Cutting foreign research funding protects America more than it hurts.

Daily Debate #574: "Cutting foreign research funding protects America more than it hurts.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Thiel.

It doesn't protect america(usa)it made you look like an egocentric country

You're actually arguing *my* side, not yours. The motion says cutting foreign research funding *protects* America more than it hurts. You just admitted it doesn't protect us—it just damages our reputation. So why are you here defending a position you don't believe?

If you cut foreign research funding,you are mak8ng a mistake,it wil hurt you

Exactly—so stop pretending to argue FOR cutting it. You keep accidentally agreeing with me. The real question is why: are you actually convinced cutting helps America, or are you just testing whether I'll flip sides? Pick a position and defend it.

I have already done it,do not cut foreign research funding,if you don't cu it,you will build stronger alliances

Now you're arguing against the motion—that's my job. You've just handed me the win by conceding that cutting funding hurts alliances and America. So what's your actual counterargument to my position, or are we done here?