Pojonia
09-02-2005, 07:29
So, here's a fun litle side project I'll be working on as my Global Library Reform plans are in the works. In my somewhat limited experience in U.N. Forum Debate, I've discovered a lot of people present some arguments that, while they have a good ideal behind them, are ridiculously underdeveloped and inaccurate. Invariably, some poor nation, generaly DLE or one of the more experienced debators, is forced to correct them over and over again, a practice that develops tedium over time and fills the forums with argumentation that obscures the real issues. So, I'll be working on this list of arguments to better display where the actual reasoning behind such arguments comes from, and how they can, in fact, be properly used. Hopefully, I'll be able to earn a sticky as this gets more and more detailed and we'll have a handy debate reference guide at our hands. Here's two issues that are consistently argued about by debators and some of the valid sides of debate. I'll try to remain as fair to the many sides as I can.
1. National Sovereignty.
An argument used to the point of expiration in the U.N. forums is that of a U.N. resolution affecting our National Sovereignty. The most problematic application of this argument runs along the lines that if the resolution affects the nations ability to choose how to govern its people, it is inherently flawed and must be scrapped immediately.
The Flaws:
Almost every resolution in the history of the U.N. erodes at National Sovereignty. As it specifically says in the United Nations FAQ,
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass.
Your sovereignty is forfeit when you enter the U.N., which is entirely about forcing legislation on other nations in exchange for accepting that forced legislation on your own. Saying that a resolution erodes at national sovereignty is like saying that your pet rabbit is named Sparkles. It’s true, but that’s not something that’s going to sway other debators.
What a debator must do to show the National Sovereignty argument true is to show that a resolution is an entirely unnecessary erosion of sovereignty – that it gives no actual benefits in exchange for limiting each nations sovereignty. For example, a proposal outlawing communism limits government without necessarily providing the benefits it will say it does.
While National Sovereignty is valued, it is not valued over a large portion of other issues - especially those regarding your citizens rights. So unless you think that the resolution or proposal in question constitutes a blatant intrusion into the government with minimal benefits, stay away from arguments of National Sovereignty.
For more information on this subject, you can look here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382003)
2. Separation of Church and State.
Lets look over some of the groundwork for the Separation of Church and State, as a lot of proposals/arguments are given to uphold/reduce it. Here are a few made up questions to fill in the blanks for the uninitiated.
1) What does Separation of Church and State do?
The general theory behind any movement for Separation is to protect the freedom of religion, NOT remove it. By ensuring that governmental law cannot affect religion, governments ensure that each religion is free to practice as they choose. The other purpose of secularism is to ensure religious opinions don’t interfere with governments and attack other religions, for example, an organization illegalizing abortion because of their beliefs or restricting the rights of gays because they feel that they are amoral. Since not all religions agree on issues such as these, government decisions don’t restrict but rather retain legality on these issues so that each religion has its own choice. A church can condemn the practice on its own religion, but cannot get the government to make it illegal. At least, that’s how good separation works.
2) What about bad separation?
Bad separation is when the government goes overboard trying to follow a secularist (belief in separation) plan. For example, when the government starts outlawing religious expression in schools or taking away religious rights from people. Secularism is not generally about censorship, it’s about ensuring that everyone has an equal say regardless of religion. So, when governments start specifically hurting religion under the appearance of secularism, they fail to achieve the effects that are considered beneficial. Atheism is a religion too, by some standards, and the government should not uphold Atheist standards as a method of removing religion completely.
3) Hey, this religion thinks human sacrifice is important for their god! Are we messing with religion to outlaw killing?
No. Governmental law made for specifically nonreligious purposes – I.E. laws that prevent killing, stealing, and are applied to all citizens for good governmental reason - can override religious beliefs. If you outlaw drugs to keep your citizens healthy and a religion uses hallucenogenics, tough cookies for them. If you outlaw killing and they believe they need human sacrifices to survive, you’re going to arrest them anyways. Your laws are not about religion, they are about killing people and smoking grass.
