The Instigator
Patriot4USA
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

United States should denounce the United Nations

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,777 times Debate No: 24329
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Patriot4USA

Pro

The title says it all. I don't believe the United Nations has never had any benefit for the United States, and therefor I think it would be logical if we were to leave.

I will take any person who wants to debate this topic.

The last round must be a conclusion to your side of the argument as a whole.
TheHitchslap

Con

I accept this challenge. I do not think you understand the significance for the United Nation, both historically and politically.
In the next round of debate, I shall seek to prove that as a result of the UN, more co-operation has resulted between states (warring, to neutral, to allies). Furthermore, I shall draw you into history with the Iraq War and the impact the UN has had upon that war.
Finally I will show -with this evidence- that it would simply be blatant incompetence to simply withdraw from the UN because of it's many benefits.
Debate Round No. 1
Patriot4USA

Pro

Sorry I am late; I've had much to attend to. I see my opponent has his argument set. It took me some time to get some things together. And I wish him luck.


===

1.
The United Nations is looked towards as a source of solving major problematic crises in the world. The most notable of these crises is the Rwandan Genocide, which shall always be known as the UN's biggest blunder. The entire event was proof of inaction on the UN's part, letting over 800,000 become victims.

"In 1994, the United Nations was warned of the Rwandan Hutu chauvinist government's impending genocide against the Tutsi minority and anti-tribalist Hutus three months before it began in April — yet ordered its "peacekeepers" in the country to do nothing. Almost 1 million Rwandans were slaughtered in the subsequent three months."
http://www.greenleft.org.au...

In places like Congo and Kosovo, where major atrocities were committed, Peacekeeping forces working on behalf of the UN to keep the places stabilised are accused of abusing the people they are suppsed to be protecting... http://www.csmonitor.com...

2.
Many of its members are dictatorials or asolute monarchs that would love nothing more than to solidify their positions in the world - and what better way to do that than by joining the UN. It's even easy for them to win seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council UNHRC). Such nations in the UNHRC include:
  • Cuba
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sudan
  • Syria
  • Zimbabwe
  • Egypt
  • Jordan
The entire organization has pretty much become a safe haven for despot, anti-democratic rulers to stay in power.

In addition to this it's pretty much easy for any member to block condemnation against their allies, especially when it comes to situations like genocide and ethnic cleansings... http://www.newzimbabwe.com...

3.
A major situation in the United Nations has been with human rights. You have nations that are basically at an all time low in human rights standards, and yet they are allowed a place in the UN. It has done questionable things in the past, like elect Libya as chair of the Commission of Human Rights... http://www.guardian.co.uk...

===

Now, Con says he'll tell us about the historical significence the UN has. I know full well about it, its role following World War II, and its role during the Cold War. But let's face it...the UN is paralyzed, and it can rarely do any good for the world nowadays that can benefit us in the long run.

I think denouncing the United Nations and forming our own global forum where we ensure our interests in democracy would be a better option for the United States

I end my argument and send it to Con.
TheHitchslap

Con

I wish my opponent luck in this debate as well, and I thank him for his arguments. First, I have just been notified that approximately 3 days ago, a dear friend of mine by the name of Matt Peters of North Bay, Ontario has passed away as a result of suicide. I hereby declare this debate (for which I hope to win) in his loving name. I do not wish for this to be a deciding factor in the debate (pity points if you will) but grieving over his loss I feel that I should dedicate this debate to him. I hope instead this raises a small awareness of depression, and those with the thoughts of suicide. Thank you.

Now on with the debate shall we?
Rebuttals: First point
Although true that Rwanda was seen as a huge failure to the United Nations in which inaction was supported, it turns out that it was the right thing to do. I'd like to point out to him at this point and time that upon the formation of the ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) set by the ICC (International Criminal Court) in which has a very tight relationship to that of the United Nations was also a complete failure. Pro cannot therefore have it 'both ways' so to speak when claiming Rwanda inaction was a fail, yet action was also a fail. The ICTR was formulated after the Nuremburg Trials with Western Civilizations using their legal systems as a pattern for Rwanda[1]. The problem was that Rwandan Organic Law does in fact have the death penalty, something the ICTR rejected within it's proceedings, and furthermore was met with extreme distrust when several high profile releases of the leader(s) of the genocide were released because they were not tried in a timely manner[2]. Finally no Rwandans have access to a television to see the courts proceedings, nor did they have the money to travel to view the convictions, they have no unbiased media to explain what is happening, and therefore those families cannot gain any closure as to what happened within Rwanda at that time[3]. This is a product of foreign intervention, in which led to far worse consequences than imagined. The only time this has worked out was the implementation of the Gacaca Courts, in which Rwandans themselves have the opportunity to try and convict lower level perpetrators.

