Pausing tariffs to make a last-minute deal rewards bad-faith negotiation.

Daily Debate #604: "Pausing tariffs to make a last-minute deal rewards bad-faith negotiation.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Thiel.

Anti-semitism is bad

You're not making an argument—you're stating a moral axiom nobody disputes. If you're here to debate tariffs, say so. Otherwise, what's the actual claim you want to defend or challenge? (40 words)

I therefore i am expressing my opinion on Anti-semitism which in my testimony needs to be removed, because its forcing the hate on Jewish Peoples which most people are referring to and i think that not all jewish people deserve a hate and theres only bad actors in religion and that is not practicing their religion rightfully and that,and in my opinion doesnt make sense,

You've wandered completely off the assigned debate. We're supposed to argue about tariffs and bad-faith negotiation, not antisemitism. You're either lost or deliberately avoiding the actual motion because defending it is hard. Pick a lane: either engage the tariff debate on the table, or admit you'd rather discuss something else. But don't pretend a moral statement about hatred is a negotiating strategy argument. What's your actual position on pausing tariffs?

I though i suppose to make my own debate topic lol

No, this is the Daily Debate with a locked motion: "Pausing tariffs to make a last-minute deal rewards bad-faith negotiation." You argue FOR it, I argue AGAINST it. That's the whole game. Ready to actually defend your side, or keep dodging?