The Instigator
stargate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The UN is necessary and needs to stay.

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 2 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,326 times Debate No: 79574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

stargate

Pro

In this debate I must prove the the UN is necessary, and that the UN needs to stay.

By necessary I mean it is required.

If you want to do this debate then tell me in the comment section. I will pick my opponent from the comment section on this Monday.

This debate will be divide into four rounds.

Round one acceptance

Round two first augment

Round three counter augment

Round four closing augment
lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
stargate

Pro

For far to long the world has been divided and fragmented. It has been country vs country, neighborhood vs neighborhood, brother vs brother. But we need to end this circle of war and destruction, we need to end it before it end us all. Our technology advance every day, now it is at the point that if an gobal war ever breaks out every nation goes down in it. Look at WW1 look at the technology and the year the war happened, now look at the amount of people that died. Now lets fast forward a bit there is a group that was sort of like the UN, but it was far to weak to stop the coming tidal wave. Lets look at the technology used the years the war happened and the amount of people dying for there nations. After that war Europe and Asia where in ruins, but that was 77 years ago, an war by the way most kids do not even know what country was what, an war where they do tell the millions killed by both slides. The weapons that we both used. Now let look now we can see the world is starting to heat up, Russia building its military up, and building more nuclear warheads. Along with moving into Ukraine, helping Syria's dictator who should be charged with crimes against humanity, and the Georgian invasion. Along with violated our allies air space, and flying closer and closer to our land only to turn back we we lantch our jets. China build there fake islands and threating Japan, Vietnam and the Philippians. We need the Un more then ever before. Terrorism is on the rise on a worldwide scale, if we do not untie then things will turn from bad to worse. You already see an unwillingness to fight and to protect our believes.

The UN helps people in nation needed it, food ad medical aid are just some things they help with.

The UN maybe isn't prefect but they are an key part of the worlds political stages. They can not slove every problem but we can not just give up on it and return to the early 1900's. The world is heating up in more ways then you think, and getting rid of the UN would be an dire mistake.
lannan13

Con

Alrighty, opening arguments.

Contention 1: Concert of Europe solves.

Through taking the Libertarian stance one can easily use the example of the Concert of Europe as a key example on how the world can opperate without a United Nations. One of the key issues many people take is that of the UN's legilature and that of their imposing on national sovergnty. If we look at history we can see many key alliances hava actually helped beter the world.

The first is the Concert of Europe. This occured after the French uprising was crushed. It contained 5 nations, Russia, Britian, France, Prussia/Germany, and Austro-Hungry. [1] The Concert was split into two camps at all times and it would always be 3-2. This was enough to prevent a major war for well over 100 years. They even put down many revolutions that would have threatend the well being of the world. The greatest thing that it prevented was that of a World War over Africa. Prussia and France called out the Congress of Berlin, or also called the Berlin Conference, help set up claims of colonies all over the world that prevent the wars between nations over African colonies almost like what occured between Britian and France's Sudan. [2] Though it wouldn't be until another 50 years later that the Concert ends with the begininning of World War 1.

The second major coaltion is that of the Cold War. Aftter World War 2, the world was split into two camps, Capitalism and Communism. The west formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Communist East formed the Warsaw Pact. Despite this being an overly tension setting, it actually helped the world. Let's take the Cuban Missile Crisis for an example. The US was outraged to find Soveit missiles in Cuba, and JFK and Khruschev argued and finially agreed to withdrawl the missiles. Now you may ask why this was good. It was what the Soviet's gained out of the deal was that of the removal of US nuclear weapons from Turkey and that the US wouldn't invade Cuba. [3] A lot of people made it better off because of this. Not to mention that no direct war occured between the two sides occured much like the there was no direct confronation between US and USSR.

Contention 2: UN Peacekeeping....fails!

"...observing cease-fires and the separation of forces after inter-state wars, to incorporate a complex model of many elements – military, police and civilian – working together to help lay the foundations for sustainable peace." [4]

Here we can see direct text from the UN on peacekeeping. We can see nowhere in there does it give permission to engage. In order for them to do that they need to get certain permission from the Security concil, which I'll get into in my next contention, which they have to do on a situation to situation basis. Times when they actually get permission it's a little too late. Many times the UN just fails to do anything. The UN sent peace-keepers during the Rwanda Genocide, but yet all they did was sit and watch. [5] In the Bosnia crisis they only declared safe areas instead of intervention which would've saved lives had the UN actually helped fight.

