Assuming Feasibility, This House Would Require a Re-Ratification of All International Treaties (For Example, The European Union and ASEAN) by Popular Referendum Every Decade


This.. is… difficult. Now, the only thing both teams need to know, and clarify, is that this setting takes the geographical context within a country. And as such, it is possible to have geographical bias where this motion is moral and practical to one country whilst being immoral and impractical at the same time towards another country.

MegaSableye: “Okay. I initially thought that this post entry could follow the format and template of the others’, but this motion turned out to be far more complicated and difficult than expected.”

Oohhh, the burdens of proofs! Poor Team Affirmative!

So let’s break this down, one by one. Let’s formulate a to-do list for us and then check whether things are going smoothly along the way. Oh wait. That is also the case for Team Affirmative.

  1. What is the urgency of the current status quo? Do we have any problems as of the current affairs? [THE PROBLEM]
  2. Or, is it rather a goal that we have in mind? What do we expect to achieve supposing this motion stands? [THE GOAL]
  3. Why do this? [THE SOLUTION] – this will be annoying.
    1. Why is this solution the best, if not the only, solution to point (1)?
    2. Or why is this solution the best, if not the only, way to reach point (2)?
    3. Why does this solution require popular referendum? What is its significance? (To strengthen point (3))
    4. Why do we do this every decade? What’s with the timeframe? (To strengthen point (3))

Eh, but, hey, look! That’s the point! Just like how we don’t take a leap of faith and just blindly casebuild for the whole fifteen (or twenty.. or thirty…) minutes, maybe we should reassess and check our casebuilding progress every five minutes with our partner(s) in order to know if we are doing well or going hell in regards to our to-do list.

Right. So we have our to-do list, and then we have quite the answer for point number (1) and (3.d). That’s quite an argument, actually.

And now, oohhh, the predictions we need to do! Poor Team Affirmative! The number of burdens Team Affirmative has to satisfy translates into a variety of ways Team Negative can choose on how to best attack Team Affirmative. It almost feels like Team Affirmative is China with its Great Wall but they have, like, 5 different door accesses, and now they don’t know which door to defend because they don’t know which one Team Negative will come from.

Anyway, stances for Team Negative include:

  1. International Treaties are absolute – no change should be performed at all (they’re attacking the re-ratification part of the motion)
  2. International Treaties are not absolute, but they are already subject to amendments and/or repeals, and that’s the way it’s supposed to be, instead of re-ratifications (still attacking the re-ratification part of the motion but in a different manner)
  3. You may carry this motion, but re-ratification should happen naturally by demand and not by system (they’re attacking the “require” part and/or “every decade” part of the motion)
  4. You may carry this motion, but not on all International Treaties
  5. You may do this, but don’t use public referendum
  6. A combination of (2) and (3)
  7. A combination of (2) and (4)
  8. A combination of (2) and (5)
  9. A combination of (3) and (4)
  10. A combination of (3) and (5)
  11. A combination of (4) and (5)
  12. A combination of (2), (3), and (4)
  13. A combination of (2), (3), and (5)
  14. A combination of (2), (4), and (5)
  15. A combination of (3), (4), and (5)
  16. A combination of (2), (3), (4), and (5)
  17. A layered attack of (1), backed up by (2) in case if they want to concede (1)
  18. A layered attack of (1), backed up by (3) in case if they want to concede (1)
  19. A layered attack of (1), backed up by (4) in case if they want to concede (1)
  20. A layered attack of (1), backed up by (5) in case if they want to concede (1)
  21. A layered attack of (1), backed up by a combination of (2) and (3) in case if they want to concede (1)
  22. A layered attack of (1), backed up by a combination of (2) and (4) in case if they want to concede (1)
  23. A lay—

Team Affirmative: “Enough with your mathematical permutations and combinations!!! What the park will that mean towards us anyway!?”

Debating404: “One, it’s combinations, only. Not permutations and combinations. Having permutations included would mean that the order matters as well, and thus a combination of (2) and (3) would be different from a combination of (3) and (2). Two, mathematical jokes and teases aside, it is imperative to have a preemp against various possible stances. Three, the prediction needed is not actually that hard – for most of the cases, the direction of the debate could be narrowed from 23++ possible outcomes and predictions required into only around ±~3-4 outcomes, needing only around ±~1-2 preemp and prediction.”

It is especially important to consider where your and your opponent’s interests might meet. For one instance, affirmative teams debating “THW ban smoking in public places” might not need to explain about the harms of smoking – most negative teams might not be stupid (or crazy) enough to challenge the harms of smoking, and since both teams agree on that matter, why bother wasting your limited 7’20” on that particularly would-be redundant point?

