The Instigator
Babers
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

The United Nations is terminally paralysed: the democratic world needs a forum of its own

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,610 times Debate No: 7169
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Babers

Con

This was a recent intelligence squared debate and an interesting motion.

I think that it's an insane idea to put the united nations to one side where all countries can join and to introduce a new world forum where it is not a world forum, but a democratic forum.
This will increase international tensions between the democratic and non-democratic world and will completely untie all of the work that the united nations has done during it's active years.
Don't you think this would be a repetition of history like Wilson's league of nations only accepting 'friendly countries' but crumbled in the end because not enough countries were in the league? In the end, the united nations was formed and here we are now trying to reverse it?
A new democratic forum would split the modern world into two and is completely the wrong way to go.
RoyLatham

Pro

Resolved: The United Nations is terminally [paralyzed]: the democratic world needs a forum of its own

Con has offered an excellent debate topic. The idea of forming a new organization of democratic nations was raised by John McCain during the last election, but it never drew the attention it deserved.

1. The United Nations performs the function of distributing aid to Third World nations, and, very occasionally, interjecting peacekeeping forces into conflicts not involving major powers. The United Nations should be preserved for those purposes.

2. However, the United Nations is structured in a way that allows non-democratic nations to block advancement of the interests of democratic nations. It does things like elect Libya, "One of the world's worst abusers of human rights" to chair its Human Rights Commission. http://www.capmag.com... It cannot even pass a resolution condemning genocide in Darfur or Zimbabwe, let alone do anything about it. http://www.newzimbabwe.com... All effective action is blocked by non-democracies. The UN is overwhelmingly a podium for authoritarian nations seeking to suppress human rights and keep dictators in power.

3. Democracies have an interest in promoting democracy and advancing human rights. Moreover, there are certain circumstances when action in favor of democracy and human rights are called for, and the United Nations is paralyzed from taking such actions. Therefore, it is reasonable for democracies to establish and maintain a separate organization to pursue the common interests of democracies. The United Nations headquarters should be moved to Nairobi, Kenya, or some such location, to better serve the interests of the Third World and of dictators who control actions, but at much lower cost. A new league of democracies should be established at the present UN site in New York. The new organization of democracies should employ a weighted voting system so that the large and economically advanced democracy get more say.

4. The United Nations as constituted is profoundly corrupt. The United States is funding the lavish UN bureaucracies that are rank with bribery and bid rigging. http://www.washingtonpost.com... The UN supported Saddam's regime by allowing oil-for-food money to be channeled away from the people to the government of Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com... A new organization can be constituted in such a way that safeguards are included to prevent rampant corruption. Democracies are far less likely to view bribery and corruption with "business as usual" attitude that permeates the UN.

5. Con argues, "This will increase international tensions between the democratic and non-democratic world and will completely untie all of the work that the [U]nited [N]ations has done during it's active years."

5a. I don't doubt that authoritarian regimes are happier when they are not effectively opposed. There are even happier when authoritarianism is advanced. The question is why those interested in democracy and human rights should want to make those opposed happy. The world would be improved if genocidal despots were continually worried about international action, rather that living in the comfort of knowing that they are free from international criticism and international action. Let them be tense.

5b. What exactly is "all the work the [U]nited [N]ations has done" that would be undone? They have distributed humanitarian aid, a good thing. How would that be undone? Is there any possibility that poor nations would refuse aid on the grounds that a new organization devoted to democracy and human rights has come into existence?

6. "Don't you think this would be a repetition of history like Wilson's league of nations only accepting 'friendly countries' but crumbled in the end because not enough countries were in the league?"

6a. No. The League of Nations was neither restricted to friendly countries nor democratic countries. It's fifteen members included Germany, Italy, and Japan -- the Axis Powers. http://en.wikipedia.org... One of the limitations of the League of Nations was that the US declined to join. That would not be a problem with a new league of democracies. Moreover, the criteria proposed for the new organization is not that countries be friendly, but rather that they be democratic. We also now know that many different organizations of nations can operate compatibly in the world. For example, NATO functioned effectively to oppose genocide in Bosnia while the UN remained paralyzed. Would it have been better for genocide to be allowed, on the grounds that undercutting UN power might create tensions?

-------------
7. The UN accomplishes some worthwhile things in spite of it's general paralysis, and therefore it ought to be preserved for those purposes. However, a new organization of democracies could take an active role in promoting human rights and democracy. It could do things that the UN is incapable of doing, like condemning genocide and authoritarian suppression. It could be structured to avoid corruption. It would at minimum give a voice to those favoring democracy and human rights.

The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 1
Babers

Con

I'd like to thank pro for joining in this debate and it's quite special to me seeing as it's my first one.

Pro given me a strong argument to contend with and I should think that this debate would not be much different from debates that world leaders have.

1. "Non-democratic nations to block advancement of the interests of democratic nations". Pro is effectively saying that a one – party government is better than a multi- party government because there are fewer barriers to cross. I completely understand pro's point because decisions will be made rather quickly, however it's far too powerful. This is much like how a democratic (single party) forum would act. It would have far too much power and policies would be passed without question. The great FDR once tried to do a similar act when he attempted to replace the US Supreme Court with his own judges so he could pass more laws. This would mean that the democratic forum would be ‘profoundly corrupt' - much more than the UN.

2. The UN cannot resolve every problem, nor can a government and nor could a democratic forum. Being only 15 years of age, I'm not an expert on the UN and yes, the UN is corrupt, I'm pretty sure. But could anyone name one political establishment, organisation or government that is not corrupt in the slightest? If one would need an example of a ‘profoundly corrupt' government, one can look at the former Soviet Union – a single party nation (much like an only – democratic forum). One could also look at Zimbabwe and other LEDCs whom the UN (a partnership of democracies and non-democracies) is working to help.

3. Pro: "What exactly is "all the work the [U]nited [N]ations has done" that would be undone?"
To find the answer to pro's question, you must look at the bigger picture rather than look at the particular work that the UN has done e.g. humanitarian aid. The UN has done work by simply existing and functioning to bring countries together to work and communicate. Our years of negotiation with countries for peace after battles and wars would be undone because the world would be split into two factions – democratic and non – democratic. For example, since China is not a democracy, they (with a strong economy) would not be able to join – they would be left on the other side of the democratic rift. Our relationship with China would significantly disintegrate and our peace negotiations with them would be undone.

4. During this time, we are going through economic turmoil, trouble in the Middle East and global warming. Creating a democratic league would create tensions (as I previously mentioned) between nations, which would significantly affect the trading industry. This would make the global economy plunge seeing as we're dependant on other nations. One could say that this would be a step into reducing our interdependence but all of our global issues must be tackled by acting together as a globe and a democratic league. This would cause a depression worse than the Great Depression of 1929 which was partially caused by countries not working together properly due to disagreements regarding political stance (history repeating itself?)

5.a. "The League of Nations was neither restricted to friendly countries nor democratic countries."

5.b. Germany could not join the league when it was first created due to it still being a dictatorship after the Kaiser fled and because it was the aggressor in WWI http://en.wikipedia.org... (under Global Representation) but it was accepted into the League under Streseman of the German Weimar Republic (a democracy). The delay in Germany's admittance into the League upset many Germans and their allies (Adolf Hitler) unhappy. However, I understand your point that there were no rules set in stone about who could join the League.

6. I'm glad that pro mentioned ‘human rights' because what pro is saying about non – democracies not being able to join is perceived by me as discrimination and does not demonstrate ‘human rights' and every human has a right not to be discriminated against.

7. If we were to create a new democratic forum, I'm sure that the non – democracies would fight back by creating their own forum. Both forums will make decisions affecting one another and will be hindered by one another thus this new democratic forum will "block advancement of the interests of democratic nations". These two forums could grow to be very much like NATO and COMICON during the Cold War (where America was nearly destroyed by nuclear missiles in Cuba). The battle still goes on today between NATO and practically the entire Middle East, but image the world with two NATO organisations (NATO and a democratic forum) and two COMICON organisations (Middle East and potential non – democratic forum).

8. Finally, I totally agree with pro that we do need to unite for our common interests such as human rights and resolving the economic crisis. But isn't that what the G8 and G20 are for? They have created new energy saving agreements such as International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation http://en.wikipedia.org... Countries such as China were key in this agreement., and what's more is that the G20 is made from democracies and non – democracies, much like the UN and is extremely successful. One may argue that the G8 is made from just democracies,but actually the G8 are urging the O5 to join them, the O5 including a non – democratic nation; China http://en.wikipedia.org... . They are known as the G8 + 5 and in the future, possibly the G13. This shows that the current world leaders are against the idea of a new democratic forum because they are urging non – democracies to join their own democratic forum (hence why John McCain, who developed the democratic forum idea is not a world leader!)

New Democratic Forum = Econonmic Downturn (Another Great Depression)
Wars
COMICON (version 2.)
More Corruption
World Rift (Democratic v Non – Democratic)
Too Much Power
Breakdown of Cooperation
Fall in Trade
RoyLatham

Pro

Con is accurately giving voice to many of the general beliefs about the UN and alternatives. That makes it a good debate.

Con departed from my numbering system. I'll start by using his:

1. Con states, "Pro is effectively saying that a one – party government is better than a multi- party government because there are fewer barriers to cross. I completely understand pro's point because decisions will be made rather quickly, however it's far too powerful." Con errs in two respects:

a. Just because all nations in a new organization are democracies, there is nothing beyond a very limited unity of purpose. I think all in a forum for democracies would agree that genocide in Darfur and criminal rule in Zimbabwe ought to be condemned. Possibly something a bit more, like sanctions, could be launched. That would be an improvement over the UN. However, for example, there are dimmer prospects of achieving unity of actions with respect to, say, Iran or Afghanistan. The Europeans are not support effective economic sanctions against Iran, for example, because they feel too dependent upon Iran's oil.

b. Neither the UN nor a new league of democracies is comparable to a government. The organizations cannot demand member armies enforce anything, nor could the organizations demand money to pay for anything. Both military support and finances come from voluntary contributions that any member can withhold at any time. If 95% agree, the remaining 5% need not contribute. That makes the power inherently limited. A new league would remain mainly a forum, albeit with better prospects for limited action.

2. Con asks, "But could anyone name one political establishment, organisation or government that is not corrupt in the slightest?" Probably not. But that does not make the more corrupt equal to the less corrupt. It's better to be less corrupt. Similarly, a new league of democracies won't solve every problem. It suffices that it solves a few more than the UN.

3. Con gives the example, "...since China is not a democracy, they (with a strong economy) would not be able to join – they would be left on the other side of the democratic rift. Our relationship with China would significantly disintegrate and our peace negotiations with them would be undone." The greatest step in relations between the US and China was Nixon's extension of diplomatic recognition to China and subsequent talks with chairman Mao. That happened before China was admitted to the UN, so it clearly was not a product of UN membership. Since China was put on the Security Council, their role has be mainly to veto effective action against nations supporting terrorism. This has not promoted US-Chinese relations. If the UN disappeared entirely, it would have little effect on the relationship. However, the proposal is not to abolish the UN. Whatever good comes from it, although it is difficult to see any, would remain.

4. Con asserts without proof or logical argument that forming a league of democracies would plunge the world into a great depression. Currently, the UN plays no role whatsoever in discussions or agreements regarding the world economy. It is unlikely that a new league of democracies would have a much greater role. As Con pointed out separately, that is the role of the G8 and the G20. It would remain so. The reason is that economic matters are best resolved by the large economic powers. Having either small democracies or small authoritarian regimes represent would not aid resolution of the issues.

5. The point stands that the League of Nations did not fail due to exclusion of authoritarian regimes. Japan, Italy, and Germany were admitted. It doesn't matter that Germany was a democracy when admitted and later became authoritarian. If having dictatorships is the key to success, the League of Nation should have then succeeded.

6. Con claims that it would be a violation of human rights to discriminate against dictatorships by excluding them from a league of democracies. Con has an errant concept of human rights. It is perfectly correct, for example, to discriminate against child molesters by excluding them from the Girl Scouts. Doing so involves discrimination on three separate grounds: age, gender, and past behavior; yet it is still not a violation of the sex offender's rights or anyone else's rights. Human rights relate to freedom of speech, freedom from and enslavement, and other such basic freedoms. There is no human right that protects dictators in their trampling the rights of others.

7. The G8 and the G20 exist for the purpose of discussing and acting upon economic problems. It's well that they do, because the UN paralysis means the UN does nothing with respect to such issues. However, human rights and the advancement of democracy are not primary purposes of the G8 or the G20. Such issues inevitably arise from time-to-time, but they are peripheral to those organizations. There is no organization that serves the worldwide interest of advancing democracy and human rights.

-----------------

Con has not adequately responded to by contention that reducing tensions through inaction against dictatorship and genocide is not a compelling reason for inaction. I grant that dictators are less tense when allowed to do as they please. I suppose that criminals are less upset when the police are not after them. However, such minimization of tensions with respect to dictators is temporary.

For example, Iran is building atomic weapons. The UN gives them a forum for expressing their desire to wipe Israel off the earth. The UN is paralyzed from criticizing Iran, let alone organizing effective sanctions. The result is that Iran sees no reason not to proceed with their agenda of building atomic weapons. A new league of democracies would certainly condemn Iran soundly and spell out the extreme consequences of irresponsible Iranian action. A new league has a chance of imposing effective sanctions or, ultimately, a blockade that would collapse the fragile Iranian economy. No doubt that tensions would be raised in the short run. However, appeasing Iran in the short run will ultimately result in either the Israel or the US taking out the Iranian atomic capability, or, if that does not happen, then a rapid expansion of atomic weapons as Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations build nuclear weapons to deter the Iranians.

The scenario of short term appeasement to reduce tensions leading to long term disaster has been played out many times in history.

The democracies world needs a forum of its own. The UN is a paralyzed to the point where it cannot even criticize genocide or authoritarian rule. It won't solve every problem, but it will at least permit genocide and authoritarian rule to be criticized, and it will open up possibilities of effective action where now none exists. It will also minimize the effects of UN corruption set an example for sound international diplomacy.
Debate Round No. 2
Babers

Con

I'd like to thank Pro again for putting up a great argument and making my first debate, my best debate!

1.a. The keyword in Pro's debate is "improvement", in that the UN needs "improvement" and is not just left to one side. Pro suggests that we do put the UN to one side and create a new organisation. That's very much like spending months (or decades in the UN's case) writing an essay, but then putting it to one side in a dark draw because you don't think it's good enough, then starting a new essay instead of improving the original one – this doesn't to be a particularly "logical argument".

"I think all in a forum for democracies would agree that genocide in Darfur and criminal rule in Zimbabwe ought to be condemned" – What stops a national government from condemning another nation or imposing trade sanctions upon it? This idea would be very much like criminals setting up their own, independent police force because they can't get ‘justice' from the normal one. Pro also confirms my point that democracies would be more likely to agree with each other in the above quote, which will make the forum far too powerful (as I said earlier), "profoundly corrupt" (as I said earlier) and the forum would be the criminal (as I said earlier), and not the rulers of Zimbabwe.

3. "The greatest step in relations between the US and China was …" Pro automatically assumes that I'm referring to the USA whereas I'm referring to the UK (as it's my home country) as a specific example whom in 1972 signed an agreement on an ‘Exchange of Ambassadors', which was the start of a smooth and cooperative relationship with China (who joined the UN just one year before in 1971) and was done with the help of the UN in that it encourage countries like the UK and China to communicate with each other.

One also needs to look at the bigger picture once again and see that other countries have established relationships with other nations through the UN.

4." Con asserts without proof or logical argument that forming a league of democracies would plunge the world into a great depression." Maybe Pro didn't read the beginning of my fourth paragraph and therefore missed my "logical argument". Let's take the USA and China for example since Pro seems so keen on them. The USA's second biggest trading partner is China. If we were to create an only-democratic forum, the remaining nations would most probably create their own non-democratic forum and a rivalry would form between the two. This rivalry can lead to bitterness and effect trade in that the two groups of nations will not continue to trade goods between each other because they have been pushed out of world affairs. This could happen between China and the USA if they were both to join forums. Since the two countries trade so much, the success of their economies would decrease with decreases in imports and exports. This means that they will have less money to spend on goods imported from other trading partners. Since the USA and China trade with just about every other country in the world, all those other countries will be affected by this ONE break in trade and they will therefore have less money to trade with due to a domino effect. If the nations (governments) have less money, then so do the people. If people have less money, their lifestyle decreases in quality. If their lifestyle decreases in quality enough, they will live in poverty. Mass poverty is depression. We must think this far ahead.
That's my "logical argument".

5. At no point in my argument did I mention, "having dictatorships is they key to success". In my eyes, the key to success is the partnership between all countries with varied political status as we can observe the view of different governments.
"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told you what you think is what you want to hear." – Alan Coren. The point of democracy is to listen to the people, not to discount certain group's opinion. In an only-democratic forum, surely they are doing exactly this by discounting non-democratic nations?

"A blockade that would collapse the fragile Iranian economy" A new democratic forum would need not worry about going to the effort to create a blockade because as I mentioned previously, economies would collapse or at least decline anyway.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tensions would be raised in the short run" Pro is absolutely correct that "tensions would be raised", but incorrect about the "short run". In the past, blockades have created long-term rivalries in the past, one being the ‘Berlin Blockade' during 1948 – 1949 between the Western Allies and the USSR. That tension lasted until 1991! That's a whole 43 years and cannot be classed as a "short run". What's more is that during that time, the USA was in danger of being wiped of the map by Cuba. Does that sound familiar? Iran and Israel. As valid as Pro's point may be, we cannot risk anything like that happening again, especially while President Ahmadinejad is in control of Iran's nuclear weapons.

Has anyone heard of the Community of Democracies (CD)? I didn't think so. Well, if you did know what it existed, do you know what it's done? I didn't think so. Well, all it's done is agree to "respect and uphold … democratic principles and practises". The point that I'm making is that there is ALREADY a league of democracies that my opponent is proposing and that it's not widely recognised because it hasn't done anything despite being active for many years now. It's had the chance to participate in discussions regarding Iraq and Iran, so why hasn't it done anything? Has it not done anything because it doesn't want attention from non-democracies who would form a similar group, thus creating a world rift? And aren't they just scared of a re-enactment of NATO and the Warsaw Pact? Or maybe it is limited because it's membership of only 16 democratic nations (one being the USA, which has the largest influence over the group). Wouldn't this happen if an even newer democratic forum was created? Would a country like Iran be more likely to comply with 16 democratic nations (with a major US influence) or with a global, varied organisation of 191 other countries (the UN) whom it's allies also belong to? We'll let the voters decide that one.

