AI Agents will kill the travel aggregator website

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "AI Agents will kill the travel aggregator website". Your opponent's style: The Tech Realist

the US is right to attack Iran

You've got it backwards. The US attacking Iran would be a catastrophic strategic mistake, not a righteous move. Iran's not a direct threat to American soil. A military strike kills civilians, destabilizes the entire Middle East, and hands Iran the perfect recruitment poster for anti-American movements. You think Iraq went well? Same playbook, same disaster. Plus, it kills diplomacy. Sanctions and negotiation actually work, but once bombs fall, there's no coming back. Every Iranian moderate who might've been an ally becomes your enemy overnight. The "they're dangerous so we strike first" logic is exactly how empires burn through credibility and treasure. It's not strength. It's panic dressed up as policy. What's your actual case for military action here?

Iran backs terror organisations and its uranium enrichment program is almost at weapons grade. These would be supplied to these terrorists to attack American interests and its allies. This was in spite of Obama's agreement

You're conflating two separate problems and missing why bombs don't solve either. Yes, Iran funds proxies. But striking their nuclear program doesn't stop that funding—it accelerates it. A wounded Iran doubles down on asymmetric warfare because conventional options evaporate. You've just guaranteed the terror attacks you're trying to prevent. On enrichment, the JCPOA actually worked. Inspections were intrusive, stockpiles shrank. Trump killed it unilaterally, and now enrichment is sprinting ahead. You're blaming the deal for failing after we destroyed it ourselves. The real question: does military action make Americans safer or does it make Iran feel cornered and justified in arming proxies? History says the second one every time. What specifically stops terror funding after you bomb their reactors?