The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

We should allow the g4 states into the UN Security council

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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,887 times Debate No: 43733
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

The G4 nations consist of Japan,Brazil,India, and Germany who are all trying to become members within the UN security council. It is intensely debated whether they should be allowed in. I will take the side that they should be allowed in. This is my first debate so please show a little mercy.

1. Acceptance.
2. Reasoning.
3. Rebuttals.
4. Closing Arguments (brief)
imabench

Con

I accept and shall argue that not all of the G4 nations should be let into the security council, which historically has only held 5 nations (US, Russia, China, France, England
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I will individually explain why each country should be on the UN security council. I will only be arguing that Brazil, India, and Japan should be allowed a permanent seats since me and my opponent seem to both agree on Germany. My arguments will often be about nuclear weapons and I may often refer to the nuclear non proliferation treaty(NPT). Now I'm not saying that only security council nations can be apart of this, but it's kind of a unofficial rule and will likely remain this way. Let me begin...

-Japan

1. Economy- Japan has the 3rd largest nominal GDP and is the second largest contributor to the UN budget, contributing 19.5% of the UN budget. Each Japanese citizen is contributing 3.94$ to the UN. Japans contributing more then France,Russia,United Kingdom,and China combined! This shows extreme dedication! Japans soaring economy is just one reason it should be considered a world power!

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com...

http://bravotech.net...

http://data.worldbank.org...

2. HDI-The HDI is a number created by comparing a countries average education,life expectancy,quality of life,etc. Japan has the 10th largest HDI in the world. They have proved that something about there current system is working and that should seriously be considered.

http://hdr.undp.org...

3.Government- Japan is a shining example of a working government with little corruption surrounded by nations that have experienced many military coups, acts of terrorism, and ethnic wars. Japans government should at least be taken into notice in it's battle for a council seat.

-India

1. Military power- India's Military is the is the 3rd largest on earth, consisting of 1.3 million actively serving personnel. India's military is also advancing fast in terms of new technology. They also has one of the largest navies for a nation. India also has about 9000 UN peacekeepers making it the 3rd largest contributor. India already has nuclear weapons, making it one of 9 countries to possess them. It would not surprise me if India got a permanent seat on military strength alone.

http://www.un.org...
http://www.nationmaster.com...

2. Representation-India represents it's fair share of Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists, and other religions. None of these groups are currently represented in the UN and many believe it's important that they are.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...

-Brazil
1. Economy- Brazil has been a major player in the global market recently. It has also fought it's way up to having the 7th largest nominal GDP (Guinness World Records says 6th for 2014). Brazil is neck and neck with France for 5th largest. Brazil is most certainly a economic super power.
http://data.worldbank.org...

2. Military- Brazil has a huge military for a South American country and has a even more impressive navy. The search for a South American nation able to resolve disputes and maintain peace in Latin America is over!
http://www.nationmaster.com...

As I said earlier, Germany is not on here due to us both agreeing on Germany. Hopefully my rebuttals won't be as long.
imabench

Con

1) Japan

"Japan has the 3rd largest nominal GDP and is the second largest contributor to the UN budget"

You cant and shouldnt be able to just buy your way onto the Security Council, and its unknown if Japan will stay at 3rd place in the future either. Given their very small size and massive aging problem, its possible that Japan could slide down a few places within the next few decades.




"The HDI is a number created by comparing a countries average education,life expectancy,quality of life,etc. Japan has the 10th largest HDI in the world"

Theyre behind Norway, Sweden, and even Ireland in this index, that suggests that theyre influence is far lower then you are suggesting that it is... India and Brazil meanwhile are horrendously behind on this index as well, which suggests even they shouldnt be in the Security Council.




"Japans government should at least be taken into notice in it's battle for a council seat."

Call me crazy, but getting onto the Security Council should have tougher standards and requirements then just having a stable and relatively uncorrupt government....




2) India

"India's Military is the is the 3rd largest on earth, consisting of 1.3 million actively serving personnel"

You know who's in 4th? North Korea. Does that mean they should be on the security council since they have a large military?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Military size shouldnt and currently have any impact on whether or not a nation makes it onto the security council.....



"India represents it's fair share of Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists, and other religions. None of these groups are currently represented in the UN and many believe it's important that they are."

You know how I said that having a stable government isnt a good enough qualification to be on the Security Council? Having a diverse number of religions is an even worse qualification to have for getting onto the Security Council.... Its completely arbitrary, and the point of being put onto the Security Council shouldnt be to fulfill an arbitrary and useless quota like this one.




