My topic for the debate is war with iran, and I have been assigned to argue the con side. I wonder if Mr Mcgerry reads our positions, and makes sure we get the opposite side in which we actually support. I know we had talked about that, but I still wonder. IIm not sure if I would consider this the opposite of what I believe, but if Iran really took steps towards attacking the United States, I would definitely be in favor of the US going to war, and I would be the first one to volunteer. It’s hard to be in favor in war now with Iran not really attacking u, just trying to mess with us. I am of course referring to the missle strikes the were intentionally launched to miss the bases, just so the government can say they took action against the United States. I know a good amount of information about this subject, because I kept up with the news and such, because I thought this is a current, very serious issue. A google search of this topic gives you a lot of mixed media. Half of it is recycled news stories that seem like they were passed through all the mainstream media, and the other half is just speculation bullshit meant to get clicks and views. I think the best way to approach this topic logically would be to start by describing the tense relations between Iran and the United States, dating all the way back to the 1950s. Then, I will describe the political unrest in the area, the general unrest in the middle east, all the conflicts that took place there. A simple ethical topic for this issue would be “do we want to lose American lives over this?” or even “Is it the United States’ place to interfere with foreign countries’ matters?” I think I can bring the emotions of fear into play with this argument, and also get some sympathy thrown in there, by making Iran look like the victim, with their leader getting assassinated and such. In all though, I am very excited to get started with this debate process.