November Public Forum Debate topic:

[Natasia_Vae]

I've been doing public forum debate in school and here is our November topic.

Resolved: That participating in multinational diplomatic efforts is beneficial to U. S. interests.

If anyone would like to share any information I'd really appreciate it. :)

[Neevil]

I've been doing public forum debate in school and here is our November topic.

Resolved: That participating in multinational diplomatic efforts is beneficial to U. S. interests.

If anyone would like to share any information I'd really appreciate it. :)
I'm taking debate this year! :D It's lots of fun, although right now I'm really confusedm because it's a lot of new stuff to learn. Could be a little more specific about your debate? The type of debate that I'm doing is value debate, meaning, that you choose a value (love, justice, truth, ect.) that supports the resolution. Our resolution for this year is actually very similar to yours. It is, Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate significant external conflict. So, could you be a little more specific? and what kind of information were you looking for?

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

What diplomatic efforts. We have a war. It seems the best diplomatic efforts are behind a gun. I don't see how they were beneficial. We have had how many wars in the Past twenty years. two, three? Either way it shows a lack of Diplomatic effort or failed diplomatic policies.

[Copperfox]

Consider, though, that it was precisely a multinational diplomatic effort which sold out Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, and put Hitler's Germany in a stronger position to continue its aggression.

Isaiah 26:10 warns, "If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness." There are evildoers in this world so stubbornly greedy and aggressive that they will choose to see diplomacy as only weakness on the part of the side that's trying to be diplomatic. Napoleon invaded Russia after pretending to make peace. The United States, to our shame, broke numerous treaties with Native American nations--although it's only fair to add that in some cases the Native Americans broke them first. North Korea at least twice "agreed" to diplomatic solutions regarding its nuclear-weapon ambitions, but in actual practice utterly ignored the agreements. Superior strength and determination is ALL that many rulers respect.

The widespread emphasis on diplomacy is partly due to the "common wisdom" adage that "It takes two to fight." But in "The Return of the King" (the book, not the movie), Lady Eowyn says to her physician, "It takes only one foe to breed a war, not two." And that's true. Most wars throughout history, contrary to Alan Alda's philosophy in "M*A*S*H", have NOT been a matter of two equally-guilty sides managing simultaneously to start fighting--what is implied in the over-used journalistic phrase "Fighting broke out." Most wars have had a clear aggressor, so that if the aggressor had not committed unilateral aggression there would have been no war.

Are you familiar with the weekly national newspaper called "Human Events"? I subscribe to it, and I recommend it highly. Writers of its articles often turn out to be authors of useful history books. Some of these men and women may have material to offer that would help you.

Joseph Ravitts

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

When there is mutual Respect between two peoples peace is most assuredly achievable.

I studied Otto von Bismarck who used War to make modren Germany. He was brilliant. He said this, "Eloquence will not stop an invading army on the border."
Pity the U.N. doesn't know this.

[onlymystory]

I once read a quote that said "Debate with intelligence and victory is questionable. Debate with a gun and victory is guaranteed." It seems in today's world that we give up too soon on diplomatic efforts and resort to violence. My question is whether your debate focuses on truly diplomatic means of involvement or more on whether the US should be responsible to step in and resolve situations like the current one in Sudan. They are two different things. A diplomatic discussion is one thing but that's not going to work with Darfur. That's an area that needs some brute force to come in and solve the bloodshed. Then the problem is whether or not the US is the country to do that or should we be focusing on humanitarian efforts instead.

Oh, and on a mod note I'm going to switch this into the Socratic club for now as its a more serious topic.