Blog Introduction + User Manual

About Me + This Blog:

Hey there! It's Timothy. This is TimmyWrites, a one-of-a-kind blog that is a repository for all MUN + debate related resources, from position papers to background guides and everything in between!

First of all, why should you be even reading this blog? Why should you even trust this random person on the internet?

If you don't know me, I'm Timothy Chummar, a high schooler from Sharjah, UAE. 

Model UN and debates have literally changed my life.

How does 12 conferences as a delegate, 12 prizes, a youth business summit and 4 conferences as a chairperson change your life? 

Well, it's the reason I've received a lot of awards + financial grants + recognitions like:

1) A full-ride scholarship to attend Harvard's flagship government in the MENA region in grade 9;

2) One of 8 assistant directors selected worldwide to assist a few seniors at Yale in managing various committees (I helped out with the WHO committee) at Yale MUN Dubai '24;

3) Participated in a highly competitive winter intensive by Harvard this past winter (and ended up passing a draft bill in a Harvard policy lab);

4) Going this summer to study politics, economics, and law in Yale University as a Yale Young Global Scholar.

5) Received ~$10,000 in scholarships + financial grants & aid from multiple programs and organizations;

6) Received a full-ride two years scholarship to one of the best IB schools in the country.

All this and more are the result of Model UN and debates in my life. It's made me a better writer, thinker, and speaker which has helped me in multiple ways.

It changed my life tremendously and I know it can change yours. That's why I've created this blog.

Purpose Of This Blog:

This blog is meant to be a repository of resources. Apart from a few tips, I'm giving you the unfiltered sauce: the reason why I stacked all those awards. Of course, I've improved over time which is why each position paper and background guides gets better over time.

I've compiled the resources I wish I had as a high-schooler, starting out with my MUN journey. You can get a ton of MUN advice from the internet, but nobody shows you HOW to do stuff. I'm ungatekeeping all of my documents and making it open-source for you.

This should help you have clarity on what an award-winning position paper, draft resolution, and background guide should look like. To win, you need the right resources and you can find them all right here. Happy reading. :)

How To Use This:

Disclaimer: There's no copyright for any of this, but that doesn't mean that you can just copy my work. It's not meant to be a crutch. It's meant to be a guide for you, so please play fair and don't just steal all of my work in its entirety. You can be inspired, but intellectual theft isn't classy.

Click 'Labels' at the left to navigate through my posts. You'll find the classification of all of my resources there.

That's all from my side. Go for the prize and make me proud! 

Position Papers Introduction

Hey there! It's Timothy.

In my first Model UN conference, there wasn't anybody to tell me how to write a position paper, yet I ended up winning 2nd Best Delegate (in which FYI, your position paper is heavily accounted for). After ~20 conferences in total, I've been on both sides of the spectrum (as an author and as a judge).

This section is to be a critique of me and my brother's previous position papers which will give you insights into how to write a great position paper, tips on how to write a good position paper, and much more. 

Happy reading! =)

Draft Resolutions Introduction

Hey there! It's Timothy.

In my first Model UN conference, there wasn't anybody to tell me how to write a great draft resolution, yet I ended up winning 2nd Best Delegate (in which FYI, your resolution + presentation does heavily influence your prize decisions and is often the way people comeback). After ~20 conferences in total, I've been on both sides of the spectrum (as an author and as a judge).

This section is to be a critique of me and my brother's previous draft resolutions which will give you insights into how to write a great resolution, what makes for strong resolutions, how to frame unbreakable solutions, how to win best policymaker/draft resolution and much more. 

Happy reading! =)

Background Guides Introduction

Hey there! It's Timothy.

Now we get into the fun stuff. It's no longer your first conference.

Hopefully by now, you would've gone to quite a few conferences and bagged quite a few prizes.

Now, it's your time to chair. You've just got your first chairing acceptance mail and you're on cloud nine (at least, I was!).

Now, you have to do the painful work all chairs have to endure: writing a background guide/pre-conference guide.

I hope the background guides that me and my brother wrote help you in journey. These background guides should hopefully give you an idea of how a BG should be written and what are the pitfalls you should avoid. 

Happy reading! =)

Generic Debate Tips #1

These tips are for debate competitions (not MUNs in particular), but the spirit behind these tips can even be used for stuff from physics exams to basketball tournaments. Take these lessons, and you'll see how it practically applies to your life. I'll pepper it with life stories, quotations, and a lot more. =)

#1: Don’t give more than 5 clashes per debate (all three speakers combined).

