- 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.
I did not bring up the point that Iran is evil, but merely another country who had the ability to destroy millions of lives with nuclear weapons. Although nuclear weapons may be forbidden now, how will the issue be dealt with as Iranian culture is more modernized with future generations. It is a precaution, and there is not a leader of a country who is willing to risk his or her own country by attacking a defenseless nation. Not with the threat of the 'imposing power of America', along with other nations that want world-wide stability. Although I agree with you to the point of the minimal uranium enrichment, and that Iran should have the opportunity to conduct its own research and development, I do not know enough about the science to know any other effects. The overall goal of the deal, however, is good in that it keeps the safety and stability of the world as a whole in mind.
There will be a lot of arguments against the deal, claiming that it unfairly benefits Iran, puts them in danger, etc. However, the US goal is to prevent other countries, especially countries with a hostile attitude towards the US, from having nuclear weapons. This is a stepping stone keeping the threat of nuclear war at bay. Although there is the fright that Iran is left defenseless against other countries with the ability to send nukes, the US would not let that happen. After all, the US wants world-wide stability, so the threat of attack is not a true threat. There is also the issue of uranium enrichment. The enrichment level for nuclear weapons is 90%, and for R&D;is 20%. The deal keeps the enrichment at 3.67%. Although some will say it is too low, and will do the country no good, this is false. It provides Iran the opportunity to keep their country powered, while they work on improving economy, relations, etc., instead of improving nuclear stockpile.
This is a very intersting topic, and really makes you think. Is someone really born? Is this all real? If not, then of course he should not celebrate his birthday, because he is not real. However, it is scientifically proven that Grenache is born, so if going by logic, he should celebratate his birthday.
One inarguable point about Grenache is that he is a hard worker. Let's just take a look at the stats. 2717 rewards points. 2759 arguments. 69 arguments. Impressive. If this goes without being celebrated, it will not only be unfair to Grenache and his rock hard determination, but a crime against humanity. We, as the proud people of CreateDebate, can not allow this important day to pass without celebration, or we will only have ourselves to blame. I urge Grenache to remember that he deserves to be celebrated, and to never forget.
Sure, these are good arguments, but what about the fact that:
The tax will make Mexican goods more expensive, and with stagnated wages, harm trade between the US and Mexico.
The wall will run north into the US because of geographical problems, and even leave gaps open along the border.
There are other ways to get into the US!! What's to stop them from going right around our expensive wall?
Let me clarify that I did not intend to infer that all Muslims are extreme. I am well aware that terrorism at the hands of a Muslim is relatively low. The argument was not meant to target a specific religion, but to simply provide an example.
My overall argument is that intolerance should not be tolerated. Not intolerance by Muslims should not be tolerated. No matter what ethnicity or religion you are, intolerance, for the basic safety of people, can not be tolerated. No, Christians should not be bomb these places because yes, it is the murder of innocent people. There is no perfect answer, and there can not be absolute freedom and privacy while still keeping the average person completely safe. I believe that there should still be freedom to worship as you please, but limited restrictions to prevent the possibility of something happening.
No, intolerance should not be tolerated. Yes, there will be arguments defending basic rights and laws set in place, such as freedom of speech or religion. However, where is the line drawn? If a Christian were to be killed by a Muslim, and it could have been prevented by some intolerance, or supervision, would precautions not be taken? In no way is this restricting the first amendment of freedom of religion, but simply protecting the average person from any danger that can be originated from tolerating the intolerant.
Let's take the example of a sermon during time of worship in a mosque. During the sermon, the people are being convinced that they should act violently towards men of other religions. Later, a Christian is killed based on what they heard earlier. If the person is to be arrested, who says that this will not happen again? If this is tolerated, then it very well might happen. Another innocent person could be killed. However, this could be prevented by having some intolerance. By having some restrictions, while still allowing freedom of religion and speech.
In the end, it boils down to absolute freedom vs. the safety of the average person. Does having total and absolute freedom worth the lives of innocent people?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!