Trump is a Good President - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Trump is a Good President

Debate Information

Change my mind.
PlaffelvohfenAlofRITreeManCYDdhartaOakTownALuigi7255BlastcatJGXdebatePRO
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -  

    5 Reasons Why



    Trump and the Economy

    Trump has undoubtedly set economic growth on fire, with rising stocks, GDP, and lowering employment, President Trump has undoubtedly stimulated a golden age of economic prosperity before the pandemic and created a ‘Goldilocks Economy’ according to many experts.

    https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506


    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html


    Trump and the Pandemic

    Despite many individual Governors and Mayors(Such as Cuomo and De Blasio) completely messing up on Covid-19, Trump managed to save very many American lives through his actions, from putting attention to the virus in the early spring and putting down Travel Bans before the pandemic got more serious according to medical experts such as Dr. Fauci.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-trump-travel-restrictions-saved-lives-coronavirus


    https://www.newsmax.com/finance/mikefuljenz/fauci-trump-chinese-tourist/2020/03/24/id/959787/


    Trump and Immagration

    Illegal immigration has been dropping under president trump Along with the percentage of long-term vs short-term illegal immigration residences.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/


    Trump and Nasa

    Trump has had a steady increase in the budget of NASA, increasing development in NASA and scientific research in that area.

    https://www.thebalance.com/nasa-budget-current-funding-and-history-3306321


    Trump and the Middle East

    With Trump making great strides in peace and coming out of the middle east I can safely say he absolutely shined here.

    Trump made 4 great peace deals between Israel and Sudan, Bahrain, the UAE, and Morocco.

    Not only that, he killed Sulamani, ended the bombing campaigns, and broke the 2015 Iranian Nuclear Agreement.


    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/12/trump-announces-israel-morocco-peace-deal-4th-trump-era-middle-east-peace-deal/


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action


    https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/cnn-confirms-trumps-reason-killing-iranian-general-soleimani-legitimate


    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenAlofRITreeManOakTownAJeffreyBlankenshipBlastcat
  • mickygmickyg 349 Pts   -  
    if trump had won the election what would his next move on economy be.I want to SEE IF YOU CAN GRASP MODERN ECONOMIC THEORY AND BEST PRACTICES.

    WHAT IS TRUMPS ECONOMIC DECISIONS BASED ON?
    1.SMITH ?
    2.KEYNES?
    3.JESUS IS COMING ...@Debater123
    COME ON MASTER
    PlaffelvohfenDebater123OakTownATreeMan
  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI This hardly seemed like anything persuasive, but I'll respond:



    'call everyone coming from Mexico rapists,' He didn't, here's what he actually said: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-mexico-sending-rapists-across-border-hed-make-country-pay-for-border-wall

    'call murderous Nazi in Charlottesville "very fine people",' He actually he said right before that: 'And I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis and those white supremacists, but there are very fine people on both sides.'

    'have militarized agents rip infants from their mothers and lock them in cages ... or "lose" them,' Because of the policy started by Obama.

    'throw paper towels at surviving American citizens in Puerto Rico and call it "hurricane relief",' Unbiased sourcing? Please? I would like a source.

    'call other nations "-hole countries",' Many other countries are sh-it holes.

    'too often echo white supremacists on his now-suspended Twitter account,' How has the echoed white supremacists?

    'tell members of Congress (all women of color), to "go back" to the countries they came from, 3 from HERE!,' What is wrong with that?

    'getting impeached TWICE for totally un-American activities against democracy,' There was no valid reason for impeachment either time.

    'like willfully failing to protect the American people against the most dangerous pandemic in recent (maybe ALL), history,' I just explained the opposite.

    'like instigating a "coup d'etat" against his own government?' The capital riots weren't his fault.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaAlofRIOakTownAJeffreyBlankenshipBlastcatFinPeak
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    You traded your country for a red hat apparently, hope it was worth it... 

    No amount of evidence would persuade you that, as a whole, the Trump presidency was detrimental to the country, which it absolutely was, you're willfully blind (you actually think his response to Covid was good????? That is completely delusional...). 

    That orange buffoon made a joke of the Constitution, he smeared it every chance he got... He did not divide the country, he cleaved it with a rusted blade and the wound will fester and it may not recover...  
    AlofRIOakTownACYDdhartaDebater123Blastcat
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -   edited January 18
    @Plaffelvohfen I would like to point out that you ignored my entire argument and dismissed me that I cant accept a counterargument.

