BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Behaviour of the Sudanese government was tantamount to Genocide

The violence that occurred in the Darfur region of Western Sudan since 2003, approached genocide proportions with the death toll estimated between 300,000 and 500,000 out of a population of a little over a million and a half. Not only was this a human tragedy. It was also a political crisis. The West invested enormous political capital in the idea that genocide, whether deliberate or through governmental negligence, is unacceptable, and George Bush even termed the events in Darfur a genocide in 2007.[1] By having called the events a genocide and then failed the West discredited itself, both as a moral force(showing it cared more about SE Europe than it did Africa) and indicated to dictators that they have no reason to fear a Western response in the future. [1] ‘Bush blasts Darfur 'genocide'’, MailOnline, 29 May 2007, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-458389/Bush-blasts-Darfur-genocide.html
The Sudanese regime has a history of supporting terrorism and other unsavoury groups

The Sudanese government’s unsavoury behaviour goes beyond its actions in Darfur. Its campaign against the southern rebels was replete with atrocities, and it has a long history of supporting terrorism including hosting Osama Bin Ladin in the early  1990s.[1] While Sudan has been more cooperative in recent years against Al-Quada, it continues to harbour Islamic extremist groups responsible for attacks in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Combined with the conflict in Darfur there was a pressing case for regime change, and reason to think Sudan’s neighbours would be open and supportive of the idea as well. [1] Bhattacharji, Preeti, ‘State Sponsors: Sudan’, Council on Foreign Relations, 2 April 2008, http://www.cfr.org/sudan/state-sponsors-sudan/p9367
The conflict has a racial identity

The conflict in Sudan took on racial overtones. The inhabitants of Darfur are largely black, the government forces of Arab descent. Much of their treatment, including kidnapping and slavery, is a legacy of centuries of racist mistreatment and conflict between “white” and “dark” Muslims.[1] As a strong opponent of Racism, the West had a duty to act, given that the conflict was reinforcing negative views in the Arab world against those of darker skin.[2] [1] Mutua, Makau, ‘Racism at root of Sudan’s Darfur crisis’, The Christian Science Monitor, 14 July 2004, http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p09s02-coop.html [2] Fatah, Tarek, ‘From Bangladesh to Darfur: Racism among Muslims’, http://mukto-mona.com, 24 April 2009, http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=275
Intervention might destabilize the peace deal in the South

The focus on the failure to act in Darfur ignores the real progress that has been achieved in ending decades long violence in Sudan. In 2011 Southern Sudan peacefully voted to secede and all indications are that the process will not be contested by Khartoum. The United States under George Bush played a key role in the peace accords which ended that part of the Civil War, with Prospect Magazine noting that the President “deserves much of the credit” for the agreement.[1]  While the government in Khartoum has accepted them, it seems likely that if the US were to have participated in a bombing campaign or invasion, that the Sudanese government would have responded by tearing up the accords. This is especially true as they would have a pressing motive that does not exist in Darfur, namely the Oil reserves that will be leaving the country with the rest of the South.[2] [1] De Waal, Akex, ‘Sudan’s chance’, Prospect, 28 August 2005, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2005/08/sudanschance/ [2] ‘South Sudan says agreement reached with Khartoum on oil fees’, Sudan Tribune, 13 December 2011, http://www.sudantribune.com/South-Sudan-says-agreement-reached,40992
The West should not atagonise the Muslim world

Any intervention by the West in Sudan, following so closely on Iraq and Afghanistan would have been looked upon as a further attack on the Muslim world and therefore act as a recruiting tool for terrorism. While it is true that the intervention would have been couched in terms of helping oppressed Muslims, so too were the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. An attack, especially if it was air-only, and therefore left Bashir in power in Khartoum might also have strengthened the regime by providing it with religious legitimacy, and might well have as a result inspired volunteers to enlist in order to fight in a jihad to protect it. The latter would be even more true in the event ground troops were used, in which case volunteers might flood in from around the world to fight the “Crusaders”. Such an added dimension could not have helped but place the Christian Southern Sudanese in an awkward and very uncomfortable position.
The West has demonstrated that hiding behind China is a viable strategy

An ineffective message in this case might well have been worse than no message. Had the West attempted to intervene, either by setting up a no-fly zone or even sending in ground troops, and the killings not stopped, it would have sent a message that Western threats and Western power are a paper tiger. Worse, if the genocide had reversed itself after Western intervention, the West would have found itself with both the moral and the political responsibility for the violence, and accusations of Western bias and even complicity would spread rapidly.
The Chaos in Darfur is a threat to regional security

There was and continues to be a compelling case for a humanitarian response to the crises, but this does not suggest that military intervention would have solved the situation. Military intervention and the collapse of the Sudanese state would have quite possibly led to far greater destabilization. Rather than only one group of refugees, it would likely have led to the Abbala fleeing over the border into Chad as well. Potentially this could have meant the development of a situation akin to that in the Democratic Republic of Congo, were the refugees refought the Civil War among themselves.
Airstrikes would likely be politically ineffective

Even eliminating the Sudanese Air Force would have had a major impact, as one rebel group argued that the Air Force was responsible for 60% of the attacks launched by Sudanese forces in the region.[1] Even if a non-Fly zone did not completely eliminate the Sudanese military forces, it would even the playing field and perhaps persuaded the government to sue for peace. Furthermore, the difficulty of gaining over-flight rights was also an issue with the air war in Kosovo, eventually forcing the use of German bases and carrier launched planes due to Italian reluctance. Such issues can be overcome, and the Sudanese air force poses little threat with its aged inventory. [1] Polgreen, Lydia, ‘Attacks Pushing Darfur Refugees Into Chad’, The New York Times, 11 February 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/world/africa/11darfur.html
The Conflict is an internal inter-tribal conflict – arming the Darfur tribes would be better

Even if the conflict was inter-tribal, it had been brought to a boil and allowed to turn genocidal by the Sudanese government. It may well be that the conflict would have continued of its own accord without Sudanese intervention, though the continued air support provided consistently by the Sudanese government to the Janjaweed argues against this.[1] And all interventions are by nature one-sided – that reconstruction might be difficult is a reason to plan for it, but in and of itself it does not justify allowing thousands to die and for Western opposition to genocide to be left an empty letter. [1] ‘Sudan: Government and Militias Conspire in Darfur Killings’, Human Rights Watch, 22 April 2004, http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/04/22/sudan-government-and-militias-conspire-darfur-killings
Many UN organs carry out valuable work around the world.

It is obviously true that some UN agencies and organs carry out valuable and useful work. However, there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that UN work often duplicates programs and programs carried out by NGOs, national governments and charities. Its work is useful, but by no means indispensable. The second way of approaching this question is to ask whether these are core functions of the UN – in other words, whether preserving world heritage or co-ordinating vaccination programmes is what the UN is really “for”. We can admit that some UN agencies do good work but still believe that as a body; overall the United Nations has failed.
As world becomes more globalised, the need for a global forum for resolving problems becomes ever more important.

It is arguable that the era of globalisation makes the United Nations less important, not more. Trade disputes are settled bilaterally or through the WTO; economic crises through the offices of the World Bank and IMF; security problems, as often as not, through the mediation of the US or other interested powers. All too often, the UN is a forum not for dispute resolution but the airing of grievances against other nations. For example, in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War, both the United States and its detractors, such as France, used the UN to publicise and justify their position on military action, not to discuss it in any meaningful way. If a United Nations did not exist, and we were obliged to invent one, we would hopefully do a better job next time!
UN ignores or enables human rights abuses.

Despite the development of the concept of human rights in the post-war world, the UN has totally failed to protect the rights of citizens, ethnic minorities, women and children. It has stood by during episodes of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo and Yugoslavia among many others [1], tolerates some of the world’s worst dictatorships as members, and does nothing to improve the situation of women in developing nations. Indeed, where UN peacekeepers have been sent into war-torn countries, they have sometimes been guilty of the most horrendous human rights abuses themselves.[2] As of 2011, the UN’s Human Rights Council itself is comprised of members such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China.[3] [1] “UN admits Rwanda genocide failure”. BBC website, 15th April 2000.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/714025.stm [2] MacFarquhar, Neil. “Peacekeepers’ Sex Scandals Linger, On-Screen and Off”.  New York Times, 7th September 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/world/08nations.html?pagewanted=all [3] “Membership of the Human Rights Council”. United Nations website, 2011.  http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm
Many UN bodies are corrupt or compromised.

