The Instigator
Thing1
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
BreeHikariu
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

That the UN should become more militarily active

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Thing1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 23783
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Thing1

Con

The United Nations should not become more militarily active because they are an organization for peace and by using force from them alone, they are becoming more like a country than an organization. If they do get more military and use m force it is showing other organizations that this is alright when it clearly isn't. Countries who support the UN and are part of the UN should be instead, given referral by the United Nations to utilize their own military for a greater good decided by the UN.
BreeHikariu

Pro

I think that the UN should be allowed it's own military, Rather than making all other countries do so. That's the reason we have a UN is so no one country has to become the worlds policemen yet, the US is still stuck in this ditch (which is making other counties not so fond of us) and, if we can't do anything about it. Then the UN should as intended. As a force for good. A force, if need be. A force for the greater good.
Debate Round No. 1
Thing1

Con

Thing1 forfeited this round.
BreeHikariu

Pro

BreeHikariu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mrparkers 5 years ago
Mrparkers
You do realize that the UN doesn't have their own military, right?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Thing1BreeHikariuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both really talked past each other and even though Con's arguments were heavily flawed (such as equivocating ALL uses of force, not differentiating between defense of innocents and unjustified aggression), they were not sufficiently refuted by Pro. Con's other point of the UN becoming more like a country as an argument against more use of force sort of had a presupposed valuation. Why is that a bad thing? Con didn't really show why but Pro never attempted a refutation so the point is conceded.