Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    Hello to both sides! My name is Arielle, and I'm a residential judge here at Qallout. Thank you both for participating in a robust debate on the topic of the UN’s relevance to today’s world. I'll be providing an overview of what I understand to be each of your points, and stating which side I believe did a better job in communicating his position.

    The Pro side argued that the UN may be proved obsolete if demonstrated that its guiding mission goes unfulfilled. The Pro side stated that firstly, due to the harm perpetrated by peacekeepers or their failure to intervene (mentions: Central African Republic; Sudan; Syria; Ukraine), the negative consequences of peacekeepers presences outweigh their ability to provide aid within a given affected region. Overall funding to the UN has also decreased in todays terms since its founding, limiting the organization’s ability to provide stricken regions with adequate aid. With regard to the Security Council, the Pro side stated that the body lacks ability to coerce adherence to national decisions or promises, and doubly doesn’t enable truly progressive reform passage due to vetoing powers, and thus is a toothless security mechanism.

    The Con side pointed out that the existence of a Security Council is essential to providing a platform for multilateral dialogue, and engaging upwards of 190 nation states towards consolidating peace. He provides recent examples of de-escalating threats in Syria and from North Korea, and cited that the average number of vetoes per year is 5. The Con side also rebuffed claims from his opponent who stated that peacekeeping missions are generally disasterous- he pointed out that given formal training, instances like the peacekeeping mission in Haiti can yield more positive outcomes when aiming to provide stability. He stated that through promotion of the millennial development goals (MDGs) and the work of multiple agencies (promoting tourism and funding NGOs), economic development as a preventative investment is capable of averting and remediating international humanitarian crises. Ultimately, Con believes that the UN has the power to preemptively arrange peace talks and prevent genocides.

    My vote goes to the Con side’s argument, and here is why.
    1. The Pro side didn’t engage the claims of the Con side, who claimed that the transformative effects of economic development were enough to justify the UN’s relevance
    2. The Pro side only addressed two aspects of the UN- its peacekeeping missions and its Security Council. The Pro side did not reference the work of UN specialized agencies, courts, or programs in his discussion of UN relevance.

    However, I do think that the Pro side brought up an important point that many UN peacekeeping missions have historically failed. Perhaps this is evidence that Peacekeeping missions are obsolete—however this does not prove that the UN development system as a whole is obsolete. As the Pro side contends, the UN still makes a difference through furthering economic development.

  • 2 years ago
  • 2 years ago

    @singalport Congrats for advancing to the next round!
    @thaddeus_tague Hard luck on this one, hope to see you at the next tournament starting next week - registration is open:

    • 2 years ago

      Thanks for an awesome debate @singalport. I can tell you did PF haha. I had a lot of fun with this rez.