Debate_man247

In my view, the benefits of the Paris Climate Agreement and Iran Nuclear deal far outweigh any potential downsides. These agreements are important in addressing some of the biggest challenges facing our world today, including climate change and nuclear weapons proliferation. By working together with other countries to address these issues, the US can benefit from improved international cooperation and stability, as well as reduced global tensions. These agreements are crucial for securing a safe, sustainable, and prosperous future for the world. Whether or not the Constitution requires that Congress ratify these agreements, I think that it is important for the US to engage in both the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear deal for our world to be a better place, by tackling some of the biggest global issues facing today. If the US engaged in these meaningful agreements, it could lead to a more peaceful and sustainable future for the world by working to prevent dangerous effects of climate change, and reducing the risk of nuclear conflict. By the US taking a more active role in these areas, it could also help set an example for other countries to follow. Ultimately, engaging in these important agreements is the right thing to do, and it is also in the US's best interests.

I would agree that it is important for Congress to pass binding resolutions on important issues like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal. This would help to ensure consistency in US foreign policy, and prevent leaders from using these issues as political talking points for elections. However, there is a potential downside of such a policy, as giving Congress binding authority over these issues could give them too much power and could limit the flexibility of the executive branch in responding to changing foreign policy situations. Ultimately, it is important for Congress and the executive branch to work together to find a balance that allows for both consistency and adaptability.

It is difficult to accurately judge someone's intelligence from their actions alone. However, with President Trump's behavior and decisions, I do not think it would be fair to call him a person of great intelligence. One of the key things to look for in judging someone's intelligence is their critical thinking and decision-making skills, and judging from his decisions as president, I would argue that Trump's critical thinking and decision-making skills are not of the highest quality. For example, he has made countless irrational and impulsive decisions, including his decisions to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and Iran Nuclear Deal.

US debt has not caused us a problem in the past, but it could start to cause problems in the future if it continues to grow. The US government borrows money to finance a whole range of activities, such as infrastructure, defense, and social welfare programs. This borrowing is done by selling securities to investors, both domestically and internationally. If US debt continues to grow at the current rate, it could eventually become a problem and affect our ability to make financial commitments. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor and manage the US debt and make sure it is sustainable in the long term.

From a purely materialist perspective, religion may not be necessary or advantageous to the future. Religion can often promote values and beliefs that are not based on pure materialism or facts. It could also lead to unnecessary conflicts and disputes between different religions and belief systems. From a purely materialist perspective, it would be better if people could focus solely on material advancement and ignore religion altogether. However, there is no way to know for sure if the future will have religion or not, as it is a subjective and personal question that can be seen in different ways by different people.