The crux is that many times that they actually make things worse. In Congo, the UN peacekeepers had actually made things worse than anyone could imagine. The thing was that the Peacekeepers were going around raping and pilidging the countryside, because they were escentially board. [6] When we cannot even help this is what happens.

Contention 3: Broken Legislature

On the security concil is that of USA, France, Russia, China, and Britian. This is a joke when it comes to representation as nothing will get done as the veto is poscessed. If China has a problem with something the other 4 members support then the issue is that of the resolution will not pass. The same can be said for peacekeeping. One of these nations can object to engagment and it doesn't happen. Then you'll wind up like what we had in Congo.

Another thing that is broken in their own legislation. Their voting is one per nation not by population. That's like the HR Alaska having the same Representation as California. It's a terrible representation. To further this they impede on the sovergnty of other nations where 2/3's of the world nations can tell the other 1/3 to act. We all know that cultures and the ethics are different throughout the world and we shouldn't tell others how to behave as we wouldn't want someone doing the same to us like Iran attempting to preform Shira Law on the US. It wouldn't be acceptable.




Sources
1. ( http://www.britannica.com...)
2. ( http://courses.wcupa.edu...)
3. (http://www.loc.gov...)
4. ( http://pbpu.unlb.org...)
5. ( https://www.foreignaffairs.com...) [Use web archive]
6. ( http://www.aljazeera.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
stargate

Pro

"Through taking the Libertarian stance one can easily use the example of the Concert of Europe as a key example on how the world can opperate without a United Nations. One of the key issues many people take is that of the UN's legilature and that of their imposing on national sovergnty. If we look at history we can see many key alliances hava actually helped beter the world. "

Now yes this may be true, this dose not mean we should disassemble the UN.

"Here we can see direct text from the UN on peacekeeping. We can see nowhere in there does it give permission to engage. In order for them to do that they need to get certain permission from the Security concil, which I'll get into in my next contention, which they have to do on a situation to situation basis. Times when they actually get permission it's a little too late. Many times the UN just fails to do anything. The UN sent peace-keepers during the Rwanda Genocide, but yet all they did was sit and watch. [5] In the Bosnia crisis they only declared safe areas instead of intervention which would've saved lives had the UN actually helped fight.

The crux is that many times that they actually make things worse. In Congo, the UN peacekeepers had actually made things worse than anyone could imagine. The thing was that the Peacekeepers were going around raping and pilidging the countryside, because they were escentially board. [6] When we cannot even help this is what happens."

Now yes it may be true that the UN has failed on some peacekeeping missions it has won in some cases.

But it has also done some good around the world, it may not be prefect yet but it can at least try.

I'll in fact be one of the first saying it needs improvement, but the fact is the UN needs to stay. It may be more of an joke right now due to not being able to agree or in-force any laws right now, and there peacekeeping forces are to spread out and without an real lack of direction. But I'll tell you if the UN disbands then it could lead to more chaos. When the league of nations finally fell apart the world fell into WW2. The UN right now is trying its best despite the fact of an lack of man power and resources. It helps give some level of protection and trys to make the world an better place.

You have yet to show why we should completely get rid of the UN, and how that would be better then allows the UN to growth in strength and power. Who can tell if this new thing you make would be worse then the UN? Also yes there have been alliances but these are usually only made to prevent war and usually lead to an state of clod war.

There is no logical reason to get rid of it, rather then keeping the status quo and building upon it.

http://web.stanford.edu...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
lannan13

Con

I'll go here and refute my opponent's refutation then attack my opponent's case.

Contention 1: Concert of Europe Solves.

This is the thing though. The UN cannot violate national sovergnty, because it's an outright violation of UN charter. [1] Such a violation would result in the organization's disbanning.

All of my counter-examples are left unrefuted and I extend them across the board.

Contention 2: UN Peacekeeping fails!

My opponent states that when the League of Nations fell appart World War 2 broke out, but this is completely false. Why? Mainly because World War 2 occured while the League of Nations was still around. In fact, League of Nations stayed in Operation until 1946. [2] Thus we can already see that my opponent's point is null and void. Next he argues that Alliances won't solve because of the Cold War, but what about the UN? It was there when the Cold War lasted. Heck, the UN allowed the Korean War to occur due to the USSR's protest of the US on the Security consil. If you want to point fingers here it looks as though it's the UN's fault. Not to mention that the USSR threatend to burry the US there. 's son even admits that his father, Nikita Khruschev, was looking to pick a fight in the UN with the US and other nations. We can see that it was the UN that caused these issues.