My final statement is that in principal, the proposal sounds logical, but stop and think …
History is our biggest tool here and ‘we should learn from our mistakes', therefore we should learn from history. We formed NATO, the communists formed the Warsaw Pact, this created (or tensioned) a huge rivalry for 43 years (the Cold War) in which period the USA was nearly destroyed – using history as a tool, we can predict what would happen but replace the phrase "nearly destroyed" with just: destroyed.
The rift that would form would affect our economies and pull us into depression as my "logical argument" states.
There is already a democratic forum (the CD), which has done nothing but stated an extremely vague objective. Would another, newer democratic forum do any better?
"It could be structured to avoid corruption" – How? The structure would be "corruption" as my analogy explains. The fact that democracies would want to get together and make major, global decisions without non-democracy obstructions is corrupt.
Once again, "the point of democracy is to listen to the people, not to discount certain groups opinion. In an only-democratic forum, surely they are doing exactly this by discounting non-democratic nations?"
The UN needs to be improved as Pro said but we don't need a democratic forum as well because we cannot afford to create tensions between countries, especially not in this current political and economic climate.
Ponder over the questions that I have asked during this debate and use your answers to the questions to reflect your vote.
Thanks again RoyLatham!
RoyLatham

Pro

We appear to agree on several points. The UN is in fact terminally paralyzed. We a resolution to condemn genocide in Darfur cannot get out of committee, we know that nothing positive is going to happen. We also agree that the UN is corrupt. Further, we agree that authoritarian regimes are happiest when they are not challenged. If they are allowed to do whatever they wish without opposition, they are content and the world has at that moment less tension.

From this Con concludes that it is best to do nothing to upset paralysis in the face of tyrannical rulers. I disagree. Democracies need a forum where the common interests of democracy and human rights can be discussed and advanced.

1. Con argues that "the UN needs 'improvement' and is not just left to one side." Yes, the UN needs improvement. We agree that the UN is paralyzed, so it cannot be improved. The reason it is paralyzed is that dictatorships can block any improvement. That's why the UN should be preserved for the things which it accomplishes, such as distributing aid, but in other respects it ought to be supplanted by a new organization for the promotion of human rights and democracy.

Con reasserts that allowing a forum for democracies would be "too powerful." There is no real likelihood of that, as witnessed by the inability to get Europe to agree to such modest proposals as instituting a boycott against Iran to stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons. In any case, there is no danger from power concentrated in the promotion of human rights and democracy.

Pro asks, "What stops a national government from condemning another nation or imposing trade sanctions upon it?" The question presupposes that there is no advantage in collective discussion or collective action, as opposed to individual action. If so, then the UN should be promptly disposed of entirely, because it costs money and provides no advantage over individual action. A forum for democracies would allow issues to be discussed to benefit from the differing perspectives of democratic nations. we agree that the UN is paralyzed, so that cannot happen without a new forum.

2. Con provided no rebuttal to my claim that advancing towards a less corrupt organization is worthwhile even if perfection is not achieved. Less corruption is better.

3. Con claims that the U.K. established diplomatic relations with China in 1972 as a consequence of UN efforts, but he offers no proof of that. The real diplomatic breakthrough in 1972 was crafted by Henry Kissinger paving the way for Nixon's visit. http://en.wikipedia.org... That is what marked the shift in Western diplomacy, including the UK, from confrontation to engagement. The UN was not involved.

4. Con constructs a fantasy and claims it to be a logical argument. Speaking in favor of democracy has no chance of precipitating a worldwide trade breakdown. Foreign trade is primarily determined by economics, not ideology. Europe and Iran engage in trade because Europe needs oil and Iran needs money. Neither embraces the others ideology in the slightest. The same is true between the US and China. France and Germany broke the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq so they could buy oil and sell conventional weapons.

It's true that occasionally a boycott can be sustained against a nation, but it is rare and temporary, and never against a major power.

5. Con asserts, "The point of democracy is to listen to the people, not to discount certain group's opinion. In an only-democratic forum, surely they are doing exactly this by discounting non-democratic nations?" No, that is not the point of democracy. the point is to advance and protect human rights. For example, Iran states they want to kill all the Jews. Pro seems to believe that so long as we listen patiently to that viewpoint and do nothing, that democracy succeeds. That's not so. There is something fundamentally wrong with genocide that makes it inferior to the opposing viewpoint.

