Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq.

Too your 1st point you have failed to point out that there will be disputes even further than that because of the partition. The most straightforward option is to try and make the case that a soft partition of Iraq would be useless, and would accomplish nothing in the way of stopping sectarian violence or settling differences. The same issues that are unresolved now would remain unresolved, and as long as there is any semblance of an area known as Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites will fight for dominance in that land. All that all a soft partition would do would be to transform an insurgency into a war with more clearly defined boundaries. YOur second point is about Joe Biden, but his stance is useless to what I already said. Also, it might be a good idea to point out that much of the insurgency currently occurring in Iraq is a result of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and others. Even if one believes, you should argue, that some contention between Sunnis and Shiites could be avoided by dividing their territory, that still leaves the large problem of unaffiliated terrorist organizations wreaking havoc as they see fit. This is not a problem of sectarian differences, although these organizations will surely try to use them to their advantage. It is more a problem, you should say, of the continued US presence in the country. Your advocacy needs to consistently be that the best way to take the wind out of the insurgency is for the United States to pack up and leave. As for you 3rd point. I would link this into my 2nd point rebuttal. The only other framework argument of any real significance that needs to be made is that the resolution allows you to argue that the US is not the best actor to encourage this policy. The United Nations or some other international actor is much better suited to do any encouraging that needs to be done. An amazing stance to take with regard to this resolution is as follows. If at the end of the round, the judge is still not convinced that a soft partition is a horrible idea, and feels that it is necessary and good for Iraq, then that means that it is very important that this implementation occurs. If this is an important issue, it is essential that someone other than the United States encourages it to happen, for the simple reason that the word of the United States means next to nothing. Even if a soft partition is the best option to stop the violence and support a stable democracy, then there is no doubt that it is too important of a matter to be left to an entity such as the United States, which has very little respect in Iraq, the greater middle east, or the international community. If it is a plan encouraged and/or backed by the US, it is unlikely to receive popular support. Therefore, we should stay out of it if we want it successfully implemented. That being said, there are myriad other attacks that can be made. First of all, separating Iraq would do away with the largest counterbalance in the region to Iran. As Iraq was created with this intent in mind, it is perhaps noteworthy that a partition of Iraq would make it less of a challenge to Iran's preeminence in the region. The problem with this point is that a democratic government of a whole and hale Iraq is likely to be in Iran's back pocket, or at least its ally. The Sunni minority was made the ruling class in Iraq for the simple reason that it was felt that they would be a more effective counterbalance to the mostly Shiite Iran than would Iraqi Shiites. Indeed, even in Iraq today it is seen that the current government has many sympathies that lie with Iran, to the point that their border control is lax, making no effort to stop Iranian arms from entering the country. That being said, it can probably be reasonably concluded that any major power that shares a border with Iran can be expected to disagree with it on enough issues that it will provide some sort of challenge to its power. Use this point if you wish, but use it cautiously. Another point to use cautiously is one that has been mentioned several times thus far: the notion that a civil war is exactly what Iraq needs. You can approach this from any number of angles. A case could be made that civil war is inevitable, or that it is necessary in order to achieve a truly stable, consolidated state. Whatever the case may be, there is substantial literature out there from which to draw evidentiary support. It may be best for Iraq to have a civil war. But if this attack must be used, understand that it can probably only work if you have already proven that a soft partition will not work. This is because no judge in their right mind would vote for civil war over a soft partition if it seemed equally likely that either one would work. The two points, that a soft partition will not work and that a civil war will, must work in tandem, unless you can prove that a soft partition will only delay and formalize the existence of a civil war in Iraq. It might be a tactically wise decision to point out that a soft partition of Iraq would do a great deal to tarnish the image of the United States worldwide, if that is possible. The goal of the US-led coalition was to topple the reign of Saddam Hussein and install a democratic government in Iraq. To divide the country into three weakly united territories would be to acknowledge failure at the primary mission of uniting the country under a stable, democratic regime. While there is probably reason to do so, the United States might not want to be the entity to recommend a soft partition, because of the implications that such a move would have on our position in Iraq. The Bush Administration's attitude toward the country has been, if nothing else, consistent. It might not be good to sacrifice this consistency at this moment in time, when presumably so little else remains. And while we are on the subject of democracy, it might, just maybe, be an excellent idea to consider the desires of Iraqis in this matter. For all that the US preaches about democracy, it seems to be self-evident that it should not try to strong-arm an issue, if it were already staunchly opposed by a free people. And surveys of the Iraqi public reveal that only a third of citizens support the idea of a soft partition. While there are very federalist provisions in the constitution, which was passed by a substantial majority, two-thirds of Iraqis are opposed to the idea of segregating their country along ethnic lines. Iraq, as a March 2007 Christian Science Monitor article explains, is so complexly interconnected through marriage and custom, that it would be nearly impossible to separate the country along ethnic lines, even if it were desired by the citizens. But these close networks of kinship and sometimes even friendship link most Iraqis intrinsically to those of other sects, to the extent that only a campaign of "mass murder," as the article puts it, could change it. In order to embody the support that we have always professed for the democracy that is Iraq, and the autonomous nature of the country, the only moral action, and indeed the only non-hypocritical action, is to support the Iraqis in that which they overwhelmingly favor: keeping their country together. I will continue on, your other points. 5. It should not be encouraged because the usrge is working 6. This would not make it possible for a soft partition 7. Encourage I already covered in my speech above.