General Ideas

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should increase its diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve internal armed conflicts in West Asia.

Generally speaking, this is one of the better topics I’ve seen given by NSDA. This topic about West Asia is a really good opportunity to discuss and delve into a political landscape not usually explored by debaters. Whether you’re a veteran PFer or this is your first time competing in the event, this topic is both great for new learners and experienced debaters.

Let’s start with the basics.

What are the West Asian countries? The Asia Society tells us that these countries consist of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

The unique thing about this topic is because there are a lot of nations specified within the resolution, we have a lot of opportunity to create specific contention scenarios on either side of the resolution. I think the debaters that will do well on this topic are ones who can navigate the strategy of when to be specific and when to be grand-standing on positions. Though the Line By Line can be fun, intense, and smart, knowing when to take a step back can be both intelligent and strategic, especially in later speeches.

What’s happening in these countries?

• Armenia and Azerbaijan: Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict between these two nations over a shared border containing many ethnic Armenians, which has led to massive unrest

• Saudi and Iran involvement in Iraq: Saudi and Iranian governments support opposing sides of internal conflicts within Iraq. Most of this is caused by ethnic and religious disputes.

• Israel and Palestine: Israel encroachment on Palestinian land is increasing and there is a large amount of violence in this area.

• Saudi Arabia and Yemen: Yemen is in the midst of a large civil war with many international subsidiaries including Saudi Arabia.

Each one of these places is room for the aff or neg to argue for or against the involvement of the US.

Aff Ground

Argument 1: Conflicts

Aff’s prime strategy should be to posit a large amount of scenarios the US can solve. This creates multiple Summary outs which the aff can take. Having independent links for each one of these arguments allows them to get out of NR grouping which also means that the negative will likely mishandle or undercover at least one argument on the aff.

With Yemen, the aff can argue that US diplomacy can help the Houthis and the Government come to an agreement, or a stronger argument, that US sanctioning of arms deals to Saudi Arabia may be able to reduce killings in Yemen.

With Iran the aff can argue that US reinstating the nuclear deal can help decrease the riots and violence in IRan and prevent a possible future civil war. It can also argue that the US forcing Iran to ameliorate its human rights and civil rights, cna help stop a civil war.

Referencing the previous countries mentioned in the “General Info Section,” you may be able to brainstorm new ideas and scenarios for the aff

Argument 2: Climate Change

This argument can have a lot of weight in the round and may help you prevent the debate from being muddled by very awkward and dense literature. The main idea of this argument is that the US can help produce solutions to Climate Change by increasing cooperation with countries. The idea isn’t that the US increasing diplomacy will directly address climate, but in the process of solving armed conflicts, we can produce relationships that solve climate problems in the future.

Contention 3: Democracy

This argument is one that will be read often on this topic. The idea is that US diplomacy in places like Iran can transition autocratic governments to democratic ones. This is in hopes that the US can either strengthen democracy or create democracies to prevent or end current armed conflicts. For example, there is ample evidence that in Iran, current turmoil can lead to a civil conflict, the aff can argue that the US involving itself to resolve this conflict results in more democracy. Beware, however the neg may very well respond to this by arguing that the US has a bad track record of improving democracy and fighting dictatorships in the Middle East.

Neg Ground

The neg has an opportunity to be really creative with this topic, but here are a few starters:

Argument 1 - Russia Fill In:

The idea of this argument is that the US taking diplomatic action backfires and results in other countries filling in for the US. For example, if the US were to increase involvement in countries that don’t want our help, it can push them further away resulting in Russia and China having an opportunity to fill in those gaps. However, the aff may be able to turn this around and say that sitting around doing nothing is going to only make things worse, as we allow China and Russia to build strong relationships with countries while we are away. This will very well be one of the more commonly read and stronger arguments on the topic.

Argument 2 - Escalation:

This argument contends that the US messes up and makes already present tensions a lot worse. In my honest opinion, saving this for rebuttal and reading it as a turn with a good link and impact is probably better than wasting time during case.

Argument 3 - Terrorism

The US also seems to be very good at inspiring extremists. Most things the US does in foreign territories aren’t always successful. As a result, our actions can be used as fuel for anti-Western rhetoric that drives conscription and cooperation with extremist groups. This has been seen in the Middle East and Africa numerous times. The fact simply remains that the US is not knowledgeable and savvy enough to operate in these countries and our influence will most always inspire anti-American rhetoric and actions. Thus the best action is inaction.