The Instigator
Ayal.Templer
Pro (for)
Tied
8 Points
The Contender
Albatross
Con (against)
Tied
8 Points

The UN in terms of politics is a joke

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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,197 times Debate No: 12450
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Ayal.Templer

Pro

In Advance I would like to that my opponent in advance for accepting the offer in joining this debate.

The United Nations was set up in 1945 after WW2 to replace the League of Nations to stop wars between countries. Currently, The United Nations has 192 members. The Link below shows all the members of the United Nations at present time, could the apposing delegate be so kind as to count the amount of countries that are on the list on the website WHICH are as to this day violating the UN Human Rights and Peace agreements that every nation must agree on before becoming a full member in the UN:

http://www.un.org...

As I stated earliar, the United Nations was set up inorder to maintain conflict between the nations of the world. Since the UN has been Established there have been 9 Major Genocides costing the lives of over 6 million and 700 thousand human beings.

What were the United Nations doing whilst 6,700,000 people were being killed?

(http://www.flashpoints.info...)

Examples:

During the Bosnian Genocide United Nation Troops under command of the French and the Dutch were told to engage with the Serbs, at the same time they were told, do not engage with the enemy unless fired at. The muslims being the target of the Genocide, The United Nations took over 100,000 muslims and placed them in a UN fortified Fort protected by the blue helmet soldiers. The serbs appeared at the gates Demanding the Muslims. After the UN declined the proposal, the serbs laz siege to the fort. THE UN finally gave in and surrendered the fort over to the Serbs. The Serbs later went on to put muslims in warehouses and lob grenades inside.

Modern day Iran,When the presedential ellections took place in Irans capitol of tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being the vicotor for a second term caused out rage all over the country! Causing Riots.Protesters clashed with National troops causing civilian casualties. Iran Later went on to hang several protesters, when it is clearly stated in one of the Human Rights when joining the United Nations that it is the right of every man to protest! WHERE DID THE UNITED NATIONS INTERVENE

These are just 2 of the many cases there are all over the world of WHERE the United Nations should have,or should be helping. If the United Nations excpect to have the world listen to them in matters of conflict, the United Nations needs to try a different approach, as seeing as the one currently being used.. has no effect on any nations

I look forward for the following debate.
Albatross

Con

The United nations without talking large direct actions in the world since the Korean conflict has been used as a international forum for global relations. I'm not sure what Pro suggests when he says the UN is a joke, but from his argument I can deduce he does not hold them in high regard. His main arguments consist of times when the UN failed to act in a situation that would warrant attention such as the genocide in Bosnia and the recent election in Iran.

What Pro doesn't fully comprehend is how the UN system works, they are not world governance, they can not simply send in troops to correct the wrongs of member states. while sending in troops to solve these problems is not in some cases a bad idea, they do not hold the authority to do so. Both situations he mentioned are not international disputes between members. but internal problems in there own countries, the UN has no jurisdiction in this matter. Pro also makes a point that members have to sign on to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights to join the UN, this is false. Officially the UN is "open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations"(1).

The UN admittedly has many problems, but these stem from a lack of authority to carry out its mission, the UN would be able to function on a higher level if they had the authority to enforce binding resolutions with military force. But as it stands the UN does not have this authority, and until it does it lacks the capacity to carry out its mission in the truest sense.

The point im trying to make is that the UN is not a bad institution, it just needs to be fixed. The UN is not a joke and I believe I have showed that your complaints are baseless.

(1)http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Ayal.Templer

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and look forward to this debate.

My opponent states that the United Nations is an International Furum for global relations. Could my opponent please specify which countries relationships have been improved via the United Nations. Countrie

"What Pro doesn't fully comprehend is how the UN system works, they are not world governance, they can not simply send in troops to correct the wrongs of member states." --- This i completly agree with, although, WHEN the United Nations do decide to take action and do send in troops ( example=Bosnian/ Serbian conflict) they find can find no resolution as the few rights they have to deploy and move troops around in a foreign country ( as my opponent said)

"Both situations he mentioned are not international disputes between members. but internal problems in there own countries," --I agree that the Iran re election is an internal election giving the United Nations limited options. HOWEVER Bosnia and Serbia were 2 states at war which needed international aid. The UN failed to do so in providing the Muslims of Bosnia poor quality protection.

Remember the debate does not revolve around Bosnia and Iran. I used these 2 nations problems as an example.

If the United Nations is as my opponent says an International Global Relations Forum, does the delegate really think its really needs the amount of money nations but into the UN just for relations? The money put into the UN is clearly for Operations abroad. Meaning, relations seems likly not to be on their main agenda.

"The UN admittedly has many problems, but these stem from a lack of authority to carry out its mission, the UN would be able to function on a higher level if they had the authority to enforce binding resolutions with military force. But as it stands the UN does not have this authority, and until it does it lacks the capacity to carry out its mission in the truest sense."

