Bad luck in Hat draw for Debate-need a hand

[Comrade B]

In my school the AP US History class has a series of debates at the end of the year. We are given our topics and stance by drawing from a hat, I was unlucky enough to draw one in which I must argue that the United States should have stayed in Vietnam.

I have considered a few things now for what to do
1. Create a stereotype argument that will stand no chance to the opposition (a close ultra-liberal friend of mine) and get a few laughs by pretending to be a neo-con while still wearing my Chinese Communist Party Membership pin
-I may give them access to my notes as well

2. Find some communist way to defend this stance and take everyone by surprise, unfortunately this is extremely difficult, and I may force my friends' grades to drop by causing them to be caught off guard by my defense. There is also one other problem with this one, I have a partner, and am unsure of if she is willing to go through the hell that I have of being a communist in the most republican region of the state (Walla Walla county).

3. Stage it. Make this a bit of practice in acting. Another of my friends on the other side asked me what I thought of scripting the argument. I haven't responded yet.

So far, I am just collecting notes for #1
If you want to give me a hand with this one, I was wondering how many Trotskyist and other communist countries in the world (most searches for this only bring up Stalinist countries)

If you have advice for which path to take and how to carry this out, feel free to give me a hand. Please no posts simply saying I should do one with no reasoning behind it. This debate is worth 150 points (10% of my grade).

Thanks

Comrade B.

[mykittyhasaboner]

that REALLY sucks. i would tell the teacher to fuck off for giving me such a topic. BUT, since you are in dire need, heres my advice. i think you should go with number 1, unless your teacher is grading you on how well your arguing the subject. but i would go with number one because that seems to me like the only thing you can do, i dont know how you would find a leftist way to defend the US in the vietnam war. if your good at faking emotions and such than acting like you actually believe in your given stance, than perhaps you should try acting. i hope my advice wasnt worthless!

[Mariner's Revenge]

Use this as an opportunity to completely understand the neo-con way of thought so you can create better argument against the Vietnam War and other imperialistic means in the future.

[Kami]

I'd be tempted to say go ahead and play the devil's advocate on this one, it can be rather useful as an exercise. However, It's bloody difficult, so if it's not important, just have fun with it :P

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think it would be interesting to take a heterodox approach and say the United States should have stayed to further enforce anti-imperialist notion in the American public, since many neo-cons still claim Vietnam could have been won if the army just stuck it out later on. However, you would have a hard time pulling off this approach.

[Plagueround]

I'd go with the exaggerated neo-con approach. One of the most important parts of being a strong debater is fully understanding the other point of view, not just the one you support. I'd try to turn it around a bit so as to make that point of view look ludicrous...I'm sure you'll be able to pull it off.

[redSHARP]

i had to do shit like this for Model UN. biggest thing is to have fun with it!! but i would go with the serious approach; no reason to dick over your partner.

points to bring up:
major trade partner
defend democracy
keep the world free for good christians
show america is strong and whiling to back allies

those points are a good basic base to start from

[GPDP]

Don't you love when you have to play Devil's Advocate when it comes to political issues?

Earlier this year, in my Political Economy class, we had some debates between the four ideologies presented in our book: Classical Liberalism, Radicalism, Conservatism, and Modern Liberalism. Obviously, I wanted to be with the Radicals, but since everyone and their grandma wanted to be in that group (even though my professor and I were the only radical leftists in that class), as well as with the Modern Liberals, I got lumped in with the Classical Liberals.

It wasn't too hard, though I often found myself sickened by the capitalist bullshit I found myself spewing. Once I ended up detailing how if part of a river runs in my property, I should have the right to dump whatever I want in that river, and if others are hurt by my actions, they can only stop me by suing me. Once my time was up, I loudly declared how terrible I felt for saying such a thing.

Anyway, it can be amusing to speak from the point of view of the other side. Just make sure you don't lose your lunch over some of what you'll end up saying.

[Zurdito]

not my idea of fun, but look up Max Schactman (sp?) the communist activist turned hawk who still tried to use "leftist" arguments to fanatically defend the Vietnam war. there should be quite a lot out there on him

[Q]

Heh, nice subject.

I would more or less copy-paste the rethoric the neocons are using now to stay in Iraq. Point out that lives don't matter (what is the live of a marine worth in the fight against communism?) and that democracy is a system that should be build over a long period of time, Vietnamese are of course not ready for full democracy yet so America needs to help a hand.

:lol:

[Comrade B]

I like that suggestion about needing to "keep the world free for good christians," I think I will have some fun with this making my side sound so conservative that people will be forced to realize how insane conservatives are

[Psy]

You could make your arguments as if you were a imperialist talking to others in the ruling class. Saying it is too risky at the time to squeeze more value out of the US proletariat, as American workers were already starting to stir and colonizing Vietnam would only allow American capitalists access to cheap resources. Of course this can back-fire.

As for finding some communist way to defend this stance, there is argument that the US staying in Vietnam would have caused worker revolutions in Europe and USA. You could claim that if the US stayed in Vietnam it could have kicked of more uprisings like Paris May 1968.

[redSHARP]

I like that suggestion about needing to "keep the world free for good christians," I think I will have some fun with this making my side sound so conservative that people will be forced to realize how insane conservatives are

i do that shit all the time and it makes people think "do i really support that crazy crap?" my goal is not to make them red (i try but not the main goal), my goal is to make them think a little bit more beyond the surface.