My opponent states that there is no reason to get rid fo it, but I have given examples. I remind him that as Pro, he has BOP here to prove why is should NOT be disbanned and why it's necessary.

Contention 3: Broken legislature.

My opponent completely drops this argument and so I'll extend all points across the board.

Now onto my opponent's case.

My opponent tries to justify the UN with modern cases of crisis. We have to remember that it was the UN's negligence that allowed the Iranians to almost get the bomb. [3] The US, EU, and a few other allies had to come together to defuse the situation. He brings up Syria, but the UN has botched that by harming reffuges. [4] I can go on and on, but I gave you a key example of how the UN messed up big time and a Coalition built-up to defuse the situation which is better than what the UN does.

Sources
1. ( http://www.un.org...)
2. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
3. (https://books.google.com...)
4. (http://www.bbc.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
stargate

Pro

The UN is needed now more then ever and if it is gotten rid of then you would be making an diar mistake. I will admit the UN isn't perfect, but it is there trying to do the right things and make the world an better place. Look there is problems in the world still rape, murder, war forced labor. But the UN is right now divided and underfounded. If we get rid of it then the world will began to split into two factions even more aka the west vs the east. During the soviet union era the UN while still not perfect it helped keep the world from having WW3. If you like it or not the UN is slowly and steadily being the world together. It will not happen over night, but it will happen. You look only at the UN's failures and I look at both, they try to lack of stoping war and famine all together. But they have changed lives for the better. You forget why it was formed and where there power is from, it was formed to make sure that the world becomes safer and an better place and to prevent major wars from breacking out. The UN doesn't have any official army, and if we get rid of it one of the few places that are not completely divided will be gone. People need the UN, now yes other alliances like NATO has also done good, but my point is we can not give up just based on an few failures here and there. We need to stand strong and show our support. There is an phase I like never surrender never give up, and this would be giving up.

Sorry I would have added more but I ran out of time

Back to you con good luck
lannan13

Con

My opponent's last round's argument is entirely based on the UN helping preventing WW3 and it's better to have then not, but if we look throughout recent history we can see that some of these great "peacekeeping" mission and issue resolving was not solved by the UN, but by other nations and alliances. The Cuban Missile Crisis was solved between the US and USSR, Several nuclear anti-poliferation talks like the SALT talks were done directly between nations, the Berlin Air lift crisis was solved by the US, Iran deal was by NATO, and Russia/China/Iran, etc... I have shown multiple times in this debate where the UN made things worse, like in Congo and Iran. I have shown how the UN voting and Peacekeeping system is flawed and this was dropped. I have brought up how 3rd party alliances solve, this was dropped. My opponent drops the UN peacekeeping system is broken and cannot work. We can see that there are many key points throughout this debate. I have shown that it is not necessary and needs to be abolished.

With that I thank you and please vote Con!

Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
RFD:
I do not grant Spelling, Grammar, or Conduct points.

Establishing BOP:
Pro is promoting the status quo, whereas Con is promoting an extreme position. However, by claiming the UN is necessary, Pro has granted himself a lot of BOP as well. Claiming the UN must stay requires only a tiny impact, but claiming it's necessary throws in the need to prove it's vital for the world (as opposed to just being beneficial). I divide BOP 50 / 50. Pro has 100% Defensive BOP, while Con has 100% Offensive BOP.

Round 2:
Pro begins with an appeal to the voters. Talk of needing to end 'brother vs brother' and what not. None of this is impactful. He also makes a number of claims he doesn't support. Claiming that if a war breaks out, it will end us all. But how? And why would any nation use their technology to this degree. I'm not given a reason to believe that because we have the technology to destroy the world, that it ever be used to such a degree. It's not just your opponents job to disprove your claim or else it's true. You've still got to prove it's true first, at least with such large claims like this one. This same issue carries through out the paragraph.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
"...an war by the way most kids do not even know what country was what, an war where they do tell the millions killed by both slides."

After figuring out what this was saying, I don't find the relevance of it. Why is this important? Pro lists off real world problems, but because the UN exists during these problems, it makes them seem ineffective... Pro never really explains how these are world ending problems. Pro then explains that the UN does a number of things that are already done by national governments and charities (helping feed the poor, and such). He doesn't explain why they are needed. This whole round held little to no impact.

