The Instigator
labarum
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The UN should be disbanded

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 2 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 46391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

labarum

Pro

The UN has been an issue that I have kind of been interested lately. Any ways, I think they should be disbanded for a number of reasons.
Jifpop09

Con

You may begin.
Debate Round No. 1
labarum

Pro

Thank you

The UN, was established originally to protect and preserve peace around the world. A noble cause if any. An example of the nobility of this cause would be the Korean war. When North Korea invaded their neighbor South Korea, unprovoked I might add, the UN sent in peace keeping troops to repel the North Korean incursion and defend South Korea. This was the UN at their height.

However, that was many decades ago. Now, the UN is more concerned with meddling in first world affairs, promoting diversity while only representing one ideology, recognizing enemies but doing nothing about them, and attempting to maximize it's influence over every other nations government even though it has no business in doing so. Truly the UN's hypocrisy can only be matched by it's incompetence.

Meddling in first world affairs-
The UN was mostly intended to preserve peace in third world nations. This was quite obvious considering that all of the top nations in the UN are first world countries. However, in recent years, they has been more focused on first world problems then third world problems. As example, the UN attempted recently in the past 2 years to internationally ban small arms. I'm not sure what your view is on firearms, but would you not agree that it is up to the people of that nation weather or not they should be allowed to own firearms and not the UN? Also, this ban was specifically targeted towards the U.S.A( the most well developed nation in the world) Proof that they are more focused towards first world nations then they are third world nations.

The UN promoting diversity while only representing one ideology-
The UN has on many many occasions made a call to promote racial, religious, cultural, and political diversity. Lets focus specifically on the last one, political. If the UN really wanted to promote diversity, don't you think they would remain neutral on all stances except wars and abuse? If they did not, then wouldn't that mean that they have a specific stance on issues, and when there is a specific stance on issues, then there is a specific stance on in politics. Can you guess what side of the political spectrum the UN leans to? pro homo sexuality
anti gun
believes in global warming
pro abortion
believes that social security is a right

Recognizing enemies and doing nothing about them-
The UN, it saw the malicious attack against South Korea by their Northern neighbors and responded immediately by sending troops to the south's aid. Compare that to today. We know for a fact that Iran is building nuclear weapons. We know for a fact that Iran is funding dozens of terrorist cells around the world. We know for a fact that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel and America (both UN members)with these nuclear weapons and terrorist cells.The UN has recognized all of these things, and has done...embargoes and economic sanctions. If I were president, and this might just be me but when a nation is threatening 'NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION' to me and my allies, my first thought is to defeat this nation 'MILITARILY' before they have a chance to destroy us. That might just be me though.

The UN trying to maximize it's influence over nations governments-
Take for example, Liberia . A nation that was once in turmoil. You could not turn on the TV without hearing about a new uprising in Liberia. This was the case over a decade ago. political and economic stability have been reigning ever since the British took out the west side boys rebels. So why the hell is the UN still in Liberia? I have a personal Friend living in Liberia now who tells me that the UN has a say in nearly every single law that is passed in Liberian politics. The nation is stable now, and not because of the UN, but rather British support. So why the hell is the UN still there. The answer to me seems most likely that the UN is attempting to obtain power where ever it can.

I do await your arguments.
Jifpop09

Con

Jifpop09 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
labarum

Pro

Thanks for nothing jerk
Jifpop09

Con

I do not apprericiate being called a jerk. I was dealing with a lot of unexpected time constraints. I had actually completly wrote my argument out prior, but I lost it.

Now, the UN is more concerned with meddling in first world affairs, promoting diversity while only representing one ideology,recognizing enemies but doing nothing about them, and attempting to maximize it's influence over every other nations government even though it has no business in doing so.

The ideology of the UN is reflected through its members. If many of the members are democratic and capitalist, then you are going to see reflections of capitalism, but your statement is false in more then one way. The UN does not discriminate against its members, and every nation gets its say. The UN does not attempt to maximize its influence over other nations.
The UN does not keep a register of enemies. They are designed with the goal to make peace and prosperity.

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

The UN was mostly intended to preserve peace in third world nations.This was quite obvious considering that all of the top nations in the UN are first world countries.

Their are 5 security council menmbers who are permanent, but there are also 10 other countries with voting powers. Many of these nations are developing.

However, in recent years, they has been more focused on first world problems then third world problems.

This is not true. I do not see the UN sending troops to belgium. The UN is conducting many missions across the world, many of which are preventing war. The UN is keeping peace in the Congo, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, and many other countries.

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

They have also developed tons of specific programs. Such as child soldier, terrorism, criminal activity, and decolonization initiatives.

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

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

http://www.unodc.org...

Furthermore, they have also developed a program that represents unrecognized countrys, under the condition that they take a pledge to push for recognition or independence in peaceful ways.

http://www.unpo.org...

We know for a fact that Iran is building nuclear weapons. We know for a fact that Iran is funding dozens of terrorist cells around the world. We know for a fact that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel and America (both UN members)with these nuclear weapons and terrorist cells.The UN has recognized all of these things, and has done...embargoes and economic sanctions.

We do not no for a fact on any of these things. The UN can't just invade one of its members until more proof presents itself. Renember Iraq. The UN coalition which invaded never found any wmds. They are learning from their mistake with Iraq.

Take for example, Liberia . A nation that was once in turmoil. You could not turn on the TV without hearing about a new uprising in Liberia. This was the case over a decade ago. political and economic stability have been reigning ever since the British took out the west side boys rebels. So why the hell is the UN still in Liberia? I have a personal Friend living in Liberia now who tells me that the UN has a say in nearly every single law that is passed in Liberian politics. The nation is stable now, and not because of the UN, but rather British support. So why the hell is the UN still there. The answer to me seems most likely that the UN is attempting to obtain power where ever it can.

They are there because it is almost certain that more violence will occur if they leave. The UN is currently protecting a nation in turmoil, with a new constitution, from uprisings. Many Libyans hate the new constitution and it is pretty evident that violence will only escalate by removing troops. The UN is doing what it should, and is preventing the violence from happening in the first place. Also, the UN does not really have a say, but many nations are pressuring them.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
What are you talking about?
Posted by Abominminded 3 years ago
Abominminded
" I do not appreciate being called a jerk. I was dealing with a lot of unexpected time constraints. I had actually completely wrote my argument out prior, but I lost it." you funny ! they written out of my life ! You dont litter my world with nuclear power plants you had no permission to do ! Tell them Iran is never getting one because they are gonna dismantle theirs also I think they owe us some great big apology speech !
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I just ran out of time. Honestly, my opponent has an advantage. He has a whole extra round to argue in.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
hmmm?
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 3 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
Honestly, the prop case is doing more to convince me of opp at the moment.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
labarumJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering conduct points. Taunting/ad hominems are just as bad, if not worse than forfeiting. Pro did not use a single reference, so source points to Con.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
labarumJifpop09Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for ffing. I didn't give either side arguments, since Con posted his arguments on the last round, where Pro wasn't able to refute any of them.