United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.

I apologize that I did not rebut the attacks made on my case Pro says “he may rebut these claims during the final round, but I would like to remind voters that con may not use new evidence.” I will now take the opportunity to address those attacks. This will be an interesting challenge as I cannot use new evidence. C1: POINT A: Pro says “Con's first point essentially explains that offensive action perpetuates a state of war, thus making offensive action counter productive. This simply isn't the case.” Supposed reasons being “Firstly, offensive operations have been successful in creating peace in the past…. Secondly, the use of force coerced the rebels into complying with the will of the international community.” It would seem obvious that any action that goes “beyond self-defense” is the antithesis of peace. C1: Point B: Pro says “Do not buy con's argument about how offensive action destroys existing political systems, as he has given no examples of this actually happening.” As I am unable to provide new evidence I cannot fill this burden. So I will simply restate what I said previously… offensive actions could in fact compromise the ability of peacekeepers to achieve many of the goals here listed. This is due to offensive actions often lead to endangering civilians, as well as destroying or crippling an existing political systems or processes. Though I cannot source any new information, this assertions seem empirically obvious as if there were no offensive military actions from anyone, there would be no war. Ergo peace. Pro says “con gives absolutely no examples of offensive action that has inhibited the UN from achieving such goals. Con specifically talks about civilians. Non use of force except in defense of the mandate actually perpetuates violence against civilians because a rebel group's use of violence out of safe zones is permissible under the status quo. Civilians outside of safe zones are more likely to be harmed by the rebel groups in the absence of offensive action.” Again I cannot provide new sources or information, however much like me not citing a source or example, pro’s later claim here is also unsupported. C3: Pro says “Firstly, since offensive operations have been permissible for awhile now; con's defense of the state of the UN actually hurts his case. Effective offensive operations have helped in the past; specifically benefiting the civil war termination ratio in countries by tripling the likelihood that conflict will be terminated.” I confess I assumed the status quo to prohibit such actions. As offensive was defined by pro as “more robust mandates that go beyond self defense or defense of the mandate given to peacekeepers.” I understood the definition to imply that the status quo was in contradiction to pro’s resolve as she defined “Peacekeepers - provide security and political and peacebuilding support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace. They are guided via three basic principles: impartiality, consent of parties, and only use of defensive operations (what the debate is over)” Clearly “only use of defensive operations of peacekeepers” would imply that offensive operations would be outside the status quo. C4: Pro says “Con cannot effectively argue that offensive operations hurt international relations without giving an example of offensive operations actually hurting international relations.” As the Introduction to International Relations textbook I cited indicates… The principle of Dominance brings about the negative effects of oppression and resentment. I did not feel the need to cite a specific example as this is general accepted in the study of IR. This is reasonable to conclude as the source I used here is a current textbook on the subject matter of International Relations (IR). Pro did not contend that offensive operations are not domineering. Therefore this contention stands. Offensive action is domineering, and brings the harm of oppression and resentment. Final round. The status quo: Pro says “Under the status quo, offensive operations have been allowed for the past 60 years or so under mandate VII. Con's continual defense of the status quo should be turned to my side.” As mentioned previously, the definitions provided by Pro indicate that what we are debating over is allowing offensive operations that are beyond the “status quo.” C1: Military peacekeeping requires offense. Pro says “Con explains that the goal of the UN is *not* to punish violence, and he would be absolutely correct.” This is a welcome statement as she initially contended that “The problem is, rebel groups go unpunished for violence.” To contend that military peacekeeping requires offense because without it the “problem is, rebel groups go unpunished,” then conclude that “the goal of the UN is not to punish violence is inconsistent. C2: The authorization of offensive operations lead to peace. POINT A: Efficacy Pro says “Con is strawmanning my argument when he sums up my terminology as "offensive operations can rather than offensive operations do." My argument explains that offensive operations *have done* well in the past and *can* do well in the future.” I apologize if this seems like a straw man. That is not my intention. Your contention is worded that “offensive operations lead to peace.” Your arguments state have done, and can in the future. I merely meant to show that the confidently stated contention is not as confidently of definitively argued. POINT B: Deterrence Pro says “Con essentially concedes that a deterrence effect *would* kick in if the UN had the power the France has.” I do, though I note that giving the U.N. the same power to act as a given nation does in their own sovereign territory is contrary to the U.N. ideals and principles. It would violate the sovereignty of the Nation States involved. UN Goals and Principles: Pro says “In my rebuttal, I explained that con has no empirical evidence supporting the idea that the UN's goals and principles are violated by offensive action. He explains all these negative impacts, but never shows how offensive operations have caused such problems or why they could cause such problems. Thus, as a reader, you should not buy his arguments pertaining to the dangers of offensive operations.” As I cannot provide empirical evidence now, I invite the readers to view the principles we have discussed and the reasoning I have provided. I am confident that my conclusion are reasonable and not pulled out of thin air. There are many empirical examples, though I cannot list them now. I will follow the format Pro did and present why you should vote con. 1: Status quo: Per the definitions pro provided, it is reasonable to conclude that we are arguing to change the status quo. Though, as has been shown, the status quo is effective. 2: Offensive operations downsides: Would create resentment and oppression. Would violate the ideals and principles of the U.N. Most specifically would be a violation of individual states sovereignty. Thank you to pro for this debate. It has been incredibly challenging. Thanks to all who take the time to read and vote!