The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

iran deal is a mistake

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 77790
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




iran has around a few weeks to grant access to sites. this has been shown to be a sufficient amount of time to hide wrongful activity. this means iran will be getting stronger economically with less sanctions, but also has the possiblility to get ahead with nuclear actions as well


I would like to graciously accept your debate challenge. I appreciate this opportunity, especially as this is my first-ever debate on this platform.
I will be arguing that the agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran was not by any means a mistake, as this appears to be your argument. If you have any clarifications, feel free to offer them in the second round, as you chose to use the first round for your argument rather than to nail down definitions and eliminate vagueness.
I will be using historical precedent, the analysis of those relatively well-informed in the field and of course, information directly of the deal itself to argue my case that the deal signed between the United States and Iran was not, in fact, a mistake.
Debate Round No. 1


con should have just started debating instead of just leading up to it. he also needs to respond to my points about a few weeks to hide wrongful activity.


What I wished to do in the first round was provide you with an opportunity to clarify, as you set up your argument and indeed, overall debate, with so little specificity that one can argue the entire argument based solely on what you have overlooked. I need to rebut nothing in the first round, rather I aimed to accept and clarify.

However, I will present my argument, as you refused to clarify whatsoever and made no new points.

A mistake, according to Collins English dictionary, is either '1. an error or blunder in action, opinion, or judgment' or '2. a misconception or misunderstanding'. The deal between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a mistake, as it was carefully deliberated by both parties and did not incorporate any misconception, misunderstanding, error or blunder.

From the perspective of the United States, the few additional weeks in which to 'hide wrongful activity' is largely irrelevant, as Iran has been able to develop a sophisticated nuclear programme for several years largely unimpeded ( - was the deal not enacted, Iran would have boundless years in which to hide unlawful nuclear development, rather than several weeks. Furthermore, Iran will only receive the benefits of the deal once they are able to sufficiently prove that hey have met the requirements established for demonstrating their constrained nuclear programme, so there is therefore effectively a maintenance of the status quo for the period in which Iran has made no demonstrable change. In other words, should Iran fail to meet the standards set, there is no benefit to Iran, whereas if Iran meets the standards, there is benefit to Iran and the P5+1.

From the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran, their nuclear programme must take priority behind that of their economic development, making it very clear that the deal is in no way a poor decision nor a mistake. Amazingly, you at no point specified for whom you believe the deal is a mistake, so even if the deal was detrimental for the United States, which I have effectively proved it is not, then it would still not be considered a mistake. I would also like to point out that 'iran... getting stronger economically' is actually not a negative event for the United States, as Iran is a potential trade partner for the United States. Furthermore, the increased trade of Iranian oil should depress oil prices worldwide, having a very large positive net effect on the American economy (

Finally, I would like to establish that sanctions are typically detrimental in their effect on the global economy, and rarely effective in achieving their purpose. The sanctions the West established against Iran had the effect of causing many to blame the West for Iran's economic hardship, further destabilising the regime ( The sanctions against Cuba did not succeed in toppling the Castro regime, and the sanctions against North Korea unilaterally enacted by the majority of the Western world did not prevent North Korea from developing a sophisticated and successful nuclear programme. Sanctions are also a form of economic protectionism, preventing free trade, and are effectively economically inefficient, as was well-established by the work of Milton Friedman. The most efficient global economy is one with no trade barriers and an unimpeded free market.

You have not met any of the Burden of Proof, nor have you even made a salient argument. Rather, all you have done is criticised me in the third person for attempting to show proper form and repeated your previous sole point. I would also like to recommend this style guide ( for future reference.
Debate Round No. 2


con says a deal is better than nothing. but without a deal, they don't have economic stimulus. with a deal, they get richer, while still being able to build a nuclear program.


Pro's final rebuttal dropped my contention refuting the negative impact of the deal with Iran and missed the point entirely. I didn't say a deal was better than nothing - I said there was no potential harm from the deal, as not enacting the deal maintains the status quo that would exist was there no deal, whereas enacting the deal provides economic stimulus ONLY IF the conditions that demonstrate that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon are met.
In short, without a deal, they continue to build a nuclear programme unimpeded whilst relatively impoverished and the global economy detrimentally affected by the reduced supply of Iranian oil. However, with a deal, they either enact the conditions specified, reducing or eliminating their ability to complete a nuclear weapon, whilst the global economy experiences the benefits of reduced sanctions.

