- 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 has helped boost the US economy in many different ways. It created an increase of about 5 million US jobs along with increasing the average wage. NAFTA was also good for the US's GDP, adding 0.5%, that's around 8 billion dollars. NAFTA is one of the greatest trade agreements in history.
The nuclear deal with Iran is a bad deal. Iran must not have a nuclear weapon in 10 years, 15 years or ever – and this agreement will not prevent a nuclear Iran. Under the terms of the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of 10,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms – again, for only 15 years. What the deal does not say is where and how this reduction will take place. Should Iran be allowed to manage the reduction itself, I am concerned that we will be unable to ensure its compliance. Iran's past dealings show that they have not complied fully with agreements laid out. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. What's to stop Iran from using the billions of dollars we have agreed to give them in use to help terrorists groups like Assad and Hezbollah. This deal could also be bad for our allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran's actions speak louder than its words. The agreement should be based off its actions and not its words.
I think we should keep the Articles because there would be more power to the people individually and what would be the point of leaving a country where you're being ruled by someone else to look for freedom and end up right back in the previous situation (the president is just another form of a dictator). The Constitution will just lead to a dictatorship. Any problems federalists have with the Articles could be revised and we could still keep the general points of the Articles. Everyone could be satisfied without having to move to a new Constitution.
Negotiating in the past has not proven to help in these types of situations. We cannot wait and try to negotiate with someone who does not want to be negotiated with. If we were to get rid of their nuclear weapons all together then it would solve the problem of them attacking their neighbors and our allies. Although, they wouldn't be in much danger because the US has troops stationed nearby in case of an attack.
I think Option 1 would be the best because it will eliminate the problem of them having nuclear bombs all together. If they have no bombs, they have no leverage and won't put them in the position to threaten us. They have already warned that they would bomb South Korea and US troops stationed in Guam. Negotiating with them after they have threatened us is not the best idea and gives other countries the view that they can do it as well and get away with it. Patience is also not a good strategy because while we are waiting and trying to negotiate, they could be making more and selling them to terrorists. North Korea does not want a war. The US does not want a war. Simply negotiating could work, if they would agree to negotiate. Seeing as they are not we must act now or they will act on their threats. This is the best option.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!