Resolved: That the United States would be justified in pursuing military options against Iran.
Public Forum Debate News & Information
-
Crossfire Briefs
Crossfire Briefs are published 10 times per year for the September through April NFL topics, the NCFL Grand Nationals topic, and the NFL Nationals topic.
For more information about Crossfire Briefs, visit the PFDebate Shop
Crossfire Briefs
2008-09 Subscription
10 Issues
$140
Crossfire Briefs
September 2008
Military Draft
$20
Pre-Order
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
Megan’s Treaties on the Horrendous Travesty that is the December Topic:
Is it just me, or does this topic reek of Lincoln-Douglas? Why are the new Public Forum topics asking us to justify our actions? This is decidedly philosophical in a manner that simply is not becoming of a PF resolution. We don’t consider justifications for our actions, we simply enter in to them. We think of reasons why we should, not why we should be thinking of said reasons.
Lincoln-Douglas veering toward pragmatism and empirics, Public Forum heading in to philosophy-what is this world coming to?
My word I thought that I had, had some heated debates before. There will for sure be no standing in grand crossfire in fear of people being stabbed.
I LOVE THIS TOPIC.
better than the november topic but i really like it
I like this topic because of “justified.” With the October topic we saw “the United States should…” but with “justified” we can focus less on U.S. Interests and the topic makes it more open to use the benefits to Iranian people because our decisions on justice are less biased than decisions based on foreign policy.
I agree with the Word Wizard (love the name). This stinks of the insidious nature of LD. I mean, come on. “Justifies”? Half of the debates will be definition arguments, and the other half will be just spewing evidence without a logical thought process.
What does this mean? I’m still exceedingly new at debate and really, I just don’t get this. Please explain!
I LLLLLLLOOOOOVeeeeee this topic OMMMMMMGGG
I don’t get it…were’s Iran?
so… could some one please give me some good con and pro points, i’m not so confused on the wording as i am on what is going on in Iran, and justified within the resoultition? so please con and pro points, thanks -Jake
what would we be trying to accomplish in Iran?
please don’t forget my first post.
Anybody know any good pro arguments???
Can someone give me some points on both sides please?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Wow, I hav to agree LD! I like it well enoguh, it’s just not PF!
Clayton Bill, if you’re serious, go shoot yourself in the face.
And for the people who don’t get it: Do we have reasons to go and do something to Iran.
We’re on shaky ground with them because of the whole purified uranium drama. They say its for energy but you don’t need weapon grade uranium for energy.
Just google it, you can get a ton of info
Their as well accused of giving weapons to the Iraqi insurgents making our job in Iraq 1098734698 times harder.
Also they loathe us.
But yes I agree with you guys. I wish they didn’t put justify in the resolution…
Grr…
If I wanted an LD topic I’d do LD… >.
Also this is annoying because Iraq will no doubt, be dragged into the debates even though it has nothing to do with the resolution…
i actually like this month’s topic. better than the november topic.
I disagree with most. It may sound like an ld topic but it’s under pf therefor it’s a pf topic. i personally like this topic for the choice of the use of the word justifies. it opens many possibilities. this topic will help us expoit the world that is around us. we’ll take notice of the news and of the disasters that we live amongst everyday. it will also open the plethora of government officles who ignore this for they’ll see as students we have surpassed their knowledge of this and actually create a debatable topic to beat most of them.
I agree that this topic is LDish, but when you look up justifies in the dictonary there is also the law usage of the term…. So it’s not too phil. based.
so, I don’t have to actually debate this topic but I’m interested in hearing everyone else’s views on this just kind of as I guess you could say “practice”. What’s everyone thinking so far about this…debate wise not how do you feel about the topic itself
i love the topic, we have been discussing it on the forums intensly i would reccomend checking it out.
lol this topic is LD.
Though i think LD topics with 2 vs. 2 would actually be better than PFD :]
good luck guys, con will kill this one :D
Annoynmous PFD’er…does your coach allow you guys to switch debate forms? I know I probably sound rude right now…SORRY! but if you thing the LD set up is a better idea than public forum I suggest trying it out, even if it’s not at a tournatment, but just in class. It’ll help you get a better perspective on debate anyhow.
lool
first off, my school doesnt have coaches
second, i do PFD so i can get smarter as well as the aspect of 2 ON 2 is much more appealing to me
LD is 1 on 1
and i think im good on the better perspective part :]
oh, I think I probably wouldn’t be as good as I am now if wasn’t for coaches…lol
I personally couldn’t do LD, too much moral, and Policy, well those people scare the heck out of me…lol.
I guess at a debate one of my friends in another state competed in someone pulled the fire alarm (this wasn’t known to my friend until after they were evacuated) and all of the policy people were pushing each other out of the way to get all of their evidnece out. The judges and coaches had to yell at the students to leave their evidence behind…lol.
so will the biggest point for pro be having to do with the uranium while con would be its not our buisness and it would cost to much monetarily and in lives?
yes another reason, Mr. Potato Head, for con would be a reason to go in and attack Iran and you could also take a look at the lives of the Iranians how bad it is so you might be able to proove that we would be doing not only damage to their military but damage to their innocent citizens.