This is a controversial one, but it's true. There's a fable in which a lion and a rabbit were talking to each other. The rabbit had many children, but the lion only had one. The rabbit sniggered at the lion, mocking it for the fact that it only had 1 child, but the lion replied: 'My child is a lion.' Even though the lion only has one child, the fact that it is a lion proves that it's more valuable than a bunch of rabbits.

The same works for debates. WSDC judges aren't impressed by the fact that you whip up 15 arguments for/against a motion. They'd value 3 central arguments that are logically sound, cannot be shaken, and can sustain an entire debate without being dropped by the 3rd speaker. To run with the metaphor, they'd value 1 lion over 10 rabbits. 

To prove my case, let me tell about the time I went for a national debate competition (we had teams from some of the best schools in India and the national debate team of the UAE participate in this tournament) with my former high school's team of 3. 

We got knocked out in the prelims itself, scoring 1/3 rounds. The mistake we made was each of us developing almost 5+ arguments per speaker. It did defeat the low-ranked teams, but when we went up against the high school pros (the kind that goes for Harvard + Stanford invitationals), you can predict the result. We put up a great fight and ended up losing (257.5/260) which you might argue is a pretty close shave, but it's the win that matters.

Don't do what I did. Just prepare 2/3 solid clashes (arguments) that are logically robust, and you should be in a way better position that your opponent (and if you really need to, 2/3 minor clashes that accentuate your points or exploit a weakness in your opponents arguments). Syrup tastes best when concentrated, not when it's dilute.

#2: Prepare equally for both sides.

Self-explanatory (I know). Let me explain. There will some motions that heavily skew themselves to one side of the argument. Our human brains are hardwired to go for the easiest/most obvious solution, which is to prepare for the better side, cross our fingers, and hope that we land the side we prepared the best for. But what if you land the other side?

At the same competition which I was talking about, we were going into the second round which was the difference between qualification and not qualifying. If you won that round, you directly went for the quarter-finals without having to worry about the third round.

The second round happened to be the prepared round, and it was terribly skewed to one side of the argument. We prepared for the skewed side of the argument very well, and did very minimal prep for the other side. You can guess which side we drew.

We were objectively better than that team on almost all stats (ATSS, best speaker score, reply speeches - the lot). You name it, we did it better than them. In fact, they were the one of the worst teams when it came to raw performance (aside from the actual wins). All of our speakers were in the top 26 ranks, whilst their highest ranked speaker was 33rd. They were the last team to break into the quarters and got knocked out by the tournament champions (the national debate team). To top it off, they ChatGPTed their speeches, which is not a good look for any debate. 

But, we still ended up losing a low-scoring debate simply because we did not prepare well enough for the other side of the argument. Don't do that mistake and lose to horrible teams simply because you were not cautious enough to prepare for both sides.

Generic Debate Tips #2

If you haven't read the first tips blogpost, go check that out first. This is a continuation of that.

#3: Don’t be too condescending or make the other team look dumb.

It's never a good look and can hurt your case more than helping it. Forget debates, in life you should never be condescending or make anybody look stupid. Nobody likes that because we all are humans, and nobody likes it when you disrespect others or make them look stupid. Prove them wrong (why else do we debate?) but there's no point in saying that they're unintelligible, sniggering at them behind your team table, giving haughty looks, or anything else the meanies try.

Also, if you start to treat them like idiots, it'll make you overconfident and you'll be less on your guard. Especially if the opposing team puts the strong guy as the last speaker (like the WSDC team of Pakistan in 2015), your entire case can be ripped through. Overall, not a good look. Don't try it.

#4: Always appeal to the senior-most judge. They swing debates.

Under-rated tip. When the committee is divided, usually senior judges step in and make the casting vote (ex: if the panel is 9, and the committee is split 4-4, the senior judge usually makes the final call). It's exactly like the Supreme Court. 

Always appeal to them + their logic (if you happen to know their previous judgements, any comments they've made during the competition, or even their facial expressions if they're not poker-faced) because they might be the difference between you going to the knock-outs or you going home empty-handed.

As a general rule of thumb, usually the senior judge(s) sit in the middle. There's always exceptions, but that's just a rough observation I've made.

#5: Don’t be too forceful or highly sentimental.

We are all homo-sapiens. We love jokes, feel like crying when emotionally appealed to, fear dangers and everything in between. Debates naturally contain all these elements, but always keep this at the back of your head: debates are logical battles. You first have to win the logical battle, and then only does aggression + ethos work. You might be able to scare the inexperienced, but you wouldn't ruffle champions in the slightest bit. 

