Instigator / Con
11
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2956
THW Grant India Permanent Membership on Security Council
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
9
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Burden of proof is shared.
Whiteflame and Misterchris must comment before accepting. (I will extend argument time to one week due to their greater debate ability)
Security council: The United Nations Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.
Information about permanent membership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council
Con will argue that India should not be granted permanent membership to the security council.
Round 1
Framework
The Security Council's main purpose has been to establish peace, and security. As such, it's crucial to hold strength in all aspects without going overboard: economic, political, military, and so on. However, as my evidence will show, not only does India fail to justify its violent actions, it is also incapable to establishing this security. Its lack of true power makes it pale in comparison to the current permanent five members. It is unable to compete in these various interests. While Con may try to establish a different framework, the slippery slope of accepting all members fitting a looser framework makes the decisions stalemate and impossible to decide upon. In addition, it also puts the current permanent five at risk of falling under arbitrary standards, causing chaos in the Security Council.
Economics
Though India's contribution has been getting better, it still is insubstantial compared to other countries. It is not even in the top 10 and only greater than South Africa. [1] Already, India's own dedication is dubious. Not only so, its GDP per capita is relatively poor, with rank 148 on Wikipedia [2]. With lack of economic power, India seems like a paper tiger that is poor to adopt in the UNSC. The economic force is important as it is used as pressure, and the development is important in the security council. The use of sanctions have been employed often by powerful countries, especially the US, to convince other countries to follow in some kind of policy.
As World Politics Review highlights a success, " those negotiations produced the multilateral agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability in exchange for lifting international sanctions. " [3] Even though the power of the sanctions are declining, one cannot deny that they have power when effectively used, and India lacks the ability to both support itself well, or pressure other countries, and fails to significantly contribute to the Council. If this wasn't enough, India also sets a bad example, with its human development index at the bottom half of countries, filled with 28% of the world's poor. [4] It seems absurd that even one of the "leaders" of the world would be one of the worst off financially, and therefore we must not accept India's permanent membership.
Military Problems
Not only is India poor economically, it also abuses its military power in the local area instead of focusing on less morally ambiguous missions. Already, Pakistan notes that India has been terrorizing them across 20 wars, countering the Council's mission to keep peace. [5] Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are being sent to crush revolutions. The FO is urgently asking to treat India under international law, especially since India is essentially supporting terrorist entities. The additional conflict between China also adds to the tension, making it even more difficult to make proper decisions. It's unreasonable to have two warring countries try to work together in the security council. India over-extended itself and was reportedly unprepared for the two front war brought down upon it. [6] Combined with its economic downfall, the war tears down India from the inside. The inner conflicts of India make it an unsuitable force to help the UN, especially its constant dedication of peacekeeping forces. If this continues, India will have next to nothing to actually extend its influence and show that it is able to be at peace with China on the Security Council.
If this wasn't enough, India remains passive in the overall international security issues. It only seems to care about its own foreign policy than a worldwide view of what's important. As The Diplomat argues, "India has also long pursued a policy of silence on most of the other burning issues in international security which UNSC permanent members are often concerned with, from nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, to human rights violations in Syria." [7] India's seeming cowardly nature defeats its desire to be permanently on the UNSC. Without playing a meaningful role in the matter of interest, the other four countries could not prevent China's inevitable veto. In addition, India continues to use colonial-era sedition law and arbitrarily restricts freedom. The unaccountable oppressive law counters its ideas of democracy, and the results are massive violence against woman in Delhi. [8] Hundreds of thousands of migrant settlers had been displaced. The severe lack of reforms highlights that India is heavily backwards compared to other countries in the P5. The inability to support human rights is abhorrent and single-handedly destroys India's case at the permanent seat.
I only needed 5,000 characters but I put the limit as 10,000 in case I needed more in rebuttals. Now onto Con.
