Resolved: The initiative "UN Global Classrooms" is beneficial to American students.
(UN Global classrooms) is not beneficial but harmful to American students.
We will use the full definition of beneficial.
BENEFICIAL- involving the personal enjoyment of proceeds: conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful.
One rule. No plagiarizing.
Rounds first acceptance and Last for conclusions.
I accept these conditions.
I WISH MY OPPONENT GL.
Back to Pro->
In this debate, I affirm the resolution and stand on the PRO defending the initiative as beneficial for American students. Before continuing, I would like to point out the initiative is the establishment of Model United Nations in middle and high schools and colleges across the country, where the United Nations, its goals, and its functions are emulated in a sort of role-playing exercise establised as an extracurricular acitivity. With this said, I move on to the oberservations.
Observation 1: The evaluation in this debate is thn focused on Model UN, the extracurricular activity.
Observation 2: The burden of proof is shared equally between the PRO and CON considering the positions in this resolution, where the burden of PRO is to prove that this activity is beneficial for American students and my opponent's burden is to prove the exact opposite.
Contention 1: The MUN experience provides excellent skills for students therein.
Leadership, cooperation, compromise. These are among the skills generally learned through the experience of the initiative proposed by the United Nations for American public schools. These are skills needed in general in the course of every day life and in the future, especially in the acquisition of employment. These merits can move students toward their full potential, and the MUN experience provides this.
Subpoint 1a: MUN requires cooperation and coordination.
In Model United Nations, each student is a representative for a country and requires research in order to learn about the country and its respective foreign policy. These students congregate in sub-committees and are required to cooperate and compromise therein. "Research concludes that the Model UN environment, as a cooperative learning center, is a valuable education tool. Cooperative learning promotes higher achievement, greater motivation, more positive interpersonal relations among students, more positive attitudes toward the subject area and teacher, greater self esteem and psychological health, more accurate perspectives, and greater social skills. (Johnson and Johnson, 1988) In simulating the actual workings of the UN, the Model UN provides an essential feature of the cooperative learning environment. In preparing to go to a Model UN, each student becomes an “expert” in one aspect of an issue or policy for their delegation. At conference all the “experts” from different delegations gather in a subcommittee to discuss their issue. The “experts” then return to their delegation in a plenary session and teach the others what they have learned. This feature is part of the cooperative learning environment where students working together to accomplish shared goals are given two responsibilities: to learn the assigned materials and make sure that all other members of the group do likewise. (Johnson and Johnson, 1988)"
Sub-point 1b: MUN teaches leadership skills.
In MUN, students actually lead in delegations and conferences among other students, which is a fertile ground for the development of leadership skills. Ryan, a student of MUN, writes: "What many people don’t realize is that Model UN also teaches business skills – running a conference is like running a small business that involves finding “customers” (delegates), developing a “product” (the conference), and managing peers."
Sub-point 1c: MUN aids in research and writing skills.
MUN requires extensive research and writing of resolutions in order to be successful at, meaning that students sharpen research and writing skills necessary for potential professions and careers.
Contention 2: Students in MUN attain an academic advantage.
Not only do students enrich their learning in the experience of researching the current events and cultures of other countries, but the experience provided by the MUN looks great on the repetoir for students striving to enter into good colleges.
Sub-point 2a: Students learn about other countries.
