BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Non-proliferation failures shouldn't be attributed to UN veto

Non proliferation is a highly sensitive and precarious issue, riven by cross-currents of history and intelligence. The apparent failure to create an effective system for arms limitation cannot be glibly attributed to the presence of a power of veto. It should be asked whether veto or no veto, what should constitute the appropriate Security Council to a breach of a non proliferation treaty? Under articles 41 and 42 of the Charter the Council could authorize economic sanctions or direct military intervention. Would either overtly hostile approach encourage co-operation on the matter of disarmament? Diplomacy is often best conducted without the big stick of the Security Council. The Pyongyang summit between Kim Il Sung and Jiang Zemin contributed to North Korean amendment of its NPT breaches. Sympathy for Iraq is not limited to a reactionary Russia. A P5 member, France, and Canada, amongst several non-permanent members, have voiced dissent regarding the burden of Council authorised sanctions against Iraq, and requested a lower standard of compliance. It is thus scarcely remarkable that the United States Non proliferation is precarious because of the significant vested interests at stake. These interests would not only persist in the absence of a veto power, but more likely be inflamed without this crucial ‘safety valve’ for power-politics.
Security Council veto undermines UN's "soft power" legitimacy.

The United Nations exercises "soft power" better than "hard power". It gives legitimacy to the actions taken by states, or it takes away from that legitimacy by passing resolutions that, for example, condemn certain actions. This is a highly important function in shaping the international system into a more desirable form. Yet, the veto undermines this function by enabling veto-holders to veto UN resolution that seek to legitimize or de-legitimize actions taken in the international system.
The General Assembly should be able to overrule a UN SC veto

Instead of abolishing the veto altogether, one solution would be to minimize its power by offering the general assembly the ability to overrule the veto through a supermajority, 2/3 vote. This is the system set in place in many countries, including the United States, where the Senate is empowered to overrule a presidential veto by 2/3 majority vote.
P-5 veto encourages strongest states to work inside not outside the system

If all states are given equal power in the UN SC, it is possible that the most powerful states in the international system will simply not participate. This is not within the interests of the international community, as the participation of the most powerful states is essential to achieving international objectives, particularly security objectives. Offering veto powers to the most powerful states helps incentivizes the participation of these powerful states, and this ensures the longevity of the UN and its objectives.
Extending UN SC veto to more countries would reduce UN effectiveness

While one way to "level the playing field" is to offer the veto to more countries that "deserve" it according to their geopolitical standing, the problem is that this risks increasing the instances in which the veto is used, and in which resolutions are blocked by the national agendas of countries. It is better to "level the playing field", therefore, by moving in the other direction by banning the veto.
P-5 veto ensures measures aren't passed that UN can't fulfill

If measures are passed in the UN that even a single of the Great Powers objects to, the chances that the measure will be implemented are very slim, as a Great Power is liable to take unilateral actions to block implementation. The UN will be powerless to carry through its measure, and its credibility will be damaged. Therefore, the veto is something of a safety valve that ensures that no measures are passed that will fail in the face of geopolitical realities.
UN SC vetoes can be bypassed with "Uniting for Peace" Resolution

Brendan I. Koerner. "Can You Bypass a U.N. Security Council Veto?". Slate.com. March 12, 2003 - "There's an esoteric maneuver to get around a threatened veto: invoking the obscure U.N. Resolution 377, also known as the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution. In early 1950, the United States pushed through the resolution as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes. The measure states that, in the event that the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, a matter can be taken up by the General Assembly. This procedure has been used 10 times so far, most notably in 1956 to help resolve the Suez Canal crisis. Britain and France, which were occupying parts of the canal at the time, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for their withdrawal. The United States called for an emergency "Uniting for Peace" session of the General Assembly, which passed a withdrawal resolution. (A simple majority vote is required.) Britain and France pulled out shortly after." Therefore, it is not really necessary to abolish the veto as sufficient means exist to get around it in the exceptional instances in which the veto contravenes international norms and consensus.
The veto power has been wielded with increasing success both during and since the Cold War.

This makes it still necessary for increased efficiency in the Security Council. Between 1945 and 1990, 240 vetoes were cast. Yet between 1990 and 1999 the power was utilised on only 7 occasions, while more than 20 peacekeeping operations were mandated. This figure exceeds the total number of operations undertaken in the entirety of the preceding 45 years. Therefore, the veto, rather than bringing the feared side effects of slowing up the Security Council, has been used increasingly well. The prodigious use of the veto during the Cold War period might have saved the world from the realisation of nuclear war. Now, increasing nuclear proliferation is a reason for maintaining the unity of the P5 by means of the veto. The current rhetoric concerns ‘rogue states’ gaining possession of nuclear weapons. These are states whose potential deployment of arms is unpredictable and with whom there is limited international dialogue. If the P5 is split on a matter of international security, any one or more of its members could become equally ‘rogue’. Thus, the veto has been effective in uniting the P5 powers in the face of security issues.
Reforming the UN security council is constitutionally feasible.