    I can, however, I haven't seen one yet.

    I'd be happy if you can, but calling me blind and dismissing my argument as delusional won't persuade me or beat my argument.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRICYDdhartaBlastcatFinPeak
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    This obviously depends on the set of subjective criteria one uses to make such an assessment.

    From my perspective, the last two decent presidents in the US were Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, and the last good president was Calvin Coolidge. "Goodness" of a president in my view is primarily determined by how much that president does to make the government leave people alone and to make people leave each other alone.

    The last three presidents have been abominations as far as this aspect goes, Trump included, with his uncontrollable spending, executive order abuse, travel bans and trade restrictions.

    Biden, unfortunately, promises to be the worst one out of the four, already - before his presidency even began - announcing adding trillions to the government debt and issuing a series of sweeping executive orders. These people do not seem to care about anything other than immediately getting their way, as little children who just want that candy and cannot show any restraint.

    Presidency in the US has degraded dramatically over the past few decades, and is becoming more and more akin to royalty. Whoever is in charge thinks themselves a king, and the servants generally are all too happy to justify this thinking.
    Debater123xlJ_dolphin_473George_HorseJeffreyBlankenshipBlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar His spending was too high for my taste as well, but I think you'd have to agree with a lot of his policy.  Lowering taxes, major regulation cuts, starting no wars and pulling us out of conflicts, and helping curb pc culture.
    Debater123BlastcatFinPeak
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    I look at the entire package, not at individual policies. Tax cuts do not help much when spending grows and larger effective taxes are implicitly collected through resulting inflation; regulations have been cut very selectively, often in a way that actually strengthens the remaining regulations; and external wars and conflicts have never been nearly as important to me as domestic matters.

    As far as curbing political correctness goes, a proper way to do it is by taking a strong stance on promoting free speech. Trump instead has been expressing his own outrage over all speech he disliked, and has on numerous occasions advocated for restricting free speech through "opening up the libel laws", or handing control over speech on private Internet platforms over to the government. As far as free speech goes, Trump has been one of its biggest nemeses among all US presidents.

    He is not who you think him to be, Michael; he is not a valid response to encroachment of socialism and authoritarianism in the US - he is (and I know that this is an overused comparison) like Hitler as a response to the communist threat in Germany, one evil supposed to counter another.

    Trump, in my eyes, is not quite as bad as Obama was, but he is quite close to George W Bush in his overall influence on the evolution of the system. He is not the guy to get behind when wanting more freedom.
    George_HorseBlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar. The first part of what you said was true, but it's better than raising taxes and causing inflation.  That's where we are headed with national Healthcare, free college, additional 1.9 trillion dollar packages.  Ending external conflicts should help lower the budget.

    Free trade with China is an issue because they don't respect patents or intellectual property. The government uses the fact they have a consumer base of over 1 billion people to take advantage of the market.  They can do illegal things, but businesses won't stop selling to them because of the business they will lose.  I'm curious, what you think is a solution.

    The unfortunate part is that the libertarian, less authoritarian philosophy doesn't win very often because people on both sides of the isle want to see their idealogy prevail by any means necessary. More unfortunately, I continues to be pursued federally. Authoritarianism takes over because it is much harder to keep freedoms than take them away. America has created such great lives and wealth that people feel entitled to it.  America seems to be trending in the direction of the downfall of the Roman Empire. 

    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    I do not think that it is any better: inflation is inflation, no matter what it results from. Incontrollable spending just as much diminishes the value of people's assets as directly taxing them, the effect is just a bit more indirect.

    I do not see the problem with China - but then, I do not believe that intellectual property is a valid concept. I believe that anyone should be able to use and reproduce any data they can get their hands on by non-coercive means. Chinese using information that their US rivals cannot use legally is great news for customers, who now will get access to better and cheaper imported products - typically subsidized by the Chinese government, too.

    Part of the diminishing freedom problem is the willingness of many of its defenders to compromise, as I see it. The Founding Fathers did not compromise much; they said, "Taxation without representation is robbery, and we will fight until it no longer occurs on the American territory". Same way, freedom defenders today should say, "No, I refuse to pick the lesser evil. Give me a freedom-defending candidate, or your party will not receive my vote". Not pick Trump and say, "Sorry, the alternative is worse". Picking Trump assures lack of proper push against the encroaching authoritarianism, as "lesser evils", term after term, keep pushing the system in that direction.