As mentioned above, the Human Rights Council consists of some the worst human rights abusers in the world. The NGO UN Watch has accused the HRC focusing almost exclusively on alleged human rights abuses by Israel to the exclusion of almost every other country. [1] There have been widespread allegations of corruption in UN bodies. [2] It is for these reasons that the US long refused to pay its full dues to the United Nations and threatens to do so again in future, as well as withholding funding from UNESCO in 2011 after it voted to recognise Palestine as an independent state.[3] [1] “Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC”, UN Watch 2011. http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.3820041/ [2] “Corruption at the Heart of the United Nations”, The Economist, 9th August 2005. http://www.economist.com/node/4267109 [3] “US cuts UNESCO funds over vote for Palestinian seat“. BBC website. 31st October 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15527534
The UN has performed a valuable service in preventing wars and in peacekeeping.

 It is clearly unrealistic to imagine that the United Nations could prevent all wars, but nonetheless it has been successful at negotiating peaceful resolutions to international disputes. It has also authorised military force to defend countries from unprovoked attacks; Kuwait and South Korea, to name just two, owe their freedom to UN action. Finally, UN peacekeepers do vital work all over the world from Cyprus to Korea. [1] [1] “What is Peacekeeping?”. United Nations, 2011. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peacekeeping.shtml
Many UN organs carry out valuable work around the world.

The United Nations is far more than simply a debating forum; it does a massive amount of vital work around the world through its other organs. Examples of these are the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNESCO, UNICEF, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) among many others.[1] Even if the slow speed of diplomacy at the UN General Assembly can sometimes be frustrating, the idea that the United Nations as a whole has “failed” simply does not take account of all these very important bodies. Furthermore, the UN remains one of the most respected of international organisations among ordinary citizens. [1] “United Nations: Structure and Organisation”. United Nations, 2011. http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/
: Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved.

It is unfair to say that the United Nations has failed just because conflict has not been eradicated from the world. The causes that drive nations to war with one another often cannot be resolved by diplomatic means; to set global peace as the test for the UN’s efficiency is clearly unfair. Nonetheless the UN has served as an effective forum for behind the scenes diplomacy in many international crises. It has come to the aid of countries when attacked, as in the examples of [South] Korea and Kuwait in 1950 and 1990 respectively; it has also kept the peace in, for example, the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and East Timor. The fact that armed conflicts around the world have become less common since 1990 is, arguably, at least partly down to the good offices of the United Nations.
As world becomes more globalised, the need for a global forum for resolving problems becomes ever more important.

In a globalised economy nations depend on each other as never before, and the costs of war and conflict grow ever higher. So it is more important than ever than countries have a forum for resolving their disputes and simply talking to each other. Regional bodies such as the EU or ASEAN can perform some of these functions, and specialised bodies such as the WTO some others; but there can never be a substitute for the global forum provided by the UN. If the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it. [1] [1] Hammarskjold, Dag. “Do We Need The United Nations?”. Address to the Students’ Association, Copenhagen, 2nd May 1959. www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/docs/needun.pdf
UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient.

Stories of bureaucracy and delay in the General Assembly obscure the vital work that goes on, often unnoticed, through United Nations agencies every day. It is true that the UN’s decision-making processes are not terribly efficient but in a body comprising nearly 200 members this is probably inevitable. If there are problems with the structure of the UN, such as the Security Council veto, the answer is to reform those institutions to fit the challenges of the 21st Century. As an analogy, national governments have often been accused of being slow to change and reform, but we do not conclude from this that “government has failed” and seek to abolish them!
Most international co-operation can takes place outside UN framework.

Despite the proliferation of supranational organisations, the United Nations remains the indispensable global forum for meeting to discuss world affairs. Indeed, in a way this expansion in the number and range of international organisations is a testament to the success of the UN model. Furthermore, many international organisations work very closely with the United Nations, or even partially within its system. For example, when the International Atomic Energy Authority assesses the compliance of nations such as Iraq or Iran with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is to the UN Security Council that it reports.[1] In any case, this debate is about whether or not the United Nations has failed. Even if many decisions are now taken outside the UN framework that does not reflect badly on that body. [1] “How many times has the IAEA reported cases to the UN Security Council?”. IAEA Infolog. 15th February 2006. http://www.iaea.org/blog/Infolog/?p=22
The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights.

The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model. It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create.
Solution to problems of UN is to reform outdated structures.