Con's fundamental error throughout this debate is assuming that dictatorship has a fundamental equality with nations respecting human rights. Con went so far as to suppose that democracies acting together to promote human rights would be akin to criminals having their own police force! Even dictators do not defend their unethical practices. Virtually all countries subscribe to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it is just that some countries then ignore it. The American Founders declared human rights to be self-evident truth's, meaning derived from the observed nature of mankind and not just opinion.

Con places an extremely high value on reducing international tensions. Con states, "In the past, blockades have created long-term rivalries in the past, one being the ‘Berlin Blockade' during 1948 – 1949 between the Western Allies and the USSR. That tension lasted until 1991! That's a whole 43 years and cannot be classed as a "short run". What's more is that during that time, the USA was in danger of being wiped of the map by Cuba." So if saving Berlin was wrong because it increased tensions with the Soviet Union, what would the correct course of action have been? Obviously, according to Pro it would be continuous appeasement by granting whatever the Soviets desired. Refusing any soviet demand would increase world tensions. The Cuban missile crisis was about the U.S. refusing to allow the Soviets to set up missile sites in Cuba. Pro would have allowed the installation of missiles on the grounds in would have reduced tensions.

Neville Chamberlain appeasement to achieve "peace in our time" never produces more than a temporary peace. Appeasement did not forestall World War II. Appeasing the Soviets or Iran or China in the name of "reducing tensions" would only lead to further aggression. Having a United Nations to foster appeasement is not helpful to the cause of human rights.

Con points out that there is a "Community of Democracies" that has accomplished nothing of substance. What happened to Pro's argument that such a think would bring economic collapse and split the world apart? Quite obviously, the natural state of such organizations is to accomplish little. However, the chances of elevating an organization of democracies to the point of taking some useful action is a much better bet than the United Nations. The way to elevate a forum for democracies is, as I suggested at the outset, to move the present UN headquarters to a Third World location like Nairobi. That would enhance the useful UN function of administering aid to the Third World, it would provide dictators with an audience for their UN tirades, and it would remove the the massive UN corruption from New York City to a much less expensive location. This would free up the site in New York for a new organization of democracies, and shift the focus of attention to advancing democracy and human rights.

Pro admits that he cannot point to any specific achievement of the United Nations that would be undone forming a new organization of democracies. Instead, Pro claims that the virtue of the UN lies in its mere existence. If so, there is no problem, because the UN would continue to exist. The change is that we would also have an international organization with the potential for accomplishing something.

The democratic world needs a forum of its own. The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Whoa, sorry about the "Pro" thing! I tend to make that mistake from time to time. My bad.

A good topic. I think you would have been better taking the line that the UN is not totally paralyzed and can be improved.
Posted by Babers 8 years ago
Babers
Thanks for the great debate RoyLatham!
In your final argument you commonly reffered to me as "Pro" lol! Not to worry!
Thanks again,
Babers
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Not a problem at all. You are entitled to all of the time allotted.
Posted by Babers 8 years ago
Babers
Extremely sorry for the last miute post RoyLatham! I've had so much school work to do and I took your advice on giving the debate a day's thought.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Babers, You have your account locked so you cannot receive either messages or comments. Best to at least unlocks messages; you can always delete them.

You urged me to reply quickly. I will rarely do that. I prefer to construct a case, ponder it for about a day, then revise it before posting. I recommend that approach to you or to anyone who wants to debate well.

In any case, welcome to the site. the site is definitely short of liberals who are willing to debate anything except religion, gay marriage, and abortion. That gets old fast. You've started with a first rate topic.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
BabersRoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by mr_andry 8 years ago
mr_andry
BabersRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
BabersRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FallenPDX 8 years ago
FallenPDX
BabersRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07