Research is required on the part of each individual student in order to represent a country in the conference, meaning that during the process. Daniel McIntosh, a professor at Slippery Rock University and the head of its MUN explains: "In short, extensive preparation is required if students are to gain the most from their experience (Hazleton 1986). In the form of a short (2-3 page) position paper, each student in a team is instructed to learn and report about their assigned state, including its relative resources and stated positions on the issues of interest. These position papers are turned in several days before formal negotiations begin, in order to encourage and assess individual effort. The instructor must emphasize that a useful position paper does not simply list military, institutional, or economic assets. Students must be required to put those assets in context. For example, comparing a state’s GDP to that of the US or of the world as a whole has more meaning than a simple number. Rather than merely “cutting and pasting” data from standard reference sources, students are asked to assess their relative capabilities in light of the issues and probable opponents." Brennan substantiates: " A student benefits most from participation in a Model UN Conference when he is able to go to the conference confidant that he has a solid knowledge of the issues that will be discussed. It is important that a student have a solid understanding of her country’s position in these issues as well. If a student comes to a conference lacking these fundamentals she will likely be able to pick up what she has missed along the way at the expense of the real learning experience - multilateral diplomacy in action. Hazleton and Mahurin note “the simulation takes on a different focus for the more prepared students as they are better able to assume their ‘roles’ and actually engage in the ‘practice’ of international diplomacy.” (p. 165) To this end, it is most important that the student be prepared to learn about the workings of diplomacy and the UN by being able to realistically portray their country at conference."
Sub-point 2b: MUN aids students into entering into a good college.
I thank my opponent at the chance of debating this topic. I will just post my case and by which I will also negate alot of my opponents case in the process. I agree with the observations below by my opponent.
The evaluation in this debate is the focus on Model UN.
The burden of proof is shared equally between the PRO and CON considering the positions in this resolution, where the burden of PRO is to prove that this activity is beneficial for American students and my opponent's burden is to prove the exact opposite.
=Argument & Rebuttal=
I do not think people realize the power an the influence the UN has at the level of local politics and the local schools. The UN efforts toward transforming children into "global citizens" is outrageous. Through a global curriculum we can most certainly guarantee this would not emphasize our 'Declaration of Independence.'
The Model United Nations is a program created by the UN to engage "middle school and high school students in an exploration of current world issues through interactive simulations and curricular materials." The emphasis on MUN is not on being good citizens of their home countries; rather it is to diminish that concept in favor of the creation of global citizens who will see participation in worldwide government as their primary responsibility.
The United Nations will not be deterred in its quest to inform our children of their responsibility for Global citizenship. The priority now is to preach this gospel in each and every American classroom. The message is obviously getting through to our kids. Don’t think for one second that the United Nations don’t appreciate the ability of these young people to push the plan along.
Students in MUN attain an disadvantage in their own country.
Despite the advantages of MUN could bring, it does have many drawbacks. Many of these problems can be attributed to the internationally intensive processing required and as a result could begin resentments and bitterness in their own nation. As a consequence, the results of the MUN may not be helpful in adjustment. The lessons learned in such a teaching could be less accepted inside a free country who greatly value their liberty an nationalism.
This global adjustment may cause an exceedingly large number of people to rebel such an act of globalism. This leaving the children and/or adults being taught in these matters by MUN being seen as traders. Due to the interactions and training by the UN can occur unrestricted platforms by which our students determine their thought is superior to others. As more powerful platforms techniques become available, this problem can become more of a concern.
One of the ways of combating this is to introduce (at home) nationality rights and freedoms by which these practices can be deterred. These techniques can dramatically decrease in raged citizens.
This type of training give its users a false sense of security regarding the accuracy of the curriculum. However, if the user of such a training places this curriculum above their current citizen status of their country they may fail to operate correctly inside their own society.
MUN is an excellent way teach betrayal to country.
Global Classrooms cultivates literacy, life skills and the attitudes necessary for active citizenship. Who's citizenship again?
The MUN has planned this for many years. Now they are about the ways that students can become adversity in pursuit of their global education. The regrettable thing is that our own nation's future is an uncertainty. That may seem hyperbolic, but it's not. There is no such thing as "just globalism" when it comes to education, and there is no such thing as compromise. What MUN has done by cutting national programs and instead educating endless amounts to a declaration of war against the American Dream.
I understand that these plans by the MUN are merely a symptom of a much larger and older problem. Whenever it becomes time to, "tighten our belts" and "share" a sacrifice, it seems that some belts end up tighter than others, and that education takes up an unfair share of said sacrifice. For far too long we have taken education for granted in this country.
If there is any good that has come from these misadventures, it has been the politicization of my peers. Students should be completely apathetic when it came to politics though suddenly they are put in the fore front.