If your arguments are purely based on sentimalism and appeal to emotion, you're trying to compete in a baking competition presenting a dish that's all cream and no cake. 

To bring a real-life example, I'll be referencing the tournament I was talking about in the first tips blogpost. We lost the third round and were preparing to go home after losing the prelims when we caught hold of our adjucator in the final round. We asked her what went wrong with our debate, and she told us that we argued well but our argument were based on environmental appeals, ethos, and generally a lack of a logically-sound train of thought. That was the issue which made the judges swing the debate in our opponent's favour. 


By all means, use all the tools in your grasp. Just know when to use a hammer and when to use a screwdriver. You always don't need to be hammering nails, sometimes it's just a simple screwdriver that does the trick.

Background Guide 1

Context: This was the backgound guide for the second agenda for the conference referenced in BG 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agenda 2

Introduction To The Agenda

NATO is the foundation of both Europe’s collective defense and international security architecture. Established in 1949, it has transformed with every single geopolitical development, whether it is dealing with the Cold War, the Russia-Ukraine situation, or other global state and non-state actor threats.

Its primary aim is that the seventeen members will achieve collective security through peace, defense, military readiness, political unity, strategic deterrence, and crisis management. With the rise of more sophisticated global threats, NATO seems to have redefined strategy on how its member states develop military assets and strategies to achieve the purpose of Allies Goals and Guarantors.

As the leading military power of NATO, the US has significant influence in setting the direction of the Alliance with its operational and finance strategies. The US still puts resources to ensure that NATO focuses on emerging issues, such as cybersecurity, hybrid warfare, and intra-state wars. At the same time, there are newer challenges that come with the growing defense spending by some member states, like Sweden.

This multiplies the problem the US has to manage: How to ensure that the enhancement of individual member state’s capabilities remain integrated within the strategies of NATO as a whole and do not fragment the Alliance?

Key Terms

• Collective Defence - NATO’s foundational principle where all member states, guided by the U.S, defend each other to ensure mutual security and stability across the alliance.

• Strategic Deterrence - The calculated use of military power, particularly through NATO’s forces and U.S. leadership, to discourage any potential aggression from adversaries like Russia or other global threats.

• Military Sovereignty - The right of NATO members to independently enhance their military capabilities, while ensuring their efforts align with the broader goals and responsibilities of the alliance.

• Operational Integration - The seamless incorporation of individual member states' military advancements into NATO’s unified operational framework, ensuring all forces work in concert during joint missions.

• Geostrategic Tensions - The growing political and military frictions between NATO and its adversaries, particularly in regions of strategic interest, which require constant adaptation of NATO’s military strategy.

• NATO Enlargement - The process by which NATO welcomes new members, adjusting its strategic focus and expanding its influence, particularly in regions where security is fragile or contested.

• Defence Posture - The collective and individual strategies that NATO adopts, often driven by U.S. leadership, to adapt to emerging global threats and ensure the alliance’s readiness in a shifting geopolitical landscape.

• Military Redundancy - The potential risk of duplicated military efforts within NATO if individual member states pursue independent military enhancements that don’t fully align with the alliance’s coordinated plans.

• Force Alignment - Ensuring that all members’ military developments are in sync with NATO’s collective defence objectives, avoiding any discrepancies that could undermine the alliance’s cohesion.

• Regional Power Projection - NATO’s ability, particularly under U.S. leadership, to project military strength and influence in key regions, ensuring stability and responding to emerging threats in real-time.

• Internal Fragmentation - The challenge of maintaining unity within NATO if member states pursue independent military strategies that do not fully integrate with NATO’s collective goals and operations.

• Integrated Military Strategy - A strategy where each member’s military efforts complement NATO’s broader defence initiatives, strengthening the alliance’s collective ability to respond to external threats.

• Joint Exercises - NATO’s regular coordinated military drills that enhance the interoperability and cooperation of its member states, ensuring that all forces are prepared to act together in defence operations.

• Force Multiplier - The idea that the military advancements of individual NATO members act as a force amplifier, enhancing the alliance’s overall deterrence and operational capability against global threats.

• NATO Command Structure - The centralized leadership and decision-making process within NATO, driven by the U.S., ensuring that all member states can operate cohesively and efficiently, despite national differences in military capacity.

Key Issues

• The main issue at play here is when (and not if) the U.S.A’s primary support is removed due to hostilities from the current administration or a demand for a payable service model by the U.S.A (where the E.U., NATO and Japan are basically forced to pay for protection), how would NATO adapt to this new reality? Is NATO prepared for the eventuality of the U.S.A backing out of the alliance in its own self-interests and leaving Europe to fend for itself in the case of war, or would they collapse like a house of cards?

