The Instigator
snowbunny
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
bluebrit
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should the United Nations peacekeepers have the power to engage in offensive operations?

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...
bluebrit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,379 times Debate No: 68165
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

snowbunny

Con

In this first round we will do our opening statement and start our arguments.

I think that the UN peacekeepers should not have the power to engage in offensive operations.
The Merriam Webster definition says offensive means causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset.
Peacekeeping means the preserving of peace; especially international enforcement and supervision of a truce between hostile states or communities.
The idea that they could do offensive operations goes against what their goal is, which is to keep the peace not be offensive. Even if there is conflict in a country the UN shouldn't be there in the first place. They are supposed to do negotiations not fight.
bluebrit

Pro

Sometimes, offensive action may be the only way to achieve peace. We can see this throughout history from putting down the Nika Rebellion to the war between Antony and Octavian that led to the Pax Romana. Also, according to the Communist ideology, for a true peaceful Communist society to develop, there must be a violent overtake against the government.
Debate Round No. 1
snowbunny

Con

Yes, sometimes conflict cannot be avoided, but the point is not if offensive or defensive actions should never taken its that the United Nations peacekeepers should not be the ones in charge of being in the conflict. Their job is to do the negotiations and prevent conflict, not fight in wars. That is the military's job. If conflict does appear they should leave and let the military or another group go and do their job.

I would like my opponent to go into further detail when they said " according to the communist ideology, for a truly peaceful communist society to develop, there must be a violent overtake against the government"
bluebrit

Pro

According to Marx's theory of history, before achieving a full communist state, socialism must take pace. Socialism is the fifth and deadliest stage because that's where the revolution against the capitalists and government begins. That is what I meant by "a violent overtake against the government". Of course, after socialism, once there is a full communist state, there will theoretically be peace.

Now, the difference between the Peacekeepers fighting than a military fighting is that there will sometimes be different motives. Since the Peacekeepers are backed by the UN, their motive would almost definitely be to establish peace. Though, if it was a foreign military that came in to resolve a conflict, chances are, their main motive may not be "peace", but rather to better themselves. In other words, Peacekeepers are probably more reliable than a national military to engage in offensive operations.

Iraq can be seen as an example of how the U.S.'s real motive was not peace and stability, but rather oil. In the end, there were so many casualties on both sides that it may have been worse than not toppling Saddam Hussein.
Debate Round No. 2
snowbunny

Con

"According to Marx's theory of history, before achieving a full communist state, socialism must take place. Socialism is the fifth and the deadliest stage because that's where the revolution against the capitalists and government begins. That is what I meant by "a violent overtake against the government". Of course, after socialism, once there is a full communist state, there will theoretically be peace" Are you trying to say that we need to stop these states from becoming communist states?

It doesn't have to be a specific military that would be in charge of the conflict. Since the UN is made of multiple countries, they can make a group with trained professionals from each country. Their job would be to help the UN peacekeepers. The peacekeepers would be in charge of the negotiations. If conflict occurred, then the trained group can take control. The peacekeepers could still be involved past that point, but the main ones involved would be the new group. The group would be backed by the UN, so their goal would also be peace, but they deal with the conflict.
bluebrit

Pro

bluebrit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
snowbunny

Con

Since this is the last round and my opponent did not post anything for his last round, I just want to repeat my arguments for being con.

1 Going off the Merriam Webster definitions of offensive and peacekeeping the resolution goes against the goal of the UN peacekeepers

2 in some situations conflict cannot be avoided, but the UN peacekeepers should not be in charge of the conflict. They should just be in charge of the negotiations.

I still don't understand why my opponent brought up Marx's theory of history

Before I end this I would like to offer a better resolution. Instead of having the UN peacekeepers in charge of the conflict there should be a group with people of multiple countries of the UN, who would be in charge of the conflict. The peacekeepers could still be there, but they would not be in charge of the operation.
bluebrit

Pro

I do apologize for not being able to post my third round.

I stated Marx's theory as an example of how peace can only be established through blood and violence.

"Since the UN is made of multiple countries, they can make a group with trained professionals from each country. Their job would be to help the UN peacekeepers." Great idea, but I really do not see why another group has to be created just to deal with the conflict. As ironic it may sound, why not just have the peacekeepers be involved in war as well? I mean, the name can always be changed from peacekeepers to something else.

You are correct in pointing out that the UN peacekeepers have limits to offensive engagement, but the debate question asked "Should the United Nations peacekeepers have the power to engage in offensive operations?", and my opponent's number one argument would be invalid.

In conclusion, my arguments would be...

1. UN Peacekeepers should be able to engage in offensive operations, though there must be solid reason that it would result in peace in the area and it must be agreed upon by a certain amount of UN nations.

2. I believe that there is no need for another group of people to deal with offensive engagement.

Overall, I think that the peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
snowbunnybluebritTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct due to Pro's forfeit. Pro wins arguments. The question in this debate really came down to whether peacekeepers should be the ones doing the fighting, and Pro gives me a convincing argument that peacekeepers, because they come from different countries, will be more interested in establishing peace than pursuing some nationalistic agenda. More to the point, Con's rebuttal doesn't seem practical, as creating a whole separate force to tackle the issue when the peacekeepers already exist and are already deployed in troubled regions just seems redundant and excessive. Suggestion for improvement: both debaters should use and cite sources, should work on developing their points more fully instead of making bare assertions, and should impact their arguments more frequently and explicitly back to the topic.