Meanwhile, MUN students are forced to jump into the deep waters of civil disobedience, hosting universal debates and other forms of acceptance. And what do they get in return for this globalization?
School districts closed, teachers treated like expendable wastes of taxpayer money, protesters arrested, the dreams of American students derailed, the hopes and dreams of entire families dried up like raisin's in the sun. It is a paradox—this ugliness and greed is the reason many Americans turn their backs on politics, but their turning their backs allows for this globalization to perpetuate.
Seeing the vast movement of MUN causes these young men and women to plummet hope and it is also frightening. Will they be able to last here in the United States (any country for that matter) long enough to finish their degrees? We are watching our children learn how to enslave us their fellow citizens. We can sorely contemplate what exactly the American future holds. It should not be simply a matter of their education being compromised but their love for America. We can only hope that somehow we can scrounge up the courage to no longer accept this, as well as hope that the students that go there will have more brains than the ones teaching them.
The United Nations are on a mission to teach our children how to be better "global citizens" and it just may be soon coming to a school district near you.
My opponent has accepted both of my observations, meaning judges that you will evaluate the winner of this debate on the basis of these terms and observations. I will continue down the flow toward his arguments.
Sources: I would like to point out on the part of my opponent's sources that the articles he posted from The New American, Prison Planet, and Soda Head are all the exact same article by John Wolverton from The New American. Although it isn't necessarily wrong because of this reason, these are biased sources considering that the author of this particular article is a conservative one working for a conservative online magazine. Again, this doesn't mean that the evidence should particularly be disregarded considering that even biased sources can have legitimate information, but nevertheless, keep this in consideration when deciding the winner of the sources vote.
Contention 1: From the beginning to the end of this argument, we notice one thing: this contention is irrelevant to the scope of the resolution. The resolution questions the benefit and harms of the individual with consideration that it questions the cost/benefit analysis to the American student. My opponent however analyzes this matter through a perspective of the society with consideration that it talks about forging allegiance toward a global community rather than the domestic one. This in no way analyzes a benefit or a cost toward the individual student. Even if this argument is somehow relevant to the scope of this debate and resolution, however, my opponent makes an argument that doesn't logically follow. His argument is that because the UN makes an emphasis on the benefit of the global community through the establishment of the MUN, this means that there's going to be a diminished emphasis on the allegiance toward one's own country. First, my opponent's sources fail to make that argument any more tangible. I have read before the articles that my opponent has posted and not once has there been any mention of an example of any student whose allegiance to the United States has been diminished as a result of this organization. Second, my opponent's argument seems to imply that it is impossible to be an agent toward aiding the global community while still retaining an allegiance to one's own country and because the UN is an agent toward aiding the global community, it emphasizes that there should a mitigation toward the allegiance or sovereignty of one's own country. Again, none of my opponent's sources come close to validating this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Contention 2: If we were to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt that there are truly no benefits whatsoever that come from the United States itself, this argument fails to account the benefits that the MUN could bring to these students from other countries themselves, meaning that if there are any supposed benefits from other countries as implied by my opponent's contention, it means that I'm already winning this debate through my burden as specified in Observation 2. This small fact aside, however, there are also many other aspects in this contention that should be addressed. This contention also seems to be analyzing the resolution from the perspective of the society rather than the individual with consideration that my opponent makes mention of the beginning resentment and bitterness in one's own nation, including the aspects of rebellion. This is a concern of the nation rather than directly of the individual, meaning that even if this contention were correct, it is irrelevant to the scope of the resolution. Once again, the reasonings in this contention are just as precarious as the ones in the previous contetion. The results that my opponent claims will occur are all dependent on the idea that people in this group under this training will rebel against their own country, that bitterness will form against their own nation, that training will place these students at a curriculum held above the current citizen status of their own nation, etc. Once again, none of his sources succeed in solidifying this beyond a shadow of a doubt and works under the reasoning that increased support for the global community will equal diminished support for the domestic one, a reasoning as I explained has no logical following nor warrant in the previous contention.
Contention 3: First of all, my opponent himself stated 2 of the benefits that I have mentioned in my own case and implies that these are indeed two benefits that come from MUN. This means that parts of my case have been extended across the flow and highlights the true objective of my opponent's case: emphasizing allegiance to one's own country rather than focusing on the true matter of this debate: the betterment of the individual American citizen. This entire contention is based on the same reasoning he has failed to account for or provide evidence for in the previous two contentions, meaning that it seems as if the entire case is not only flawed in the idea that his thesis is not supported but irrelevant because it isn't even looking at the correct matter at hand. This contention has the same problem as the last one: none of his evidence validates anything that this contention is saying.
The Superiority of My Evidence: While we're on the matter of the warrants of the arguments on both sides, it's evident that my evidence is stronger because it proves that everything I'm saying logically follows. Students get better at research, leadership, speaking, etc. because MUN provides the experience and environment at which to practice on those characteristics and merits. Students have a stronger academic advantage because they learn about culture and MUN provides what colleges are looking for in students as my evidence pointed out in a list of things that colleges are looking for. My evidence does what evidence is supposed to do: provide empirics and warrant toward the reasoning of my argument. What my opponent seems to have done is looked at the perspective of an article, reiterate it in this case, and make up what he perceives to be results of what would happen with the establishment of MUN rather than finding evidence for anything that he is saying. Because I use my evidence to the fullest and most optimal utility, it is evident that I should be the winner of the sources point in this case.
ScottyDouglas forfeited this round.
Argumentation Point: Not only has my opponent failed to argue any of my rebuttals, but my opponent also hasn't rebutted anything against my original case, meaning that both have been extended across the flow. It's evident that I'm already winning the argumentation point. For the sake of emphasizing this fact, however, I'm going to return to some essential arguments around the end of the round.
Conduct Point: I'll agree for the judges not to count off on my opponent in the conduct vote if he has a legitimate reason to have forfeited a round. However, for the time being, I'm also winning the conduct vote because I've been punctual to every single round so far including this one.
Conclusions: The pinnacles of reasons why the judges should already be considering voting for me in this debate are the following. Because of my better utility in my evidence in comparison to my opponent's, the sources vote should definitely be mine. While my points are solidified in their reasoning through my evidence, my opponent seems to have just pulled an argument from a conservative source on this issue and just planted slippery slopes on it. His evidence does not prove anything that he says in the ideas of what will be the results of MUN and that conditions for these results will inevitably occur. I emphasized throughout my entire rebuttal that even if my opponent were absolutely true in everything that he's saying, his entire case is irrelevant anyway because the negative effects he speaks of are negative effects to the society rather than the individual, which is essentially what this resolution is focusing on from the perspective of American students.
ScottyDouglas forfeited this round.
Judges, it is my belief that to explain to you why I should be the winner of this debate at this point is pretty much an insult to your intellect with consideration everything I've stated in the previous round and the fact that my opponent hasn't even shown up to make any sort of counterargument to anything I've said. Every single argument I've made from R2 has been completely extended across the flow, and my sources actually validate the reasoning behind every single one of my arguments in contrast to my opponent, who just took whatever argument came to him on a biased article and slapped on slippery slopes. I'm pretty much the owner of the conduct vote in this debate because I've been punctual to every single round. I said before that I would be perfectly content with providing my opponent with some leniancy in this debate if his forfeits were as a result of a legitimate reason, yet he has not provided that at all. If you look back into his profile, you would've consistantly seen that my opponent was present on this site during the time period that his debate was due, meaning that it must've been obvious that my opponent in no way made the effort to respond to what I have said. His arguments are irrelevant to the context of the resolution, meaning this whole time, he hasn't in any way argued the proper debate, and he hasn't responded to any of my contentions in my case. Going back to my Observation 2, my opponent has completely and implicitly agreed with every single one of my points. My opponent could've proven that this was harmful to American society (even though I provided arguments against his reasoning), but this would've been counterintuitive to the burden I outlined and he accepted. For these reasons, I urge a vote for the PRO.
ScottyDouglas 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:||7||0|