Some of you have expressed concern about how to handle the extreme position stated as your conference topic. The topic is a starting position and your presentation will state your initial view on that position. But, then you dialogue and, in this dialogue, you can propose/agree to something less extreme than stated in the topic, as long as you remain true to the views of the group you represent. Here are some examples:
1) Should the US aggressively deport illegal immigrants?: There are several variations of this which might ultimately be agreed to, for example deport those only that have criminal records, deport those that do not have children younger than 18, etc.
2) Should there be a global tax?: Variations for agreement would involve the amount of the tax, the type of wealth taxed, how the money is spent, etc.
3) Should Western companies refuse to purchase products from Bangladesh?: Variations for agreement involve the definition of 'child' labor, the working conditions (types of jobs, safety, etc.) for 'children,' whether offsetting benefits could be provided like time off for school and payment of school fees, etc.
4) Should Kim Jung Un regime get amnesty?: Variations for agreeement include who could receive amnesty and who must be punished, partial amnesty such as from death penalty, etc.
Because these are conferences, you partially debate, but you also partially try to reach a consensus by asking yourself 'how flexible can I be given my constituency (whom I represent).'