    Lastly, I do not think that America will become the new Rome; I see its long-term future as very bright. But the road there may contain many nasty surprises, and the less the accumulating problems are addressed today, the nastier the surprises will be. Trump is not the guy to address them, and freedom-minded Republicans should come up with a better candidate if they want to lead the march towards freedom.
    Blastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar. You diminish innovation when you don't protect intellectual rights.  If a pharmaceutical company does 2 billion dollars in research to create a new product just to have it stolen by a competitor they're not going to do the research.
    It would help make products cheaper, there just wouldn't be any new ones.

    You're creating competition for existing products that will make them cheaper, but your eliminating value in creating anything new.
    Blastcat
  • @Debater123
    Being a good President of a united state does not make a person a good Executive Officer, what makes a man a good President is the understanding he must hold a basic state of the union between both positions.
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    You cannot steal something that does not belong to the entity in question by definition. The pharmaceutic company is always incentivized to do research in order to increase its profits; it just does not get a legalized monopoly on whatever it is it uncovered. Intellectual property rights are what actually stifled innovation, as companies and individuals monopolize inventions and then sit on them, using the lack of competition to collect profit without producing much of anything.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIOakTownABlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar You don't gain profits if your research is immediately stolen.
    Blastcat
  • @MayCaesar You don't gain profits if your research is immediately stolen.
    The issue in the debate is created by the provisions of the medical grants. A company does medical research as it is a direct cost of its business it does in the medical field does not increase profit it can be used to reshape profit and loss as they occur.
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    First, gaining and using information is not "stealing"; second, it takes time to reverse-engineer any innovation, giving the original innovators the edge; and finally, even if the research was somehow magically shared and immediately put to full use by all competitors, it would simply mean that all the competitors AND the original inventor company have their profits increased. The latter is the reason that so many companies come together to do united research and willingly release all kinds of tools allowing everyone else to do research. Google has released Tensorflow for anyone to use, because Google leadership understands that the more other people will build with Tensorflow, the more Google will be able to use to improve its products and increase profits.

    The idea that profitability of innovation requires the ability to stake a legal monopoly on the market is false on many levels.
    xlJ_dolphin_473PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -   edited January 19
    @MayCaesar. It takes a lot less money and time to reverse engineer something than it does to create it.  Not to mention all of the safety regulations ect, that need to be passed by the original product.  So no the original inventor doesn't have the advantage because they've incurred all of the cost to create a new product. You would inevitably create monopolies, because only big businesses would be able to create the products more cheaply and have the infrastructure and marketing in place to move all the product.  If I invented a product I wouldn't stand a chance.

    Companies come together often times to speed up processes and to share costs. Your Google scenario doesn't apply to most products. 
     
    It's not a legal monopoly on the entire marketplace its only on what is patented material, and that doesn't last forever.
    Blastcat
  • The idea that profitability of innovation requires the ability to stake a legal monopoly on the market is false on many levels.

    True but basically a monopoly on a market only needs to be on one level to be illegal, not many.
    Blastcat
  • anarchist100anarchist100 556 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Debater123
    I don't like Trump's animal rights policy.
    Blastcat
  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 So including his previous policies, I have two questions for you:

    1.Do you believe Trump is in general, a good president?

    2.Do you believe Trump is in general, a good president compared to other presidents?
  • anarchist100anarchist100 556 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Debater123
    Compared to George W Bush the 2nd I think he is a great president. I like Trump's gun policy, his Covid policy, and how he pulled US troops out of the middle east, what I don't like about Trump is his animal rights policy, his policy on capital punishment, his xenophobia, and his environmental policy. I also am not fond of his decision to make the vaping age 19.
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Well, that is how life works: the free rider problem is always a factor. Every time you create something, someone else who does not pay for it gets some benefit from it. It is not a valid reason to prevent people from partaking in legitimate activities on a free market. Nobody is owed profit for their creation, and it is up to every trader to find a way to capitalize on it. With innovations, there are plenty of ways to do so; if all else fails, the company can just build a serious security system that will not allow anyone from the outside to hack into the research, which companies regularly do. There is a lot of research done in Google labs, for example, that does not go public not because it is protected by the law, but because it is protected by security systems no one can manage to break.