3) Brazil

"Brazil is neck and neck with France for 5th largest. Brazil is most certainly a economic super power."

10% of the entire country lives on less than 2$ a day, I wouldnt call that an 'economic super power' in a million years....

http://en.wikipedia.org...

^ India is even WORSE on that list, with a MASSIVE 68% of people living there living on less than $2 a day as well.



"Brazil has a huge military for a South American country"

The UN though doesnt reside solely in South America. Brazil's military doesnt even rank in the top 15 of nations in terms of active military, and I already argued that size of military is a bad standard for judging which nations to put on the Security Council.


========================================================================


Nations that get put on the Security Council are nations that play or have played a tremendously large role in INTERNATIONAL politics.... Which is something that the US, France, England, Russia, and China have done in the past and continue to do in the present.... Nations that are on the security council should be nations that play a massive and undeniable role in international politics, negotiations, etc, and some of the G4 nations certainly do not meet this role.

India has absolutely had no impact on international matters despite the fact that they are located 2 countries over from an active war zone, and located next door to the country that Osama was hiding in (Pakistan). India has had no role at all in international politics, which is something that nations on the Security Council are required to do..... India has had no impact, Brazil has had no impact, and Japan also has done nothing in International politics.

In the War in Afghanistan, all three of those countries (Japan, India, Brazil) played NO ROLE in providing forces to the conflict. Only Germany was on the list of belligerent nations in the conflict (Which you can see on the right hand side of the page when you scroll down), the other G4 nations played a role so minor that its not even commendable.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

If you look at just about every international invasion, occupation, or incident or event in the last 50 years: Brazil, Japan, and India have had almost no influence in those matters at all. To be on the Security Council means to always have a say in international matters, and that is something that India, Japan, and Brazil have absolutely no experience in dealing with.

If anything, the Security Council should consider jettisoning nations from the Security Council who are not as influential as they were in the past (Such as Russia or France), not adding even more nations to the Security Council who have even worse qualifications to be there then the nations whose usefulness on the Security Council is questionable.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

It's too bad that con didn't follow the rules of rebuttals for the 3rd round. No harm done though. Now let me first clarify what makes a country a member of the security council. A security council permanent member is a nation that proves itself to be a world super power, capable and willing to carry out UN mandates. A country that can use economic sanctions or shotgun diplomacy to sway other countries thinking. I think it's been pretty unanimous that the security council needs some kind of reform. Right now, all 5 nations with permanent seats support the g4 proposal (Except Japan, which China feels hasn't changed enough from ww2), with this in consideration, this will most likely pass unless China uses there obnoxious veto privileges again. With this being said...Lets begin.http://www.un.org...


Japan
-------
- My opponent claims that a permanent seat can't be purchased. I don't know when I claimed you could,but I agree. The thing is though, commerce is perhaps the most powerful weapon that's ever been put in effect. Believe it or not, countries have employed a thing called a embargo. This embargo can bleed a countries wealth dry. Of course this effects the home countries wallet to, but rich countries like Japan can afford the lost income. You would be surprised what some countries would do if they couldn't get there cheap Japanese cars and video games. The US embargo chokes a 625 million of lost potential each year.

-Now as I stated earlier,one of the main goals of council members is to be able to carry out UN mandates. What better nation to do this then a rich nation like Japan. Japans economy allows it to be able to afford expensive mandates, even with some wiggle room.

- My Opponent claims that Japans economy might fail. It's not wise to think decades ahead in hypothetical. For the moment It's well ahead of France,Russia, and the UK. Even if my opponents predictions are true, that's decades away.

-HDI---> Yes I understand there's countries above Japan, but only a couple. The point I was trying to make was that Japans is above all other security members except the US. I didn't do a HDI rating for Brazil and India, because I already knew there's was low. I had other reasons I felt still made them edgible.

-- A stable and uncorrupted government is a pretty big requirement though, don't you think? Countries ran efficiently and without corruption are better suited to make decisions. A permanent seat comes with amazing powers. A nation with much corruption can't be trusted to influence the world in the ways a council seat would enable it to.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org...
India
------
Side Note-----------> Even though most of what's on wikipedia is true,it's not really a reliable source. I recommend you use the references at the bottom of the article.

