Resolved: The United States Federal Government should increase its diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve internal armed conflicts in West Asia.
January 2023 asked whether more American diplomacy helps or hurts the region’s civil wars. Pro says only the U.S. can convene the talks that end them; Con says American involvement is part of why several of them keep burning.
Topic analysis
The convening-power case
Pro’s theory is that internal armed conflicts, the civil wars and insurgencies across West Asia, end through negotiated settlements rather than military victory, and settlements need a convener with leverage over the outside patrons backing each side. Only the United States combines relationships across rival blocs, money for reconstruction incentives, and the security guarantees that make disarmament credible. "Increase diplomatic efforts" is deliberately soft advocacy (envoys, sustained engagement, back channels, no troops), which lets Pro claim the humanitarian stakes without carrying the baggage of intervention.
The credibility problem
Con starts from the regional record. Decades of American involvement through invasions, drone campaigns, arms sales and selective alliances created or inflamed several of the conflicts Pro wants to mediate. To the combatants, Washington is a participant rather than a referee, and a bigger U.S. role delegitimizes the local actors who accept it and gives spoilers a rallying story. The stronger Con layer is displacement: regional powers and multilateral bodies have led the recent de-escalations, and putting America at the center crowds out mediators who have credibility. Sometimes the most productive diplomatic move is to step back.
Making a vague resolution concrete
The wording is broad ("internal armed conflicts," "diplomatic efforts," "increase"), so the team that makes it concrete on its own terms controls the round. Pro should anchor in conflicts where U.S. engagement has a plausible mechanism, such as facilitating truces, funding peace processes, or pressuring patrons it arms. Con should anchor where U.S. involvement is most toxic and where mediation by others has worked. Judges resolve vagueness in favor of whichever side taught them the region better, so country-specific knowledge is the biggest advantage you can bring to this topic.
Prep downloads
A free PDF brief for this resolution. Block files and sample cases are available to members of the National Debate Club travel team.
PDF brief
Cut cards for this resolution. Coming soon.
Block file
Pre-written answers to the arguments you'll hear every round.
Sample cases
Varsity-level Aff and Neg cases with blocks, written by the travel team.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as "West Asia"?
Broadly, the Middle East under another name: the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and by some definitions the Caucasus. Teams should set the scope in the first speeches, because the conflicts chosen as examples determine whose links apply.
Does "diplomatic efforts" exclude sanctions and aid?
It’s contested. Sanctions relief and aid packages are standard diplomatic leverage, and most Pro cases include them as tools. Con can argue that economic coercion is exactly the kind of "diplomacy" its targets experience as domination.
How does Con avoid sounding isolationist?
By arguing for alternatives rather than absence: regional mediation, UN processes, and humanitarian support without America at the political center. Con’s claim is comparative. Other actors resolve these conflicts better when the U.S. supports from the background instead of leading.