Welcome to CreateDebate!

  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself




Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

View All

View All

View All

RSS DKrent

Reward Points:17

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

The fear is not that we would send nukes-which we don't have- the fear is relenting to the over imposing power of America. All 3.67% enrichment is good for is energy. Who would it hurt as we develop our technology which requires 20% enrichment? These rules would cause a dependence on the U.S when it comes to protection, so why would we want that. We are seen to you as evil, so what ensures our protection?

1 point

Khamenei Hardliner

America, a world super power, correction the world super power what would lifting the sanctions imposed on us do to you? Oh wait it would lessen the tight leash you already have on Iran. Would lifting these sanctions not improve our economy therefore improving your's as well. This deal also wants us to reduce enrichment to less than 4% which is only good for energy development. Why keep a whole country of intelligent people from creating new technology and possibly cures for countless diseases which requires at least 20% enrichment. We fear of being hurt in this deal and that you will not keep your word on the stated deal. This deal also states mandatory inspections, but I ask you this why come in and plunder in our country when we have to basically destroy most of our centrifuges which I assure you cost a lot to build. This deal ask us to undermine our research and basically bow down to America for protection, but remember this we could negotiate it you're comfortable arguing with" pure evil."

1 point

I'm confused on the precautions you are referring to. I'm for freedom of all religion, so I'm a little confused on what you mean by this statement.

3 points

For one not all Muslims are extreme. And most Muslims do read the Quran which does mention some hate of other religions, but a majority of Muslims don't follow the whole Quran just as some Christians don't believe everything in the bible. Your argument targets a specific religion which is what would happen if the government could intervene in the first place. Most Muslims are Sunni and they don't preach the hate and murder that you speak of. Fun fact did you know that some Christian churches encourage people to bomb planed parenthood. It this not the murder of innocent people. But this side is typically not look at because it is America's primary religion. Bugging mosque would create even more prejudiced among people leading to more crime and even greater fragmentation.

1 point

Allowing a government to interfere with any religion is unconstitutional. Not only would this violate some of the basic principles of democracy by interfering and threatening the first amendment, but it would also create a tyranny of the majority.

If the government bugs a mosque or any place or worship for that matter it is violating freedom of speech. Most people for the violation of freedom claims it would reduce terrorist attack, and that may be true, but you're taking away these people's first amendment rights. They will become scared to practice and preach their religion. Which many of these people experienced in their home country. This would create a tyranny of the majority in America because America being a primary Christian country would essentially began targeting any religion they don't believe in or fear. You can say what ever you want and believe what ever you want, but it's your actions that can be against the law. Murder is illegal, but preaching to your followers in a religious environment is not. America is the land of the free so why can't all people be free to practice their religion?

DKrent(17) Clarified
2 points

Do you have any sources that I could see so I understand your view, and would this cut off Americans, Mexicans, or both from resources?

DKrent(17) Clarified
1 point

Would this wall not slow or even prevent incoming drugs and the crimanials who are smuggling them? When the original wall was established the amount of drugs confiscated dropped slightly.

1 point

The wall may not be the best idea for Mexico but it has some strong points. Not only would it decrease the amount of drugs smuggled into America but it would further protect American sovereignty. Americans spent close to $100billion on drugs every year according to a White House report . In 2014 34,840 pounds of meth were confiscated from Mexican cartels. Keep in mind this is only the amount that was found the drugs not found slowly feed into the black market. And sure with marijuana slowly becoming legalized this number will fall. Although I don't foresee hard drugs becoming legalized in the near future, so this is still a problem. Building this wall would prevent this amount of drugs from entering our country and polluting our fellow Americans.

This wall needs to be build primary for internal reasons such as establishing sovereignty over ungoverned or unruly lands, and protect America's wealth. Mexico may. It like the 20% tax but in the long run it will be beneficial to our country as well as theirs.

DKrent has not yet created any debates.

About Me

