Zael needs help with his Politics Coursework :|

[Zael]

Okay, so I have a debate on Monday. The debate is about "Should the US have negotiated with North Korea?" and I have been assigned to the "no" side.

The problem is that the "no" side is quite unpopular, and not even I agree with it, so I have to play devil's advocate here. I really can't find much points to bring up and embellish on, aside from...

- "N. Korea did not follow through on the Agreed Framework concerning nuclear weapons."

- "North Korea is a rogue state that surpresses its people under a brutal dictatorship. Rogue states need to be made pariahs from the international community until they learn to play by the rules." (thanks Mewn)

- "North korea can't even hold agreements with South Korea, so how can we expect them to make agreements with us?"

I also need to think up rebuttals to the other side's points, as well as responses to possible rebuttals.

Really, this side kinda sucks but I really have to do well on this debate. I already bombed the midterm, and bombing this debate will most likely make me fail the course.

Any ideas? I really could use help.

[Parn]

How about the precedent that's set that the United States will only negotiate through force of arms, i.e. arm yourself and you'll be respected in the world (see: Iran in a few more years).

[Mewn]

Difficult to argue the "no" side on this without resorting to warmongering.

Maybe I just am missing the obvious arguments to not negotiate with North Korea (because of my own standpoint on the issue), but I really can't figure out any good reasons not to negotiate.

Hmm, maybe someone on the other side of the fence might help...

[Ketchup345]

Not negotiating is a difficult point to argue.

Some help on some possible viewpoints of the pro-negotiations group though:
Negotiating can buy time to free up and redeploy military forces
Negotiations might work
More world respect

Good luck on this debate.

[Zael]

Thanks, and yes that's what I'm afriad of. The other side having better points that I'll have a hard time rebutting against.

[DurakkenX]

I think your teacher is trying to fail you if this is what you've gotten as a debate...

The only point that you can argue from for this is the ethical standpoint of not negotiating with those who are criminals/terrorists of some kind. There are no other valid points against negotiation.

Using that standpoint all you have to do is think of the positives and rebut all of them with the view of against negotiation with terrorists.

BTW North Korea can be viewed as terrorists/criminals with the things that they have done over the last faw years so it applies.

So your argument should focus on why the positive actions should not be followed due to them going against the belief that it is negotiating with terrorists.

And those reasons have to be found on the internet somewhere as a lot of people subscribe to this...

also if you look at it like N. Korea as a person as most political and business entities are considered you could say that it is exhibiting signs of mental instability and as such there is no way to make an insane person see your point and it makes the argument useless. >.>

[Sinue_v2]

You might want to research some of the politics behind the major decisions of the Cold War, since a lot of similar circumstances arose. Such as the Cuban Missle Crisis. However, while it's true that we did negotiate our way out of the situation - offically we were set to engaged in a first strike policy to take the missles out before they became operational - with the possibility of a full-scale invasion to prevent further missles from being installed. Behind the back door diplomacy, and the "quarantine", this attack (Operation Ortsac) was being prepared for as the offical course of action.

However, the a major difference between North Korea's nukes and Cuba's nukes is that applying pressure to North Korea will likely not trigger russian forces to march on Berlin and herald in an all out nuclear exchange. Were Cuba not backed by the USSR, and had they developed the missles themselves out of fear of invasion via the Bay of Pigs - then I doubt Kennedy would have had little qualms with surgical strikes against the missle sites.

Though you could say that another difference is that N.Korea's nukes are likely not targeted at the US or EU - and thus, do not warrant such strong action against them, remember that we have many Allies in the region who are opposed to N.Korea - and it is our duty to help protect them by ensuring the current balance of power in that regieon. Remember Secretary of State Dean Rusk's words: Appeasement only makes the Aggressor more Aggressive.

Try to find commonalities between other points in US history where we have not negotiated, that have worked out both to our advantage and disadvantage, then compair them to the current sitation in N.Korea.

Another good tactic to use, would be to try to write up a compelling argument FOR negotiations. Try to cover your bases as throughoughly as possible - and then systematically try to refute each and every point. By anticipating your opponents points, you'll be better prepared to refute them both with hard facts and well thought out logic. Your opponent, realising the difficulty of your position, may not prepare fully for your points of contention, or be prepared for your rebuttal to his points. While this is a very difficult position for you to be in initially, it could also turn out to be a solid slam dunk victory in your favor if you prepare adequately.

And if nothing works out for you, you can always fall back on the "Ron White" defence. "Well, Fuck You."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2007-05-19 04:33 ]</font>

[Zael]

Hmm thanks Sinue. That information was really helpful. Hopefully, I can do well on this debate despite being on the unpopular side.

[Sinue_v2]

Not to bump a somewhat old thread or anything, but how did the debate go?

[Zael]

Oh hi! It went pretty well. Turns out the opposing side didn't do as much research as I did, and I was able to anticipate their rebuttals and came up with a quick response to them all. I'm quite releived though, as I was afraid of getting pwnt.

[Sinue_v2]

Cool. Glad it worked out for you! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif