Congress Team members:

Here is an example of a con speech for Resolution 204 – A Resolution to Free the Irish. Please be aware that I wrote the speech using only historical evidence for support. Jen Crespo is doing the research for the resolution and may bring you more specific research such as statistics and or quotes. It is my personal opinion that not only is historical evidence appropriate here; it is the only appropriate evidence. However, you may have a judge who requires the words – according to the September 8th issue of.......

This speech is also way too long. It is probably closer to 8 minutes in length. Speeches should be no longer than four minutes in length. What you need to do is pick part of it to use and cut it in length for yourself.

Here’s what I want you to do:

1. Copy the file to your computer (select all and paste to your own word document.)

2. Edit the speech by about half. (You can cut whole sections or cut all of it down in length)

3. Using a notecard, prepare an outline for the speech.

At practice you will:

1. Give the speech (after your editing) word for word using your copy. You will be standing up in front of the room and will do your best to establish eye contact while you are reading.

2. Then you will give the same speech using only the notecard. Obviously you will struggle with parts of it and will stumble a bit as you put it into your own language. This will be great practice for bringing an extemporaneous quality to your speeches.

Mr. Grisanzio

Flashback: You are a Junior in High School and are sitting in the back of the classroom - it is the first day of American History. Here it comes – the dreaded line about why we need to take history. Yes, there it is – because history repeats itself. Boring!

Now the reality representatives – it isn’t history that repeats itself but people who continue to repeat the same misguided decisions that others have made in the past. That is exactly what Resolution 204, a Resolution to Free the Irish, would be. Misguided and shown to be completely irresponsible on our part by our history. As boring as our history class may have been, we in this Congress are held responsible by our constituents to heed the lessons of the past.

This resolution would have little effect on resolving the strife in Northern Ireland, would alienate our staunchest ally in the world, place roadblocks to implementation of more important foreign policy initiatives and could even lead to retributions.

I do not want to talk statistics which are easily manipulated by either side of the issue, or quote from speakers or experts who are speaking their personal one-sided viewpoints. I want to talk about history.

First of all, the United States has never been able to step into local disputes which have nothing to do with us and force a resolution of conflict. The conflict between the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland dates back to 1649 with the invasion of Ireland by Oliver Cromwell. Over 350 years of strife is way beyond the scope of the U.S. to solve. Since we are truly on the outside we can have little impact. Want more history of failed American intrusions of local strife? Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Middle East. For all the resources and efforts made by the U.S. to force resolutions of conflict agreeable to us, they continue on their own pace and own schedules.

Secondly, it is ignorant of us to think that we can place the blame for these local disputes on one side or another. To call the historical actions of Sinn Fein and the IRA peaceful and diplomatic and the actions of Great Britain illegal and violent is seriously ignorant of the true history in the region. Of course there are those who can show atrocities by one side from the perspective of the other. Both sides can easily do so. A history lesson here:

-Our unending support of the government of South Vietnam due to atrocities by the Viet Cong and North Vietnam. What do we find? The embarrassment of the actions of a corrupt South Vietnamese government and embarrassing incidents such as the execution of a VC rebel, carried on the 6 o’clock news in America.

-Our unending support for Israel in their recent fight with the Palestinians, complete with aggressive rhetoric from George W. Bush. What do we find? The 6 o’clock new covering the Israeli tanks reducing parts of the West Bank to virtual rubble. Very simply, there are tow sides to these issues with blame to be found on both sided. If we are to pick sides, there need to be a compelling reason for us to do so.

Thirdly, intervention of this magnitude would go directly against our closest ally, Great Britain. Not only is it a ludicrous to even think of alienation our closest ally, do so would but serious roadblocks in the way of much more important foreign policy initiatives. Great Britain has been our most important ally in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and the upcoming conflict with Iraq. When the rest of the world wavered and disagreed with our ideas, the British stood right beside us and many times led the way. Answer a simple question – what is more important here – taking a side on the Irish question or making the world safe from terrorism and rogue states like Iraq and North Korea? Want more history? Without the aid of Great Britain we would not have been able to gain UN support for initiatives in Bosnia, Kosovo or the Persian Gulf War of 1990.

Finally, taking sides in a local issue like this opens the U.S. up to retribution from those involved in the conflict. For years we have tried to balance our relationship with the British and the steadfast support of the American Irish Catholic community. Much of the monetary support for the IRA comes from groups within the U.S. However, taking sides officially could bring on serious reactions. Since 1948 and the creation of Israel the U.S. has balanced the wishes of the Jewish community to help Israel and our oil relationships with Persian Gulf Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt. We thought we had the best of both world and had used American might to force our wishes upon the region. Again, a history lesson. What we got was the 1979 Revolution and hostage crisis in Iran led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the creation of a rogue states that sponsor terrorists such as Iran and Iraq, and the creation of al Queda , bin Laden and September 11th. What was at the top of all of their lists of complaints against the U.S.?– our support for Israel. Simple.

Obviously, this resolution id not only misguided it is completely unsupported by any interpretation of history. By taking sides on the strife in Northern Ireland we will have little to no effect on resolving the issue, we will find ourselves being embarrassed by the actions of our ally, we will alienate out oldest and most important ally, Great Britain, at a time where we need it so badly, and will open ourselves up to retribution. A lose – lose proposition. Let’s not add to the long list of decision-makers who have repeated the faulty decisions of the past. Moral of the story – as boring as history class was – I guess it really was important to pay attention.