The United States should implement a soft partition in Iraq.
That is the topic for public forms. I already did a novice tournament for it and now i want to go to a varsity debate. Any ideas for the soft partion or against it would be greatly appreciated.
Thx
Haha, gotta love PF. Um, you do realize that in varsity, the topic changes. The varsity topic (it was posted on the NFL website) is...hmm, don't remember the exact wording, but...
Resolved: The United States government should prioritize the elimination of the budget deficit over increased domestic spending.
As for the novice topic, if you still want some ideas, well, in the rounds I was judging, the neg brought up the example of India in the idea that soft partition doesn't work, while other rounds argued the soft partition was the best way to avoid civil bloodshed. Neg also focuses on the differences in peoples and religions that make it impossible for a smooth central government to be effective. Aff can stress equality of oil shares and democratic unity--tie it in to the U.S. system of state and federal governments.
Well, good luck! If you want stuff on the varsity topic, just ask!
Ah thx then. Yah those points that u mention i touched briefly on it. What work well for me was using the Articles of Confederation for neg becuase of how it doesnt work when u limit the federal power. As for the varsity tournament, the one im going to is going to use that one. Anyways thx for the information helps me out alot since this is my first year in debate.
alohafromavalon wrote:The United States should implement a soft partition in Iraq.
That is the topic for public forms. I already did a novice tournament for it and now i want to go to a varsity debate. Any ideas for the soft partion or against it would be greatly appreciated.
Thx
There should be no partition in Iraq.
The "Israel-Palestine Conflict" is still a conflict. To this day, the Palestinians are fighting to get back what was confiscated from them; there is still war, still terrorism and murder, and displacement of civilians.
The partitioning of India fared no better. How many hundreds of thousands died? How many were tortured, murdered, and displaced, & what ethnicity was it that suffered most? Muslims.
In the Balkans, partitioning, and the Dayton Peace, created a greater disparity between the Serbs, Muslims, & Croats. Many people died, were expelled, or fled from their country. In an article in the NY Times, by Chris Hedges, he writes from the words of Bosnia's former Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic,- "A Bosnia divided along ethnic lines will endanger peace in the region & Europe."
In Iraq, the Shi'ites have more power (in Baghdad), and the will to dominate the other 2/3 of the partition.
Partitioning, even used as a euphemism by calling it "soft" is a temporary solution at best. When Europe, America, or any country thinks they can change the ethnicity of a place they have chosen to "colonize, the only thing they do is create the perfect grounds for destabilization.
If history repeats itself, why does it do so? Apparently, everybody thinks their plan is different & better. Partitioning will not work. It will just give us an out, and the result of that "out" will take some of the heat off America, although I have read that the Bush administration is not sold on this idea of partitioning - smart move.