However, a strict separation IS opposed to making special circumstances for a religion – say, letting children of a certain religion not go to school til they are 15 whereas others must go when they are 8, because a religion does not believe in public education as opposed to private. Or, for that matter, letting human sacrifices happen when it is a religious exercise. These exceptions can only be made under a loose and lenient separation.
Finally, here (http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) is a guide to logical fallacies, which should help anyone interested in good debate to dismiss the less logical arguments.
I'll be editing and expanding this as time goes on, please post to tell me what kind of argumentation you want to see on here for easy reference.
1. National Sovereignty.
An argument used to the point of expiration in the U.N. forums is that of a U.N. resolution affecting our National Sovereignty. The most problematic application of this argument runs along the lines that if the resolution affects the nations ability to choose how to govern its people, it is inherently flawed and must be scrapped immediately.
The Flaws:
Almost every resolution in the history of the U.N. erodes at National Sovereignty. As it specifically says in the United Nations FAQ,
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass.
Your sovereignty is forfeit when you enter the U.N., which is entirely about forcing legislation on other nations in exchange for accepting that forced legislation on your own. Saying that a resolution erodes at national sovereignty is like saying that your pet rabbit is named Sparkles. It’s true, but that’s not something that’s going to sway other debators.
What a debator must do to show the National Sovereignty argument true is to show that a resolution is an entirely unnecessary erosion of sovereignty – that it gives no actual benefits in exchange for limiting each nations sovereignty. For example, a proposal outlawing communism limits government without necessarily providing the benefits it will say it does.
While National Sovereignty is valued, it is not valued over a large portion of other issues - especially those regarding your citizens rights. So unless you think that the resolution or proposal in question constitutes a blatant intrusion into the government with minimal benefits, stay away from arguments of National Sovereignty.
For more information on this subject, you can look here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382003)
2. Separation of Church and State.
Lets look over some of the groundwork for the Separation of Church and State, as a lot of proposals/arguments are given to uphold/reduce it. Here are a few made up questions to fill in the blanks for the uninitiated.
1) What does Separation of Church and State do?
The general theory behind any movement for Separation is to protect the freedom of religion, NOT remove it. By ensuring that governmental law cannot affect religion, governments ensure that each religion is free to practice as they choose. The other purpose of secularism is to ensure religious opinions don’t interfere with governments and attack other religions, for example, an organization illegalizing abortion because of their beliefs or restricting the rights of gays because they feel that they are amoral. Since not all religions agree on issues such as these, government decisions don’t restrict but rather retain legality on these issues so that each religion has its own choice. A church can condemn the practice on its own religion, but cannot get the government to make it illegal. At least, that’s how good separation works.
2) What about bad separation?
Bad separation is when the government goes overboard trying to follow a secularist (belief in separation) plan. For example, when the government starts outlawing religious expression in schools or taking away religious rights from people. Secularism is not generally about censorship, it’s about ensuring that everyone has an equal say regardless of religion. So, when governments start specifically hurting religion under the appearance of secularism, they fail to achieve the effects that are considered beneficial. Atheism is a religion too, by some standards, and the government should not uphold Atheist standards as a method of removing religion completely.
3) Hey, this religion thinks human sacrifice is important for their god! Are we messing with religion to outlaw killing?
No. Governmental law made for specifically nonreligious purposes – I.E. laws that prevent killing, stealing, and are applied to all citizens for good governmental reason - can override religious beliefs. If you outlaw drugs to keep your citizens healthy and a religion uses hallucenogenics, tough cookies for them. If you outlaw killing and they believe they need human sacrifices to survive, you’re going to arrest them anyways. Your laws are not about religion, they are about killing people and smoking grass.
However, a strict separation IS opposed to making special circumstances for a religion – say, letting children of a certain religion not go to school til they are 15 whereas others must go when they are 8, because a religion does not believe in public education as opposed to private. Or, for that matter, letting human sacrifices happen when it is a religious exercise. These exceptions can only be made under a loose and lenient separation.
Finally, here (http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) is a guide to logical fallacies, which should help anyone interested in good debate to dismiss the less logical arguments.
I'll be editing and expanding this as time goes on, please post to tell me what kind of argumentation you want to see on here for easy reference.