The Instigator
muffi_29
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
traylzac
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should INDIA be given a VETO power in Security council?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
traylzac
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 197 times Debate No: 81771
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

muffi_29

Pro

India represents nearly 1/5 of humanity. Still, it is not allowed a fair place at the UN. How can India continue to be a part of such an unfair organization? Is this likely to change within a few decades, as India grows more and more stronger on the world stage? Or would it be best for India to boycott such a biased organization altogether?
traylzac

Con

I will say this, India is not an indispensable nation in the UN. It contributes less than Mexico and Spain respectably in monetary donations, even though it has a bigger tax base.

Also, India does have a can't - live - without military because without their navy, the Indian Ocean would still have the Chinese and American Navies.

Finally, India has had no major involvement in major military wars, which is what gave Britain, America, France, Soviet Union(later Russia), and China their positions.
Debate Round No. 1
muffi_29

Pro

muffi_29 forfeited this round.
traylzac

Con

I'm going to bring another issue here I have been reading that is very true and needs to be adressed. All permanent UN security counsel members are all non - Islamic. Why would we give India a seat, with it having the second highest population, if we are not giving an Islamic nation one? Islam is the second biggest religion, with over 1.5 billion, where India has only 1.2 billion. Islam deserves a say more than India because they are under represented and need to have a voice that stands up to all the horrible discrimination in the world against them.

I would say Pakistan is a better candidate. This is for a number of reasons. First, their gdp growth has been consistent, with the gdp growth rising from 4.4% to 5.4%, compared to India having a growth rate in 2011 of 6.6%, and having it drop by 1.5% in 2012. This inconsistency is not a very good thing for member of the UN Security Consul to have.

America, though it doesn't have a huge gdp growth rate, has had a consistent growth rate of between 2.2-2.4 since 2012, only dropping from 2.3 to 2.2 in 2013. This though went up in 2014 to 2.4. Also, these numbers have a plus/minus of .2, which means that the U.S. could have actually stand with the growth rate of 2.3.
Debate Round No. 2
muffi_29

Pro

muffi_29 forfeited this round.
traylzac

Con

I will end with a quick closing argument. India should not be a UN Permanent Security Counsel member. This is seen when put into the worldwide perspective. India, though having a large population, only has a gdp growth rate this high because of it's centuries of falling behind and a large population.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
muffi_29traylzacTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture