Resolved: The Iranian Nuclear Deal is a "mistake."
I would like to thank Contra ahead of time for accepting this long anticipated debate.
1st Round is acceptance.
2nd Round is for Opening Arguments, NO rebuttals.
3rd Round is for Rebuttals.
4th Round is for Rebuttals and Conclusions.
BOP is shared
The Following users are prohibited from voting on this debate. If they do their votes shall be counted as a Vote Bomb and their votes shall be removed from this debate.
Iranian Nuclear Deal- Text is found here (http://time.com...)
"mistake"- meaning that it was a bad deal for the Western and other Middle Eastern Nations
In order for Pro to win he must prove that the deal was harmful to western nations.
In order for Con to win he must show that the deal was benefitial to western nations.
If it is a compramise (neither beneficital nor harmful) the arguments section is to be tied.
I accept this debate. Let us go!
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate as it has one that I have been antipicpating for quite some time.
I thought that it would be good to start the debate with some political humor.
Contention 1: Iranian support for international terrorism
It has been no secreate that for a long time that Iran has been sponsering international terrorism. One of their greatest terror affilates is that of Hezbollah. In fact the US State Department reported that in 2012 the terror organization and Iran have reached the greatest amounts of collabertate terror strikes against foreign and western targets since the 1990s.  The CIA has even found that Muhammad Khatami, the Iranian Mullah (their Theocratic Leader) has been a huge sponser and affilat with Hezbollah. The Iranian Quod Forces were arrested in Tel Avi with photo graphs and plans to attack the US embassy.  Now who is the Iranian Quod forces you may ask? They are an organization that was estabilished by the Iranians after their Revolution to ensure that their revolution continues. Israeli Prime Minister Netayahu had revealed that the deal gives Iran $300 billion in compensation over the economic turmoil that the nation had to endure over the embargo. He even gave the insite that Iran is producing IBMs to reach the US eastern seaboard to the point that in a decade when the Nuclear weapons embargo ends that they will have the projectile and range to each, Boston, New York, and even Washington DC.  Not to mention that the deal allows them to buy and sell weaponry in which they can use to support Hezbollah and other terror regeims.
Many in the US and around the world believe that Iran will help and be a "force for good" in the middle east, but that is highly mistaken. Here we can see that more likely then not will Iran seek to aid ISIS, but they will help them create the world wide Islamic Empire. All we have to do is look to the Iranian Constitution in which it doesn't recognize many boarders and will supress its own civilization with Shia Law.  Not to mention that it's own IRGC and Quod Forces are pushing for more and more attacks against "infidelic" nations. Obama is misinterperting the Iranian intervention as a sign that they are in it for the defeat of ISIS, but what we really need to remember is that he is actually support Al-Asaad in Syria by trying to push ISIS out of Syria.  Iran has even gone as far as to try and to down play ISIS saying that it could be delt with quickly and in some cases has reported that they have been pushed out of Iraq, though we know that's far from the truth.  Western allies believe that Iran will have a major involvement, but we can see that Iran's devotion to little boots on the ground and lead from behind stance that Iran will not be a major player in the war to combat ISIS.  The nuclear deal even goes as far as to the US having to protect Iran if it gets attacked by a foreign enity to the point where this is now a direct conflict of interest with Israel and is the very foreign entanglement issue that George Washington warned about when he left office.
Contention 2: Iran's gradualism to getting the bomb.
We have all known that Iran has been enriching Uranium for quite some time, but we can see that their enrcihment has gradually gotten them closer and closer to getting the bomb. In a graph bellow we can see just how close Iran is getting to being able to have the bomb. The IAEA reported that this graph showed that Iran ended up getting 50 killatons in 2 microseconds. The bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima was 15. We can see by this very evidence that they are getting extremely close to getting the bomb.
Throughout the years Iran has been getting closer and closer and we can see that they might be the next North Korea or Pakistan. Iran currently has enought LEUs inorder to build 11 nuclear weaponry. Their production has skyrocketted.  To further the fuel to the fire we can see that Iran is now able to inspect their own centrafuges in a new accord by the IAEA.  With that Iran is able to report however many Centerfuges it "has" and will inspect those and report back to the IAEA. It is very possible to create one underground or with the large cave systems the nation has. Many Centrafuges would be very hard to detect and getting a huge gain here would be huge in whipping out Israel and if you don't believe me take it from Marco Rubio.
was orginially that Iran couldn't enrich at all, then it was that they could enrich up only under 20%, then it was you could enrich to 20% but send it overseas, now it's you can enrich but only for a research purposes. Before you know it we'll be building Iran a bomb for him."- Marco Rubio
Contention 3: Oil Flooding
We have to look at another key aspect here and it's the oil market. Oil has already been at a new low not seen since late 2008. Though many average Americans think that this is a good thing for cheeper gas and food prices, but this is creating more problems that it will cause. Iran is and will flood the oil market as soon and it will only spell trouble for oil producers world wide.  This will drop prices significantly where even the Wall Street Journal has reported that a drop in oil prices down to nearly $30 per barrel. This will cripple oil production around the world, even OPEC. With prices this low it will force American oil produces and producers around the world will have to go under and even with cuts it won't be enough to keep these comapnies a float.  This will create a massive splash that mirrors that of the Baby Boom, but for oil. This is something that will bankrupt many companies causing an energy crisis that will spike oil prices upwards and many people will go out of buisness. This has began to happen with many companies and we need to observe bellow we can see how many companies are loosing money and at a large amount.
4. DINA ESFANDIARY AND ARIANE TABATABAI' s interview with Mohammad Javad Zarif, New York, 19 Sept. 2014.
5. DINA ESFANDIARY AND ARIANE TABATABAI' s interviews with officials in Tehran, 13–16 June 2014.
6. ‘Vakonesh-e Rouhani be khabar-e emkan-e soghout-e Karbala o Najaf/Mahdoudiat-i dar amaliat nakhahim dasht’ [Rouhani’s reaction to the news of possibility of the fall of Karnataka and Naka], Mehr News, 25 Aug. 2014.
7. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
8. ( http://www.wsj.com...)
Thank you lannan13 for your arguments. I will lay out my arguments in favor of deal. But I'll start with a humorous picture as well:
C1: Degrades Iran’s Nuclear Weapon Capabilities
The agreement accomplishes the following:
Reduces Iran’s installed centrifuges by two-thirds
Nuclear weapons have fissile material that is derived from uranium, which is enriched through installed centrifuges. The deal slashes Iran’s centrifuges by 2/3rds.
Limits Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67%
Iran will have the nuclear infrastructure that allows them to produce peaceful nuclear energy. Iran WILL NOT be able to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. Iran will be unable to produce a nuclear weapon.
Annihilates 97% of Iran’s nuclear stockpile
Iran will be allowed to keep 300kg of its 10,000kg stockpile of low-enriched uranium.  This nuclear stockpile will only function with nuclear power plants. It cannot become weapons-grade.
Limits Iran’s uranium enrichment
“Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility… which Tehran may use to produce low-enriched uranium.”   It will be under constant monitoring by the IAEA . The facility will exclusively utilize IR-1 centrifuges (the most rudimentary).
So Iran will be able to enrich uranium at a single location, and this uranium will only function with nuclear power plants.
C2: Heavy Enforcement Provisions
Inspections and Oversight
The IAEA - an international organization - “will have regular access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities” .
Furthermore, the IAEA will be able to inspect “all parts of Iran’s nuclear supply chain” .
The IAEA will be able to investigate  :
On top of all of this, Iran will become a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons and places IAEA safeguards on any nuclear infrastructure .
If Iran somehow manages to cheat on the deal, all of the U.N. Security Council sanctions will snapback into place .
Iran does not benefit from the treaty until the IAEA “has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps.”  If there is a disagreement, treaty participants initially go through a "dispute resolution process", and if disagreements cannot be resolved, the sanctions are reinstated.
C3: Economic Opportunities
Iran will eventually be able to contribute upwards of 800,000 barrels of oil each day to the global energy market . This will spur downward pressure on crude oil prices, and consequently American consumers will significantly benefit from cheaper fuel and gas.
Global trade will be able to expand as Iran becomes more integrated with the global economy. Greater opportunities for selling products abroad and importing cheaper goods at home will help strengthen nations around the globe. The expansion of trade will help strengthen nations such as our E.U. partners. In our interconnected world, the higher economic performance in areas such as Europe and Asia will allow the U.S. economy to grow faster as well.
C4: Benefits to the Iranian People
Windflow to Iran’s Economy
The Iranians will have an expected $100 billion windfall as a result of lifting the international sanctions. This will help the people of Iran, who are currently in a state of stagnation and depravity. According to The World Factbook, unemployment is about 23%, the inflation rate is 42%, industrial capacity is contracting by over 5% each year, and the nation has been in recession since 2012. Furthermore, there is widespread corruption and product shortages. Emigration has led to skill shortages.  Half of Iranians “lack adequate money for food, shelter” .
Will Iran funnel this cash to their proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere? The CIA has predicted that “Iran is unlikely to spend most of its post-sanctions funds on militants”  Iran is currently restless, which ushered in the election of President Ruhani in 2013. Their government would likely use its funds to help its own people.
Furthermore, “U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.” 
Iran's Government Today
Iran currently has a theocratic republic. There have been gross human rights violations, such as the killing of dissidents and civilians. Political prisoners have been tortured and killed. Those who are juvenile offenders, curse the Prophet, or engage in any LGBT relations are subject to death.  
Indeed, the Human Rights Watch (an NGO) concluded that “Iran’s human rights record has deteriorated markedly” within the last decade or so. 
Increased International Engagement
Clearly, Iran ought to reform its economic, political, and judicial institutions. But it is unlikely to do this on its own. Its people are oppressed, and the government is using its oppression to preclude reform as long as it can.
Political scientist Ian Bremmer wrote in his book The J Curve that there is a relationship between a country’s openness and its stability. The idea is that oppressive governments can increase stability by reducing political and social rights. 
If Iran becomes open to global commerce and engagement, if Iran benefits from Western investment and soft power, “the likelihood that over a longer period of time the Iranian government opens a little and maybe a lot is much greater.” 
If we can place pressure on the Iranian government to reform its institutions – not give them a blank check through isolation – it would help the Iranian people and pressure a hostile government to change.
C5: The Best Option on the Table
We have to consider this situation from a realist perspective. There are clearly two paths the United States can take forward (excluding war). One option is to agree to this comprehensive framework. The second option is the reject the treaty.
Option 1: Accepting the Iran Deal
The benefits listed above will come into play. Iran will have a clearly capped level of uranium enrichment, which is only 1/25th of the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon. The IAEA will have the full ability to inspect all “possible military dimensions” (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear activities. We will have full knowledge of every part of Iran’s nuclear supply chain.
If Iran happens to try and cheat, it will take them about a year to produce a nuclear weapon. To quote nuclear nonproliferation expert Aaron Stein:
“The likelihood of [Iran] getting caught is near 100 percent… it makes the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely remote.” 
The Iranians will also be forced to have greater engagement with the world, which will pressure its population to demand structural reforms.
Option 2: Rejecting the Iran Deal
Iran will continue to enrich weapons-grade plutonium. Iran will be able to produce dozens of nuclear weapons, with zero limitations whatsoever.
Iran will be allowed to have unlimited centrifuges, and they will be allowed to import materials that could be incorporated into their nuclear program.
The status quo has the dangerous possibility of igniting a regional nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The deal prevents Iran from getting any nuclear weapons, the status quo does not.
Iran will also have a blank check to blame the U.S. and Israel for its suffering.
The Iranian nuclear deal will prevent the Iranians from producing or acquiring a nuclear weapon. It caps enrichment at 1/25th the level of what is needed to produce a nuclear weapon. It cuts their stockpile of enriched uranium by 97%. It reduces their centrifuges by two-thirds and they can only be the rudimentary category – i.e. are the most basic. Furthermore, the IAEA has full access to Iran’s entire supply chain. If they violate these and other conditions, all the sanctions “snap back” into place.
The status quo is to allow Iran to have unlimited uranium enrichment, the ability to produce multiple nuclear weapons, and no limitations on its nuclear infrastructure.
 The World Factbook. Version 7.02. Electronic Application. 2014.
 The J Curve. Ian Bremmer. 2006. Print.
I thank my opponent for his great response now I'm to disect what I believe is incorrect on his part.
Contention 1: Iran's Nuclear Weapon Capabilities, enforcment, and energy.
As I have shown in my last round Iran has already increased a large amount of enrichment capibility to the point that they might already have a nuclear weapon. They can easily be another North Korea or even another Pakistan. We do not need another rogue nation with nuclear capibility, but a key issue my opponent has failed to observe is that of the Iranians already having nuclear capibility to build 12 nuclear war heads.  We can see that we can have easily have worked to get a better deal due to the state of the Iranian economy which I'll get into more depth in my next contention.
Another key thing we could have worked towards would have been a No-Nuclear Iran. Instead we can still create a major nuclear powerhouse in the middle east that already has nuclear capability. No I'm not talking about Israel. I'm talking about Turkey. Turkey has purposed numerious times in the past to create a nuclear powerhouse which would help the Middle East with Turkey at the head.  This is a key thing that could have not only increased competition in the Middle East energy industry, but even could have led to a break up of OPEC, which was why a large amount of OPEC nations opposed the bill. This would have anhilated ALL of the Iranian stock-pile which outweighs my opponent's argument and provided effiecent energy to the middle east that is more envirnmental friendly then Oil.
Finally, I would like to expand here on why Iran won't keep it's promise. We can see that throughout the past decade and a half that no matter what sanctions that were placed on them they continued to enrich Uranium. So even though this is what the treaty is "suppose" to do. We can see that if we observe the graph that this won't do a thing. 
Let's look at the Snapback for a minute. I would like to first quote John Kerry on the issue.
“I want to underscore: If Iran fails in a material way to live up to these commitments, then the United States, the E.U., and even the U.N. sanctions that initially brought Iran to the table can and will snap right back into place. We have a specific provision in this agreement called ‘snapback’ for the return of those sanctions in the event of noncompliance.”
Interesting, now let's observe the text from the treaty, "1. The U.S. refers the complaint to a “Joint Commission,” comprising the six P5+1 countries – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – Iran, and the European Union (E.U.) The Advisory Board has 15 days to provide a “non-binding opinion” on the matter. If it’s still not resolved, the Joint Commission has five more days to consider the Advisory Board’s opinion. This takes the process to at least 35 days." Page 159
Now we must see that this group includes Russia and China. Both of which are Iranian allies. All they have to do is block the "Opinion" and Iran is free to do whatever they please. There is to be nothing to stop them from going back on this treaty.
Contention 2: Bettering Iran and the Options
My opponent neglects to tell you the larger picture. We can easily see that President Obama wanted this deal way more than Iran as there were key points that were added in that was against American interests. A key thing that could have been added into the treaty would have been the releasing of 4 American hostiages from Iran.  They are being illegally tortured and malnurished by Iran in their captivity. If Iran was truely open to "Turning over a new leaf" with the West or even pulling a Gadafi by suddenly turning to help the West we can see that this would have been part of the solution, but this did not occur. Another key part that could have been cut out of the deal was getting a better deal. Iran's economy was detteriorating from the sanctions (see graph bellow) that more sanctions could have easily pushed Iran to a collapse. This would have been when the Iranians would have approached the western powers and the allies could have gotten a better deal. The United States could have easily goten a better deal under this situation as the Iranians would have been more desperate.
Finally, my opponent give us two options on the Iran deal, but he fails to realize that the US is able to rewrite the Deal, the Congress has the power to do this and with that in mind we are still able to get a better deal for the Iranian people who want a change in Iran and doing this and changing the deal can help Iran get to a better state. 
x. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
5. ( http://www.wsj.com...)
As per say the rules, I will focus on rebuttals this round.
R1: Iranian supports international terrorism
Sanctions Relief and Unfreezing Iranian Assets
The framework does lift a multitude of sanctions, and it does unfreeze many overseas Iranian assets foreign financial systems. However, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said that “Iran will receive approximately $55 billion in sanctions relief once the nuclear deal is implemented” .
The governor of the Central Bank of Iran, Valiollah Seif, was more conservative when he argued, “Though the total amount of foreign reserves is $107 billion, only $26 billion will be usable” .
The false estimates fail to account that Iran has to pay for international and domestic loans. For instance, $22 billion in Iranian funds are locked in China, and it “will stay in Chinese savings accounts until the loan and financing facilities are repaid.” Furthermore, Iran’s demand for domestic investment is northward of $500 billion, which far exceeds the windfall from the deal  .
Would Iran fund Terrorist Proxies?
Iran has the possibility of using its windfall on opposition terrorist groups. Will Iran though? Consider the fact that Syria’s Assad government is slowly crumbling, as shown by its territorial losses below . Iran could use its wealth to support Bashar al-Assad, but it would be “throwing their money away” when Iran desperately needs it.
Here are the basic possibilities for Iran’s government
Western diplomats have argued that Iran will likely use its windfall to “create jobs and revive the country’s dilapidated oil and gas fields” . After all, Iran’s government is highly pressured to improve the economy, and Iran is even facing shortages for oil and gas.
The CIA has reaffirmed this, saying “Iran is unlikely to spend most of its post-sanctions funds on militants” .
Also promising, Iran’s President Rouhani has “instructed officials to use [funds] for infrastructure projects and to promote domestic industries” .
Iran could use its windfall to fund militant groups. But given Iran’s appalling economic health and political instability, it seems much more likely that Iran will use its windfall to improve the lives of its own citizens.
R2: Iran’s Threat to the U.S.
A Threat to the U.S. Homeland?
Israeli Prime Minister is simply trying to stoke people’s fears about Iran. He is mistaken. As Defense Analyst Ben Moores has said:
“The Iranian military capability is very weak. They have no real air force. Their navy is relatively weak… the ballistic missile program is ‘inflated’ ” .
Furthermore, Iran’s military is seriously outranked compared to our regional partners. Saudi Arabia’s weapon procurement exceeded Iran’s by over a factor of 14 just last year . This isn’t even counting Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, and other nations that are aligned with us.
Furthermore, the following graphic illustrates what restrictions stay in place under the Iran deal.
And if Iran were to ever threaten our national security, they would be wiped off the map. Here is Iran compared to U.S. military bases in the region.
“The nuclear deal makes the U.S. have to protect Iran if it gets attacked by Israel”
I couldn’t find any evidence of this. The best I found was that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. would probably go to the U.N. to stop the attacks through a binding resolution .
R3: Iran is close to getting the bomb
“Iran is now able to inspect their own facilities”
This AP claim was based on a draft of the agreement. That is why, hours later, AP “substantially altered” the information. 
Iran can collect some information at the Parchin site. However, “IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site.”  The Parchin facility has been dormant for 13 years, is disabled, and according to the United Nations, has “no nuclear production on the site” .
If the Iranians were to utilize any uranium, centrifuges, conversion technology, or uranium processing, any and all of these signs would alarm the IAEA which is continually monitoring these and other signals.
“Iran already has a large amount of enrichment capability”
Pro is right that Iran has plenty of enriched uranium and advanced technology. This reality simply highlights the importance of this treaty. This treaty will place new restrictions on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and it will mandate that Iran will export the vast majority of its nuclear stockpile, centrifuges, and nuclear infrastructure to the IAEA. This includes all uranium that is enriched beyond 3.67%.
“They could build a new nuclear facility”
Iran could build a new nuclear facility, if it managed to take the following steps
However, the IAEA continuously monitors all these aspects of the deal. This is why if Iran cheats, “the likelihood of getting caught is near 100 percent” according to nonproliferation expert Aaron Stein .
As previously mentioned, the IAEA must inspect and approve any imports that could have any possibility of becoming components of Iran’s nuclear program (products with ‘possible military dimensions’ or PMD).
Also, building a new facility would violate the treaty and the snapback provision would kick into play .
“Iran won’t keep its promise… Iran is free to do what they please”
If Iran violates a part of this treaty, the dispute goes through the dispute resolution process. One of the final steps of the dispute resolution process is when the issue goes to the U.N. Security Council.
Here is the thing. If the issue goes to the U.N. Security Council… which it will if it isn’t resolved earlier… the issue will have to be resolved through a binding resolution. If China or Russia do anything to prevent a (U.S.) resolution (i.e. nothing happens), all sanctions automatically come back into force after a month .
Thus Iran would be back where it started. All the sanctions will still be in effect, but it will have given up 97% of its nuclear stockpile, 2/3rds of its centrifuges, and for what?
This claim simply isn’t true! The State Department has said that the highest level of uranium enrichment is 3.67% .
R4: Cheap Oil is beneficial for the U.S.
The influx of cheaper crude oil has translated to lower costs for U.S. consumers. On an annual basis, it will increase the real income of the average American household by approximately 3% . This “oil dividend” has benefited the American economy.
Allowing Iran to join the international economy will provide cheaper oil. This will benefit U.S. consumers and the economy at large. Firms will have lower input costs. Only oil producers will suffer, but this is simply the consequence of supply and demand readjusting to prices.
R5: A “Middle Ground” Between Israel and Iran
Israel has nuclear weapons , and Iran was willing to take any cost to develop their own. No degree of international isolation, no bleeding from its economy, no threat to its survival would convince it otherwise. Even the modest development on Iran’s side irritated Israel, but the pact reaches a middle ground of sorts. Iran is allowed to have peaceful nuclear energy, while Israel retains its nuclear arsenal.
In the absence of this pact, Iran would have nuclear weapons and this could provoke disastrous consequences for region.
R6: Renegotiating the Deal
Pro says that we can simply renegotiate the deal. This isn’t feasible.
As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has said, “The Iran nuclear deal has been championed by the president of the United States, every one of America’s European friends and countless other countries around the world. If Congress rejects the deal… we will lose political capital.”
The deal has been agreed to by the United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, and multiple other nations. We can’t simply fail the deal and start over.
Iran is very close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, and if we fail the agreement, we will be handing it to them.
 The World Factbook. Version 7.02. Electronic Application. 2014.
Contention 1: Iranian Support of international terrorism.
My opponent claims that I am incorrect, but that is not true as evidence from Wednesday that Iranian backed Hamas had recieved $500 million from Iran and had launched a bombardment of rockets at Israel from Golen Heights.  This coming just a little over a month after the breaking of the Iran Nuclear deal and it is not a huge suprise that this would occur as I have been warning of this the entire debate and now it occurs just two days ago to prove my point.
Though Syria may look like a lost cause, but there is a mounting pile of evidence that shows other wise. With ISIS on the rise the Iranian intervention can easily serve Syria's best interest as they control most of Eastern Syria. Putin and the Iranians have pledged to support the Syrians despite any Western involement. Though it may be against Western interests to support Al-Asaad it is in their interests to take out Syria which can be a key involvement for Iran though their motives are different. 
Contention 2: Iran is a threat to the US.
"The nuclear program is one issue that we"re hoping to be able to halt, but also we see that Iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism," [John] Brennan said on Fox News Sunday. "And so what we have to do is to continue to keep pressure on Iran and to make sure that it is not able to continue to destabilize a number of the countries in the region." 
John Brennan, CIA director has reported that regardless of the deal, Iran will continue to fund terrorism and we need to keep the pressure on them before they continue to harm the US on this matter. Obama himself conceded on the matter that with some of this money will most likely be going to state sponsored terror in Syria or Yemin.  Critics have found that even if Iran uses 60% on roads Iran is going to fund terror. Hezbollah leader has even confirmed this himself saying that, "A rich and strong Iran" will be able to stand by its allies and friends, and the peoples of the region, especially the resistance in Palestine, more than in any time in the past." 
My opponent claims that he couldn't find anything on the US having to protect Iran, but if I can direct your attention to page 142, we can see that the US and all Western Allies have to protect Iran and their nuclear facilities even against Israel.
My opponent claims that Iran is a very weak military power in the middle east, but if we look at Global Fire Power, a military strength measuring webstie, that according to the CIA that Iran is the 2nd strongest military power in the middle east only behind Israel. Saudi Arabia is third with war torn Syria at forth showing you the weakness of the militaries in the middle east. 
Contention 3:Iran is close to getting the bomb.