Pro fails to point out that MOST of these perpetrators are form 3rd world countries in which rape is accepted in the culture. For example: Congo -the rape capital of the world- over 90% of women there aged 13 and over had their first sexual experience forced upon them[4]. Although I agree with pro that this is MORALLY wrong, the issue remains the cultures of the respected countries, not that as the UN as a whole. Furthermore, in Canada the recently convicted Colonel Russell Williams being convicted for sex crimes (the highest ranking officer in the military to be convicted in Canadian history) calls into question both Pro's source (which also claims that atheism is responsible for death and suffering) and the role each country plays in holding responsible of their soldiers. Clearly the Western world does, the 3rd world does not, yet they do NOT represent the UN as a whole due to this difference.

Second point:
No, it does not. I call to point those people reading pro's arguments to look at Libya, in which Qaddafi was killed by his own citizens due to his human rights abuses, his assets frozen, and even his children even being killed and/or captured. Furthermore, the UN imposed a 'No fly-zone' to ensure that the Libyan rebels had a chance to continue their fight without being killed. I also ask them to look at Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević as well in which was going to be tried under International Law, but died before that was possible. Again, Iraq and their trade embargo's imposed. The fall of Saddam Hussein as well would also disprove Pro's point. And the Arab Spring Uprisings also shows the people fighting back in which led Egypt into a democratic government.

Third point:
As a result of the UN the following has happened

• In 2007, the UN's refugee agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), provided food, shelter, medical aid, and education to more than 25 million people, mostly women and children, which is the highest number ever.

• In Georgia, UN humanitarian relief began arriving just four days after the outbreak of hostilities, as UNHCR began chartering airlifts to provide supplies like tents, jerry cans, blankets, and kitchen sets to tens of thousands of displaced persons. The UN World Food Program (WFP) has distributed staples like flour, oil, beans, salt, sugar, bread, and high-energy biscuits to over 115,000 people, with more deliveries scheduled for the coming days.

• The UN's humanitarian and reconstruction projects in Afghanistan have been vital in helping the country emerge from years of war and underdevelopment. UN agencies have helped over 5 million refugees return to their homes; provided food and shelter for over 9 million people and basic health kits to 7 million; and built thousands of new schools, enrolling 6 million children.

• The UN has taken the lead in coordinating the international community's response to the vast refugee crisis spawned by the Iraq war, which has displaced nearly 2.8 million people internally and over 2 million outside the country, mostly in neighbouring Jordan and Syria. UN humanitarian agencies have provided food assistance to 1.1 million malnourished children and their family members; 350,000 pregnant and new mothers; and over 6,400 tuberculosis patients.

• In 2006, despite attacks on humanitarian aid workers, the WFP fed over 6.1 million people in southern Sudan, Darfur and eastern Chad. The UN provided water, shelter, health care, and other necessities, thereby reducing deaths among the internally displaced by two-thirds in three years. [5]

It becomes pretty clear that humanitarian efforts are NOT at an all time low within the UN. I shall continue my arguments, however I shall eagerly await my opponents response so that I may continue later. The best is yet to come ;)

(Sources)
[1] Dealing With Mass Atrocities and Ethnic Violence: Can Alternative Forms of Justice be Effective? A Case Study of Rwanda
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] CIA factbook: Congo
[5] http://www.betterworldcampaign.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Patriot4USA

Pro

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, Con. May God rest his soul.

===
"Pro fails to point out that MOST of these perpetrators are form 3rd world countries in which rape is accepted in the culture. For example: Congo -the rape capital of the world- over 90% of women there aged 13 and over had their first sexual experience forced upon them[4]. Although I agree with pro that this is MORALLY wrong, the issue remains the cultures of the respected countries, not that as the UN as a whole."

Yes it should, because like I stated in my last argument: "Peacekeeping forces working on behalf of the UN to keep these places stabilised are accused of abusing the people they are supposed to be protecting."

I never said anything about their cultures being the problem. It's their culture and what they do on a daily basis, then I have to tolerate that. But you have soldiers from foreign countries being sent over by the United Nations, from nations like Italy, USA, Russia, Britain, etc. - to traumatised nations - and instead of doing their job and helping the people get by, they take advantage of them.

Here are some examples of atrocities committed here that the UN rarely lets the public know about:
http://www.texemarrs.com...

http://whatreallyhappened.com...

"I call to point those people reading pro's arguments to look at Libya, in which Qaddafi was killed by his own citizens due to his human rights abuses, his assets frozen, and even his children even being killed and/or captured."

If you look back at the source, you'll see it was taken on Monday Janurary of 2003.
And I have to ask people who are reading this argument: Why would an organization that preaches human rights, freedom, and global tolerance give a seat - give the position of chair, even - to a man that supported international terrorism and tortured and killed a countless number of people, in the first place? I believe that's notion is questionable enough.

(...which also claims that atheism is responsible for death and suffering)

Now, I would like to ask Con, which of my sources actually says anything about athiesm being the cause of anything?

===

Continuing on with my side of the argument, I would like to inform people reading this about the oil-for-food scandal that went on during the Embargo in Iraq...
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.cfr.org...

All those years people thought the people of Iraq were benefiting from the oil-for-food programme, but it's obvious here that they weren't. Instead the only ones who benefitted were then-UN General Secretary Kofi Annan then-dictator Saddam Hussein. Saddam practically abused the programme and collected millions which he proceeded to exported to foreign terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbolla.

Furthermore the food that was supposed to be going to the Iraqi people instead ended up on Saddam's table. And this entire incident was kept a secret for several years until the Invasion.


Another thing that bothers me about the UN is how much the United States contributes. Currently the United States pays 22% of the Budget - an estimated 4.19 Billion Dollars, more than any other member-state. We basically make up half of the UN Budget. And despite the economy, which is crumbling as we speak, for some reason, we're the only ones in the world willing to pay this much.

http://www.globalpolicy.org...

This is one of the reasons why we should denounce them. If we leave the UN, imagine how much money we could be able to save for programs like Social Security nd Medicare. If they want a nation to pay the amount the US does, why not let China pay? Or India? Their economies seem to be doing well.

===

Now I await Con's response.
TheHitchslap

Con

Thank you con for the arguments.
= = =
First of all Pro fails to point out the actions soldiers whom are mentally weak cannot be held responsible for. As much as -again I agree with Pro in this regard- rape is MORALLY WRONG, we cannot find a person culpable when they suffer from PTSD for example. Or in which the cultures of their respective countries call for the belittling of other women.(Name any Islamic country you can think of) Pro fails to understand from my previous point that the UN is created from several countries donating troops for a limited period of time, and thus come from all different cultures. It cannot possibly be on behalf of the UN entirely, as perhaps even their own home countries may not be aware of it. Again I'll point to country to country in immunity as Col. Russell Williams of Canada was tried and charged. He has no other evidence to refute this fact. All this proves at best is that the UN should be rehabilitated, not left in the dark by the US. With Russell Williams example Pros argument would -by implication- would require Canada, and the US to completely walk away from their own armies for an individuals actions against people of other countries. So here is a thought challenge for you: in the case of Russell Williams, should we hold the WHOLE Canadian military responsible for that individuals actions? Or just the individual? According to Pro, we must harm ALL of the UN, not just the country and/or individual(s) whom have committed the crimes. Simply does not make logical sense, especially while I prove that the UN proves more good than anything else.

Second rebuttal regarding Libya. I cannot explain the rationale by no fault of my own. As according to the UN, because these are public votes, no explanations are given.[1] However, I would guess that this vote would called others to think that putting Libya in a role of responsibility would result in a 'lead by example' effect on Libya. The funny thing is it (The UN) was justified in giving it to Libya. As From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth-highest in�Africa,�while the�Human Development Index�became the highest in Africa and greater than that of�Saudi Arabia.�This was achieved without borrowing any foreign loans, keeping Libya�debt-free.�In addition, the country's�literacy�rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years,�equal rights�were established�for women�and�black people,�employment opportunities�were established for migrant workers, and�welfare�systems were introduced that allowed access to free�education, free�healthcare, and financial assistance for housing. The�Great Manmade River�was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country.�In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs. [2]

Third, okay you have a point; atheism is irrelevant here.

