We should allow the g4 states into the UN Security council

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 CouncilAn 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.