If the UN has a lack of authority in the world,therefore implies that Nations from all around the world, arent ready to give out their trust to the UN. If nations are not able to give out their trust or authority for the United Nations to carry out missions around the world, then with out a doubt nations must consider it a joke...

"
The point im trying to make is that the UN is not a bad institution, it just needs to be fixed. The UN is not a joke and I believe I have showed that your complaints are baseless."

I agree that the if the UN was to be remodeled and re done, the UN would not be such a bad insitution, unfortunatly the UN is what it is today. Unfortunatly for my opponent, i do not think that he/she has showed me that my "complains" are baseless.

I look forward to this debate very much.
Albatross

Con

Thank you pro,

You stated that the debate was not about the examples but about the resolution "The UN in terms of politics is a joke". Please forgive me if I cannot make a direct argument against this, the resolution is vague in its wording,I generally don't like to make asinine points about stuff like this but I feel compelled to do so this time. I have deduced somewhat that you do not like the UN in its current form, but im confused as to which part you wish to address, are we here to discuss the security council?, or maybe the general assembly?. or maybe its none of that, perhaps its a particular resolution, or maybe just a general topic. I lack the clairvoyant ability to determine what you are speaking about, and wish to discuss this further, but only when I know what I am debating about precisely.

If you can provide examples(other then those already posted) about where in the process the UN went wrong with in its own system, following its own laws, then I would be glad to hear about them, but if you cannot im forced to conclude victory for myself
Debate Round No. 2
Ayal.Templer

Pro

Dear con.

In my opinion, the title explains it all. " The UN in terms of politics is a joke". Politics. Not Humanitarian Aid, Not rescue missions but politics. In my opinion, and in the words of my opponent together, The reason the UN is a joke in my opinion, " is the lack of authority it has globally". How does one suppose the UN can do their job in maintaining global peace without the authority it needs to do so.

When my opponent says he lacks the clarity in continuing the debate, I ask why then join this debate.

Lets take a look at the Security council. The security council has 5 head states.China, France,USA, UK and Russia. Lets say that the States in the Security council wish to put sanctions on the Chinese governments for the Human Rights Violations, which China them selves have signed. In order for those sanctions to be passed through all 5 head states of the Security council have to agree. Obviously China are not going to accept sanctions over their own country. This is where not just in the Security council, but in the whole UN,when it comes to politics, we find a fault.

If a world wide organization which was partly set up to avoid conflict with its member states, doesn't have the authority to do so.. I consider that it is a joke.

Having said what i said, in all the rounds of debate. I make my argument of why in terms of politics is a joke.. I hope that in the last round my opponent, will show more understanding.

message for my Opponent: With all due respect and with no means of being rude, but next time you are un sure about the debate. Please contact the other delegate and ask hime to specify it..

Thank you very much for the debate!
Albatross

Con

thank you pro,

You have tried to clarify your point and I believe I have come to an understanding, none the less your resolution has no action or any very specific point but I will continue with what you have given me anyway.

The security council's purpose is to provide resolutions concerning security matters around the world, such as peacekeeping operations, international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. You addressed that the practice of keeping permanent members with veto power is a "joke" because they can veto any resolution targeted at them, you used the human rights issues in china as a example. Like I have said before the UN is not world governance, it lacks the authority from the member nations to carry out the mission you think it has. You suggested this is why it is a joke is because it lacks authority but this is not true, the UN carries out several other very important missions, such as humanitarian aid, refugee logistics, and peacekeeping operations. Just because a resolution is non binding or not passed does not mean the member nations cant put sanctions on china(or any other nation) by them selves. The united states trade embargo with Cuba is an example of this, there is no UN resolution regarding this "Economic sanction" if you will. The UN's job is not to force nations into doing what the "western world" thinks is best. Once again I will say I think the word "joke" is not the best word to describe the organizations, because the UN is far from a joke.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro did not argue it was a *good* joke. Only good jokes need punchlines. The resolution is affirmed.

The term "joke" should have been explicitly defined, but it was nonetheless clear enough from the context. "Joke" means "woefully ineffective and woefully lacking in moral authority." Con didn't really dispute the contention, rather arguing that being so suffices or it is that way by design.

Sources were weak, but Con didn't dispute Pro's specific contentions regarding members and actions that Pro referenced. S&G poor on both sides.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"Pro never proves that there's a punchline. Resolution negated."
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
lol - agree with Pro
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Comrade_Ulyanov 7 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
Ayal.TemplerAlbatrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Christian1993 7 years ago
Christian1993
Ayal.TemplerAlbatrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Ayal.TemplerAlbatrossTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
Ayal.TemplerAlbatrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by dmarais 7 years ago
dmarais
Ayal.TemplerAlbatrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01