BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The UN does not have the necessary funds or expertise.

The United Nations struggles to meet its current needs, in terms of funding for emergency relief, development work, health initiatives, etc. and also in terms of peacekeeping troops, military hardware and transport, etc. It is in no position to make sweeping promises about future commitments that might involve large-scale military interventions around the globe, perhaps sometimes in more than one place at the same time[1]. At the very best, such an extra burden would draw resources and funding away from the UN's vitally important current programs. At worst, intervention would be undertaken with too few troops, badly equipped and unable to fulfill their mandate. The United States intervention in Somalia failed miserably because it was at best half-baked—the UN would be lucky if not every one of their interventions suffered from the same problems[2].  This would only worsen the situation. Additionally, taking on these conflicts also includes nation building and government development post conflict which may be difficult for the UN to organize and commit to. [1] Schaefer, Brett, (2005) ‘The U.N. Summit Document: At What Cost?’, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/09/The-UN-Summit-Document-At-What-Cost [2] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jwestern/ir317/clark.htm
Actions to intervene in internal situations need to be determined on a case by case basis.

We all have a moral duty to protect human rights and prevent atrocities, but we do not need to make a vague and open-ended commitment. In particular there is a big difference between a genocide pursued by a strong, centralized state victimizing its own people, and the inability of a failing state to protect its civilians in a time of civil war or ethnic unrest. For example the genocide in Sudan is inflicted by the government, yet the situation in Somalia is entirely different since they lack a government and violence stems from rebel groups in the country[1][2]. Making decisions on a case-by-case basis recognizes that every crisis is different in character and requires a different and proportionate response be it military or humanitarian. [1] New York Times (2011), “Somalia”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/somalia/index.html [2] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”, http://www.genocideintervention.net/area_of_concern/sudan
The United Nations has a responsibility to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.

There is a procedural contradiction in the Proposition's position. If there is a universal responsibility to protect, why must this only be exercised through the United Nations, dependent upon Security Council recognition of a crisis and support for action? The United States believes that in some cases it would be right for individual states, or coalitions of the willing to take action to protect innocent life elsewhere in the world, even if the Security Council refused to deliver on its promises. Under the proposition, NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1998/99 was wrong, and so was Vietnam's in Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge, Tanzania's in Uganda to stop Idi Amin's bloodshed, etc. - none of these had Security Council support.
A strong United Nations commitment to the Right to Protect will create an effective deterrent to future atrocities.

An apparently strong UN obligation to intervene in order to protect innocents will not necessarily provide a positive, deterrent effect. Rather, it could merely serve as an incentive for dictators and generals to commit their atrocities quicker. For example, when the United Nations first considered intervention in Libya, Colonel Qaddafi responded by strengthening the crackdown on protestors and preparing for an all-out assault on the Eastern town of Benghazi[1]. The intent to protect civilians in this case served only to increase the will of the leader to harm them. Furthermore, many of the nasty or failing regimes who might be fearful of intervention have a Security Council patron whom they can rely upon to prevent any action being taken against them. If the UN has an obligation to act to prevent atrocities such as genocide, then vetoes will be used to prevent the Security Council recognizing that such a situation exists in the first place. Though it has recently joined UN resolutions on Sudan, China blocked moves to impose sanctions on Sudan before 2007, largely due to favorable economic ties with the state[2]. Finally, this proposal may make atrocities more likely, by encouraging rebel groups to provoke ill-disciplined government forces into committing gross human rights violations, such as massacres, in the hope that such a response will draw in international forces on their own side. [1] Buck, T. & Clover, C. (2011), “Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi”, Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4a0f746-5200-11e0-8a31-00144feab49a.html#axzz1XS8E2lxz [2] BBC News (2007), “Chinese leader boosts Sudan ties”, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6323017.stm Al Jazeera, 'China bolsters economic ties with Sudan', 29 June 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201162952034878959.html
Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm

That creates a slippery slope. When does the UN draw the line that a government has revoked its sovereignty? How many people have to die? How can it be justified that only if x number of people die, then we will intervene? Additionally, as soon as the UN gets involved in a civil war or dictatorship and has deemed the government no longer sovereign, then who is in charge? Is the UN going to set up a new government and country in the aftermath? That is a large commitment that such a large organization may not be able to execute no matter how ideal.
It is better to save lives than stand idly by.

Not all crises can be dealt with militarily. Often an invasion only creates more problems. Further is the UN ready to take on the underlying problems in cases of genocide and civil war. Those rifts may take decades to heal and is the UN truly invested because simply providing aid and military support will not solve the deep seated tensions in countries like the Sudan and Somalia[1]. Talk of prevention and of using non-military means to ensure states protect their own people properly is little different from existing UN commitments. The UN has failed in the past to head off humanitarian crises and there is nothing in the new Declarations to make it more likely to be successful in future. If the responsibility to protect means anything, it is to weaken the concept of sovereignty and make military intervention more likely. [1] Genocide Intervention, “Sudan”, http://www.genocideintervention.net/area_of_concern/sudan
The UN would be turned into something that it is not.

The UN is the organization best equipped to deal with these types of interventions. If individual countries take action there are automatically thoughts of motive, and they can never be seen as a pure unbiased actor. Further, countries don’t want to take action because they do not want to become tied to the countries that they helped, whereas the UN does not have an aversion to commitment[1]. Having a strict framework directing intervention can prevent the UN from becoming the international government. [1] Clarke, Walter; Herbst, Jeffrey (1996), “Somalia and the future of humanitarian intervention”, Foreign Affairs Magazine, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jwestern/ir317/clark.htm
Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:

Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen most visibly in the United States Congress of the past 30 years, in which it has become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent legislator. Legislators are reelected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for whom they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. In areas where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst legislators, giving voters far more choice in who should represent them. In California, the institution of term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected, as well as a marked increase in the diversity of the backgrounds of those elected[1]. Ultimately, old legislators using election machines to retain power do their country and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.   [1] Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. improve this
The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:

Power is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public. 1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.  2 Green, Eric. 2007. "Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships". America.gov.   improve this
The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:

A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people. 1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. "Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. "Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement". Time.   improve this
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance:

Term limits are flagrantly undemocratic. If a legislator is popular and desired by the people to continue to represent them, then it should be their choice to reelect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is a serious insult to voters' intelligence. The electorate can discern for itself whether a legislator is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for reelection simply removes the right from people to make important political decisions. It is not the duty of the state to encourage more candidates to run in elections to replace politicians who are already popular and doing a suitable job1. Should the US people have not been allowed to elect Franklyn D. Roosevelt for his third term? FDR was a very popular and successful president who brought the United States out of depression and won the Second World War and it was those very successes that lead the American people to reelect him. The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should represent them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government. improve this
The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:

With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that "mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors."(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments" Berkeley,  2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. "Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy". University of Wolongong. improve this
Experienced legislators who understand the workings of the legislative system are needed for their expertise and wisdom:

The process of drafting legislation and shepherding it through the legislature often requires a delicate and practiced hand, especially when the issue under discussion is of a controversial nature. By forcing politicians out of the legislature on the basis of term limits, the depth of knowledge and experience available to the assembly is reduced, often to its serious detriment[1]. Seasoned politicians are also needed to help newcomers acclimate to the environment of the legislature; something first-time elected individuals are completely unused to. Naiveté on the part of new policymakers who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Lobbyists and special interest groups will seek to influence politicians while they develop their first impressions of life in the legislature, and will immediately capitalize upon any perceived vulnerability. Luann Ridgeway a Republican senator in the Missouri senate argues that term limits mean “we rely more on the trustworthiness of those established -- government relations individuals and staff persons -- because we have to”,[2]this would include more taking advice from the long standing lobbyists. Furthermore, legislation often requires lengthy periods of negotiation, that require not only the experienced hand of long-standing legislators, but also the continuity they offer. If legislators are constrained by term limits their time horizons are narrowed causing them to put too much emphasis on near-term, rather than long-term legislation. Clearly, term limits undermine the effective operation of government and deny the legislature an invaluable source of experience and ability. [1] Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State LegislativeProfessionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2] Coleman, Emily and Bushnel, Michael, (2009). “Legislators attribute heightened partisanship to term limits”, Missourian, 16th May 2009     improve this
Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:

Term limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government.  2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. improve this
Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature:

If people wish to pursue a career in politics, then it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with career politicians so long as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents. While there should be no bar to people seeking to enter politics on a temporary basis, placing that form of political participation over a more lasting one makes no sense. Furthermore, career politicians have valuable experience that can be extremely useful in the forming of legislation and the conducting of public business. Term limits destroy this valuable resource by casting people out of the halls of government at a fixed point, regardless of the worth they might still impart to the legislative process. improve this
Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:

Term-limiting legislators insults the intelligence of the electorate. Individuals can make prudent decisions about who to vote for, and it so happens that that decision is often to keep incumbents in power. If the reason for such high reelection rates is due to an uneducated or disaffected electorate, then the problem is not be solved by simply instituting term limits. Rather, such results mean an effort must be made to educate voters and to fight voter apathy. Neither of those things is accomplished by limiting the choice of the voters. improve this
The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:

People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states. improve this
The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:

A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the legislator not been a lame duck. Furthermore, with regard to lobby-group support, a politician on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favor groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for outgoing legislators, paid for often at the expense of the public. improve this
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance:

Term limits promote greater choice in candidates and protect democracy1. While people may not be able to vote for a legislator again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party's candidate. Limiting individual politicians to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system through efforts at self-enrichment and influence-peddling. 1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.   improve this