1. I did not base there military strength on personal alone. I reasoned that they had a strong navy and a modest air force. They also possess a rather large arsenal of nuclear weapons. Considering only 10 nations own these weapons of destruction, it's reasonable to assume this would be a nearly if more important then the base army.

2.North Korea is a different story. North Korea is believed to be quite obsolete in technology compared too modern day standards. They also have a pretty ragtag navy and air force.

3.Military size has a huge impact on the seat. Trust me, few countries want to deal with the horde. Especially one this size.

4. Did I mention nukes! ! !

5. Well this ones a more opinionated argument. I believe the UN has been trying to get a South American and eastern country in the security loop for a while now. The African Union has even been trying to choose two African states to join the g4. The only argument I can offer is that only a country in South America would know what's best for South America.

6. India could also quickly resolve the Kashmir issue if it were a permanent council member.

Brazil
------
1. The point you make is true for China also. Would you not consider China a superpower just because the majority are poor? This is a sad reality with many countries now adays. The rich in Brazil an India are above the poor, but I'm trying to illustrate the governments power and not the individuals wealth. Is it not true that the USSR in it's heyday was filled to the brim with famine and hunger? Yet they were still considered a superpower.

2. The point isn't that Brazil can contend with the US or China. The reason why so many people want Brazil in the council is to ensure a quick end to any south American disputes. South America represents a huge chunk in the world and we need a country to be able to carry out mandates there. I assure you that any country there would think twice before going up against Brazil.

Closing
--------
My opponent claims that India, Brazil, and Japan have no say in international politics. He is partially right. The whole point of the security council is to give countries power in international politics. People would not be so receptive to the security council nations if they did not hold there positions. The positions they have used to solve so many dispute in the past. Think of how many more can be solved with new members. I am going to ask con if we can end this debate as it has already taken quite a chunk of my time. Vote Pro
imabench

Con

" A security council permanent member is a nation that proves itself to be a world super power, capable and willing to carry out UN mandates"

And Japan, India, and Brazil dont qualify as ANY of those things.



1) Japan

"Believe it or not, countries have employed a thing called a embargo. This embargo can bleed a countries wealth dry."

If youre going to be a wise guy then I assume that youve lost faith in the rest of your arguments......



"You would be surprised what some countries would do if they couldn't get there cheap Japanese cars and video games"

Not a lot of countries import cars and video games from Japan genius..... Including India, Brazil, and about 95% of countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe



"Japans economy allows it to be able to afford expensive mandates, even with some wiggle room. "

Except they dont, Japan's debt to GDP ratio is actually three times as bad as the US....

http://247wallst.com...

Japan is about as economically sound as Greece right now, they sure as hell cannot become big spenders regarding UN activities.




"For the moment It's well ahead of France,Russia, and the UK. Even if my opponents predictions are true, that's decades away."

Being a member on the UN Security Council though requires long term consideration for how strong a country can stay, and Japan isnt exactly as bullet proof as other nations on the Security Council have shown to be, and the same is massively true for India and Brazil.




" I didn't do a HDI rating for Brazil and India, because I already knew there's was low. I had other reasons I felt still made them edgible. "

You cant cherry pick arguments for why each of the other nations should be on the Security Council.... Not only is Japan not as strong as Sweden or Norway according to your index, but Brazil and India dont even rank in the top half of other world countries in terms of develeopment.




"A stable and uncorrupted government is a pretty big requirement though, don't you think?"

Hell no, because stable and uncorrupted governments can be found just about anywhere you look. If having an uncorrupt government is one of the only arguments you have in support of Japan for why they should be on the G4, then that really shows how there arent that many good reasons for them to be there.



2 - India

" I reasoned that they had a strong navy and a modest air force."

They have fought four wars with Pakistan, located right next door to them, and they have stalemated every war every time. If they cant even beat Pakistan then its clear that India couldnt beat anybody else

http://en.wikipedia.org...



"Military size has a huge impact on the seat. Trust me, few countries want to deal with the horde. Especially one this size."

Oh please.... If a nation as messed up as Pakistan has the balls to go to war with India and its 'horde' FOUR TIMES in the span of half a century and not lose any of them, then its safe to say that many other nations also couldnt care less about India's massive army. As large as it may be, they are still a horrendously bad fighting force that any insurgency can stall.....




3 - Brazil

"The only argument I can offer is that only a country in South America would know what's best for South America."

The UN isnt trying to do what is best for South America, they are trying to so what is best for the WORLD, and giving some mediocre level country like Brazil the power to veto any proposal that ACTUAL superpowers have drafted is not something that would be best for the world.



"Is it not true that the USSR in it's heyday was filled to the brim with famine and hunger? Yet they were still considered a superpower. "

Thats because despite their setbacks they still managed to fight an informal stand off with the United States and participated in numerous international operations all over the world over a span of 40 years... Including the invasion of Afghanistan, organization of East Europe, arms deals to North Korea and North Vietnam during those respective wars, and turning several countries communist such as China and Cuba.....

What has Brazil done?

(Nothing)




"The reason why so many people want Brazil in the council is to ensure a quick end to any south American disputes"

Putting Brazil on the council though =/= quick end to South American disputes.... If Brazil invades an adjacent nation and commits war crimes, then they could veto any resolution condemning them for war crimes that the UN proposes. Its the exact OPPOSITE of ensuring a quick end to South American disputes by putting Brazil on the council.




"The whole point of the security council is to give countries power in international politics. "

Again, no its not..... The point of the Security Council is to let countries who already have enormous influence in the world be able to use their influence to settle disputes that do arise in the world, not try to divy it out to other nations...





"Think of how many more can be solved with new members. "

Adding more nations though doesnt increase the odds of solving a problem in the world, it actually shoots those odds down since those nations basically gain diplomatic immunity for themselves and their allies regarding any operations they commit in the world.....


================================================================


Pro's arguments are based on completely arbitrary standards of what makes a country powerful, and a very bad interpretation of what the entire point of the UN and the Security Council even is..... While Germany has demonstrated a sizable ability to be a force in international affairs while having a tremendously stable economy, Japan, Brazil, and India have shown to be international nobodies who would only be a liability to the already crappy efficiency of the UN. In addition to that, Brazil and India have shown to be socially backwards and very under-developed for them to be considered to be added to the Security Council.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
Jifpop09

Pro

I decided to continue the debate into round 4.

"If youre going to be a wise guy then I assume that youve lost faith in the rest of your arguments......"

Sorry if I came off as wise, as I did not mean to.


"Not a lot of countries import cars and video games from Japan genius..... Including India, Brazil, and about 95% of countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe"

I disagree with my opponent here and also would like to point out that he provided no evidence or source to prove his argument. According to this tree map on the economic exports of Japan, an nation which has the largest economic complexity, has a car export percentage of 12%( an number that is now on the rise). I hope my opponent can realize that it does not matter how many countries a nation exports to, but instead the market value of the ones it does. Furthermore, countries like the United States, South Korea,and Thailand rely heavily on Japanese exports. As someone who lives near motor city, I can tell you first hand of how much the US-Japanese car market has taken off. Companies such as Honda,Mazda,Mitsubishi,Nissan,Infiniti,Subaru,Suzuki,Toyota,Lexus, and Scion are all Japanese car companies which have markets in the US. I would be shocked if any American didn't know at least 5 of these.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu...

"Japans economy allows it to be able to afford expensive mandates, even with some wiggle room. "

I urge my opponent to read the what his source states after it shows the debt to gdp ratio.

" Despite the country’s massive debt, it has managed to avoid the type of economic distress affecting nations such as Greece and Portugal. This is largely due to Japan’s healthy unemployment rate and population of domestic bondholders, who consistently fund Japanese government borrowing. Japanese vice minister Fumihiko Igarashi said in a speech in November 2011 that “95% of Japanese government bonds have been financed domestically so far, with only 5% held by foreigners.”

I'm pretty sure this makes his point indecisive. Just because a country has debt does not mean the economies failing.This article also states that Japans economy has avoided the economic distress of Greece which contradicts your argument on the soundness of Greece and Japan.

"Being a member on the UN Security Council though requires long term consideration for how strong a country can stay, and Japan isn't exactly as bullet proof as other nations on the Security Council have shown to be, and the same is massively true for India and Brazil."

My opponent has not provided any reason on why Japan is not economically sound and how it's huge economy will collapse. I would also like to refer to my previous economic tree map that shows that Japan has the highest economic complexity for any nation on earth regarding trade. If anything it shows that Japan can survive a collapse of anyone of it's m
any markets.

"You
cant cherry pick arguments for why each of the other nations should be on the Security Council.... Not only is Japan not as strong as Sweden or Norway according to your index, but Brazil and India dont even rank in the top half of other world countries in terms of develeopment."

My point was that it was higher then 4 of the security council members. It's great that Sweden and Norway's are higher, but Sweden and Norway don't pertain to the debate.

Hell no, because stable and uncorrupted governments can be found just about anywhere you look. If having an uncorrupt government is one of the only arguments you have in support of Japan for why they should be on the G4, then that really shows how there arent that many good reasons for them to be there."

I ask that readers reread his first line. To say stable and uncorrupted governments can be found wherever you look makes no sense. Did you happen to to look in the direction of Somalia or maybe Egypt. I ask my readers to read the 2013 failed state index which calculates data on which countries are rampant with corruption and unstability. To add to this, I made a lot more then one argument.

http://ffp.statesindex.org...

India


They have fought four wars with Pakistan, located right next door to them, and they have stalemated every war every time. If they cant even beat Pakistan then its clear that India couldnt beat anybody else"

My opponent once again uses wikipedia after I asked him to use reliable sources. I followed his source none the less and found a few contradictions. To start, India won the last two wars with Pakistan. One happening in the 70s and one in 1999. The 3rd war was actually known as the Bangladesh Liberation War, and it ended with a Pakistani withdraw and unopposed independence of Bangladesh. The 4th war(which was a small one by the way) was when Pakistan invaded India, which ended with India sending a intervention force ending with a complete Pakistani withdraw from the region. This too seems like a victory to me. This only shows once again my opponent failed to read his own sources.

Oh please.... If a nation as messed up as Pakistan has the balls to go to war with India and its 'horde' FOUR TIMES in the span of half a century and not lose any of them, then its safe to say that many other nations also couldnt care less about India's massive army. As large as it may be, they are still a horrendously bad fighting force that any insurgency can stall....."

I have already stated that India had clear victory's in the 3rd and 4th war. I also believe that the 1st war was ended due to a UN mandate? Not to mention that they were not as powerful and advanced in the 40s and 60s as they are today.

Brazil

The UN isnt trying to do what is best for South America, they are trying to so what is best for the WORLD, and giving some mediocre level country like Brazil the power to veto any proposal that ACTUAL superpowers have drafted is not something that would be best for the world.

Yes, the UN is trying to do what's best for South America, Is South America not apart of the world? Currently all 5 security seats support Brazil's bid, using the argument I made to back it up. They even asked the AU to put up two candidates to form a G6. The best way to solve disputes on a continent accounting for a huge chunk of the world population is to designate a security seat. Someone who can quickly solve conflict. I refer this someone as Brazil of course.

That's because despite their setbacks they still managed to fight an informal stand off with the United States and participated in numerous international operations all over the world over a span of 40 years... Including the invasion of Afghanistan, organization of East Europe, arms deals to North Korea and North Vietnam during those respective wars, and turning several countries communist such as China and Cuba.....

The USSR was the only nation who would and could send arms to controversial countries. If Brazil was in the UN it would have the power to start operations like this. Plus, the invasion of Afghanistan resulted in a failed occupation which is still giving them problems to this date. Regardless, the only reason I made this point was to show a country that has impoverished citizens can still be a world power. Not that the USSR was weak.

I would love to argue some more of his points but I'm almost out of characters. I think I should win this one as my opponent used many false facts and used many bad sources such as wikipedia. I had also proved that he did not fact check his own sources twice already in the 4th round. Please vote Pro.



imabench

Con

1) Japan

" Just because a country has debt does not mean the economies failing.This article also states that Japans economy has avoided the economic distress of Greece which contradicts your argument on the soundness of Greece and Japan. "

Again, way to miss the point. The point is that Japan is not as economically strong as you keep giving it credit for, it has a massive debt that when measured against its GDP makes it comparable to Greece and Italy while making the US look super stable.




"If anything it shows that Japan can survive a collapse of anyone of it's many markets."

Well then clearly you have no idea how international trade works and how fragile economies can be




"My point was that it was higher then 4 of the security council members. It's great that Sweden and Norway's are higher, but Sweden and Norway don't pertain to the debate. "

And the reason why Sweden and Norway dont pertain to this debate is because they have basically no military and have never played a role in international politics or affairs, LIKE JAPAN.




"To say stable and uncorrupted governments can be found wherever you look makes no sense"

Canada, the US, Germany, England, France, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Austria, Israel, Argentina, South Africa...... Stable and uncorrupted governments can be found everywhere dude, whether you want to admit it or not. That being said, having a stable government shouldnt be the main requirement for admittance onto the Security Council.....




