I'm in policy debate, and this year's topic is about having the US support UN peacekeeping operations. My main affirmative focus for at least the first debate I think is going to be about putting geurillas in places like the Congo to justice. Since this is a UN operation, they'd be tried in the ICC. However, my problem comes with capturing these evil doers. Obviously they'd put up a resistance, and I'm trying to keep UN soldier casualties at a minimum. Does anybody have any (serious) at least semi-peaceful ways to capture them and then put them to justice? If I don't have a way to do it the negative is definately going to slam me hard, and I need to have a way to defend it. :\ Just a breif outline would do.

The word-for-word topic:
[quote]Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy sub-stantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. [/quote]

How well armed/funded are you willing to assume these peacekeepers to be?  As in, are they hoping they'll have functioning guns, or are you giving them the full technical arsenal available to today's military (including "special forces" training/gear)?  I ask since you refer to "UN soldier casualties", implying that some or all of the soldiers are not U.S. forces, and therefore will have different training backgrounds (and possibly different equipment) from U.S. military standard issue.  Next, consider what level of environmental damage you're willing to advocate.  For instance, it'd be lots easier to catch people hiding in a jungle if you level the jungle first, but that's a bit overkill (and will probably leave you open to the negative debaters for all the wildlife you destroyed).  Also consider whether you're willing to advocate inflicting non-fatal wounds on the guerrillas as a necessary part of their capture (possibly including firing before they fire upon the peacekeepers).

The problem with the UN is that its as capable at keeping world peace as a retarded quadrapalegic is at becoming an astronaut. The way that the system is set up is ridiculous. I have stated time and again that with the UN Security Council, if one of the five permenant members, that is the US, Britain, France, Russia, or China, vote against a military action then the action is considered dead and cannot be UN sanctioned. As long as the UN is at the mercy of this system it will be dysfunctional. The UN cannot keep peace because it is not willing to back up it's "resolutions." Anybody remember the decade that was the Clinton era, a total lack of UN action in support of its resolutions against Iraq?

The ICC is also a joke. Qadafi has been on trial in the ICC for over a decade, and they can't come to a simple conclusion. It's ridiculous.

I'm allowed to suggest any means of funding, but I'll probably stick to 'normal funding' since I'm sure the UN has enough money to send forces to x place and have them equipped in proper gear. I'll do more research on if the UN peace keepers have UN training and standard issued guns (I assume they do). Last year my school suggested a toilet paper tax for something they proposed, a 1cents tax on all toilet paper sold in the US would bring us about 600million dollars in a year. So, if the standard funding isn't enough I'll think of another plan for that.

I'd like to keep enviromental damages at a minimum, as well as enemy casualties. Both of those would leave me open to argument and I'd rather keep exploits in my argument at a minimum. I'll have to go for a 'fair and just' trial etc, to appease them and keep it peaceful. I don't think there'd be a problem with opening fire first either. I don't know how specific I have to be with my plan, but I should probably include the type of equipment I'd need and amount of troops I'd need.

[quote]The problem with the UN is that its as capable at keeping world peace as a retarded quadrapalegic is at becoming an astronaut. The way that the system is set up is ridiculous. I have stated time and again that with the UN Security Council, if one of the five permenant members, that is the US, Britain, France, Russia, or China, vote against a military action then the action is considered dead and cannot be UN sanctioned. As long as the UN is at the mercy of this system it will be dysfunctional. The UN cannot keep peace because it is not willing to back up it's "resolutions." Anybody remember the decade that was the Clinton era, a total lack of UN action in support of its resolutions against Iraq?

The ICC is also a joke. Qadafi has been on trial in the ICC for over a decade, and they can't come to a simple conclusion. It's ridiculous. [/quote]

I agree, but during my affirmative debates (2/4) I need to pretend that the we're God, and we own everything. For example, if I argued that we should outlaw guns in say the Congo, I'd have be the gun king, the black market wouldn't exist there'd be no way for them to get illicit guns.

Affirmative isn't going to be my strong point, the debate coach said I'd be good at negative since it's more or less just tearing their argument apart. I need to be prepared for stuff for my affirmative case though since the debate coach teacher lady said that I'm the second speaker. The second speaker does all of the arguing, my partner just reads our introduction at the beginning or something like that.

This weekend I plan to go buy 'The Asylum' which I think will help me tear apart the UN's crediibility in my negative debates. It explains the inner workings and how US resolutions almost always fail to get passed in there. It also exposes the money trails leading to terrorist organizations and dictators like Saddam. :D

Is that the national debate topic? I heard it was something like more us bucks to support the un. I am not for giving the un more money, I am on the negative side of the issue. Our class is not going to do the national debate topic. Instead our instructer has all these lame debates dreamed up about interpretation of the laws. Its pretty lame! Logic debate just eliminates the whole element of preparation.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=topic=9032.msg83498#msg83498 date=1097110646]
Is that the national debate topic? I heard it was something like more us bucks to support the un. I am not for giving the un more money, I am on the negative side of the issue. Our class is not going to do the national debate topic. Instead our instructer has all these lame debates dreamed up about interpretation of the laws. Its pretty lame! Logic debate just eliminates the whole element of preparation.
[/quote]

Yes, that's the national policy debate topic. (Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy sub-stantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations.)

I asked my instructor and she said I could either talk about peace keeping operations or funding. I'm against more funding to the UN pretty much, so I'm doing peace keeping operations. Apparently, I like bombs too much. I was going to do North Korea, and she asked me what my resolution would be. I said, well, since the UN's current action is peaceful, and we need to have an original one, I'd just bomb them. Later, I said the same about North Korea, and I wanted to put all the guerillas to unfair trials that ended up giving them the death penalty or killing them in combat. Later we were walking up stairs and I asked to take the elevator, she responded 'no, why don't we just bomb the elevator.' :P
OK, I forget where I was going with that so nevermind. ;)

I'm assuming what your instructer was talking about is Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate. Does it have to do with giving up privacy for security and stuff?

We are not doing all lincoln douglas, we will do some, but we have been doing team debate. I have not been in the debate class for long so I do not know the proper terms for teams of 2 and teams of four. Only problem with our teacher is she a turbo lib and she really dislikes my political views. My two friends and myself are the group of people she gets pissed at because when she goes off on a political tangent we are always the ones to raise our hands and say what about this, what about this, no that can't be true, its not logical, etc.

We only have lincoln douglas and policy. LD is one on one, and policy 2v2.

ah, I see. Well in that case I am working on a lame policy debate too about the spirit of the law. Horrible horrible topic, the teacher even said its horrible but she had assigned it so we will go through with it. Its a damn logic debate! Grrr. I have to write a constrctive speach which needs to be about 3.5 pages long to be about the right time (she says) and we have absolutly no research. This debate is going to be pushing bs to new heights.