Article 370 should not be abolished
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal / Closing Statement
This round is exclusively for arguments, no rebuttals.
Judges please note: This debate ideally should be a very technical one, it basically talks about a state of India which has a separate constitution and set of laws, though it is under the ambit and purview of Indian Government which is authorized to make laws with respect to the Concurrent and Union List, the Indian govt. however requires an authorization by the State government in order to do so. I will argue that Article 370 which gives the state that kind of autonomy should stay and Con should come up with reasons as to why and how should Article 370 be revoked.
I will try to make my case concise and simple; it will be based on the following four points
370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution,—
(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply now in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;
(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to—
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation: For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat (now Governor) of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.
(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;
(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:
Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:
Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.
(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:
 "The Constitution of India (1949)". Lok Sabha Secretariat. pp. 1122–1123. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
Why it should remain?
J&K Constitution was framed under the authority of the Article 370 and Instrument of Accession. If the Article 370 goes then the effect of section 3 of JK Constitution under which JK is part of India will also go. Now suppose this argument is countered by Union of India saying even if there is no section 3 of J&K constitution, the State is still part of India because of the Instrument of Accession. But in that case Union of India will face serious problems because governor general of India Lord Mountbatten while accepting Instrument of Accession pledged as soon as the situation after the raid from the Pakistan side (in 1947) becomes normal, people have the right to express their wishes, whether or not to accept the accession and in that case J&K people will have legitimate right for plebiscite. 
Source:  http://www.greaterkashmir.com...
Problems India will face after revoking 370
According to Pakistan Kashmir has always been a mutinous state that has revolted against their ‘unjust captors’ and that India had deprived the Kashmiris of even the plebiscite that UN had demanded.
Out of the three wars that have been fought between India and Pakistan, Kashmir has served as the impetus in 1947 and 1999.
Kashmir had even become a hub of terrorism and insurgency in the 1990s subject to extremist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Indian Mujahedeen which were aided and trained by Pakistan and acted as paramilitary forces, or guerrilla outfits.
The paragraphs above indicate that Kashmir has always been a point of contention between India and Pakistan and that the territory is very sensitive and volatile.
Therefore removing or even debating 370 can cause a lot of tension in Kashmir.
"The whole question is extremely sensitive and must be handled coolly and in a mature fashion. The sort of statements issued from both sides will only create further turmoil and tension in Jammu and Kashmir," – Dr. Karan Singh, son of Maharaja Hari Singh who signed the instrument of accession in favour of India like all other princely states, J&K is governed by its own constitution and is not on par or like any other state of India, because it did not like all princely states sign a merger following the accession but stays under an arrangement called article 370.
“Mark my words and save this tweet — long after Modi government is a distant memory either J&K won’t be part of India or Article 370 will still exist,” Omar Abdullah, the Chief Minister of India’s 15th state.
This tweet by the Chief Minister goes on to show how complex and delicate the whole topic is.
The NDA govt. which has just come in power is wrong to raise this issue, like Karan Singh says, ‘370 needs cooperation not confrontation’. Revoking 370 is like digging our own graves.
The MoS, Dr. Jitendra Singh of the PMO who raised this issue has even been rebutted by his own brother, Davinder Singh Rana said, “The Union government should come out with its stand over the issue." He added: "Article 370 is a constitutional provision and had full endorsement of even Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, father figure of BJP, the founder of Jana Sangh. How can they wish away this historical fact?” 
Source:  http://indiatoday.intoday.in...
If article 370 is revoked, it puts India in a quandary, it is the question of national security, they would not risk losing a state which holds great strategic importance, and is rich in natural resources. It would put India at a major disadvantage if Kashmir is lost, the national capital would be exposed, and militarily India would become very vulnerable to the likes of China and Pakistan.
Many people claim that 370 was a temporary provision and that is should have been revoked ages ago, but I am certain that argument is misinterpreted and aims at falsifying facts therefore I will explain the subject in detail.
Why was it called a temporary provision?
The instrument of accession was signed while the Pakistani tribal forces were raiding northern Kashmir, so like I have stated earlier, Mountbatten said when normalcy returns and 370 is not needed, a plebiscite would be in order.
The Constituent Assembly under 370 held the power to abolish, abrogate or retain it, however the constituent assembly chose to retain 370.
There was no fixed term that 370 was serving, or time after which it would go invalid.
ejoseph061901 forfeited this round.
That is all then, vote PRO. CHEERS!
ejoseph061901 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|