    As a scientist, I can also tell you that there is a world of difference between having researched something - having gone through the entire process, dealing with all the issues and learning more and more about this something - and simply getting a ready product on a silver platter. In the latter case you are going to be missing a lot of finer details that those who have developed this product are keenly aware of.
    This is why many research papers, while published in open access, still have their authors regularly contacted by other interested researchers - often decades later - to inquire about the details of dealing with problem X or Y.
    The original inventor is going to be much better prepared to tackle possible issues in practical implementation and construction of the invention, than anyone else. Hence this inventor's services will always be in a huge demand. A private company can make an exclusive contract with this inventor and gain a huge edge over its competitors, even if they have access to much of the same information this company does.
    Blastcat
  • TreeManTreeMan 295 Pts   -  
    His covid policy was $H!T
    He never legitimately cared about covid and how it affected the health of the citizens of the US. The harsh medicine, AKA the strict restrictions and lockdowns in China eventually paid off, and its economy grew by 2.3 percent
    The freedoms you value so deeply will evidently be your downfall
    At least, it will be so during major crisis like this
    Debater123CYDdhartaBlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar. There are products that you don't have to hack in order to gain the information. You just buy them and reconstruct it.

    An inventor would never be able to make it on their own. In order to get investment theyd need to describe their product, which would just end up being stolen rather than invested in. 

    The value of stealing the intellectual property would be more efficient than creating one, stifling creation.
    Blastcat
  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @anarchist100 So you have mixed feelings about him?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Inventors make it on their own without any patents all the time. An inventor does not just have some general abstract idea: the inventor actually knows how to implement this idea. If I invent a flying car tomorrow, come to Ford and tell them, "Guys, I invented a flying car using this, this and this design. I have some schematics here, which I will share with you and help you make into a product. Let us partner up?", it is not like the Ford engineers can quickly look through the schematics and say, "Okay, we will be back in a few months with a functional car. We no longer need your services!" Any invention that is this easy to copy has probably already been copied all over the place due to its simplicity. And with an invention that is harder to copy, if Ford does not give the guy the green light, then the guy will go to Kia tomorrow and get hired, costing Ford investors profits they will never see. And these investors are going to put their money into Kia instead, and the Ford management will realize the flawness of its approach and correct it.

    I do not understand what "stealing the intellectual property" means, as the term "intellectual property" does not make much sense to me. I do understand what a free market of ideas is though, where people can come, discuss things and learn from each other. A thousand engineers sharing designs are going to create something much more spectacular, then a hundred groups of ten engineers each working closely on their own projects, patented away from others' eyes. Abolishment of the concept of intellectual property would lead to an explosion of innovations never seen in the history of mankind.
    Blastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @MayCaesar. If they have good skematics and drawings most inventions are easy to recreate.  Businesses are smart, once Ford got enough details about the product they would no longer need the inventor. Even if they couldn't pull it off they could buy one product from Kia and easily recreate it.

    The engineers won't be sharing any more ideas than they would now. Everyone would still be trying to keep there ideas secret for as long as possible.  If they shared them after putting in the work, they'd incur the cost while providing others with nearly equal benefit. Patents don't mean people can't examine how the product works it just means they can't copy it. 

    It really is as simple as this.  In a free market why do people invent products, do research ect?  In order to make a profit.  When you remove most of the profits one would make, you've taken away most of the incentive for innovation.  It's a similar reason to why socialism stifles creation. Instead of distributing money, your distributing someones hard work and research which is money.

    Blastcat
  • anarchist100anarchist100 556 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Debater123
    Yes that's a good way to put it.
    Debater123
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    Not at all: schematics alone do not mean much to a company, and it is the brain behind these schematics that is actively sought out. Inventors are being hired in all kinds of industries all the time, even when those inventors publish their designs on open access websites.

