Check out the Tournament Ladder
Such a great round guys, thank you!@benmouse42 Congrats for advancing to the next round!@austin_janik Hard luck on this one, we just opened registrations for November's tournament:https://www.qallout.com/tournament
"Terrible government that is resulting in terrorism worldwide."Wait, I thought you supported the US government?
But if Iran doesn't get nukes, how can they prevent a regime change war?
Interesting debate! :grinning:
Suitably heated for a debate about thermo-nuclear warfare ahhaha kudos to my opponent for a good debate
Incase anyone is interested in my claims about whats in/not in the deal fortunately you can just read it!https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdfOr if you're after a visual summary:https://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/Pg_25_a.png
Never met an intelligent and rational person who supports a pull out. I don't think Mattis or Kelly are even on board. I think Trump is just doing it because he promised some silly BS during the campaign and now he has to follow through to keep a portion of his base and also satisfy the Israel/Saudi lobby.
@bronsonkaahui Glad to know i'm not an "intelligent and rational person." :) That's alright though, it seems you already had a strong opinion on this issue.
@austin_janik oh lol I didn't realize this was your real position I thought you got assigned or just took it.
Reasons why I thought this debate went to CON: 1. @austin_janik needed to provide an obvious mechanism for a) what the Iran deal will do to exacerbate the 'evil' of Iran and b) how your alternatives will reign in Iran's nuclear capacity. Otherwise it's unclear why the things you've said about Iran are actually relevant to the nuclear deal. @benmouse42 did a good job of showing that an evil state was safer without enriched uranium + the capacity to build nuclear weapons. It remained unclear why a puritan principle of avoiding deals with rogue states was more ethical than mitigating the harm of those rogue states. NOTE: It is PRO's burden to give a better solution than the deal, otherwise you can hardly accuse CON of making a false dichotomy between deal/no deal -- that would be the *true* dichotomy in the debate without any real alternative solutions.2. The nuclear deal really isn't about fighting terror, it's about limiting Iran's nuclear capacity, so it seems unrealistic that a) the deal should lower terror at all, but more importantly b) that any significant decrease could occur only within 2 years. But importantly, you didn't actually prove any factual increase in terror that could be directly attributed to the Iran deal. Secondly, it wasn't shown how the deal actually legitimised terror/Iran as analysis was never offered as to how this improved Iran's standing in the world, and it was pointed out that there was a tension between suggesting Iran had more legitimacy and was still decried for supporting terror. 3. Ben did a good job of explaining the specific ways in which Iran's nuclear capacity was limited by the deal, which meant that it stood that the deal did what it was meant to do (and even if that was only within the next 20-30 years [a concession from AFF that it would work for 10-20 years btw], 20 years of safety sounds better than 0).
@elinor While I disagree with your conclusion, I appreciate you taking the time to eloquently lay out your assessment of the round. Thanks :)
@qallout I love your comment. Haha!
If you think Iran wants to have anything to do with nuclear weapons then you are an idiot. They know damn well that if they ever even tried to develop nukes, they'd get obliterated. They will never have the weaponry that the USA and Israel has. They are not a threat to anyone. They are a Shiite state, which means they are more moderate than our friends in Saudi Arabia. Iran hasn't invaded a country since the 18th century. The demonization of Iran makes Zionists look bad. The belligerence and the fearmongering of the pro side is kind of sad. Do a little research on mutually assured destruction. The last thing Iran wants is a nuke because they know that it would just give the USA and Israel an excuse to start warfare. Calling Iran a "terrorist state" is a joke. The USA and Israel are the biggest terrorist states there are. What about Israel terrorizing the Palestinians for the last 70 years?
It's not fear mongering. It's reality. If you honestly believe that Iran is neutral government that is not a threat, I have to question weather you have adequately researched the issue. When the leaders of the top state sponsor of terrorism are shouting "death to America" and declaring that Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. You have a problem.
@austin_janik "top state sponsor of terrorism"Somebody has been reading lots of propaganda but little else. Iran can't even hold a candle to Saudi Arabia, or the United States for that matter.
@austin_janik you’re arguing strawmen. They never said they “want to wipe Israel off the map”, you’re going back over 10 years to what a previous President said, and taking it out of context. Iran is willing to recognize Israel but they need to leave Al Asqa (the Temple Mount) alone and stop thier Open apartheid policies against the Palestinians. 2) Iran is fighting ISIS in Iran and Syria. The US is aiding terrorism there.3) Iran has no ability to harm the US whatsoever.That’s just a taste of what I have prepared if my opponent shows up tomorrow...
@bronsonkaahui Yep lots of propaganda in the State Department Report. :) If you think the U.S. is a worse government actor than Iran, I don't even know what to say.
@austin_janik well that is transparently obvious to me. Would you like to debate who is the greater threat to peace and safety in the world?
Con really nailed the flaws in Pros arguments. We can’t assume after two years of compliance that Iran is more dangerous or that giving out for no reason would not have negative consequences.
Ok, so I've seen Austin debate before and he was really really good. But this was not one of those times. He beat himself badly in this one.Pro has no advantages, and really obvious D/A's. Pulling out of the Iran deal now will not make Iran less bad, or give us back the money we spent, or give us increased capacity for monitoring their nuclear options.Does Pro think the resolution is that the US never should have signed the deal in the first place? Cuz if so these points would make sense, but the case for pulling out of the deal TODAY was not even remotely made by the pro.There might be good reasons for withdrawing from the deal today, but I don't feel like I saw any of them here. This is a really easy vote for Con.
@debateme13 I appreciate the thoughts. Thanks man.
@austin_janik Not trying to be mean man. I think you're really talented, and I'm looking forward to your debate with Cynthia tonight, it's just that in this one it didn't seem like you knew the resolution you were defending.
@debateme13 Fair assessment. I obviously didn't get across the ideas that I thought I was.