"Anyone can be trained to do the sampling," said Robert Kelley, the former director of the IAEA nuclear inspections in Iraq in 1992 and again in 2001. But what is more difficult to learn, he said, is how to spot machines and processes that point to militarization of nuclear material. "They [the inspectors] could come out and be questioned about the site and not have any idea about what they saw." 
Despite the IAEA being able to inspect Iran we can still see that the IAEA won't be able to inspect Iran properly. We can see that even though the IAEA is able to inspect Iranian soil, but even if they were to inspect something "suspicious" they wouldn't even know what they were looking at and Iran can easily be enriching Uranium and the world would just let it happen.
My opponent is misquoting me. I state that they enriched up to 20% before the deal and what makes us think that we can trust Iran in this case?  I have shown in my previous rounds that despite UN and US sanctions the Iranians continued to enrich. Why should we trust Iran to follow through? For all we know is that Iran has either already has the bomb or that they won't follow through. If Russia or China disapproves of the "snapback" there won't be any repercussions outside of the US placing sanctions on Iran which Congress has threatend Iran with.
Contention 4: Oil harming the US
My opponent doesn't understand the long term market. Yes, the oil glut will lower prices of many US goods, but in the long run it hurts US. Why is this you may ask? It for the simple fact that it would force many domestic producers and when OPEC begins to tighten the spicek later the US will suffer.  OPEC has stepped up their competition recently due to the emerging of the US drilling again. This is an attempt of them to drive the US out of the oil business leading to higher prices in the long run. Iran's flooding of the market will only harm the US in the long run despite some cheaper goods in the short run. My opponent wants to stop Iran now without worrying in the long run.
Contention 5: Middle Ground
We have to observe that even though Iran wants to get equal nuclear footing with Israel we cannot allow this. As soon as Israel was an independent country much of the Islam world began to fight it. Much of the direct fighting has ended only because Israel had developed Nuclear weapons to scare off the other nations. There has been a decent amount of peace since then. The 6 Day war showed this to a great extent as the war ended once the Middle East discovered Israel's nuclear capability. We cannot allow Iran to get nuclear power as I have shown above that it will only result in Iran getting the bomb and increasing war against Israel.
Contention 6: Renegotiating the Deal.
My opponent is worrying over renegotiating this deal except we have to see that Congress has renegotiated over 200 Treaties in the past and this one would be no different. To further this Congress wouldn't be rejecting the deal, just reworking some of its framework. This already disproves my opponent's impact here. The US can renegotiate and fix all the issues that I have talked about and even completely get rid of the Iranian nuclear power and allow Turkey to become a power in the Middle East. This would also get them closer into the EU which the nation has wanted to but just failed to accomplish. 
Thank you Lannan for this great debate.
R1: Iran and Terrorism
I agree with Pro that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. They fund groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria’s military dictatorship.
The Iran nuclear deal will give Iran a windfall of approximately $30 billion. Iran could use this wealth to support its terrorist proxies.
The situation suggests a different outcome though.
Iran could fund its terrorist allies. The people of Iran though are going to expect a dividend from this pact, and if Iran acknowledges its weak economy, awful infrastructure, budget shortfalls, product shortages and so forth… Iran will probably use most of its windfall on domestic priorities. That’s why the CIA reaffirmed this hypothesis, and that’s why Iran’s President Rouhani has planned to do just that.
R2: Iran’s hostility to American interests
Preventing a Nuclear Iran
I agree with Pro that a nuclear Iran is against America’s interests. It would further expand the contagion of nuclear proliferation, potentially destabilize a region that provides us with significant energy resources, and it would threaten our allies such as Israel.
There are two paths that lay ahead of the U.S. The U.S. could accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. The U.S. could also accept an Iran with heavy restrictions on its peaceful nuclear energy activities.
If Iran is a threat to U.S. interests – and we can both agree that it is – it is preferable for Iran to have no nuclear weapons, especially if we can seal a deal that makes this the case.
Must the U.S. Defend Iran?
The annex that Pro references is a muddy area. It commits the U.S. and other states to “protect and respond to nuclear security threats.” If Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities would the U.S. have to defend Iran?
This argument demands consideration. Secretary of State John Kerry was ambiguous saying
“I don’t see any way possible that we would be in conflict with Israel … we just have to wait until we get until that point.” 
If we assume that yes the U.S. will protect Iran’s nuclear facilities this would only apply if the nuclear facilities were only processing low-enriched uranium. If Iran were to somehow enrich weapons-grade uranium, the pact would become null and void and the annex would be irrelevant.
Iran has a considerable military in the context of the Middle East.
However, the same reference shows that Israel’s military strength is about 50% greater than Iran’s (the spread in the “PwrIndx” is equivalent to the difference between the U.S. military and Turkey’s).
Thus Iran’s military may appear strong on paper, but several factors must be considered:
R3: Iran is Close to a Nuclear Bomb
“We cannot allow Iran to get nuclear power… [this] will only result in Iran getting the bomb”
Iran is already producing high-enriched uranium. They could produce a nuclear weapon by November 2015. The Iranian nuclear program is running on full speed, and they will be able to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons if we reject the deal.
Furthermore, the State Department has committed that “Iran will ship all of its spent fuel from [its nuclear] reactor[s]” .
The quote the IAEA Director himself:
“The arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way. The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement.” 
The IAEA has the ability to inspect all stages of the nuclear supply chain, whether it is nuclear facilities, uranium mines, centrifuge production facilities, or suspicious sites.
If Iran were to try and hide nuclear activities, it would be nearly impossible because radioactive traces remain present in the environment for a lengthy period of time.
Downgrading Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities
The pact places a multitude of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program that make it impossible for it to acquire or develop a nuclear weapon within the context of the pact. This is why the deal is so important.
If Iran violates the treaty, the dispute goes to the U.N. Security Council. If the U.S. can’t pass a resolution, all sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council automatically kick back into effect 30 days later.
Russia and China can’t do anything to stop this. They could introduce a new resolution to cancel the sanctions permanently, but the U.S. would veto this, nothing would be accomplished, and the snapback would kick in. If the U.S. introduced a resolution to say increase the rate of IAEA inspections and China and Russia vetoed it, no resolution would be passed and by default the snapback would kick back in.
We can’t trust Iran. They aren’t America’s friend. That is why we have stringent provisions on the table that will make it nearly impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
R4: Iran’s Oil and the U.S. Economy
If Iran is allowed to increase the aggregate supply of crude oil in the international market, it would lower the prices for a wide multitude of goods and services. This is beneficial for the economy at large and for the consumer. The U.S. producers will find ways to react.
We trade with China even though they produce a significant quantity of consumer goods. We trade with South Korea even though they are a major producer of automobiles and heavy industrial products. Trade spurs creative destruction, which ultimately benefits the economy in the long run.
R5: Renegotiating the Deal
“The U.S. can renegotiate… and allow Turkey to become a power in the Middle East”
Iran is willing to sacrifice its economy and health for its nuclear weapons program. This is heavily influenced by the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons program. They want some level of equality. That is why they have been undeterred in their quest to developing a nuclear weapon.
I suppose we could renegotiate the deal, but that seems unlikely given the fact that many European nations, all other countries in the U.N. Security Council, and other nations have already agreed to the treaty. It seems like the opportunity for renegotiating the deal has passed.
A Better Deal?
Even if we were to renegotiate the deal, it seems incredibly unlikely that we could get anything better. It’s hard to envision that we could pressure Iran to give up the bulk of its nuclear weapons program, to give up its entire capacity to produce nuclear weapons, to allow open and robust inspections, and to furthermore concede that we are keeping many sanctions in place (with regards to human rights abuses, terrorism, etc.). The current treaty has all of these elements and more.
When it comes to getting our hostages back, it would be most feasible to get them back home through different pieces of statecraft.
The U.S. should approve the Iranian nuclear deal. I’ll restate the merits of the pact:
Downgrading Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities
Heavy Enforcement Provisions
Given all of these provisions – Iran is prevented from developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon. If we reject the deal, Iran will have nuclear weapons. It is in America’s best interests to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state, and this deal will do this. The Iran nuclear deal benefits the U.S., and the resolution is negated.
Any arguments without references were sourced in previous rounds.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|