I recently joined the debate team for my highschool. Before I get too deep into it, I would really like to know some tactics for debating tho... I would very much like to win every one...lol...wouldnt we all

When I was debating, I found it was very helpful to draw up a general sketch of my argument with a few key points that I wanted to raise. If you're not going first, then take notes! Making mincemeat out of an opponent's arguments can be extremely effective - just make sure you know what you're talking about, otherwise you'll get pummelled yourself.

so i should take specific details and if there's something that they make a mistake about, then rub it back in their face? lol

Basically, yes. But in a more civilized fashion

lol, i figured

Well, it just wouldn't be proper if you didn't. Formal debates seem to be diminishing in numbers recently (I mean in general, not just on SFN).

lol, thats true. Though I wish there were more now. lol. But i really do want to win my debates...the last time I debated, i didnt know much about it...i still say I won, but the outcome was debatable...and we did...

Go read Franc28's posts on the religion forum.....

 

....That's how not to do it.

I had a debate recently, and the other side used one sneaky tactic: The people not participating were going to vote on it, so the other side went around telling them how bad it was and all that. Then they never brought it up in the debate and we couldn't debunk it, so then they won, since the other people thought all that was true. Of course it wasn't.

 

Argh.

lol, thats low, I'll remember that...thanks. What happens when I am forced to debate for a topic which I am totally against? How do I go about opposing it?

just contradict the guy all time. like in the monty python's argument skit.

(one of) The best tactic(s) in a debate? Don't just focus on your own argument. Listen to your opponent.

As I hear the national debate topic is wheter or not the US should found a foreign policy to substancially increase support for UN peacekeeping...whats everyone's opinion on that?

Personally, I think US foreign policy - which is rather akin to "let's police force the world becuase we're a superpower" - needs a radical overhaul.

 

Maybe they should start actually paying attention to the UN (like they didn't before all of the fighting broke out) before putting some policy in there.

true...the un peacekeeping force is kinda a joke so far...they're basically the mall security of the world, as NATO is a greater policing force, lol

I'm talking about the US's general attitude towards the UN; the way the entire security council was ignored when it came to Iraq was rather unpleasent. I'm not an expert by any means, but I found it quite appauling.

neither am i but i hope to thoroughly understand the topic and see both sides of it!

true...the un peacekeeping force is kinda a joke so far...they're basically the mall security of the world, as NATO is a greater policing force, lol

 

Just because the UN efforts don't make it onto CNN does not mean they are ineffective.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that you can't judge the value of a force that is intended to maintain peace by comparing it with your own force, which is designed to roll in and blow shit up, what has the effectiveness of the UN Peacekeeper forces got to do with whether or not the USA adheres to UN law and mandates?

the UN peacekeeping force isnt really a structured alliance...It is not well run, and not well maintained. compairing it to any one of the larger country's forces, would be a no-brainer. Take for instance Somalia...they basically went in there, with good intentions to stand between two warring forces, and stumbled over themselves...So I think that they could use all the support they can get...I mean there's no use in leaving them as they are, so we (along with the rest of the world) could help out more...especially the US! God knows that we havnt been as good to the UN as we should be; it's good to have friends!

First, I still don't see what the USA's behaviour towards the UN has to do with the Peacekeepers. Can you not make the distinction between the two?

 

Second, as I already said, the Peacekeepers are NOT the same as an army. Their mandate is quite different. Comparing their performance on mission to that of the American armed forces (for example) is like comparing apples to oranges and deciding they aren't orangey enough.

 

The Somalia situation went downhill because of the complex situation, not because the Peacekeepers were "stumbling over themselves".

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm

 

If memory serves it was the US forces who got smacked around, not the UN.

Take for instance Somalia...they basically went in there, with good intentions to stand between two warring forces, and stumbled over themselves...So I think that they could use all the support they can get...I mean there's no use in leaving them as they are, so we (along with the rest of the world) could help out more...especially the US!

 

Somalia was quite famously the American balls up, not the UN's.

Never allow your opponent lead you into saying anything contrary to your original stance, however they may twist and manipulate your words. stick to your guns!

 

and as Glider said, Listen! don`t be thinking about what to say next while the other guy is talking, you`ll miss out on so much, and probably lose

lol, its funny you should say that, b/c in one of my last debates last year, my partner said something completely the opposite of what I said. I suppose it was a lack of communication, lol, can't let it happen again!

Let's say Im in a debate and Im the 2Aff. How do I know if the Negative's counter plan is topical???

My latest debate is the US establishing a Constabulary force (As a means of greatly increasing US support of UN Peace Keeping Operations- PKO's)

Im on the Aff. position, however I dont know if Im 1A, or 2A.

Anyone have any comments about the topic? Or any arguements that the Neg might use? I want to be ready!

Thansk