Commemorative Debate: Charting A New Course Toward Peace in the Middle East

As requested, I will post my reaction to the Commemorative Debate. 

I really enjoyed the opening comments about debate as audience participation. I agree that debate is only successful when someone is listening and evaluating the claims made. Ideally this participatory element will lead to new ideas and societal improvements. 

I thought it was a little difficult to be a major participant due to the fact that I know little about the middle east and the role of the United States abroad. I must admit, that I have not made a conscience effort to track foreign politics as much as domestic politics. And as we know, the media covers very few foreign policy issues and many domestic issues. I found myself thirsty for background knowledge and expertise. If anything, the debate exemplified that the general public must make an effort to seek news regarding international/foreign policies. 

It was intriguing to hear the debaters use terms like rally around the flag, an ideograph  that SCOM 353 actually addressed at the beginning of the semester. 

In sum, I gathered that the negative side was opposed to the new dialogues and favored the status quo. But my question is, "If we shouldn't start a conversation/dialogue about these critical issues, than what should we do?" It is easy to say no and not give an alternative suggestion. I understand that due to the nature of a debate the negative side is merely expected to oppose, but it left me wondering, "If we shouldn't engage with Iran with dialogue, then how and what are we doing?" 

Also, I just wanted to point out that I found the debate format a little hypocritical. Throughout the debate one affirmative individual suggested that the "free exchange of ideas" is necessary and we should allow "moderates to have a voice in open debate." Immediately following, the debaters brutally and insensitively cut off one another (time constraints make this understandable in a college debate format.) But in real life, where debate will hopefully resolve conflict and prevent war, I don't think this type of hostile Q&A is beneficial. 

Ultimately, I know little about the debate subject, but I hope in the least that the United States has opened a dialogue. It seems to me that conversing  and open discussions are the first, and most vital step to solving any problem.