This topic in someway does reek off that Lincoln Douglas smell, not much of Public Forum debaters are used to. I love this topic, though
Yea this will be a fun one to run i just hate the whole justified thing, PUF is black and white who cares about this LD value stuff
The fact that “justified” is included in this topic opens a window for numerous arguments. I like this topic
heyy i do ld and it’s not that bad. this topic is easy for me in that sense.
those who talk bad about LD just don’t realize how difficult it really is. get the head out of your butt and be open minded.
this topic will be fun
could someone please give me some good pro points, and con if you have them.
please and thank you lol
Hey Jake, There is a great case for this issue on http://www.finalistfiles.com.
well a major con point could be that to pursue military options againt Iran we would need to pull basically our already depleted army to invade the country and that would never recieve support.
I echo WordWizard’s point that the resolution is flawed in its philosophical bent. In PFD we must focus on actions and consequences. “Justified” does not provide for that. We might be infinitely “Justified” in attacking Iran, but still shouldn’t do it. Thus that is a sneaky way to avoid debate.
Additionally, I am surprised about the lack of comment on “Military Options”. When I looked up the definition, it included everything from police action to pychological warfare to full scale invasion. In that way this topic is Policy, half the debate will be spent over determining what “military options” include.
This topic certainly doesn’t give itself over to statistics, which I quite like, but the subjectivity of the whole affair makes it seem like win/loss will be hit-or-miss based entirely on the judge’s prejudices one way or another….
HeY!! i am so glad that i found this blogging site! i really like PFD but i am a novice and i am kind of lost where to start. I have most of my research and i am familiar with the Dec. topic but i need help………
I agree that this topic is alot easier than the last one, also less confusing to newbies such as myself
And as a newbie I’m going to ask all you people asking for evidence to shut up and find your own. Thanks, Renn
hey, this is a cool bolg site. I’ve never used one nor have I ever done PFD. I think i’ve got a good idea of what the topic is talking about, but i’m still not sure exactly what we’re supposed to be debating. In policy you pass or drop an action. but what about PFD? Is it definitions, are we trying to convince the judge that we should bomb Iran? Please help the clueless little novi!!
well, a good con argument is that russia and china are with iran. we invade iran and that could start a war. bigger than the one we are in now. we have to remember that china supplies us with a lot of our supplies. i havent really thought any pro yet. I am just starting getting all my stuff ready for a competition and i go compete on saturday.
Kelseymarie, remember that it’s not a “should” resolution, it’s a “justify” resolution. Justification would involve something more along the lines of morals and LD-esque stuff. The other team could say, “So what if we start a war, they deserve it!” if that’s all you bring up.
I totally and completely agree. “Military options” should, and will be the main focus for pro and con sides of this argument.
I’m also quite excited about this topic. Who cares if includes “justified” in the resolution!? Get over it. I love debating about “issues” in the middle east. grand crossfire sometimes gets very heated.
p.s. for all you people looking for some points I read something the other day that might be useful…
it was an article in NEWSWEEK (Nov. 5) it just was telling about a Iranian nuclear desert facility that was seen from a satellite photo in 2003 where the structure was fully built. Now, four years later, its paved over in an attempt to “hide” it. this may be used as a pro argument. You could relate it to like keeping a secret, maybe they’re making plans to attack us? Knows.
When you are planning to do something mischeivious do you tell the world about it? or, do you keep it a secret? sooo the point i’m trying to make here is if they’re attempting to “hide” their nuclear facilities… who knows what they’re planning!?
p.s.s. sorry! i know that was stinkin long!! But I’m just trying to help out here.
ok, one more thing. sorry. fyi diplomacy is never concidered a military option. i looked it up.
diplomacy: is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states.
Definition of “Military Options”
A range of military force responses that can be projected to accomplish assigned tasks. Options include one or a combination of the following: civic action, humanitarian assistance, civil affairs, and other military activities to develop positive relationships with other countries; confidence building and other measures to reduce military tensions; military presence; activities to convey threats to adversaries as well as truth projections; military deceptions and psychological operations; quarantines, blockades, and harassment operations; raids; intervention operations; armed conflict involving air, land, maritime, and strategic warfare operations; support for law enforcement authorities to counter international criminal activities (terrorism, narcotics trafficking, slavery, and piracy); support for law enforcement authorities to suppress domestic rebellion; and support for insurgency, counterinsurgency, and civil war in foreign countries. See also civil affairs; foreign humanitarian assistance; military civic action.
HEY al thanks a load u SAVED me we had practice rounds today in class and they kept sayin deplomacy is and defenetly IS a military option so i got mad and lost my temper lol but thanks!! a TONNNNN
hey thanks that sight help!! ♥the novic
I HATE THIS TOPIC !!!!!!!!!!! It is way to controversial and it hits too close to home for many debaters with military families and if you have a coach like mine there is no not debating this topic. I hate it but has any one considered oil prices for the U.S. as a con point?
yeah i have considerd the fact of oil prices in this case its realy funy pro is going to lose every time unless your a rrrrrrrreeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllllyyyyyyy good debater
25-49% of all oil used in the united states comes from Iran if we went to war with them it would spike barrel prices well over $120 a barrel. my economics prof told me this.
Paul @ 7.56, we’re sorry, but you happen to be mistaken. The US has bans on trade with Iran. Therefore, you don’t exactly have the right there. They produce that much oil each year- but it’s not sold to the US
Leave a Comment