Iran Deal

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ashwin Ganesh for a lovely debate. This has not only been substantive, but truly enjoyable as well. Now, let me complete my argument of why the Iran Deal was a success. "Of course the United States choosing not to investigate Iran wouldn't be the fault of the deal. However, setting up a situation where the U.S. is obligated to spend time and money on yet another task is not something I'd call a pro." Under the terms of the agreement, it wouldn't be the United States that is subsidizing the investigation of Iran's uranium facilities, it is the United Nations. Since the United States has a lot of power within the United Nations, we would be the ones leading said investigation, but not subsidizing it. "We can't both be cutting off Iran from the nuclear bomb because they hate us and also trying to open up discussions about how we can become friends." Sure we can, although I wouldn't necessarily say "friends". We can stop a country from obtaining nuclear weapons in the interim, while also attempting to improve relations with said country, in efforts to be in less risk of being harmed by them. "My point is that by opening up all of these alleyways, we may have created a bigger threat than we started with." What "we started with" was the threat of being attacked by nuclear weapons. There is no greater threat than that of nuclear weapons. I cannot stress this enough. Not matter what we gave them in return, stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear warheads was a major success because we are keeping our citizens and our country safe. "The US has to decide whether we want to treat Iran as a friend and ally, or as an enemy." Again, this is not a one-sided choice. We don't have to decide one or the other. We can keep ourselves, and other allies, safe from the threat that Iran poses, while also attempting to work with them to ensure that they don't want to pose a threat to us in the first place. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon, but this is clearly not a perfect world. We do have to worry about the threat Iran poses to us, but, through diplomatic efforts, can also strive to make Iran an ally in the future. If not an ally, at least not an enemy. This is a dangerous world. Nuclear weapons make the world many times more dangerous than it already is. Several countries, including the United States and Russia, have acknowledged the destruction of nuclear warfare and of nuclear power. That is why they are attempting to decrease everyone's nuclear stockpiles. Why, if we truly wanted to live in a safer world, would we allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons? Why, if we truly wanted to live in a safer world, would we not attempt improving relations with an enemy? Why, if we truly wanted to live in a safer world, would we refuse to compromise on controversial issues? As I have said throughout this debate, the Iran Deal is not perfect. No compromise, reasonable to both sides, is. But we as a nation have to choose. Do we want to risk the lives of the world's population by allowing dangerous countries to obtain nuclear weapons because we are to ignorant to compromise, or do we want to live in a safer world where nations can work together on issues where they disagree, and they can live without threat of nuclear warfare? Thank you again, Ashwin, for this excellent debate, and I hope the voters can agree than PRO won.