    Artificially increasing profit one makes as a result of certain activities is an anti-market action. When you outlaw something simply because it increases someone's profit, then you distort the market, leading to uncalled for reallocation of resources. Of course someone with a patent on something, due to the nature of the monopoly this patent grants, is going to make larger profit, than someone who has to face a harsh pressure for the competitors to constantly improve their product, as the competitors are hot on their heels - but it is a profit they have not earned and received solely through government-granted monopoly, in the best style of older mercantilist kingdoms. Government intervention of this kind is what socialism is, while the lack of intervention is capitalism. Socialism is when the government actively and dynamically controls what market players can and cannot do under the guise of the good for the society it provides, while capitalism is when it leaves the market players alone to compete in an open and unrestricted environment.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 6

    'Trump and the Pandemic

    Despite many individual Governors and Mayors(Such as Cuomo and De Blasio) completely messing up on Covid-19, Trump managed to save very many American lives through his actions, from putting attention to the virus in the early spring and putting down Travel Bans before the pandemic got more serious according to medical experts such as Dr. Fauci. '

    We now know that Trump knew that Covid was extremely dangerous as he actively downplayed the danger to the people who he pledged to serve. In other words, he lied. He has subsequently said that he did so to protect the people from the panic. Apparently, Trump thought that panic is worse than dying from Covid.


    Well, a lot of people died.. while in their death throws, they might have panicked. And maybe their loved ones did too.


    CYDdharta
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    ' When you remove most of the profits one would make, you've taken away most of the incentive for innovation.  It's a similar reason to why socialism stifles creation. Instead of distributing money, your distributing someones hard work and research which is money. '

    You seem to be implying that if it weren't for money, nobody would want to work at all.

  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat So what if he withheld that information? People still went along with the lockdowns. Also, if he had told people how dangerous it really was, there would probably be a lot of civil unrest which likely lead to more covid cases, and therefore, covid deaths. Downplaying the severity seemed to have been the best option.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  

    " So what if he withheld that information? "

    You dont seem to care that he lied. I don't think that a POTUS that lies or minimizes a viral pandemic is a good president. Usage may vary.

    OakTownAPlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1647 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Apparently you believe none of our presidents were good.
    Blastcat
  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat Every president in history has lied, as long as it doesn't affect policy I frankly couldn't give any less of a damn.
    If a president lies or not should not determine if that president is good or not, the policy is.
    Blastcat
  • wokwok 12 Pts   -  
    yes it's true he killed Syahid Qassem Soleimani, but that you must know is that Syahid Qassem Soleimani is known as ISIS destroyer, that ISIS alwayas make middle east unsavely so that we can take conclusionthat trump isn't peace lover@Debater123
    Blastcat
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1647 Pts   -  
    @wok

    Iran also alwayas make middle east unsavely [sic].  The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend.  Your conclusion is faulty.
    Blastcat
  • @Blastcat Every president in history has lied, as long as it doesn't affect policy I frankly couldn't give any less of a damn.
    If a president lies or not should not determine if that president is good or not, the policy is.
    The political policies determine the quality of the Exsecutive officer not President of United States. Not every Exsecutive office elected by a democracy goes on to establish themselves as a President of the United States of America. We hold these truths to be self-evident all men are created equal by their creator with the goal of becoming President of a united state in America or Thee united states of America. 

    A President of the United States is determined by the state of the constitutional union a man may bring together before a democracy. He is the President of the united states of America when he does so in the "Nation of America" and America alone, setting the union with American United States Consitutiontion. The principles which guide a President are the state of the union policymakers create throughout the executive office there is in fact no other way a man can be Presdient in America. Holding chair in the Oval Ofice or not. 

    Is it possible the idea of a good President has been changed over the many years by the impact of accusations a man given a constitutional title as legal precedent is discriminative by its form of alienation only? We are a nation that has separated itself from parliament, King, Queen, and Primisinster. It is impossible to understand American politics without an even slightly grasp of precedent possibly held from English politics.

    What a person is not instructed clearly on is the making of a verbal legal claim by right to vote. It is they the Person, as the people, for the people who must provide the burden of proof backing their vote, was in fact for a Presdient of a United State held in constitutional principle. A demonstration is not a filled grievance and does not qualify as a legitimate resolution in determining legal matters or if and when a man is performing the role of President. It can be said a good counselor of the law might even address this error in legal grievance before the courts themselves as a state of the union described to them by witnesses. 
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 7
    @Blastcat Every president in history has lied, as long as it doesn't affect policy I frankly couldn't give any less of a damn.
    If a president lies or not should not determine if that president is good or not, the policy is.
    Im sorry to hear that you don't give a damn.





  • To change a mind, the state of a union is that a right to cast a vote does not make a person a credible witness, thus the fear of losing someone their basic right to vote by negligence. A model of harm by legal precedent comes by the way of a work-related injury due to wrong. Now to address the principle of changing minds, we have no idea where your mind has been so please wash and disinfect your brain before asking other people to touch, change, and relace your mind, and please try not to be disappointed when the swap you made for intelligence was not for the better.