Now Con starts by listing off other groups that do the same as the UN. This doesn't seem impactful, until I remember that the resolution claims the UN (not a group like the UN) was necessary. Perhaps if the UN were the only group at the time, they'd be needed because no other group exists to do the job in their place, but there are groups. The Concert of Europe did succeed for a hundred years. However, this argument holds little impact. It implies that there can be alternatives, but if the Concert doesn't exist today, it's not really an alternative to the UN here and now. It implies that an alternative could exist, but until it does, we need the UN. However, NATO (which I just found out isn't a UN organization, cool...) does fulfill that criteria. If we have NATO, why is the UN necessary? Pro could say the UN helped ensure peace in Pro's example, but helping and being necessary aren't the same...
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Con's next case explains that the UN isn't effective. He lists two very good examples that really support this case. Rwanda and Bosnia are excellent examples of the UN's failures. And then the Congo gave Con major impact. His offense here is nearly empirical. I would have also listed Korea and Vietnam, but you want examples to throw out next round. Con then brings in the legislative inefficiency of the UN. The need for a 100% vote is a critical hit to the UN. Con should have also brought up that each nation is so divided by mutual disrespect, political motivations/agendas, and completely different ideologies (why would the USSR have wanted to approve a UN mission against another Communist nation?) However, he didn't. Shame. He does bring up the demographic error in the UN. Where a nation with 10x the population gets the same number of votes. However, he doesn't explain why this is bad, or why inflicting one's code of law on another nation is wrong. He lists off implementing Sharia Law in the US,but what if we were implementing equal rights for women in the Middle East?

Con's case held such heavy impact because Pro made little impact of his own. The less impact you make, the stronger any impact your opponent makes is.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Round 3:
Pro's rebuttal starts by admitting that other alliances work, but we should not disassemble the Avengers... Wait no, the UN. Sorry. However, this doesn't really negate the point of the argument, which is that the UN isn't necessary, even if it's helpful. This argument might support claim 2 in the resolution, but not claim 1.

Pro makes a valid case that the UN has also won in a number of cases. Yes, failure doesn't mean the UN isn't needed, just that it's not perfect. If it completely failed, sure, but by showing that it also wins, Pro has gained ground. However, he must show that the UN is more successful than bad, as being more bad than good means the UN is a net negative. Far from "necessary." By not giving examples to help us quanity the net positive v the net benefit, pro doesn't do this. Pro can also argue that the UN can be made better through fixes. And he does claim this. This is his strongest impact so far. But he doesn't offer what these fixes are, or IF they can even be implemented. His strongest impact is largely weaker because of this error.

He claims Con didn't show why they should dismantle the UN, however, Con did. Con put forth that the UN fails too often. While Pro claimed that they also succeeded, he hasn't given a sinple example, or shown that they succeed more than fail. So right now, as far as trying to fix things go, the UN seems to be the worst alliance listed so far. Especially with the claim that they have made a number of conflicts worse still standing.

Con's turn comes, and he makes the claim that the UN can not violate National Sovereignty. I reviewed his source, and if I interpreted it correctly, this is true. The claim being in Article 2. Con should have explained which Article / section this claim was from. This returns us to a case made in Round 2, where Con claimed we shouldn't impose our beliefs on other nations. I claimed that assertion was weak, but this argument has given that claim sudden strength.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Con claims Pro's League of Nations argument was nullified because the League didn't fall apart before WWII. I first disagreed because the point was still there... The League failed to stop WWII. But I recalled not seeing that claim, and looked back. The claim was that the world fell into WWII because of the lack of the League. Therefore Con is right. If Pro can show that the League failed as a counter to Con's Alternatives case, then he'll have impact again, albeit small and easily negated by the fact that one leagues failure doesn't mean much against the success of others. If anything, the Leagues failures shows that, while some work, being in the job's position doesn't equal being good at it. However, I don't believe I'll be seeing that interesting back-and-forth play out.

Oh look! The Korean War I mentioned! And the UN being there during the Cold War really helps by reinforcing the inefficiency of the UN to stop global issues. I'd say NATO was there too, but Con already laid out that NATO was the result of the Cold War, not a force that failed to stop it from happening in the first place. This, and he already showed that NATO did help. Pro has yet to do the same with the UN. Con does show that the UN helped form a means to pick a fight with the US. Although this might be an issue with most groups, Con's Legislative argument really enforces this claim, As the set up of the UN specifically allows this to happen.