Pro also totally ignored my second round contention that the entire phrasing of the argument means, that even if the agreement proves beneficial for Iran but not the United States, which I have conclusively proved is not in the offing, the deal is still not a mistake, as a mistake has a specific definition and Pro at no point defined who he or she was trying to contend it was a mistake for. As Pro has dropped this contention as well, Pro has been demonstrated to agree that it is impossible to define the deal between P5+1 and Iran as a mistake even should it not prove particularly beneficial for P5+1. As a premediated action for behind which there is a clear and justified rationale, and as the result of a drawn-out process rather than an hasty decision, the deal is clearly not a mistake in any sense of the two definitions that I introduced in Round 2 and that Pro has chosen to not to rebut, therefore demonstrating that Pro agrees with those (incontrovertibly accurate) definitions.

I would also like to point out that Iran is not in fact receiving economic stimulus - rather, they are simply being returned their own, earned assets currently frozen in P5+1 countries ( Sanctions are also being lifted, which has an undeniably positive effect on the global economy, particularly the United States, the world's second largest oil consumer. Pro has dropped my contention as to the demonstrated economic harm of sanctions, implying that Pro tacitly agrees that economic sanctions have a net harm on the global economy.

Pro has also used no sources whatsoever, indicating that they can meet none of the Burden of Proof.

To conclude, Pro has dropped all of my main contentions from Round 2, as well as having failed to rebut the one contention that he or she attempted to rebut in Round 3. I believe I have conclusively established that there is no potential harm from the Iran deal in excess of that was there no deal, whereas I have also established the numerous benefits of the deal should it be successful. I believe myself to have thoroughly met the Burden of Proof through extensive use of balanced sources.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago

"Iran isn't chanting 'Death to America'"... No? Minority? What about their supreme leader?

I don't believe you really understand how the deal works. Iran will get a nuclear weapon, the deal only attempts to postpone that outcome. Where the deal supporters get this notion that war is inevitable if the deal is nixed? This is a fallacy of limited choices. If the deal is nixed, everyone goes back to the bargaining table and hopefully we get a better deal that has the promise of peace ( Besides, I believe that it is more likely that we will go to war if the deal is struck.

This deal is a mistake and I hope it dies in Washington. I wish Dairy had given this debate the effort that it deserved and I wish I had the time to challenge CON.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
bballcrook21, you do understand we are the nation that held hands with the Saudi Prince not long ago and is far worst than Iran, right?

Also, Iran isn't chanting "death to America"! They all cheered at the progress of the deal. They were all happy. The ones chanting death are the small minority, and if any, to the Republicans who would rather stop Iran from getting a nuke via war instead of a peace deal that helps both nations vs just blood shed.

But I'm glad you are one of the people who can at least be honest and open of your bias and prejudice to people and how it changes your view on it.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
The main reason I find the deal to be a complete and utter mistake is because I cannot stand Iran at all. We should not be making deals with an obese bearded clown who sits on his chair of oppression and calls us the "arrogant" U.S. I do not know many details about what the Iran deal does, but I just do not like Iran, or any other Muslim country for that matter.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
"Iran deal is a mistake"?!?!

It is not up to you, and now it seems the US Congress has no power to vote on it. Obama and the UN are in control.

You got to love that "fundamental change."
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
For once I actually agree with you.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 2 years ago
I am excited for this debate! I would join if I were pro!!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 2 years ago
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: Con had an actual argument and sources. Pro's argument I could read in an instant. No basis, no rebuttal, just a plain rehash of what other people spout. Con wins the debate by a long shot. Pro presented no knowledge of the debate topic.
Vote Placed by Berend 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con provided better rhetorical arguments while siting sources of relevance. Sadly, Pro is one of the people who argues against the Nuclear Deal without any actual knowledge on it. Con provided better grammar and had better conduct. From the start, Pro should understand you make an opening comment and then you delve into others, instead he almost demanded Con tear Pro's opening comment apart. That isn't really how this debating goes, at least without clarification. The winner on my vote; Con.