CWSGuy406 Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Tomorrow I have a quick two minute debate on the Articles of Confederation, and I'm arguing against the Third Article in the AoC. The Third Article basically states that states should unite in case of any war against them. Now, my first argument against it (I didn't choose this topic/stance) is that in the Revolutionary War, we were able to succeed (for the most part) with state militia's. Yet, I really don't know what else I can use. I need to somehow argue states right in this. Can someone help me out? One more thing - if you were Pro-Article 3, how would you argue it? I just want to have some idea on how I should argue it in my rebuttal time... Any help is appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Umm...The Moops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 I think your stuck with a horrible topic, considering that the Articles of Confederation were absolute failures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 I think your stuck with a horrible topic, considering that the Articles of Confederation were absolute failures. I agree - even said that to my teacher - but she'd have none of it. I'm gonna get ripped apart tomorrow. Hell, I know I can debate well, but I really can't debate something that I don't have my heart into 100%. I'm really pro-Article 3, I mean, I totally agree with it. I guess I'm gonna have to come up with something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Umm...The Moops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Oh for the arguments against it. The big thing is, how can you have unitity and a country without a national army. Another argument is that with a national army you should have better defenses since all the borders of the country would be covered. You'd also be splitting the costs amongst everyone. I guess if you wanted to defend it you could claim that a national army would take power away from the states. It would also lead to more of a dictorial system, which was what they were rebelling against. Since in essence, whoever was in control of the country would control the national military (remember the checks and balance system wouldn't of been in place). You would argue how the national army would be paid for, since the money was still state to state (you better check this one, cause I think all the states still had unique money, but not sure). One other aspect of how it would be paid for is how to divy it up between small and large states. THe large states with the big populations would obviously pay more, but I'm sure lots of fights would erupt and they would want to get the smaller states (I guess I should call them colonies) to pay a much larger chunk. Thats off the top of my head, so make sure my recollection of this is correct, but hopefully this helps more then my original post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Most states were afraid of a highly centralized governmental authority (since they just deposed a monarchy) so there were legitimate fears that any highly centralized authority could easily lead to tyranny. http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/ is a link to some issues argued by Anti-Federalists which will really help your case. Hope that helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Massachusetts careth not yet New Amsterdam be ravaged by the austerity of war. /O'Doyle Rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 Wow - apu, Jason - I appreciate that so much. That's huge. Absolutely huge. I got something to go with now. Thanks a ton, guys. Seriously, that is some great s***. I only gotta talk for like a minute or so, so that will get the job done. I love Soxtalk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Wow - apu, Jason - I appreciate that so much. That's huge. Absolutely huge. I got something to go with now. Thanks a ton, guys. Seriously, that is some great s***. I only gotta talk for like a minute or so, so that will get the job done. I love Soxtalk! I knew there was a reason why I was going to school to get a history degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Massachusetts careth not yet New Amsterdam be ravaged by the austerity of war. /O'Doyle Rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 If I were to have to argue against Article III I suppose that I would argue that, due to the sovereignty of each state, they should not be bound to fight the war of another sovereign state without having any direct participation in diplomacy or abritration before war is declared. For example, if the French decided to invade NY due to some obscure disagreement that shouldn't have led to war, why should the Georgia militia be forced to travel north and fight for a cause that they have absolutely no interest in fighting for? Whereas with a federally supported military, responsible for protecting the union as a whole, would certainly be obligated and correctly assigned to NY to defend a component of the union. Individual states should not be responsible for the wellbeing of the entire union, just their sovereign state. Also, let's say Georgia believed that the strength of their militia played an integral role in the health of their state and funded/equipped their militia accordingly. New York on the other hand, feels that their militia can be weak, spend the money on other programs, and then depend on Georgia's resources to defend them, knowing that law requires Georgia to do so. Why should the state of Georgia agree to a policy that is unfair to them? If I were to have to argue for Article III, I'd say that a threat to any component of the union is an inherently direct threat on each other component of the union, sovereign states or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaSoxFan Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Asking for help on a message board. Yeesh! I guess you aren't a very good masterdebator! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 Asking for help on a message board. Yeesh! I guess you aren't a very good masterdebator! Hey, I take no shame in that. There's a hell of a lot of smart people on this board. (You not included.) J/K Minny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssHatSoxFan Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 i guess i shouldnt be asking for help on finding variance of monte carlo integral approximations in this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaSoxFan Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Hey, I take no shame in that. There's a hell of a lot of smart people on this board. (You not included.) J/K Minny. I agree. I'm not the "all around" student. I don't do well in school. I just go to see the hot ladies. Eye candy at its best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Wow, tough draw my man. You have centuries of American history working against you. When arguing this absurd point, you must remember you are arguing it under an absurd government, The Articles of Condfederation. The Articles were very flawed in and of itself. You opponent will argue that by uniting, States will be able to protect themselves from national as well as civil threats. I would argue that (and remember to argue as if we still lived under the Articles) a standing army produces nothing but trouble. The states feared a highly centralized government. Each state believed itself to be sovereign; fighting on behalf of one another is a problem. The states were nothing more than a loose "confederation", as the name applies. There was absoultely no authority in a central government, the force required to operate and maintain a standing army. States are not obligated to help eachother under this form of government. Its going to be hard to argue this point...but I think if you touch on those aspects you will be fine. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 Thanks again for your help, Addison. It's really appreciated. Now I just gotta construct them into three formal points, but that I should be able to do pretty easily. Thanks everyone for the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 O'Doyle Rules Mannn.. am I glad I called THAT guy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.