    Line 1: Then who's brian was it?
    Line 2: It was from some person named  "Abi - Normal, Ab-normal or something like that. I dropped the other brian on the floor.

    Gene Wilder, Young Frankenstein,1974.
    Blastcat
  • wokwok 12 Pts   -  
    in my conclusion between America and Iran is:
     - america just like when they bombed Japan they would destroy all military or civilians
    - when Iran make missiles they will take into account the impact and only focus on the military members , and i never here that Iran make middle east unsavety
    - there is no terrorist in Iran
    - terroriTerrorists only exist in countries that have been annexed by America, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
    Ikon Diverifikasi Komunitas
    @CYDdharta
    Blastcat
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1647 Pts   -  
    wok said:
    in my conclusion between America and Iran is:
     - america just like when they bombed Japan they would destroy all military or civilians
    - when Iran make missiles they will take into account the impact and only focus on the military members , and i never here that Iran make middle east unsavety
    - there is no terrorist in Iran
    - terroriTerrorists only exist in countries that have been annexed by America, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
    Ikon Diverifikasi Komunitas
    @CYDdharta
    Your conclusions are increasingly demented:
    - japan started the war against America, they asked for anything they got.  iran certainly would have nuked japan if they'd have been in the same circumstances
    - iran will take into account the impact of targets and aim at what they deem most impactful, military, civilian or otherwise, and you should try talking to someone other than the terrorists
    - Hilarious!  There are no terrorists in the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, ROFLMAO
    - America hasn't annexed any countries.  America never had any intentions of annexing any territories.  America only went into those countries because they were harboring terrorists.
  • wokwok 12 Pts   -  
    --"Hilarious!  There are no terrorists in the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, ROFLMAO"--> Can you mention all of terorist in IRAN.

    -- Yes they are harboring terorist...to emit them when somebody threaten America's Position in middle east
    @CYDdharta
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    wok said:

    Terrorists only exist in countries that have been annexed by America, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
    Oh, brother... Terrorists existed thousands years before the United States of America was a thing. Today, terrorists exist in nearly every country, including countries having nothing to do with the US. Just over the past 10 years, among the countries experiencing terrorist attacks inside their borders, were: Norway, Russia, China, France, Germany, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Canada, the UK, the US, Japan, Australia, Belarus, New Zealand, Ireland, Poland, Brazil, Argentine... I struggle to find a single country in the world with the population of at least a million that has not experienced a single terrorist attack or attempt in the last decade alone.

    Have you been reading Pravda recently? ;) Or do you seriously believe that America has annexed 99% of the world?
  • wokwok 12 Pts   -  
    I may agree with -terrorism arose thousands of years before the US existed - but seeing the current conditions between Trump and the middle east where Trump is openly terrorizing the middle east as Neom Chomsky said which exposed the US attitude towards the middle east which in general underlines the attitude The US is desperately defending Israel, causing the Middle East to falter. The US and Israel are free to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran is under intense pressure to stop its nuclear development.    @MayCaesar
    CYDdhartaBlastcat
  • @Debater123
    I think people would agree with me in saying that Trump really needed to learn to stop talking. He had a mouth, and a temper, and it was just unprofessional sometimes, the way he acted. BUTTTT, Trump got more done for our country than many other presidents. He boomed our economic growth, handled the border crisis, and made America a true world power in all aspects. Because he got stuff done, I feel that he was a great president.   
    Debater123Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    @Blastcat

    Apparently you believe none of our presidents were good.

    Apparently, you take guesses as to what I actually believe. This one is a bad guess, CYD
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 888 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    "You seem to be implying that if it weren't for money, nobody would want to work at all."

    Yeah mostly.  Would you work your job if you didn't make money?  Of course without money people would have to do some sort of labor to stay alive, others may work some to be altruistic, but overall money is thr main incentive.
    Blastcat
  • wokwok 12 Pts   -  
    If you want to wisely decide that someone is good president or not, You must to see from another point of view what he has done. Creating world peace or not? @JeffreyBlankenship
    CYDdhartaBlastcat
  • So, basically, what you are saying is the Oath of Exsecutive office a person makes to become an Exsecutive officer of the United States of America is a lie, it is the voter only
    who has the powers to simply deem a person President and the hell with all legal precedent?
    Blastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch