Political Crossfire Forums

[centralasia1324]

Hi, I'm defending India in a debate with several other countries. The topic doesn't really connect with the question, but it is in simplest terms agriculture.

The debate will be held with many other developing nations, and my job is basically to add contreversy to the debate, and I figured that the most logical way (without directly attack a country) is to not necessarily attack, but bring up the subject of religion.

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to indirectly challenge a country's integrity based on religion. For example, on a topic about women's rights, I could challenge Pakistan on the fact that it is an Islamic republic and women have limited to no rights in Islam, etc.

I would like to state again that this is for the purpose of bringing up contreversy, and NOT for the purpose of insulting or offending anyone.

Any help/suggestions?

[Rilzic]

centralasia1324 wrote:

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to indirectly challenge a country's integrity based on religion.

So is this your specific question? If so it is still a vague question. Are you talking specifically about India and Hinduism or are you asking generally about all religions and the countries that they are dominate in? If your only talking about India/Hinduism/agriculture then could you give us a idea what exactly or just a outline of the debate is?

[centralasia1324]

Let me rephrase the question so it's easier to answer. I guess it doesn't necessarily revolve entirely around religion, but an answer involving religion in some way would be helpful.

This is going to sound kind of odd, but in the words of Michael Scott, I need "general specifics."

In general, what are the negative aspects of developing countries that India can target? This can include the economical status, but be more specific in what I can target.

I guess that makes it even more vague than before. Hmm.

In simplest terms, it would help if you could just say the topic (economics/religion) and how to target it.

It does NOT have to involve agriculture. A good debater can spin it if necessary.

Thanks!

[slitedeviance]

Sorry (I could be being very slow) but if the debate is relating to agriculture, and I assume the invetibale economics of that, why would you need anything from a religous or societal point of view to attack them with?

If your basic argument isn't strong enough, then you need to revisit it rather than moving the debate off topic and into a slanging match.

[Rilzic]

centralasia1324 wrote:

In simplest terms, it would help if you could just say the topic (economics/religion) and how to target it.


Thanks!

Well you should attack any weakness in the "target". This would involve research on the subject of debate. I don't think having a general approach to a argument makes for a good argument. What does make a good argument is being specific.

But for developing nations and there economic/religious points would be stuff like how one would negatively affects the other. For example does their religion/culture resist economic investment or does the economic investment create a culture/religious break down.

Also something like how resilient/accepting is the culture/religion to the changes that economic investment and international trade brings. In the case of India compared with Pakistan, Hinduism is a lot more accepting of western investment then Muslim nations and there weakness would be the leftover effects of a caste system that may prevent upward mobility of the lower castes.

Just examples not necessarily true, also there are far better debaters on these forums then me.

Are you setting up the debate and not one of the arguers or are you arguing one point of view?