So my topic is "Should the UN be disbanned?" and i'm on the pro side {the teacher chose} & I have NOOOOOO idea what goes on in the UN, all I know is they are trying to talk more and little action unless it's necessary. But I have no idea how to try and prove that we don't need the UN x_x The con team is totally going to win. Here is what I have to come up with. Opening statement, closing statement, questions for the con team, facts obviously. If anyone can provide some useful facts and stuff, that'd be really great and it'd save me some clueless research. I dunno where to start. Debate's on Friday =/ Questions for the con team and stuff would help a BUNCH. Also, suppose if you WERE on the con team, what are some of the arguments you can come up with so I can try to prepare for their counter arguments. Thanks SO much.
Well, I will put aside the fact that I think this is a ridiculous topic for debate. But I think maybe you should argue about how in reality, the smaller nations do not get as much a say as the larger, more developed ones (such as the nations on the Security Council) do. Maybe argue that as they can't actually do anything per say they are sort of pointless (obviously not true, but in theory, they cannot implement change and cannot attack anyone so they are pointless). Maybe talk about how even though the countries in the UN are all working together to try and help developing countries, each one would still have personal interests which would stop them from doing too much help. Eg how USA won't sign Kyoto as it will hurt them. Also, with reference to the treaties and things they make up, talk about how they are not enforceable, as a treaty is just a piece of paper that a country signs promising to ratify and change their domestic laws. Hope I was some help
Well the UN basically helps organize international stuff (law, human rights, economy, etc). They exist to keep countries from taking over others and genocides and stuff like that. And while yes, there is huge spectrum of views in the UN and countries are constantly arguing, it is nice to have some sort of international order. And as for a question, you could as something along the lines of "If the UN did not exist, what would happen to Darfur? Would the killing simply continue, ignored by the rest of the world." For more information, read wikipedia.
My opinion is the UN is a wonderful idea but it's only worth as much as countries put in. The Iraqi war wouldn't of happened if Bush had listened to the UN but he didn't and that is the point countries don't take it seriously enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations Especially: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _criticism :yup:
Definitely mention how the UN has major issues enforcing the policies they put into place. They have no means to do it militarily, especially to force a country on the security council to do something. One of the only means they really have to do anything is an economic blockade or something of the like, and that only works if every single other country agrees to not trade with the 'bad' country until it gives in.
The UN deals with international issues, usually the members are developed countries and the developing countries are guests until they can be confirmed for membership. They are required to put a part of their military for peacekeeping missions, ex. Blue Beret (canadians). They keep the peace in 3rd world countries in Africa, Asia, etc. They basically make sure no1 steps out of the line, ex. production of nuclear weapons by iran which they claim to be for nuclear reactors, their leader wants to bomb israel so yea...
This may be a bit late for you, but for those interested in this and in particular, the conflict in Darfur: The Genoide in Darfur has been going on since 2001. The U.N. has been aware of the problem, and many propositions to stop Sudan have been made, but China, a member of the Big 5, vetoes them all. This is because China is a major buyer of Sudanese oil, and they want to mantain good relations with Sudan. The Big 5 are five ountries in the security counsel that 'won' world war ii. If ONE of these countries vetoes a proposition, then the proposition cannot pass. Hope that either helped or was interesting to some people.
Mooie, google UN Pros and Cons. I just did and found many things. Maybe that will help you. Best of luck in the debate!!!