I get it, I do, with only 5 nations in the SC who am I to say India should be there by default? The sheer arrogance of me... The horror... Wait, let's think about this.
Is Con genuinely the defensive side of this debate just because its status quo? Why are these 5 nations even in control of the whole planet with more say than the rest? Do you think it's selflessness? That entire second point from Con amused me, if my tone is too sarcastic then so be it. What Con has done is indeed what most of the SC are doing, coming up with garbage reasoning to filibuster any application/request India makes to joining SC. Do they want to join it? Of course they do.
The 'economy' point is the only one worth considering or respecting, in my opinion. I'll get to it later.
Not only is India poor economically, it also abuses its military power in the local area instead of focusing on less morally ambiguous missions. Already, Pakistan notes that India has been terrorizing them across 20 wars, countering the Council's mission to keep peace.
What source does Con use to justify this? A Pakistani News Source which is known to have a left-leaning bias against the Capitalist approach of India, on top of the national rivalry. I'm not accusing the source of lying, I just note that Pro didn't quote anything from the source, he linked to an article that somehow could suggest what he's saying. In fact this is the only source he uses to justify both the notion that India is militaristically 'abusing' its neighbours and that it's verging on terrorism.
Pakistan, in the meantime, has always had a questionable and provocative approach to its foreign policy. It is objectively known to wilfully harbour Taliban [https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm] and even when it tries/tried to switch and take them down, it always ends up at war with its own people more than with them [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10357710701684963]. This has caused untold problems for Afghanistan and India. That's only regarding Taliban, the Pakistani military itself is known to be rather hostile to India.
The military history of Pakistan encompasses an immense panorama of conflicts and struggles extending for more than 2,000 years across areas constituting modern Pakistan and greater South Asia. The history of the modern-day military of Pakistan began in 1947, when Pakistan achieved its independence as a modern nation.
The military holds a significant place in the history of Pakistan, as the Pakistani Armed Forces have played, and continue to play, a significant role in the Pakistani establishment and shaping of the country. Although Pakistan was founded as a democracy after its independence from the British Raj, the military has remained one of the country's most powerful institutions and has on occasion overthrown democratically elected civilian governments on the basis of self-assessed mismanagement and corruption. Successive governments have made sure that the military was consulted before they took key decisions, especially when those decisions related to the Kashmir conflict and foreign policy. Political leaders of Pakistan are aware that the military has stepped into the political arena through coup d'état to establish military dictatorships, and could do so again.[1][2]
^ This is Dawn.Com, so Con can't attack the source's credibility.
It is very important to understand that Pakistan used to be part of India, it was India when Mahatma Gandhi was around that let Pakistan break off, to keep peace between Muslim Indians and Hindu Indians (which the British colonists were exploiting conflicts between). If you understand this, it becomes much clearer why India wants Pakistan to join them, or rather they wanted initially. It's not India who usually is the aggressor and it definitely isn't India who keeps getting defeated.
More importantly, it is Pakistan who first asserted and pushed for this 'first strike policy' with regards to Nuclear warheads. India has refused to promise peace and transparency regarding its nuclear warheads and mechanics of launching them because it wants Pakistan to understand that it promises mutually assured destruction. Con would have you believe that somehow India is a big bad bully, this is not really close to the true relations between the two nations. Pakistan isn't always the 'bad guy' but it's more like the more troublesome, younger brother/cousin that has more inner turmoil to deal with, while India is the bigger sibling that isn't an angel but tries to be mature in recent times. Both have done things to the other, both fear and yet promise destruction to the other if things persist. It is not like India is a singular bad guy here, that's not really the dynamic.
So, how about the other wonderful nations of the SC?
Con's main line of attack is that India is too 'selfish and dangerous' to let onto the SC. Aside from the fact that's a load of... The hilarious aspect of this is that ALL 5 OF THE COUNTRIES Russia, China, US and UK and France have been some of the biggest bullies militaristically in the recent history of the planet (UK was in fact such a bully to India itself).