" I ask my readers to read the 2013 failed state index which calculates data on which countries are rampant with corruption and unstability."

According to the index Brazil and India are countries listed in orange, which according to your own source classifies them as 'not even stable'.... How does that fit into your justification for them being on the Security Council exactly?

Oh wait, they dont.....




2) India

"My opponent once again uses wikipedia after I asked him to use reliable sources"

Wikipedia is reliable when it comes down to basic events, and at least im the one using sources that dont negate my own arguments like yours do. If you wanna dispute the claim that Pakistan and India have fought 4 wars against each other then by all means, be my guest next time instead of just whining over nothing.



"India won the last two wars with Pakistan"

Last time I checked Pakistan is still a country despite having a significantly smaller army than India.





3) Brazil

"Yes, the UN is trying to do what's best for South America, Is South America not apart of the world? "

Idiot, the UN doesnt value South America more than the rest of the world. The world is their first priority, and South America im assuming isnt even in the top 10 of things they actually care about.




"The best way to solve disputes on a continent accounting for a huge chunk of the world population is to designate a security seat"

And that is an opinion based on no evidence or logic whatsoever. By that reasoning, the best way to solve disputes in the Middle East would be to put Saudi Arabia and Syria on the Security Council, which doesnt make any damn sense at all.




"The USSR was the only nation who would and could send arms to controversial countries"

Im guessing the words 'Iran-Contra' have no meaning to you then, along with the US's actions in arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's....


======================================================================================

In Conclusion: Not only does pro not have the slightest idea of what qualities make up nations that are currently on the UN Security Council, he also flat out ignores the most basic quality that nations on the Security Council need to have to justify being in the Security Council

An extensive history of intervening + having a role in international affairs.

While Germany has certainly met this qualification, the same cannot be said for India, Brazil, and Japan, nations who have had NO impact in international affairs whatsoever, have no military strength that other nations fear at all, and India + Brazil meanwhile have only barely functioning economies and governments that pro's very own sources classifies as countries that are not stable.

Japan, Brazil, and India simply have not been involved in international affairs and events to justify being on the Security Council. If anything the UN should be SWITCHING countries on the Security Council, not just adding them. It would be far more sensible to add Germany and maybe boot out France then to add mediocre countries that nobody cares about onto the Council like Brazil or India

And while my sources may be predominantly from Wikipedia, they still actually support my arguments whereas pro's sources only further justify why Brazil and India shouldnt be in the Security Council.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Clearly you dont since you didnt change any of the damn points.....

For starters:

1) Wikipedia is fine for using info for basic historical facts
2) Pro's sources contradicted his own claims for why India and Brazil should be in the Council in the first place
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
I got it, Yes I made a mistake in getting your statement correctly.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
The argument points isn't what I'm disputing here, it's the other points you gave
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Though I agree both of your's arguments were pretty good and it was hard for me to give Pro points for arguments.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
@ imabench I read the debate well enough but I'm sorry I was convinced more by Pro's arguments than yours.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Its pretty obvious he didnt read the debate.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Ima claims this was vote-bombed, lol.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I really hope no one gives him conduct points as he called me a idiot in the debate.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I really hope no one gives him conduct points as he called me a idiot in the debate.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
@Imabench- You act as if you accept some nations, but refuse others. I'll just post my debate anyways though because there is little time.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Jifpop09imabenchTied
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: Conduct is tied both violated the prescribed rules of the debat con in round 2 pro in round 4. Also con's use of the word idiot is offset by a lot of pro's less obvious smugness. Sources are tied. Arguments go to con. Pro was never able to refute the arguments for why members of the UN security counsel are supposed to be superpowers highly involved with international affairs, particularly through military intervention.
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
Jifpop09imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro made cheap shots at wikipedia sources, not compelling enough to award points for sources. Both sides had aggressive and somewhat sarcastic conduct. S&G goes to Con as his argument formatting and his diction/syntax was much more appealing and much easier to read. Args are won by the Con, with the winning point being that the G4 nations have had little involvement in world politics. Pro held a tenable stance for Japan, but not at all for Brazil and India, which compels me to vote con.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Jifpop09imabenchTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro, Con called him an idiot. Sources also goes to Pro as most of the Con's sources are from Wikipedia. Coming to the Arguments both sides were pretty good but ultimately I think Pro slightly won over Con.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Jifpop09imabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: "Idiot?" Come on, Con. You've been here long enough to know better... Con wins arguments and sources, Pro wins everything else.