As Richard Butler has observed, a proper debate about the defects of the veto might at the least yield a “more constructive interpretation” of the nature of the veto and its application. An informed public awareness of the potential for the Security Council to be bypassed or hijacked might lead to pressure for exercise of the power in accordance with the Charter aims. Notably, China was persuaded or compelled not to cast the veto in respect of the Council measures on Kosovo. This reasonable approach prevailed in spite of vocal Chinese opposition to the bombing campaign, and the destruction of the Chinese embassy by NATO forces.
Abandoning UN SC veto to constrain the US would be wrong

Thomas Weiss. "The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform". Washington Quarterly 2003 - "If the Security Council is to enforce its collective decisions, U.S. participation is, at present and for the foreseeable future, a sine qua non. If its purpose is to prevent Washington from doing what it has decided is vital to U.S. interests, only a hopeless romantic would claim this is feasible. Although perhaps understandable as a visceral reaction, the idea that the remaining superpower will continue to participate— politically or financially—in an institution whose purpose has become to limit its power has no precedent."
Argument: The UN veto is anachronistic.

The world no longer needs the Security Council veto. The P5 were given this privilege for two reasons that have no application in the post Cold War world. Firstly, the Allied powers, with the addition of China, tried to bind themselves to the UN Security Council, which was designed to prevent events like World War II repeating themselves. Secondly, the P5 held unrivaled strategic might through their possession of nuclear weapon technology or imminent nuclear capacity. However, to examine the status quo, the UN is no longer in danger of collapse. Considering the state of international politics and the symbolic meaning of the UN, the P5 can no longer abandon the UN or the cause of global peace simply because the veto power is taken away.
The United States unjustly protects Israel with UN veto

The United States has protected Israel from international condemnation in the UN SC dozens of times. The condemnation has surrounding such things as Israel's alleged oppression of Palestinians or abuses and international law violations in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. There are too many instances in which Israeli abuses and violations of international law were fairly clear. US defenses of Israel in these instances, therefore, constitute a abusive and unprincipled attempt to protect an ally. This all exposes how the UN SC veto opens the door to abuse.
The UN Security Council Veto is unreflective of geopolitical realities

The global power balance has shifted dramatically since 1945, making the nations' participation in global cooperation for security more crucial. Nuclear proliferation has accelerated in the past decade, such that inter alia India, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq and Iran are developing inter-continental ballistic capacity, which is incentive for the P5 and other nations to continue to support the Security Council under any circumstances.
P-5 countries will not allow the abolition of their UN SC vetoes

The abolition of the power of veto is highly unlikely. The P5 states will not willingly cede their pre-eminent position in international politics. Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grants the P5 veto over amendments to the charter, requiring them to approve stripping away their own veto powers. Given the influence wielded by a veto-bearing state, it is unlikely that any of the P5 would agree to give up this privilege.
The UN Security Council veto perpetuates differences and animosity

A P-5 country typically vetoes a resolution in the United Nations because they or their allies have a strong national or cultural interest in doing so. These interests often contrast sharply with the interests of other countries. And the veto, given the fact that it unilaterally stops things from happening, brings these contrasts to the surface in an often bitter, angering, and antagonizing way. It, therefore, makes a direct connection between antagonism and the differences between countries. This is unhealthy in the international system.
Abolition is not a solution

Veto power propels Powerful engines(P-5) in active world politics and prevent collision between them. World community get benefits from their social involvement. Dilution of Veto power is good option. New permanent member from developing country requires to include in UN SC and Power of Veto need to change. It can be like "In place of one two or more members require to prevent the adoption of any 'substantive' draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft".
The veto power operates to the detriment of international arms control agreements.

The web of treaties that concern the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are enforced directly or indirectly by the Security Council. Where the treaty provisions do not identify the Council, the constant presence of the leading nuclear powers in the form of the P5, and the responsibility of the body for peace and security ensures that it is the de facto policeman of non-proliferation. The Council is crippled by the veto from fulfilling perhaps its most vital function. Two pertinent examples include the continued assembly of a nuclear arsenal by North Korea in violation of its obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Chinese interests precluded adequate enforcement action by the Council. Iraq had breached every Council measure pertaining to arms limitation to the extent that the UN inspectorate was withdrawn from Baghdad. The absence of an effective response can be attributed to Russian support for Iraq.
Harder for older people to re-adjust to school/MBA

