The UN should have a Standing Military Force

First of all, I must apologize and say I was confused when I read the structure of the General Assembly, and undecisive between oligarchy and democracy. However, after my opponent helps me define democracy and oligarchy, it seems apparent, based on my sourcing of the system, an my opponent's definition, the General Assembly is most certainly representative democracy (only with far more power than most other governments, but that doesn't affect the fact that it's a specific government type). Think about it. "Vice presidents" from each major country are elected--part of democracy--actions are decided by majority vote--yet another defining trait of democracy--and most of all, power is spread in the UN so that there's a separate branch that declares war/sends out soldier (similar to USA's democracy, where only the president can declare war, but the legislative branch has to agree to it). This is not a new argument because I already stated my structure in the last round, only last time I was a little confused because lack of time and understanding. "The assembly is led by a president, elected from among the member states on a rotating regional basis, and 21 vice-presidents. .. . When the General Assembly votes on important questions, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required. Examples of important questions include recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; and budgetary matters. All other questions are decided by a majority vote. " --From the previous round But after a while of thinking, I finally came to conclusion. Indeed, united nations may be united nationS, but its government still works well enough for it to have its own standing military and still work well. In addition, over the course of this debate Emily has failed time after time to truly assert exactly WHY you have to be a nation or have a government to have a standing military. In the ancient times, where there were no nations or government, in the state of anarchy, technically everyone consisted a "military" (hunting and killing animals, gathering food, etc. ) to team up and hunt as well as gather (hunter-gatherers). Again, my opponent talks of how UN is not a nation in round two but never gives any logic, philosophy, or evidence for why something needs to be ONE nation to have a military. Why, cannot multiple nations SHARE a military? My opponent did move onto how the UN supposedly ruins its own democratic values (special pleading fallacy, as this does not support her first point), but I already refuted this with the fact that majority vote was STILL needed to deploy the troops even if the UN had a standing army. Secondly, my opponent sources the implication that UN soldiers MAY be experienced, but are they? They crush their own privilege. They failed to save a myraid of countries, and they act completely the opposite of what an honorable military is supposed to act. It is exactly a military the UN needed to solve the problems I posed within round two. The UN has some effect with its peace-keeping forces. It will have FULL effect only if it has a standing military. To address the fact that "some countries may be unwilling to send", once again, this is non-unique. Under the current system it isn't very effective either. Only the countries that have the certain problems or have allies with the problems woul be willing to send, and once more, I already stressed this before (this is unaddressed by my opponent), THE VOLUNTEERS ARE FORCED AND UNTRAINED. Under my standing military, the volunteers will be dedicated, AND trained. They gain free will, we gain effectiveness. What could be better? Finally, to address the money problem, let me address it in this way. Let us suppose by magic, only half of the countries--say, 50 countries--support the UN and share the burden of this 2 billion dollars. Even then, even with only half of the countries supporting the UN (which is very unlikely, certainly far more than just half of the countries would support the UN in a case like this, I mean, they would earn more allies because of where the UN deploys troop to help keep peace). "Likewise hiring translators would be necessary in order for international soldiers to communicate with each other and more importantly: with the people of the country/area they're deployed to. "Opponent does not address that the translators might be a common problem under the current system. IN CONCLUSION-My opponent has tried hard as usual to negate the resolution. However, most of her problems are nonunique, or they don't apply to the UN. The UN should obtain a permanent standing army. It would be far more effective than their current method of deploying troops, and they would finally earn a reputation as a strong, excellent (if not out-standing) peace-keeping source! Judges, vote for me. Vote for UN! s://i. imgflip. com. .. ; alt="" />