For this motion, it would be safe to assume that Team Negative would be conceding point (1), and thus this eliminates the need for Team Affirmative to preemp point (1) and (17) onward. It would generally be a bad idea if Team Negative tries to defend a viewpoint of saying that International Treaties are absolute and subject to no changes at all. Various treaties have proven to be subject to changes at times. Kyoto Protocol faced several in 1997, then 1998, then 2002, and 2004, and 2005. The UK exited The EU in 2016. Go Google the others. If you meet a Team Negative who is crazy enough to defend that argument, rejoice. The debate is already one-sided in favor of you.

Stance (2) would be distinct from stance (3) as they are nearly mutually exclusive. However, there is a particular catch to this – a Team Negative trying to apply stance (2) would likely steer the motion into a definitional debate. If we were Team Affirmative in this case, we would personally break down and cry. A debate under these scenario would require teams to deliver extensive explanations regarding highly debatable and subjective definitions and terminologies. There are lots of websites and books out there that cover and discuss International Law, but hopefully could cover the basics.

Anyway, what this means, is that it could still be feasible for a Team Negative to run stance (3) backed up with (4) and/or (5), and that it is safe to assume that any decent teams won’t be even thinking of running (2) with anything at the same time.

Now, on Team Negative’s perspective, this leaves us with a limited (but it’s still broad, actually) course of actions.

Anything with stance (1) is out of the question. You have to concede that point anyway. Then, next, if you have quite the basics in our knowledge of law and language, then, by all means, take stance (2) and attack Team Affirmative in terms of definitions and terminologies. Stance (3) is quite preferable. Stance (4) is weak and will likely divert and narrow the course of the debate. Stance (5) is also preferable.

Or, lastly, well, you know, you could go YOLO and take on all the numbers of combinations of stances possible to attack.

For negative teams with average-moderate-to-satisfactory knowledge and understanding about international law and relations, we would recommend combining stance (3) and (5) together. Adding stance (4) is optional, but judging from your decision, it would highly likely seem that you don’t need that extra layer of defensive stance to waste your limited time. Not to mention that it’s soft.

Supposing that this is the scenario, then we are expecting to see both Team Affirmative and Team Negative agreeing that re-ratifications are important, with clashes in the ideologies of timeframe and/or public rational capacity. Team Affirmative puts their faith in the people, trusting the fate of the re-ratification on the referendum result, and at the same time, sees an importance in a routine check and assessment of this International Treaty. Team Negative

For negative teams which have no idea what this motion is about, run stance (4). It is your last resort and changes the debate into a direction that does not require anybody to have any knowledge/information regarding international laws. All that is left for you, is to just agree with Team Affirmative on virtually almost EVERYTHING. You concede the majority of the points and then point out the only possible clash, which is the difference between doing this on ALL treaties and on only SOME treaties, and then you analyze and elaborate the hell out of that one clash.

You could say that the wording of the motion compels Team Affirmative to perform regular re-ratification even on The United Nations, then just pick one reason why public referendum won’t work and/or it’s impractical to do every ten years and/or whatever then scrutinize that point concerning The UN until you have consumed all your allocated speech time.

It’s a cheap way to steer the debate, but, hey, circumstances left us with no other choice, right?

Here are some assertions for you. Sorry, no assisting elaborations attached – our brains and fingers are already screaming at this point.

  1. (+) Because we have to have a system that puts us in check systematically (well, this is what we wrote on the beginning of this post, so, yeah)
  2. (-) Because public referendum includes votes from misinformed and ill-informed people
  3. (+) Because a routine assessment will improve the working condition and quality of said International Treaty
  4. (-) Because these assessments are rather intimidating in nature
  5. (+) Because a necessary but radical action would otherwise get delayed – under this motion, it would instantly be carried out the moment the year reaches a multiple of 10
  6. (-) Because then the control would be in the hands of media, which stirs public opinion, not government officials
  7. (+) Because sometimes these treaties influence the lives of public, so we need their voice via referendum
  8. (-) Because geopolitical stances of countries do not change as often as once in ten years
  9. (+) Because when this motion applies to all countries, there will be no such a condition where different countries put different priorities to international issues because of difference in bargaining power thanks army and economics
  10. (-) Because this would cause unnecessary panic and confusion instead

MegaSableye: “I instantly contracted migraines as soon as I finished this.”