Position Paper Review Workshop

Reviewing Real Position Paper Excerpts

Let's analyze two solutions sections side by side.

Example A (Weak)

'France believes that the international community should increase cooperation to address the refugee crisis. Countries should share the burden of hosting refugees more equitably. The UN should provide more funding for refugee camps. We look forward to working with all nations to find a solution.'

Problems: No specific mechanisms. No numbers. No timeline. No reference to existing frameworks. 'Increase cooperation' and 'share the burden' are meaningless without detail. 'We look forward to working with all nations' is filler.

Example B (Strong)

'France proposes three interconnected initiatives: (1) Expansion of the EU-Turkey Statement model to establish bilateral processing agreements with five additional transit countries in North Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria), funded through a reallocated 15% increase to the EU's Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (currently EUR 9.9 billion for 2021-2027). (2) A UNHCR-administered Global Refugee Sponsorship Initiative, modeled on Canada's successful Private Sponsorship Program which has resettled 327,000 refugees since 1979, open to any member state. (3) Amendment of the 1951 Refugee Convention's geographical limitations through a Protocol establishing 'climate refugee' as a recognized category under international law, with France offering to host the drafting conference in Paris.'

Strengths: Specific mechanisms named. Existing precedents cited. Numbers and funding included. Actionable and bold.

Going Deeper

Mastery of this topic comes from sustained practice in committee, debate room, and study circle, not from any single lesson. The most successful MUN delegates, debate competitors, and political-research practitioners treat each new concept as a building block for the next conference, tournament, or written brief.

Connecting to Practice

When you encounter this concept in committee, ask yourself three questions:

1. How does this apply to my current position? A delegate representing Brazil on UNSC reform applies political-economic concepts differently than one representing the United States. A debate competitor preparing the affirmative case on a particular topic applies analytical frameworks differently than one preparing the negative.
2. What evidence supports my application? Mastery requires moving beyond abstract concept to specific cited evidence. Build the habit of finding 2-3 primary sources that ground your application of any concept.
3. What counter-arguments would the strongest opposition raise? Anticipating opposition is the single highest-leverage skill in competitive activities. The best delegates and debaters prepare for the strongest version of opposing arguments, not the weakest.

Building Your Resource Library

Develop a personal library of go-to sources for the concepts and issues that matter most for your work. For most MUN and debate competitors, the core library includes:

• Primary documents: UN resolutions, treaty texts, government statements relevant to your committee or topic.
• Quality secondary sources: think-tank reports (CFR, Brookings, CSIS, Chatham House), peer-reviewed journal articles, recognized news outlets.
• Historical context: foundational books and articles on your topic area.
• Recent developments: news in the last 90 days that affects your position.

Why Sustained Practice Matters

The difference between bronze-level and gold-level performance in MUN and debate is not raw intelligence — it is hours of structured practice. Recognized champions typically practice 5-10 hours per week between competitions, not the night before. Build sustainable practice habits, and your performance will improve cumulatively across seasons.