Michael Desiderio, the Executive Director of the Executive MBA Council: "I know what I tell people that are current students in the program that I was an alum of, they’ll always struggle in that first you know five or 10 weeks and I’ll say hey you’re going to have to find your flow but it will take you a little while because you’re not used to having to do this anymore. So I think the greatest challenge is just getting back into the rigor of a really hard academic program."[5]
Total cost of MBA (including opportunity costs) is high

"Why Achieving an MBA is No Longer My Goal." Cash Money Life. April 13th, 2009: "Achieving an MBA is an expensive endeavor – both in terms of tuition and in terms of opportunity cost. A top tier MBA program will cost anywhere from $20,000 – $40,000 per year (or more) for tuition alone. And in that time you will usually have to forgo your normal salary. The total cost of a top tier MBA program can easily run into the quarter million dollar range in terms of tuition and opportunity cost, and that can take years to pay off."
Harder for older students to balance life/family/MBA

Brian Bohrnstedt, Graduate of Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania at age 35, Director of Strategic Pricing for Accuride Corporatio: "It is a little more difficult when you’re in your 30’s to decide to go for a MBA. I mean there are a lot of issues you have to take into consideration especially given my circumstances with being married with kids. I really had to decide whether or not I could take two years off work and focus on my education. But the way my wife and I viewed it was we were doing it together even though I was the one that was enrolled in the program and that worked really well for us. But ultimately I kind of view it as if you want to get ahead in your career and you really have an interest in business, a MBA will serve you very well."[6]
Some employers see MBA grads as too expensive

David Hakala. "10 Questions to Ask Before You Hire an Employee with an M.B.A." HR World. February 21, 2008: "1. Is the candidate affordable? M.B.A. degrees don’t come cheap (at least not the ones from good schools), so many M.B.A.holders price themselves high in the job market in order to cover their student loans. Your company may be paying too much for the added value that it is likely to get. Consider candidates who can do the job for less money."
MBA is bad investment if you have no career goals

John Baschab, executive vice president and co-founder of consulting and staffing firm Impact Innovations Group: "An MBA, like any other kind of training, is helpful, but only if the new knowledge, training, and opportunities it creates are in line with your career aspirations. The skills needed by the CIO of any sizable enterprise are definitely business-focused: budgeting, direction setting, people management, vendor management, and demand management. If your goal is senior management in IT or outside of IT, an MBA will provide the requisite point-of-view and training."[2]
MBAs sometimes speak with too much elite business jargon

David Hakala. "10 Questions to Ask Before You Hire an Employee with an M.B.A." HR World. February 21, 2008: "4. Can the candidate communicate with other employees? The M.B.A. curriculum may result in the candidate speaking in terms that the rest of the company does not understand. Communication styles are a common cause of friction within a company. Make sure that your M.B.A. candidate speaks and writes the company’s language."
MBA offers knowledge/experience key to confidence/leadership

Dr. Ranee Kaur Banerjee. "Top 10 reasons to get an MBA." Bright Hub. June 8th, 2010: "#3: 'The MBA will give me more confidence in my job' No doubt about it, the MBA will certainly enhance your personality. Once you've been through the rigorous 2 year course packed with projects, group exercises, assignments, tests, presentations, internships and more, you'll be more than capable of holding your own in most situations that may come up in your work life."
MBA generally offers professional credibility

Thomas MacKay. "10 reasons why you should get an MBA." CIO.com. July 5th, 2007: "1. It gives you credibility with your business peers. Having an MBA demonstrates your commitment to the business because you've invested the substantial time and energy required to obtain the degree. It shows that you value the business perspective and recognize that the technology you implement, support and develop is intended to enable business activities and is not an end in itself. An MBA also indicates that you've mastered a certain level of knowledge in business management, which gives you the ability and confidence to speak on equal terms with executives outside of IT."
Challenge/reward can be found outside MBA

"Why Achieving an MBA is No Longer My Goal." Cash Money Life. April 13th, 2009: "One of the personal reasons I wanted an MBA was for the challenge. I enjoy working toward goals and I enjoy difficult challenges. A top tier MBA program places you among some of the top business minds in the world and you have a chance to learn from your professors and fellow students. In the last year and a half I have gotten most of the challenge I was seeking from my small business."
MBA teaches how to operate/lead organizations at scale

Thomas MacKay. "10 reasons why you should get an MBA." CIO.com. July 5th, 2007: "6. You'll learn how to read and interpret business statements. The MBA curriculum teaches you to understand and interpret financial statements, marketing plans, market analyses, audit reports and business development plans. [...] It's also helpful when trying to understand your own organization's operating environment: The better you understand the way your company is moving, the better able you'll be to position the IT department in front as opposed to being dragged along behind. Being in front, on the leading edge of change, is more fun and will make the IT department much more valuable to the company."
Career advancement often requires an MBA

"The Pros and Cons Revisited." To MBA or not to MBA. May 6th, 2008: "Could not have advanced satisfactorily in my career without the MBA - If my summer internship is any indication I'm coming away from the GSB with my dream job. And if I hate it - there are other opportunities to be had. Though recruiting was a miserable, humbling experience, employers who would have previously thrown my resume into the recycle bin, now take me seriously. Works for me."
Older MBA students bring more experience/perspective.