Continuation of Pro's rebuttals...
For food issues, that is only ONE. Here is the OVERALL impact of the UN:

Every year, the World Health Organization (WHO) investigates 200 to 250 disease outbreaks. In 2003, WHO helped stop the spread of SARS before it could reach and infected tens of thousands of people. WHO is currently coordinating the global response to human avian influenza and monitoring the threat of a possible world-wide pandemic.
• WHO, in partnership with civil society organizations, has vaccinated more than 500 million children in more than 60 countries helping reduce measles deaths by 68% globally and 91% in Africa (compared to 2000).
• At the recent High-Level Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) during the UN General Assembly, $3 billion in new commitments were made to combat Malaria in order to help meet the UN's goal of achieving near zero preventable malaria deaths by 2015 and to meet the Secretary-General's call for universal malaria control coverage by the end of 2010.
• WHO eradicated smallpox in 1980, becoming the only entity to ever eliminate a major world-wide disease.
• WHO and UNICEF, in partnership with Rotary International and the Centers for Disease Control have virtually eliminated Polio. In 2006, due to the UN-led effort, polio was officially eliminated in Egypt and Niger, reducing the number of nations with active polio cases to four. Since 1988, the number of polio cases reported each year has declined more than 99%.
• Over the last 30 years, UNICEF and WHO have been responsible for increasing the rate of vaccination of preventable diseases from 5% to 75% worldwide. [3]

While the US does contribute the most, Pro seems to forget that after the Cold War the US is the worlds only current super-power. Due to the fact that they have the most money, they have to pay more. Furthermore, this only furthers my point that the US should not leave the UN; as they have just used that money to no benefit by withdrawing. Also not all countries have UN membership, and thus is seen as a more prestigious club regarding international affairs.

In defence of my point, I'd like to point out that the UN has single-handedly improved the Economic status of the US and Canada for that matter. It has also resulted in changing War in combinations with the Geneva Conventions in which lay out the rules of war. It offers greater morality for the world. Without the UN, Canada and the US would probably NOT have a free trade agreement, as it was not until after the UN was formed that NAFTA came into effect. Furthermore, after the formation of the UN we now have much more countries. During the US occupation of Iraq, they were not under the government of Iraq but causing a regime change. Yugoslavia has separated, same as Czechoslovakia and a number of other countries. So it is not like Nazi Germany taking in Poland. If in theory that were to happen today the Nazi's -I hypothesize- would install a dictatorship sympathetic to the Nazi's. Prisoners of war now have rights. And before the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canadians aided by the UN Declaration for the Rights of Man. Thus it is a 'stepping stone' for countries to form a legally binding rule of law, and human rights.

Sources:
[1] http://www.un.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.betterworldcampaign.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Patriot4USA

Pro

Due to me running out of sources to support my position against the United Nations, I shall to forfeit my side of the argument.

Con, it's been a great debate with you.
TheHitchslap

Con

Arguments extended.

Pro thank you for this excellent debate. I'm very happy to see younger individuals start to develop an interest in politics!
Good luck to you in your future debates.

RIP Matt Peters ... I dedicate this debate to you my friend!
Raise awareness for child suicide!

Please vote con! :)
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Patriot4USA 4 years ago
Patriot4USA
Political science? Seriously? I'm planning on learning political science when I go to college!
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Thank you for that compliment.
For the record, I'm a political science and history major in Brock University. So I know a lot about this stuff. Don't worry, your doing well as well. Just keep fighting!
Posted by Patriot4USA 4 years ago
Patriot4USA
This stuff is difficult, especially against this guy. Can't believe I'm still an amateur at this stuff.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
Patriot4USATheHitchslapTied
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: Pro forfeited
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Patriot4USATheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Arguments to Con for forfeit, even though it was polite.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Patriot4USATheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments will obviously go to Con as per Pro's forfeit. Pro is awarded conduct though for being able to properly admit defeat.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Patriot4USATheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving sources and arguments to Con for Pro's forfeiture.