The Instigator
paigeb
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

A Resolution To Prevent Iran from Obtaining a Nuclear Weapin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 597 times Debate No: 41765
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

paigeb

Pro

I am in debate, and need answers right away!! Please and thanks. I have a debate Saturday. Pros and cons please!
Tophatdoc

Con

I accept. I will discuss the cons since I am representing the con side. The cons of attempting prevention need to be discussed thoroughly. I will focus on tactical strikes against Iran and the results of said strikes.

1. Prevention will lead to further deterioration in relations.
If the United States or Israel intervened in Iran there will be negative repercussions long term. In the long term, we will not be able to negotiate at all with Iran if we strike them directly. To have an embargo is one thing but to actually strike Iran will open the flood gates of problems.Nevertheless, the United States may do nothing but Turkey, Israel, or Saudi Arabia will consider taking action against Iran. There are several powers in the Middle East who do not like Iran.By the United States not acting, we can deteriorate relations with Iran's rivals.

2. The potential for war increases
If the United States were to strike Iran for not halting their agreements, it could be an act of war. Then the United States and Iran will be entangled in this warfare. The United States would further be trapped in the problems of the Middle East.

3. Iran will still develop nuclear capability regardless of an intervention.
To strike at Iran and destroy their nuclear facilities only stops a temporary problem. But there is nothing the United States can do long term. The Iranians will just rebuild their programs if they are attacked.

To Iran accountable is difficult. So we shouldn't expect a clear and decisive answer. To prevent Iran from obtaining weapons, can be dangerous. Nevertheless what Iran can do after they obtain those weapons is even more dangerous. For the United States to act unilaterally with a strike is the most dangerous option currently.

http://online.wsj.com...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
paigeb

Pro

paigeb forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
paigeb

Pro

paigeb forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
paigeb

Pro

paigeb forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

It appears my opponent has forfeited the debate. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
paigeb

Pro

paigeb forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments. My opponent forfeited. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
There's always the option that the debate is irrelevant since Iran doesn't want one.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
paigebTophatdocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses grammar points for bad spelling by making an error in the debate title. Con gets conduct points for not forfeiting any rounds. Con used sources and made arguments and as such deserves the points awarded. Well done Con.