Resolved: The United Nations should be abolished

I agree that the UN's purpose isn't in warfare. Rather, it was designed as an alliance of sorts, for countries to discuss and reason with one another. However, this is not what the United Nations has become. It has mutated to become a monstrosity under the banner of globalism. In reality, it's the home of international hypocrisy. It must be abolished, due to the fact that it is detrimental to the noble goals it claims to promote. United Nations' General Immoral Activity (Formerly the UNGA)Note: I renamed this point because it has morphed to cover all United Nations immoral activity, rather than just the UN General Assembly. My opponent opens up with a statement that my only example of the "minute of silence" for Kim Jong II is hardly telling. I agree. It was merely to serve as an indicator. If one looks at the goals of the United Nations, and the members who make it, there is no correlation. I would challenge anyone reading this to see how many countries make up the United Nations General Assembly, that also support gender equality, basic human rights, justice, international law, or better standards for life? And it doesn't seem all of these members are too concerned with the whole "saving future generations from the scourge of war" thing, either. .. However, just as he proceeded to show, there are many other examples of morally unsound UN General Assembly activity. These include extreme examples of anti-semitism[1][2][3][4] that are rampant (in both the UN General Assembly and HRC, or "Humans Right Council", mainly). These also include scandals in general[5][6][7] including Oil-for-Food programme, the Vatican child sexual abuse scandal, and Bribery scandals, all detailed in the sources provided. My opponent then brings up a valid point, that we need nations to talk and reason with each other. I do not support, at least in this round, and American-centric, or western-centric ideology, here. I'm just stating that we encourage a tyrrany of the majority among a group of countries that do not support the ideals outlined in the United Nations charter. If we were to create an organization with different goals in mind, strictly geared towards communication and negotiation rather than the upholding of certain rights, then this would be a different story. But we are arguing about the United Nations, whose charter, the very document that causes it to exist, states that it must promote basic human rights, living standards, justice, equality, and world peace. [8] If it is harming these goals, then there is no reason for it to exist. It would be much cheaper and safer to create a public forum for countries to discuss, rather than keeping the legally binding, military-weilding, and cash-guzzling body of lethargy we have today. "Peace"keepingI have already shown that the three problems with Peacekeeping missions are thus. A. Flawed DoctrineB. IneffectivenessC. Harm to CiviliansWhile my opponent tries to make the case for peacekeeping surrounding two aspects, the fact that the United Nations Peackeeping force wasn't designed to intervene militarily, and that Rwanada was handled the best to the bet of UN ability wihtout support, he only strengthens my points. A. Flawed DoctrineNow, while I understand that the UN Peacekeepers were intended to watch and advise, they were also intended to intervene when the goals of the United Nations were being threatened in any of its member states (which is now pretty much the whole world). However, there is no way they can do so with the flawed doctrine of not being able to fight unless given the command from the UNSC. My opponent hasn't addressed this, and how could he? The United Nations Peacekeepers are flawed at their very core. They cannot keep the peace. Kofi Annan, while hardly a credible man[9], did have a point. It should be as simple as this. Countries surrender their sovreignty in the United Nations if they do not support the goals in the Charter, at least in my opinion. However, this is not the case in the status quo. What should be a mission for humanitarian aid is blocked by a political game of cat-and-mouse, where countries are told they can't act unilaterally by the United Nations, and the United Nations is told it can't act multilaterally by the countries. The United Nations Peacekeepers are rendered. .. B. IneffectiveMy opponent tries to link this to the Mogadishu effect. He claims that the reason for the ineffective Peacekeepers is that they have no country support. I agree. But how does this support the idea that the UN is worth saving? It doesn't. As for Rwanda, I was not arguing that the men who did fight there didn't fight valiantly. My point was the flaw in the United Nations' system of doing things. There's simply too much politics involved when action is necessary on the ground. And the lack of support makes for ineffective peacekeeping. One could argue that even with the Peacekeepers' total lack of effectiveness, it was only a giant cash-sink and nothing more. However, these Peacekeepers are a. .. C. Harm to CiviliansPeacekeepers are absolutely notorious for the amount of sexual abuse and scandals they have produced over the years. These range from the well known, and previously referenced, DRC[10] (A. k. a the "Rape Capital of the World") to the lesser known but equally detrimental U. N. "Sex for food" scandal, where Peacekeepers held food hostage from adolescent, and very hungry, girls. .. . until sexual acts were performed. [11] Other examples include scandals in Haiti, which ranged from a cholera outbreak to sexual abuse cases. [12]So, yes, the United Nations has gotten a few things right with Peacekeeping. .. but they are far overshadowed by the examples of a confused and scrambled force, who is rendered useless by incompetent command structure, and instead spends their time raping underage girls. Peace? I think not. But if the United Nations were to be abolished, then we could be rid of these awful acts we're allowing to be commited around the globe under a "legitimate" organization. R2PR2P was a great and noble goal of the United Nations that just simply fell short, just like practically everything else the United Nations has attempted. With the most glaring recent case being Syria[13], where the country's people were left to be tortured, persecuted, and slaughtered while the UN took its favorite course of action (that is to say, inaction) of bickering in the UNSC over political ambitions and the like. [14]This is simple. The R2P is useless with the current construct of the Security Council, my point on which went largely ignored. Meaning. .. UNSCDropped. (Although I assume we'll be hearing a rebuttal in my opponent's R3 speech. ConclusionThe Goal of the United Nations is to support the goals outlined in the Charter. So long as it is shown to be harming these goals, there stands no reason why the United Nations should remain. (This is not to say that a public forum for international discussion is bad, but the United Nations is far too corrupt to wield the power it has. ) The United Nations can deem a "success" whatever they like. However, the real success comes from whether or not the goals of the United Nations were promoted at the end of the operation. .. and, as I've shown, they aren't. The United Nations is generally morally unsound, scandalous, and ruled by a tyrannic majority. The UN Peacekeepers are being hampered, ineffective, and harming civilians. The UNSC is stagnant and illegitimate, despite the R2P that supposedly "binds" them to action. Abolition sounds good to me. Sources:1. . http://tinyurl.com...2. . http://tinyurl.com...3. . http://tinyurl.com...4. . http://tinyurl.com...5. . http://tinyurl.com...;6. . http://tinyurl.com...7. . http://tinyurl.com...8. . http://tinyurl.com...;9. . http://tinyurl.com...;10. . http://tinyurl.com...;11. . http://tinyurl.com...12. . http://tinyurl.com...13. . http://tinyurl.com...14. . http://tinyurl.com...;