Jason Price, the Director of EMBA World, said to MBA Podcaster: "When you have those years of work experience under your belt, you’ve already had successes and failures in life. You already know what it may mean to see a business collapse or dissolve, or you see a business succeed or merge or acquired, it may have been through a recession or two. That is an education in its own right and when you bring that back into the classroom it provides an entirely different dimension."[8]
MBA provides key knowledge for starting/running a business

Dr. Ranee Kaur Banerjee. "Top 10 reasons to get an MBA." Bright Hub. June 8th, 2010: "Top 10 reasons to get an MBA."]: "MBA provide core knowledge in how to start, run, market, and grow a business from the ground up. This knowledge is not innate, and learning it while starting a business could simply mean that the business fails. #1: 'I want to start my own enterprise and an MBA will help me do it' I can't think of a better reason to go get that MBA qualification. [...] I firmly believe that the world needs more job makers than job seekers. Second, I know a lot of people who are entrepreneurs at heart and have really good ideas but they have to be contented working for others because they don't know how to run a business and don't want to risk failure. If you're one of them, sign-up for an MBA right now, because it will give you the knowledge, the network, the basic experience and the confidence to execute your ideas into reality."
MBA teaches you to think like a business person

Thomas MacKay. "10 reasons why you should get an MBA." CIO.com. July 5th, 2007: "2. It teaches you to think like a business person. As technologists, we're used to thinking in a linear and logical fashion: “If this, then that.” This logical mindset is essential to writing good software, troubleshooting technical problems and managing projects. Business people, on the other hand, tend to think in terms of strategies and value, and human (customers and investors) reactions. The business perspective, by its nature, tends to rely more on estimation and trial and error. The ability to think like a business person is critical for technology managers, especially those of us who wish to position IT strategically within the company."
CEOs should have an MBA

Dr. Stan Stead, President and CEO of the Stead Health Group, UCLA EMBA student at age 51: "Well I was a physician who had moved through the ranks of academic medicine and had become a physician leader and then I actually moved into a Senior Leadership spot at UC Davis Health System and the CEO said the next step for you is a CEO job and these days to get that kind of position you’re going to need to get a MBA, so I’d like you to go get a MBA."[1]
MBA will not improve X factors of leadership

Francesca Di Meglio. "Save your cash." Business Week. May 15th, 2007: "Business school might improve your quantitative, presentation, and communication skills. It might even get you thinking about ethics and strategy. But two years of case studies aren’t going to turn you into a leader if you weren’t born one. There’s no learning charisma, persuasiveness, elegance, or gut instinct."
MBA exposes one to ambitious peers

"The Pros and Cons Revisited." To MBA or not to MBA. May 6th, 2008: "I need to be around ambitious peers or I will die of boredom - I love my fellow GSBers! (Not all of them mind you, but enough of them.) Such a cliche but they really are the best thing about the experience, even for a stay at home nerd like me, ha."
MBA teaches strategic planning, not just tactics

Christopher Cummings. "Is An MBA Necessary For Product Managers?" Product Management Meets Pop Culture. January 18, 2010: "Hindsight. Looking back, the brass tacks of my MBA experience were about the basics of management, economics, and business strategy. Could that have been picked up on the job? Maybe. [...] However, the more important throughline of the experience relates to critical thinking, perspective, and learning when to lead and when to follow. [...] On the job–especially as a young PM–it can be easy to lose perspective, to miss the forest for the trees. At the time, I was definitely into the plate-spinning, the go-go-go, the tactics and day-to-day. No time to think; just keep moving. [...] The MBA experience forced me out of the tactical and into the strategic–made me understand, you’ve got to strike the balance between short and long term to make things work. An expensive lesson to learn, for sure, but well worth it. And that’s why I’ll pay that school loan every month with a smile on my face."
Real world better for networking than MBA programs

Francesca Di Meglio. "Save your cash." Business Week. May 15th, 2007: "If you’re going to B-school to acquire a network, you’re not taking advantage of the one already in front of you—alumni from your undergraduate institution, professional organizations, your current and past colleagues, and all sorts of Internet communities. These folks already have relationships with people who can help you advance, whereas you’ll have to wait for fellow MBA students to graduate, get back in the game, and help themselves first."