This debate is about whether or not the UN has failed. It may well be that the response to a failing organisation is not abolition but wholesale reform, as the opposition argue here, but that would not change the fact that the UN has not achieved what it was designed to do. And while reform has been promised for many decades, nothing has ever been done to resolve the systemic flaws of this organisation. So promises of reform are an unsatisfactory answer to the charges against the UN.
: Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved.

The UN was set up with the express purpose of preventing global wars, yet it has done absolutely nothing to prevent them. Indeed, the UN has often served merely as a forum for countries to abuse and criticise each other, rather than resolve disputes peacefully. In some cases, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, UN resolutions have arguably been used as a justification for wars, rather than to prevent them. Research shows that the number of armed conflicts in the world rose steadily in the years after 1945 and has only begun to plateau or fall since the end of the Cold War.[1] [1] Harrison, Mark & Wolf, Nikolaus. “The Frequency of Wars”. University of Warwick, 10th March 2011.http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/public/ehr2011postprint.pdf
UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient.

The UN displays all the worst traits of bureaucracies the world over. The General Assembly is little more than a forum for world leaders and ambassadors to lambast each other. The Security Council is systemically unable to take decisive action in many of the world’s trouble-spots due to its outdated permanent membership structure, which gives five nations a totally disproportionate power to prevent the world body from acting against their interests. In the UN’s 65 years, the veto has been used nearly 300 times. [1] [1] “General Analysis on the Security Council Veto”, Global Policy Forum website. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/security-council-as-an-institution/the-power-of-the-veto-0-40/general-analysis-on-the-security-council-veto.html
Most international co-operation can takes place outside UN framework.

The major economic, political and trade issues around the world are almost all dealt with either through bilateral agreements between nations or by specialised bodies set up for that purpose – the World Bank, IMF, EU, ASEAN, NATO, WTO and so on. In all of these fields the UN is little more than an irrelevance. Even where the UN does get involved in international affairs – such as in the Libyan crisis of 2011 – it is other bodies, in that case NATO, which serve as the vehicle for international cooperation. [1] [1] . Bolopion, Philippe. “After Libya, the question: To Protect or Depose?”. Los Angeles Times.25th August 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/25/opinion/la-oe-bolopion-libya-responsibility-t20110825
The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights.

When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the idea of “international law”, in so far as it had any meaning, was little more than the customary behaviour of states towards each other. Over the succeeding 60 years, the UN and its various offices and organs have taken a lead role in codifying and promoting the concept of international law and the protection of human rights. For example, the crime of genocide was first enshrined in international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[1] [1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “What is Genocide?”. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043
Solution to problems of UN is to reform outdated structures.

It is undeniably true that some of the UN’s procedures need to be improved, and standards of financial transparency improved. However, this is true of many governments and international organisations, not just the UN. The answer to the UN’s problems is not to give up on it but rather reform it for the 21st century, including perhaps changing or augmenting the permanent membership of the Security Council to reflect the reality of the modern world. [1] [1] London, Jacqueline. “Reform of the United Nations Security Council”. International Affairs and Foreign Policy Institute. 29th June 2007. http://www.incipe.org/UNSCreform.html
UN ignores or enables human rights abuses.

As argued below (Opposition argument 2), the UN has in fact been instrumental in developing the modern concept of human rights, which prior to its foundation essentially did not exist as an idea, and certainly not as a body of coherent international law. And the UN has acted to prevent and condemn human rights abuses all over the world. Where the UN has failed to prevent genocide or human rights violations, it has generally been due to the failure of the international community rather than the UN itself. For example, the bloodshed in Rwanda went unstopped not because the UN was unconcerned, but because those nations that might have intervened, such as the US, France or neighbouring African countries, were unable or unwilling to do so - not a failure that can fairly be laid at the door of the UN.
The UN has performed a valuable service in preventing wars and in peacekeeping.

No-one is suggesting that the test of a successful United Nations should be an end to all armed conflict. But even judged on its own criteria, it has been remarkably ineffectual. The examples of Kuwait and Korea are both situations where defensive wars were fought by the US and allies for their own reasons – the containment of Saddam Hussein and Communism, respectively – not UN ideals. Where the UN did not authorise military action, such as in Vietnam or Iraq in 2003, this made no difference. It is hard to think of an example where imminent conflict was definitely averted due to UN influence. As for UN peacekeepers, they usually come into conflicts only after they have ended and thousands of civilians been killed. They often do a good job, but they are seldom indispensable. Other regional organisations, such as NATO or the African Union, can equally well perform this function.