• The U.S.A’s foreign policy has completely upended the Biden administration’s viewpoint on international affairs, with the current administration cozying up to Russia, the sworn arch-enemy of NATO (and the reason as to why it was formed). If Trump continues his courtship of Russia, how should NATO adapt in terms of relations with Russia? Stand up to the U.S.A or meet the lion in his den?

• The last tenement of the U.S.A’s foreign policy that we’d like to touch upon is the elephant in the room: tariffs. Trump’s ‘favorite word in the dictionary’ is the least liked word of the E.U, which comprises a heavy majority of NATO? How will NATO adapt to this new reality where the most integral part of their alliance attacks their members? What response should NATO deliver to the sweeping tariffs without destroying the alliance?

Major Stakeholders

1) United States of America:

As the largest military force within NATO, the United States holds a pivotal role in shaping the alliance’s policies and strategic direction. The U.S. provides substantial resources, technological superiority, and military leadership, underpinning NATO’s defense structure. The U.S. is integral to NATO’s presence in regions such as Eastern Europe, where it spearheads deterrence measures against Russian aggression. Furthermore, its influence extends to shaping NATO’s global defense posture, aligning the alliance’s capabilities to meet a diverse range of security challenges, from conventional warfare to counterterrorism operations.

2) United Kingdom:

The United Kingdom remains a cornerstone of NATO’s military and strategic frameworks. Its well-established defense capabilities and its geographic positioning in Northern Europe make it an indispensable player within the alliance. Beyond contributing significant forces and resources, the UK is active in shaping NATO’s response to emerging geopolitical tensions. The country’s ongoing commitment to NATO’s nuclear deterrence and its operations across various theaters, particularly in the Middle East and Europe, highlights its central role in maintaining NATO’s operational readiness and strategic cohesion.

3) Germany:

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, holds significant influence within NATO, particularly in shaping the alliance’s policies on European security and defense. Its contributions to NATO’s military capacity are substantial, particularly in the realms of logistics, troop deployments, and intelligence-sharing. As NATO continues to respond to the challenges posed by Russian aggression in the Baltic and Eastern Europe, Germany’s military strategies are key to ensuring NATO’s unified defense posture. The nation’s commitment to NATO’s operations, alongside its role in EU defense initiatives, underscores its dual responsibility in both regional and global security frameworks.

4) France:

France’s military capabilities are crucial to NATO’s overall strength, especially in global operations such as those in Africa and the Middle East. Though France has pursued a somewhat independent defense strategy at times, maintaining its own nuclear deterrent, it remains a core member of NATO. Its strategic interests, particularly in regions like the Sahel, shape NATO’s broader operational goals. France is also an influential voice within NATO, ensuring that the alliance remains responsive to the security challenges of the modern world, from counterterrorism to regional conflict resolution.

5) Poland:

Poland plays a critical role in NATO’s defense posture, particularly in light of its strategic location along the eastern flank of the alliance, bordering Russia and Belarus. In recent years, Poland has significantly enhanced its military capabilities, aligning them closely with NATO’s broader deterrence and defense strategies. Its strong commitment to NATO’s collective defense framework is especially evident in its contributions to NATO’s efforts in maintaining security in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region. Poland’s role is indispensable in ensuring NATO’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to emerging threats in Europe.

6) Turkey:

Situated at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Turkey’s geographic position gives it strategic importance within NATO. Turkey’s role in securing critical regions like the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in relation to counterterrorism and military presence, has made it a key ally. Despite occasional divergences in military strategy, Turkey’s contributions to NATO’s collective defense, including its strategic military assets and regional military initiatives, are vital in maintaining the alliance’s cohesion and operational effectiveness.

7) Canada:

Canada plays a fundamental role within NATO, contributing to both global peacekeeping missions and regional defense strategies. Although geographically distanced from some of NATO’s most immediate threats, Canada remains a staunch supporter of NATO’s collective defense framework. Its participation in joint military operations, its commitment to peacekeeping, and its significant role in Arctic defense highlight Canada’s contribution to NATO’s global security objectives. Canada’s involvement ensures that NATO maintains a comprehensive and integrated defense approach across all operational domains.

Previous Solutions

• One solution that is already in practice (which if forcibly implemented, could save NATO a lot of pain) is by mandating that all member states pledge that a certain percentage of a country’s GDP be spent on militarization (a.k.a burden-sharing). The idea is to kill two birds with one stone: increased spending will inadvertently prepare all member nations in case of a war (because, a war on one is a war on all) and recently, this has also been used as a means to pacify the U.S.A’s ever-shifting demands as Trump’s new foreign policy inches towards European self-reliance rather than shifting the momentous burden of defense on the USA. Admittedly, NATO is playing a very delicate balancing act in this regard, trying to maintain the 2% commitment with each of the states, whilst trying to ignore the 5% target set by Trump.

• NATO has kept the door open to negotiations with Russia much to the members’ consternation. While this might sound conflicting, this is actually a silent adaptation that NATO has instituted as a result of the U.S.A trying to settle relations with Russia. They have even previously considered Russia as a partner, but due to the Russ-Ukrainian war, they have now severed ties with Russia although there are still signs that NATO might try to reconcile with Russia in the wake of the new reality that the U.S.A is openly courting Russia. As of today, that’s a little bit strained based on the Russian missile attacks on Ukraine (which Trump condemned), but we could overall see a slight pivot which is the uncomfortable truth NATO must keep in mind.

• The ghastly reality of a changed U.S.A has kept a 3rd option on the table for NATO: slowly split from the U.S.A. While this might not work on paper, it might (and is already) work in principle. When the U.S.A’s pipeline runs dry, the E.U. has no other choice but to fend for itself and arm themselves. This inevitably leads to a dis-illusioned E.U. having to break away from the U.S.A and make their own choices. This has already happened, with the rift deepening with Trump’s comments on the E.U. and his steep tariffs. In return, the E.U. has issued similar counter-tariffs, which has definitely made this “improbable scenario” the reality of our world.

Possible Solutions

[NOTE: These solutions are based off a few papers and books by Chris J. Dolan, an assistant professor for homeland security and public policy at Penn State. Read both of his books published in 2023 and his research papers to have a brilliant disposition of the agenda.]

• Increasing internal cohesion amongst the bloc will go a long way to reigning in the effects of U.S.A’s foreign policy. The reason why Trump spooks out NATO is because each member state has nothing to fall back on. The U.S.A has proved to be an unreliable partner, and the constant bickering within NATO (with France and Britain squalling about differing ideals on how NATO and the E.U. should go forward in the face of Trump to Viktor Orban and Erdogan constantly opposing efforts to unite in the face of Putin) has not given anyone sweet dreams. Consolidating the bloc would fix all the issues and help with throwing around weight in order to stack up against Trump.

• Send an olive branch to Trump. At the end of the day, to strategically adapt to the new administration’s changing tunes, you need to give and take (that’s diplomacy in a nutshell.) Negotiate figures with the U.S.A (example: reduce the tariffs on Europe but marginally increase the % amount of military spending to 2.5/3%) and appease Trump. I guess there is something we can learn from Putin after all.

• This ties into the first point very well: Attack as one. It’s not enough to just agree or consent to everything. Counter Iran, North Korea and Russia with everybody on the same page. There’s no point trying to flex unity when half the bloc doesn’t hold with you on a certain issue.

QARMA (Questions A Resolution Must Answer)

• How will NATO prepare for the eventuality of the U.S.A backing out of the alliance, especially in the case of war? (Detail specific measures on how the E.U. can arm and economically strengthen itself before the crutch of the U.S.A falls apart?)

• Will NATO continue to negotiate with Russia (starting with a Ukrainian peace deal)? If yes, under what terms will NATO negotiate?

• How will NATO collectively react to Trump’s tariffs? And if so, are there any listed measures to form an independent European economy that isn’t heavily reliant on the U.S.A?

• Will NATO stick to the 2%-of-GDP military spending rule, amend it to 5% to appease the U.S.A, or will they meet somewhere in the middle? If so, how much and are they willing to increase their debt ceiling to cover the additional costs (i.e., how will they finance it?)

• If (under any circumstance) NATO is to split apart, will the alliance be kept intact minus the U.S.A, or will there be a fragmentation into small bi-lateral agreements?

Bibliography

• https://www.cfr.org/blog/transition-2025-us-foreign-policy-eve-disruption

• https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/strategic-change-us-foreign-policy?lang=en

• https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/02/24/us-nato-ukraine-trump/

• https://www.csis.org/analysis/transatlantic-alliance-age-trump-coming-collisions

• https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/nato-article-5-collective-defense-trump-rcna196981

• https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-mission-impossible-making-europe-pay-their-own-defense

• https://tdhj.org/blog/post/trump-administration-nato/

• https://tdhj.org/blog/post/author/chris-j-dolan/

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0lzxz7kg4wo

• https://www.vox.com/world-politics/404139/nato-trump-article-5-europe-russia

• https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50090.htm