LO4 and LO7: This was the first time I had the chance to be part of the Model United Nations. I had been part of the World Scholars Cup before, however, I had been told that WSC was more idealistic and MUN was about the practicality as much as it was about the ideas. Due to consistent performance in the practice debates that were held every Wednesday and making conscious attempts to keep up with global affairs as well as chance I was awarded a position in the Advisory Panel of the conference and was asked to represent the United States of America. Carrying forward the pride I had from my successes in WSC and the mock debates, I prepared thoroughly on the given topic of immigration. My intention for the research for my debate was to be unquestionable and undisputable as well as using the weightage my country offered me to swing the votes in the panel towards the USA’s stand internationally. I was able to make the most amount of speeches and play a significant role in every approval or amendment that took place through the panel debate, however, I felt a heaviness walking out of the friendly conference after all the congratulations. I felt a plight of guilt to have used real international problems that had real implications to the lives of many, to just win arguments without considering what other countries had to offer. I was rewarded because I was the one person in the room who nobody could convince otherwise. Even if their idea was the more humane or morally correct one if I would have made any changes I would lose the stronghold and nobody was willing to lose stronghold because they felt whatever they said had no implications of its own. At one point even I felt, all I would say in a speech didn’t matter and therefore, I could just say what would draw me the most votes in favor. I quit the model united nations after this experience as I started to feel a certain distaste in my mouth when people argued just to increase the number of speeches they made.