Three (of many) Colonialism links:
Russia and China not just were, but are.
^ This second one is really worth a read, because it shows how US is also a bully that tries to hypocritically counteract Russian aggression at times.
The US and Middle East issues are not only very bad, but if it wasn't for India, do you think Bush would have gotten away with what he did to Pakistan and Afghanistan or had any traction and success whatsoever? How about Obama? Do you think Obama could have just gone and made peace with nations around India if it wasn't for India letting him? India has been an internationally helpful ally to the US in recent times, do not doubt that.
In fact, if we talk economy, the US owes India big time.
However, let's not forget this lovely 'angel' China. Russia and China are not just internationally bullying the nations around them, they are internally doing so as well. If Con is going to sit on some high horse and talk down to India while defending SC nations, let's just be clear what the SC even is.
The SC is a bunch of 5 nations who happened to be powerful and influential at the UN's origin because of past sins each of the 5 had committed. It's not about morals, it's not about some romantic notion of unity. It's based on the philosophy that very powerful nations with selfish interests balance each other out.
- India population is equivalent to 17.7% of the total world population.
- India ranks number 2 in the list of countries (and dependencies) by population.
From that perspective alone, India is already influential and represents a huge portion (for a single nation) of the world's interest to the SC.
India had the 6th highest GDP in 2019, according both to IMF and the UN. The World Bank puts it 5th, not 6th.
^ all gained via: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
So, the 'economy' point is nothing more than pure lies?
Round 2
Military Problems
Con decides to attack this point first, so let's talk about India's use of the military. He highlights that India may have grown to be more justified in modern days to attack Pakistan, inferring the reason to be the support of the Taliban. But let's look back into history to see if this is the true reason or not. According to CFR, "Territorial disputes over the Kashmir region sparked two of the three major Indo-Pakistani wars in 1947 and 1965, and a limited war in 1999. Although both countries have maintained a fragile cease-fire since 2003, they regularly exchange fire across the contested border, known as the Line of Control." [1] Already, the history isn't matching up completely. India isn't using the terrorist support of Pakistan as its main goal to extinguish, but rather the territory. The sources regarding Pakistan's' bad foreign policy mention zero information on India's justification for attacking Pakistan. This alone should raise a red flag and cause voters to greatly doubt Con's logical support.
If this wasn't enough proof, Arms Control Center notes the increasing danger and potential of nuclear proliferation by pointing out the timeline of the Indo-Pakistan war. As the two continue to struggle with increasing actions taken against the disputed territory, most recently "Article 370 gave Kashmir the rights to its own “constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws” regarding residency, property ownership, and fundamental rights". Clearly, this has nothing to do with condemnation of Pakistan's Taliban affiliations, and proves that India is struggling with its own selfish desires. If anything, Con's highlight of Pakistan's wrongs further my powerful argument offered in R1. Instead of using human rights and anti terrorism as a support, India is still continuing its bickering all the way back from 1950's, far before Pakistan's questionable foreign policy. Imagine US escalated the Cold War with Russia for territorial and power reasons, rather than valuing democracy and freedom. Surely not even the US would deserve to stay in the permanent 5 for waging such an absurd type of war.
Con tries to justify India's colonialism laws based on the P5's errors. However, Independent co only remarked on the 19th century, which is irrelevant to current times, and was celebrated by India, thus enhancing only my argument. The Guardian remarks about an Oxford University study which supported imperialism, which has no connection to actual foreign policy and hence still has zero impacts. The Conversation also remarks on similar timing as Independent way back in the 1950's. I don't know how Britain's past colonial flaws have anything to do with modern day, other than proving that India is currently wrong. Standards have improved and we must enforce anti-colonialism laws now that we know better. Regardless, centuries-ago countries shouldn't impact current status. Let's focus on what India is presently doing wrong.
Notice how Con has dropped the idea that India doesn't care what the security council wants. Extend these ideas, because the UNSC will only choose countries that keep SC interests in mind.
- "India has also long pursued a policy of silence on most of the other burning issues in international security which UNSC permanent members are often concerned with, from nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, to human rights violations in Syria."
- India continues to use colonial-era sedition law and arbitrarily restricts freedom. The unaccountable oppressive law counters its ideas of democracy, and the results are massive violence against woman in Delhi.
- Also notice how Con's source with Russia 2 only enhances my argument. While US will use powerful economic sanctions to prevent Russia's actions instead of direct military strikes, India will recklessly attack Pakistan. While India's economy loops back to hit itself in the butt in the foreign policy, US is able to retain its strong political power precisely because it is able to execute these economic sanctions. "The sanctions severely limit five major Russian banks' ability to obtain medium and long-term financing from Europe. The United States also restricted technology exports to Russia's deep-water Arctic offshore or shale oil production." Since Russia is having such a hard time recuperating, we can safely say the US prevented military attacks without costing a single life. Extend this argument.
Economics
Con claims that US owes India big time, but the source directly contradicts him by highlighting the difficulty to actually make a difference in the country. Despite the rising middle class, the low human capital results in a poor coordination overall. His source realizes: "Particularly low grades are given in the categories of “trading across borders” (143) and “paying taxes” (172)... U.S. companies face varied environments across India’s 29 states and seven union territories, due to India’s decentralized political system, with state-level differences in the quality of governance, regulation, taxation, labor relations, and education levels". And so India results in the 105th out of 130 countries in the human capital index, furthering my argument. Though our trading is there, the results are surprisingly terrible, due to inherent problems in India we've yet to fix. And so the economy stagnates for the lower classes, unable to raise them out of the poor.
Con raises GDP above GDP per capita, but has no substantial support for this. Realize that GDP does not account for inequality and standards of living for each citizen in the country. My statistics highlight that India's disparity between the rich and poor is absurd and unacceptable. $6,000 GDP per capita, combined with 28% of the poor, tell the story that not even the world's leader are able to achieve relative economic equality. Let's prevent India from becoming a laughing stock.
Con follows up by noting that India is a substantial population and thus should be represented as a permanent member, but has little backing for this. Why should representation be important? Why isn't China's representation of the Asian sphere good enough? And if representation was truly all that important, wouldn't that lead to the same slippery slope that allows even more countries within the UNSC? Certainly, 20% of the population seems like a lot, but is it truly the representation we desire?
Extend: its human development index at the bottom half of countries, filled with 28% of the world's poor. [4] It seems absurd that even one of the "leaders" of the world would be one of the worst off financially, and therefore we must not accept India's permanent membership.
Conclusion: Con's reasoning for Pakistan's bad decisions doesn't matchup with India's true motivations based on history. What's more, he dropped the inequalities and problematic laws presented by India's actions. He presents a trading opportunity between US and India, but fails to link together to actual results. What's more, he pretends GDP is all there is while GDP per capita should be valued as we greatly care about economic equality. It doesn't make sense that our evaluation of humanitarian efforts, especially raised by the US, should be contradicted by India's proportion of the poor. We should fix India's problems first before considering adding them as a permanent member.
Now back to Con.
Forfeited
Round 3
Extend all arguments.
Okay at this point in the debate, I see that it's one of those debates where both sides seem to 0% understand the other side.
In my eyes every single one of the 5 nations in the SC has commited war crimes in the past and have a lot to answer for (because SC is not based on being a 'good nation' and only a 'powerful nation that will negotiate' I don't disqualify all 5). Additionally, this 'economy' point is getting quite ridiculous. When Con called India's economy weak, I proved that it was officially ranked as 5th-6th strongest in 2019 (data since then has been unreliable and unfair on certain nations because of Covid). In reply to this, Con tries to highlight certain issues within India that he feels matter.
This isn't a debate about India being an angel, neither militaristically nor economically. This is a debate about whether or not India should be permitted to join the SC.
Russia did infinitely more damage to the stopping of tyranny in Syria than India did.
Wiki
Wiki
Not only was it immoral and pro-Syria, it even strategically failed to attain its objectives:
Yet, I am not here saying 'bar Russia from the SC'. After all, it was the US that has repeatedly disrespected Middle Eastern Sovereignty even that of Pakistan far more than India ever has.
This is not a debate about who is an angel, I refuse to accept that dynamic here. India needn't be a selfless, angelic nation to qualify being on the SC. The SC has never stood for selflessness, all 5 nations on it have been among the single most 5 self-centred nations of our species' recent history.
They bully other nations in the name of either colonialism or some modern-day version of Imperialism and then say India's the bad guy? India literally gave up its land several times, for Pakistan, Bangladesh and at earlier times Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and the Maldives.
In contrast, China and Russia are both committing modern day Imperialism. The UK and US own countless random islands and spots on the planet because of previous invading (France does too but a smaller proportion and in cases like Quebec in Canada, they aren't officially France's provinces anymore, UK has had similar issues with its 'claim' to the lands but less so).
I posted 2 links to Russian Imperialism in Round 1, let's explore what China is doing to its own people and abroad, then Russia and the US. The reason I avoid UK and France in this, is that they are now both social democracies that are further than India on the path to high Human Development Index and such.
Note that with China it's hard to know what precisely they're doing to their own people or even others, they actively censor their own media and pressure other nations to talk nice about them.
Censorship, genocide, complete lack of animal rights... Oh, and also complete lack of human rights, at least in enforcement as opposed to theory.
China and its sins.
^ Oh did I mention homophobia and ethnocentrism? Let's back that up with sources too:
Human Rights Watch 1 (overview)
HRW 2 (China and Tibet)
China doesn't just overtly dominate through military strength, that's saved primarily for its neighbours. China primarily dominates by making deperate nations owe it (and less desperate nations also owe it over time in a slower manner). It then capitalises on these debts bit by bit.
ForeignPolicy - Discussion of the two paths to global domination China has (economic and militaristic via secret intelligence)
Russia's imperialism was already discussed in Round 1. I'll focus on internal abuse of Russia with sources this Round.
Similar to China, the full extent of what Russia does to its own people is not truly known, it actively censors and pressures other nations to talk nice about it (less the latter than China but enough to mention).
The US has other issues, primarily rabid Capitalism leaving people starving and unlike in Russia and China, the US government itself is no longer homophobic or such, rather citizens (sometimes armed ones who have such easy access to weapons it would make you puke) are able to unleash their hatred on others and still do so. They justify it under a guise of 'freedom of expression' or something along those lines.
While the government doesn't actively do this, it's interesting to analyse the cultures (Russian, Chinese, American, British and French) that are 'entitled' to be part of SC. I want to focus almost entirely on them, to explain to you that India absolutely deserves to be part of the SC, it's not worse than they are.
Now, let's observe direct clashes between SC nations.
Even when pitted head-to-head, noone has been kicked off the SC.
Russia disrespected UK sovereignty and used chemical attacks on a former agent (it hurt more than one person, including the police officer).
US and Russia have been and still are at direct odds regarding Syria. They were the same regarding Russia's domination of Crimea and potentially all of Eastern Europe, had the US not stepped in to stop Russia. This was discussed in Round 1.
So, with all this said and done, I don't for a single second buy into the notion that India needs to be a militaristic angel or economically pristine nation without any issues of any kind, in order to join the SC.
Everyone in the SC has sinned in the past and 3 nations (Russia, China and the US) still do sin quite significantly and are there primarily because they're superpowers.
So, what exactly is it that I need to defend here? India has essentially the same portion of our species as China has, it represents that many of us. Yet it's not permitted to join the SC why? According to Con because it's not a militaristic angel and its economy isn't ideal.
That is not just wrong, since it's nicer than the nations I just mentioned or 'just as bad' at worst but furthermore the SC never has been and never will be based on nice and cute nations hugging and loving one another. It's based on opposing powerful interests balancing each other's selfishness out and India absolutely would make good use of its seat at the table, balancing out China's interests in Asia to begin with.
Round 4
Con repeats that India is well off economically overall, but misses my entire point concerning economic equality. This point is important as it we ought to reduce inequalities that perpetuate through society. If we accept the significant amount of poor in the area, then we would reject all the humanitarian missions, which is surely not the UNSC's goal.
Recall: India results in the 105th out of 130 countries in the human capital index.
$6,000 GDP per capita, combined with 28% of the poor, tell the story that not even the world's leader are able to achieve relative economic equality.
It seems absurd that even one of the "leaders" of the world would be one of the worst off financially, and therefore we must not accept India's permanent membership.
Secondly, Con tries to knock down Russia and China as sensible leaders, but has no significant linking to how exactly the interactions in Syria are terrible. In addition, China's position on UNSC is unfortunately secured to the veto power being present in the P5. One current articles even notes, " leaderships of several countries including the UNSC members such as the US and the UK have gone on record to call for fixing China's accountability for the loss of lives and livelihood on the planet." [1] Regardless, merely because current P5 members are committing wrong ideals does not mean that others committing issues should also join the P5. By the low standards of China's "atrocities", Con would suddenly admit every country to the P5 so long as they haven't committed immense crimes. It's already difficult to keep Russia and China in check; adding in India would be complete chaos. Con is adding fuel to the fire and perpetuates the inequalities and the injustices. By saying India's atrocities are also fine, you prevent any just countries from stopping them. Especially since India would have greater power once introduced to the P5. This logic just falls apart in the end.
Voters, notice that con's vast majority rests on the mere crux on China. It's no question that China is the despicable outlier and the one who doesn't belong in the UNSC. Nearly 50,000 people have signed the petition that agrees that China sets a bad example for the rest of the world. [2] Con's villainizing of China actually helps boost my case as India also disrespects the human rights as presented. Not only is China already difficult to remove, we would also introduce *another* country that infiltrates the human rights that UN desired to uphold. How much sense does that make sense? We would only invite further dissent in the UN and absurdity overall.
Con follows through by stating the US's rapid capitalism is at fault, followed by the mass shootings, but I have no idea how these two connect together. If voters find Con's explanation fine, feel free to toss their vote to Con. Otherwise, it seems like cherry picking a specific problem to the US. Why should the US be judged for a lack of gun control policy (or other similar restrictions)? Why should Russia be judged by a single spy's chemical attack? How does this compare to India's vast problems? How is this relevant to UNSC standard of peace and power? We don't know. All of Con's non-China examples are either small tid bits that don't truly affect my argument, or prove that introducing more countries would be even more problematic. If the UNSC was as corrupt as bad as it seemed, then adding India is only adding another rotten egg in the mix. We'd only be extending the same problems listed above, and con makes no attempt to turn India into the hero that will save us all.
Recall:
If this wasn't enough, India remains passive in the overall international security issues. It only seems to care about its own foreign policy than a worldwide view of what's important. As The Diplomat argues, "India has also long pursued a policy of silence on most of the other burning issues in international security which UNSC permanent members are often concerned with, from nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, to human rights violations in Syria." [7] India's seeming cowardly nature defeats its desire to be permanently on the UNSC. Without playing a meaningful role in the matter of interest, the other four countries could not prevent China's inevitable veto. In addition, India continues to use colonial-era sedition law and arbitrarily restricts freedom. The unaccountable oppressive law counters its ideas of democracy, and the results are massive violence against woman in Delhi. [8] Hundreds of thousands of migrant settlers had been displaced. The severe lack of reforms highlights that India is heavily backwards compared to other countries in the P5. The inability to support human rights is abhorrent and single-handedly destroys India's case at the permanent seat.
There are many other countries contending to join the P5, including but not limited to Brazil, Japan, so on and so forth. Not only would Con have to prove India's worth, they would have to prove their worth above the other possible countries. While the UNSC is being contradictory and problematic with its minor issues,, my framework analyzes what *should* be the standard of the P5. It doesn't matter if my argument seeks to destroy and dissolve the P5 because things have gotten out of hand. All that matters that I disprove India's joining of the permanent members. If US, Russia and China are truly all substandard, then I'm all for the theoretical disband of the P5, and perhaps a reform based on truly democratic and reasonable countries. But that doesn't change the idea that India *can't* be the leader despite the display being subpar. Its inability to extend power is already problematic, and its problems previous stated heap upon the ideology differences between India and my "ideal standard for permanent member". Notice how this entire debate Con jumped around what India could do to help the world, and instead assumed that I am dependent on the existing P5's performance.
Conclusion
The UN desires to have peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, and spread equality and freedom ideals across the world. No matter which country, even the permanent 5, should be scrutinized under this idea. But not only has Con failed to refute India's poor ability to influence foreign policy, he's also failed to address the serious human rights issues at hand. If anything, he only shows a bad apple already in the P5 that most other countries despise and regret letting join.
By our very test, we have successfully shown that India and China are hardly different within their oppression and their issues. If readers are convinced that all the P5 are committing atrocities, then perhaps it's time to fully dissolve the P5 and restart. But regardless, India does not show significant ability to contribute to the UN purpose, especially the economic inequality and the use of the military. The problems through India are much more concrete than a gun murder rate in America or a chemical poisoning from Russia. Sure, US is working through its many issues, but it's making leaps and bounds due to technological renovations and government change. And while its own politics can be flawed, it delivers well when it comes to UN humanitarian issues as well as giving economic sanctions to warn Russia about mistakes they made.
Remember that Con's previous source had stabbed him in the back, as US was able to cleverly avoid out right war with Russia by using economic methods instead of military. This shows a crucial difference in foreign policy compared to India's 50~60 year long bickering over a single territory still continuing to this day. Remember that by showing that China, even a current permanent member, is at risk of great criticism and highlighting immorality. And by this logic India should not be considered until it is able to prove it won't just be another China.
Vote for pro.
Con has brought up quite a few brand new points in the final Round. Not just rebuttals at all, brand new points.
I shall not reply to them, since I will be penalised and wasting effort as people will say I rebuked him when he no longer could reply in a 4-Round debate.
Until the final Round, Con's sole attacks were Military actions of India and Economic success. I touched on some of the things he raised in the final round anyway but I refuse to engage in it, final Rounds are for summarising and conclusion.
In this debate, Con has made the Security Council's membership appear to be based on how peaceful a nation is militaristically and how successful it is economically. I proved that militaristically India is pretty much an angel compared to the SC nations historically (and even still in the modern age) as well as making clear that it is Pakistan that was first threatening India with nuclear attack and 'first strike policy' if it felt threatened by India. India responded by also saying it would not hesitate, thus the nuclear aspect is mutual and defensive from India's standpoint.
I raised many points such as India's population size, the fact the other SC nations did worse things even recently especially with places like Syria that Con brought up. At each point, I turned Con's points against his own case.
I believe I have won this debate in every respect and even justified why it's actually Con that has burden of proof here, more than Pro, since if we properly analyse the SC, it's based on big powers with competing interests balancing each other out for global stability, not on being a militaristically pacifist nation at all.
