The Instigator
Cla
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
michaelperry13
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should the UN intervene in the civil wars?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
michaelperry13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 43753
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Cla

Con

It certainly shouldn't. One of the basic principles of international politics is respect for other countries' sovereignty. Each country has right to run its own affairs. Anyway, when a country sends its military to a peaceful country, it is considered to be an invasion and disobeying the principle. However, when the subject is a war-torn country, sending military means "peacekeeping" and it is found defensible. If a country or a unity enters another nation's civil war, which is an internal issue that the country has right to deal with, it literally means that the war-torn country is tried to be taken its administration over. This is no different to a conquering army. Determining the outcome of a civil conflict is not anybody's business but the country itself. For example, imagine how strange it would be if France had intervened the civil war in the US and the fate of the States was determined by the France Government. When also uselessness of the interventions are taken into consideration, there is nothing makes the UN interventions defensible.
michaelperry13

Pro

I contend that the UN should intervene in civil wars of countries if they deem it necessary.

Here is a quote from the United States' Declaration Of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (1)

In this part of the Declaration, it is giving the people the right to a revolution against their government if they believe it is infringing upon their human rights. I think we would both agree that that is something that is necessary in a society.

People that believe their government is oppressing them and not doing what is best for the people, they have the right to "abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Now, let's say that a country has a government so awful, so oppressive, and downright cruel that people believe a revolution was necessary. They know that there needs to be a revolution, but the government, being as cruel and awful as it is, has them outnumbered. The government has too many resources and the people do not have the man power to overthrow the government that has made their lives miserable.

I once had a Social Studies teacher who, on a test, had a multiple choice question that changed the way I think about things. The question read as follows.

What is the meaning of life? _______
a. Be a good person

That really had an impact on me. I believe that that is very true, and that the people of the world have a DUTY to try to give everyone equal rights. Because it would be nearly possible to give everyone equal rights, we have to settle for one place at a time. The way to do this would be helping the citizens of a country overthrow their government, and allow them to have the rights that you and I, debating over the Internet on expensive computers and living in warm homes, were generously afforded.

If a country cannot handle its own civil war, we must act.

It is the business of the country to settle their civil war, but as people, it is ours too. If the government that kept so many people down and didn't allow them to live the lives they deserved kills hundreds of thousands of citizens while we stand by and watch... We are not fulfilling "the meaning of life."

When you send a military into a war torn country, it is considered peacekeeping because your whole goal is to make things better. Sometimes in civil wars, when one side has all the power and tries to keep people down, it is necessary to do this "peacekeeping."

The Second Sudanese Civil War was an example of the government versus the people struggle. (2)

You also failed to define the word "intervene" in this situation. Do you mean soldiers on the ground or any help whatsoever?
Intervene is traditionally defined as: to come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events. (3)

I have to function under that definition because you failed to provide one, so I must assert this:
Do you think it is wrong to provide people with food when their government is oppressing them during a civil war?
Because that is certainly intervention.

And yes, I do agree that it would have been a little strange if France had influenced the outcome of the civil war in the US, but that is not the only civil war out there. Sometimes it is justified if it means saving millions of people from absolute oppression, sometimes it isn't justified. But as your question says "Should the UN intervene in the civil wars?", and the answer is sometimes, that makes the answer yes. The UN should intervene in civil wars.

(1) http://www.archives.gov...
(2) http://www.globalsecurity.org...
(3) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Cla

Con

Cla forfeited this round.
michaelperry13

Pro

I hope you will return to finish our debate. I am looking forward to your next arguments. I will restate my own now.

People have the right to revolution, the right to replace their government if they do not believing it is serving them the way it should be. However, in the case that the people are being oppressed by their government and are not able to abolish it, it is our duty as humans to act. When there is a civil war going on in another country, it doesn't matter that a country is sovereign. We must protect the rights of the people that live in other countries, as well as our own. We could do this by putting soldiers on the ground to keep peace, or by giving food to the people who have none.

For all of these reasons and more, I urge you to vote for pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Cla

Con

Cla forfeited this round.
michaelperry13

Pro

I have nothing to say this round, for you still haven't provided an arguments. I hope you return.
Debate Round No. 3
Cla

Con

Cla forfeited this round.
michaelperry13

Pro

Still no argument has been posted.
Debate Round No. 4
Cla

Con

Cla forfeited this round.
michaelperry13

Pro

It's disappointing that you could not return to finish this debate.

I will interpret this as a forfeit.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by michaelperry13 3 years ago
michaelperry13
@Jifpop09

Also a good point. The problem is, the way he phrased this debate, all bases had to be covered. Although they usually won't choose sides, they sometimes do if they deem it necessary- and if it is deemed necessary in the future, they should do it, right?

And we are human. Who really cares about sovereignty in the long run if it means drawn out, bloody wars?
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
The UN won't usually pick sides. They will just keep peace, help displaced people, attempt to broker peace. Sovereignty means little when when the blood of innocents is staining the land just because two sides can't come to a peaceful agreement.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Clamichaelperry13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited points to pro.