for the rich countries but hurts the poor countries because they cannot compete. The TPP essentially forces countries to perform economically on the world stage, even if they aren't ready. If the developing countries get left behind all parties suffer, and the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand will have to pick up their slack, on top of dealing with their own economic problems. We don't let toddlers playin the NFL for good reason.

Supporting Evidence: 9 reasons why the TPP is bad for poor countries (
ashley-mb(6) Clarified
2 points

Apologies my fellow Federalist. The Articles of Confederation were very much NOT like Constitution. This was due to two facts. Taxation and Military. Under the Articles, the federal government did not have the authority to tax the states. They could only ask for taxation. The federal government was also forced to depend on state militias for protection as they did not have the power to build a standing army. Both of these issues were addressed and corrected when the Constitution was created.

Ashley-mb 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