The United Nations becoming more like the League of Nations

My opponent is new to the site. My opponent has not brought up any actual arguments thus far, but since I am essentially the affirming side because I am affirming that the UN is successful in preventing world crises I will include my offensive arguments this round. Pro's next round should then also include his opening arguments, but Pro should waive his R4 response in order to make the amount of responses in the debate equal. I thus propose the following structure for the rest of the rounds of the debate, Pro brings up his opening arguments in R2, I bring up mine along with rebuttal. R3 and R4 are then further discourse. No new arguments are allowed in R4, meaning that ideas that have not been brought up previously cannot be brought up again. For example, Pro could not bring up an entirely new argument about Taiwan that had not been mentioned before in the debate, for it would be unfair for me to respond to as I couldn't have been able to bring up new arguments. I also would like to note that the meaning of "becoming more like the League of Nations" means the same as, how Pro elaborates in R1, that the UN has not been effective in preventing world crises, just as the League of Nations was. Thus the resolution could just as easily read: the UN is not effective in preventing world crises. I argue that the UN is successful in preventing international crises and thus is not becoming like the League of Nations. In this way, I negate the resolution. In Liberia, a 15 year long civil war led to the deaths of 250,000 and the displacement of a million. The UN sent help to rebuild the infrastructure and supply basic needs to the countries population such as healthcare, food services, schooling, etc. This reduced the appeal for another overthrow of the government, or radicalization of the people. The UN oversaw the demilitarization of former soldiers, and facilitated the democratically elected president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and continued peace after the conclusion of the civil war. [1] This shows that the UN is enacting actual change in the world by preventing war in Liberia and saving the lives of thousands. In Sierra Leone the UN disarmed 75,000 former fighters and allowed the country to hold democratic elections following the civil war, brought government services back to the people, established an effective policing force and rebuilt the countries infrastructure. This work went to preventing the outbreak of another civil war and maintaining the peace in the region [4]. Changes like these are true across the board. The UN is successful in two out of every 3 peacekeeping missions, and that 7 out of every 8 UN cases ends in peace [2]. This shows that on balance the UN is successful in keeping peace in the world, evidenced by the decline in the number of wars, human rights abuses, and genocides since the end of the Cold War [3]. In conclusion, I have given just two examples of the kinds of successful missions the UN has done in the world. I have proven that on balance the UN is successful in perpetuating peace on the world stage the majority of the time. Thus I negate the fact that the UN is not effective in preventing war. [1] http://www.unfoundation.org... [2] https://www.rand.org... [3] http://www.hsrgroup.org... [4] http://www.un.org...