- 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.
What the United States has done with the Iran nuclear deal is prove that we can deal with our adversaries with diplomacy rather than means of force. Both the United States and Iran had things to gain from this deal: the US wanted to pursue its goal of global stability, and Iran wants its oil market, and in turn its entire economy, to prosper. With this deal, we took the means of developing nuclear weapons out of the hands of an adversarial nation. The contradicting point has been made that the deal is only good for 15 years. The thought process with this deal is that in the long term, Iran will come to be more accepting of the west. Iran is changing. More and more liberal reformers are being elected into the Majlis and Assembly of Religious Experts, the body who appoints the Supreme Leader. After Khameini dies, it is very possible that a more liberal Supreme Leader could be appointed, one who is willing to keep negotiating with the US after the 15 years of the current deal.
But in the meantime, Iranian uranium enrichment has been limited to 3.67%, not near sufficient enough to develop a bomb. Their centrifuges have been reduced from over 2,000 to 5,000, and their reaction cores have been filled with cement. These regulations are being enforced by tireless and thorough checks by international investigators. So even if Iran's political atmosphere does not play out in America's interests, Iran will undoubtedly be set back years is arm development.
"Ah, paradox of tolerance. ... If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."- Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies"
In the paradox of tolerance, there is wavering equilibrium between the rights of the tolerant and the intolerant and the receivers of both ends of the spectrum. If the state is tolerant of the intolerant, it puts the rights of the intolerant above the rights of the people that it abuses. If the state is intolerant of the intolerant, then it runs the risk of violating the first amendment. However, there is a middle ground, and it comes in the form of "clear and present danger", a precedent set by the Supreme Court. If a group of people are endangering the speech of another group, they violate the first amendment more so than would the government for silencing them. Free speech is not only infringed upon by the government, and when private groups such as churches and mosques endanger speech, it is the government's duty under the first amendment to stop them
Building a barrier along a border is a security tactic that has proved successful for several countries, one being Israel. According to David Horowitz of The Conservative Review, between 2000 and 2005 1,000 Israelites were murdered by Hamas terrorists. After the implementation of the Israeli West Bank barrier, this figure dropped 90%. In the United States, these results would be proportional to a near end to the drug trade. This plan, at no cost to the American people, is the absolute best way to keep citizens safe.
You mention the benefits the TPP brings to businesses and consumers, but you leave out the crucial piece that the TPP tarnishes: workers. The competition that the TPP will bring will force domestic corporations to further automate, outsource, and drive down wages to keep production costs competitive. Also, workers ARE consumers, so low wages take money out of the pockets of people who would otherwise have put it right back into our economy.
In terms of wages for American workers, the TPP is a race to the bottom. It would only add to the numerous failed trade deals that the US has enacted, further stagnating wages by letting companies choose to operate in countries with lower working standards. By loosening restrictions on Asian countries, we significantly harm domestic competition, because in the end, it comes down to whether or not American consumers are willing to pay higher prices for domestic products when they can buy the same products from Asian-based companies. Consumers cannot afford and simply are not willing to do this. We can't expect to open up trade without opening corporations up to further outsourcing of American labor. And countries that stay in American will be forced to drive down their wages to stay competitive, which will take billions of dollars out of our economy.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!