We should allow the g4 states into the UN Security council

I decided to continue the debate into round 4. "If youre going to be a wise guy then I assume that youve lost faith in the rest of your arguments. .. .. ." Sorry if I came off as wise, as I did not mean to. "Not a lot of countries import cars and video games from Japan genius. .. .. Including India, Brazil, and about 95% of countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe" I disagree with my opponent here and also would like to point out that he provided no evidence or source to prove his argument. According to this tree map on the economic exports of Japan, an nation which has the largest economic complexity, has a car export percentage of 12%( an number that is now on the rise). I hope my opponent can realize that it does not matter how many countries a nation exports to, but instead the market value of the ones it does. Furthermore, countries like the United States, South Korea,and Thailand rely heavily on Japanese exports. As someone who lives near motor city, I can tell you first hand of how much the US-Japanese car market has taken off. Companies such as Honda,Mazda,Mitsubishi,Nissan,Infiniti,Subaru,Suzuki,Toyota,Lexus, and Scion are all Japanese car companies which have markets in the US. I would be shocked if any American didn't know at least 5 of these. . http://atlas.media.mit.edu... "Japans economy allows it to be able to afford expensive mandates, even with some wiggle room. " I urge my opponent to read the what his source states after it shows the debt to gdp ratio. " Despite the country’s massive debt, it has managed to avoid the type of economic distress affecting nations such as Greece and Portugal. This is largely due to Japan’s healthy unemployment rate and population of domestic bondholders, who consistently fund Japanese government borrowing. Japanese vice minister Fumihiko Igarashi said in a speech in November 2011 that “95% of Japanese government bonds have been financed domestically so far, with only 5% held by foreigners. ”I'm pretty sure this makes his point indecisive. 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. "Being a member on the UN Security Council though requires long term consideration for how strong a country can stay, and Japan isn't exactly as bullet proof as other nations on the Security Council have shown to be, and the same is massively true for India and Brazil. " My opponent has not provided any reason on why Japan is not economically sound and how it's huge economy will collapse. I would also like to refer to my previous economic tree map that shows that Japan has the highest economic complexity for any nation on earth regarding trade. If anything it shows that Japan can survive a collapse of anyone of it's many markets. "You cant cherry pick arguments for why each of the other nations should be on the Security Council. .. . Not only is Japan not as strong as Sweden or Norway according to your index, but Brazil and India dont even rank in the top half of other world countries in terms of develeopment. "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. Hell no, because stable and uncorrupted governments can be found just about anywhere you look. If having an uncorrupt government is one of the only arguments you have in support of Japan for why they should be on the G4, then that really shows how there arent that many good reasons for them to be there. " I ask that readers reread his first line. To say stable and uncorrupted governments can be found wherever you look makes no sense. Did you happen to to look in the direction of Somalia or maybe Egypt. I ask my readers to read the 2013 failed state index which calculates data on which countries are rampant with corruption and unstability. To add to this, I made a lot more then one argument. . http://ffp.statesindex.org...IndiaThey have fought four wars with Pakistan, located right next door to them, and they have stalemated every war every time. If they cant even beat Pakistan then its clear that India couldnt beat anybody else" My opponent once again uses wikipedia after I asked him to use reliable sources. I followed his source none the less and found a few contradictions. To start, India won the last two wars with Pakistan. One happening in the 70s and one in 1999. The 3rd war was actually known as the Bangladesh Liberation War, and it ended with a Pakistani withdraw and unopposed independence of Bangladesh. The 4th war(which was a small one by the way) was when Pakistan invaded India, which ended with India sending a intervention force ending with a complete Pakistani withdraw from the region. This too seems like a victory to me. This only shows once again my opponent failed to read his own sources. Oh please. .. . If a nation as messed up as Pakistan has the balls to go to war with India and its 'horde' FOUR TIMES in the span of half a century and not lose any of them, then its safe to say that many other nations also couldnt care less about India's massive army. As large as it may be, they are still a horrendously bad fighting force that any insurgency can stall. .. .. " I have already stated that India had clear victory's in the 3rd and 4th war. I also believe that the 1st war was ended due to a UN mandate? Not to mention that they were not as powerful and advanced in the 40s and 60s as they are today. BrazilThe UN isnt trying to do what is best for South America, they are trying to so what is best for the WORLD, and giving some mediocre level country like Brazil the power to veto any proposal that ACTUAL superpowers have drafted is not something that would be best for the world. Yes, the UN is trying to do what's best for South America, Is South America not apart of the world? Currently all 5 security seats support Brazil's bid, using the argument I made to back it up. They even asked the AU to put up two candidates to form a G6. The best way to solve disputes on a continent accounting for a huge chunk of the world population is to designate a security seat. Someone who can quickly solve conflict. I refer this someone as Brazil of course. That's because despite their setbacks they still managed to fight an informal stand off with the United States and participated in numerous international operations all over the world over a span of 40 years. .. Including the invasion of Afghanistan, organization of East Europe, arms deals to North Korea and North Vietnam during those respective wars, and turning several countries communist such as China and Cuba. .. .. The USSR was the only nation who would and could send arms to controversial countries. If Brazil was in the UN it would have the power to start operations like this. Plus, the invasion of Afghanistan resulted in a failed occupation which is still giving them problems to this date. Regardless, the only reason I made this point was to show a country that has impoverished citizens can still be a world power. Not that the USSR was weak. I would love to argue some more of his points but I'm almost out of characters. I think I should win this one as my opponent used many false facts and used many bad sources such as wikipedia. I had also proved that he did not fact check his own sources twice already in the 4th round.