That may have been implicit in your argument, but I did not see you set that aside as an alternative framework and argue that it was preferable to Pro's. You argued that the P5 is problematic, but never established what makes a nation sufficiently powerful to be on the permanent security council, never established what specific perspective other nations would bring that would, as you put it, "balance each other's greed and powerlust out", and instead just said that India represents a large enough subset of the population to warrant their participation as a permanent member without ever really explaining what's gained by adding to global representation. If you're going to argue that there's a need for diversity of opinion and greater representation of the total population of the world, then establish what's gained by adding to it. Don't just assert that there's some greater balance without examining the value of having it.
I agree that Con didn't establish any basis for his points, either, but at least in his case, I have a clear means of seeing how it harms the current P5 in their ability to pursue given actions. Maybe those actions are bad, but I'm not given any reason to believe that. I'm just being told that India's addition to the permanent security council needs to have clear value. If that value is reduced or even made nonexistent by India's lack of will to take action, then it doesn't matter what they actually bring to the table, even if that is diversity and numbers of people being represented.
I defaulted membership to be available for all powerful nations that balance each other's greed and powerlust out. This was made crystal clear as the basis for SC membership, I made clear how and why India irrefutably qualifies as representing enough of our species and enough of global interest to compete with at least China and balance it out.
You are the one lying saying I didn't give a basis, Con never gave a shred of it.
That's a pretty vague critique. Considering that I agree with your side, I'm not sure what I'm confirming with my bias, nor am I very clear about what words I twisted.
your vote here has a lot of confirmation bias and twisting of words involved.
Mainly, if you're going to try other strategies (say, advocating for an end to the permanent Security Council), do it up front. You had points regarding the veto power that you could have used to build such a case early on, but you'd have to dig into it more to really get there. Also, emphasize why you have a framework in the first place. Even if it's not a great way to establish what the Security Council should do, it's the only clear option discussed in the debate. RM suggests some ways to determine who should be on the council, but they're never all that explicit and they seem a bit arbitrary (you expose yourself to that argument, but at least you have a framework for why your arbitrary choice should be preferred).
thank you for the vote and spotting the crucial human rights argument! I had difficulty making my mind up whether to keep things practical (why we're currently rejecting India) or keeping things more theoretical (why China is admittedly bad and maybe there's a more objective example of a good country than US/Britain).
Any other tips?
TY. Btw I don't really think the rivalry is twosided in terms of who is wrong, I actually think Pakistan is completely in the wrong but I said it was two-sided to neutralise your point and make you turn away from India vs Pakistan as that kind of was the only strong thing for you to build on.
Pakistan was founded on the idea that Muslim Indians couldn't coexist with Hindu Indians. That was the literal justification for the partition. It's also shat led Pakistan to fight within itself (as East Pakistan which included Bangladesh, even though it's on the other side of India, had a more peaceful outlook than West Pakistan). That's what most of India vs Pakistan has been about.
thanks for the vote, edge. Also Madman, you are CRUSHING me in the political topics haha. I think I'm pretty bad/mediocre at politics all in all.
I actually know nothing about this topic - so I can go in and vote with little bias in regard to the topic, I'll try to read through it and get a vote out by tommorow
Got coal’s debate to do first, then this one.
about a week or so left.
Didn’t say it was tedious, just a lot on my plate.
I just vote whenever I feel like it so I understand it's tedious.
Just remind me as this goes on. Got a bit of a backlog going that I’m hoping to blitz through this weekend.
It's complete, if you care to read.
I suppose Con side isn't quite as good as "substance" especially for my standard, but a lot of it's related to the simple logic of why status quo is happening
I have yet to see this substance but okay. I frankly think the SC is bullshit and should be abolished but if it's not, India absolutely has earned a seat at the table. The only thing you should have focused on is particular aspects of Nuclear treaty agreements that India refuses to be a part of. The rest of the 'military' stuff isn't worth bringing up.
Nicely done, madman.
Also funny note: I am actually also PRO on this topic but I found CON fun to argue because there's a lot of substance that you can use to twist it to your favor
sorry, I mixed up pro and con again. Silly me.
Be interested to see how this plays out.