Congressional Debate

I was reading up on this, and I really wouldn't mind doing one, or judging on one. Do to the limitations of edeb8, we couldn't do a full scale congressional debate, as we don't have enough people. Congressional debates allow for more creativity, allowing you to amend and repeal motions in the bill. There are two formats I think are possible.

- The NFL format, where one side sponsors a bill, and the other opposes it. Switching sides after they speak.
- A simplified format, where both sides modify a bill, and the one with the best modified version at the end wins. They also do this in professional debates. One side can also support the bill in its original form.

The debate is then judged based on who better advocated for their side. Is anyone interested in doing one with me, or perhaps another match up? The topic I would be interested in is "The United States should fund moderate madrasas throughout the Arab world". Or we can do a bill that is currently being proposed.

Blackflag: Over here, Model UN is really popular. Never did it myself but a lot of my friends have done very well at it. I've long thought that sort of thing would be cool to do online, like a global simulation limited in players by the number of real countries in the world at the time. Just never got round to making it.

admin: Model UN does sound like fun, but there is no debate format for it. I suppose it wouldn't be that hard to create one though.

Blackflag: More like a structured series of speeches than a true formal debate really. Supporting or opposing different resolutions.

admin: Wouldn't the security council just make the whole endeavor pointless? It seems like that would be a problem in model UN. 191 people decide on a resolution, just for it to be vetoed by Russia.

Blackflag: That's why your speech needs to be extra-persuasive lol.

admin: I wouldn't mind having a debate on that in the future. China and Russia use the veto way to much for my liking, and it can't be overturned. It has become a tool to protect their interests. Take the Vietnam oil rig crisis and Ukraine invasion for example. Both Russia and China vetoed the sending of peacekeepers.

Blackflag: Personally I don't like the idea of a security council in general. Any council with the power to veto the sending of peacekeepers that sometimes includes Rwanda is a bad thing IMO. Each time that nation has been on it, it's been a humanitarian disaster.

Unbelievably, some people actually take New Zealand's bid for a permanent seat on that council seriously.

admin: New Zealand isn't getting a permanent seat anytime soon. The US, Britain, and France support including the G4 nations (Brazil, Japan, Germany, India), but I wouldn't support two of those. I am not opposed to a security council, just with a couple of reforms......

- The seats are as permanent as your power is. For example, Russia's economy and military has been bypassed by non-security council nations.
- Vetoes can be overturned, using the US system of 2/3 votes

The reason for a security council isn't that far from why we have Prime Ministers and Presidents. If it didn't exist, all decisions would be decided by third world African and Asian nations.

Blackflag: I still don't believe in a security council because 3rd world is not independent. Almost always they just vote along with whoever their sponsor is, which is almost always a first world nation.

admin: That isn't completely true. While some nations follow the leader, it is illegal to pressure votes.
PS -;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.............................................Accept that debate now;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;..............................