Con claims that Pro dropped the broken legislature case, however he didn't, He brought up that the UN isn't efficient now, but can be. This isn't impactful since a broken system isn't necessary UNTIL it is fixed. It's not necessary just because it can be someday, especially when non-broken systems already exist. But for Con, the lack of impact =/= dropped case. Instead, Pro should have brought up the odds of the UN *ever* fixing these inefficiencies.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Round 4:

Pro makes the same mistake as he did in the first round... Appealing to emotions is a hit on his arguments. If anything, the existence of these problems Pro lists off are huge examples of UN failures. Pro negates his own resolution each time he lists off these failures. And just because Group A is trying to fix things doesn't make them necessary. Actually fixing them does. Pro's inability to prove the UN is making things better (against the standing claim that they have made things worse) is likely to lose him this debate. Bring up why the UN was formed isn't meaningful. Why something was formed only helps if you prove they succeeded at that mission.

He says the UN helped stopped WWIII... I'm curious... What conflict nearly led to WWIII that the UN stopped? And how did the UN stop it? This is a massive claim with zero backing and no context. And Pro says the UN is making the world better, but has not shown how. In fact, his round's opening alone leads me to believe otherwise.

Con starts by explaining that most major successes in preventing world crisis's happened between individual nations, and not by the UN. Listing off the Cuban Missile Crisis as being fixed by the US and USSR, and not by the UN, seems odd. This is because prior he said it was an alliance... NATO... that solved this. Either-way, both claims are valid arguments in his favor. He does list off others, like SALT being done by the nations, and the Iran deal by NATO, etc... This is very strong, as it implies we don't need the UN because we work just fine without it's involvement.

Con is right to assert that his Alternative case was entirely dropped. The closest Pro came to addressing it was the League of Nations falling apart, but it was dropped. And it wasn't even a case against it, as he never brought up the hypothetical case I gave earlier. The point of his case was addressing a different topic.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Conclusion:
I'm left one-sided here. Con has a number of cases, while Pro essentially has none. Pro's cases universally held little impact, and were mostly dropped.

Pro claimed the UN helps make things better. He doesn't fulfill his BOP here. Con claims the UN makes things worse. I'm inclined to agree, as Pro never proves the UN helps anything, or that if they do, that their help negates their faults. Con also shows that even if the UN does help, so does NATO and a number of other groups, therefore the UN is helpful (which it isn't, based on the debate) but not necessary.

Con claims the UN doesn't work and is inefficient. This is addressed by Pro, but he doesn't offer any fixes or reasons why the UN is still good despite it (only claiming that they just are.)

Pro had a lot of Defensive BOP, but failed to fill any of it. He didn't prove that the UN was absolutely needed or the world would fall apart (as his cases implied it would) without it. Con had a lot of Offensive BOP, and fulled all of it. Con proved the UN wasn't needed because it's job was being done, and could continue being done, by other groups... And that those groups do it better, proving the UN also shouldn't exist, has it hurts the effort being made.

These claims meant Pro had Offensive BOP, as he now had to also attack these alternative groups, as opposed to just defending his own (alternatives will always direct offensive BOP onto the opponent, as they have to now attack your claims as well as defend their own.) If they were left standing, he fails to meant his BOP.

On these notes alone, Con wins. The UN neither helps, nor is it necessary that they, specifically, be around.
Con also gets sources, as Pro only used two, and in only one round. His claim to source ratio was underwhelming, while Con sourced most of his claims.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Notes for the Debaters:
Pro... Remember to consider what your Resolution means. Here, you had two claims to prove (always avoid the word 'and' in the Resolution. It means you have more to prove.) Always consider what you have to prove. In my Minimum Wage debate, the Resolution was "The MW should not increase to $15 an hour." This meant that I could argue for a $14.99 an hour MW (I didn't, as that would be wrong) and still win. But it also means my opponent could argue for a $15 by 2999 AD if he wanted. See?

Also, don't appeal to emotion. This isn't effective, as emotions are meaningless. If anything, it annoys voters. You also need to consider what you need to prove or disprove. And law 1 of proving anything is that you must explain the claim and support it. Look over each claim and ask if you proved it was true.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
I will be voting on this soon...
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Good luck
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
stargatelannan13Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
stargatelannan13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/182ySyKCrlUYMbGiyfC34iVjPIG0n8ZfVKBM-aZPEyc4/edit?usp=sharing