The United States should withdraw from the United Nations.

Thank you, L, for starting this debate. I hope to provide lots of clash and for it to be fun, interesting, and overall friendly. Just to clarify before I begin, I will go down my opponents case and then set up mine. For a heads-up, the thesis I base my case around is that the concept of a United Nations, or a worldwide central government, is not only a politically good one, but a morally good concept as well. My opponent never argues the concept of a worldwide government, so we must conclude in this debate that it is a good concept. So as Con, if I can prove that it is reasonable to believe that by the United States withdrawing from the United Nations is either morally wrong, politically wrong, or could eliminate any possibility of salvaging a worldwide government, then I will have won this debate. Likewise, to set this debate in the fairest grounds, my opponents burden is to prove it unreasonable. So whoever wins two of the three factors I presented will have fulfilled their burden and won this debate. I apologize for the lengthy introduction, but I find it necessary to avoid confusion. Now, on to the debate. ==========Opponent's contentions=========== 1. Credibility and Corruption From this we can see that the current United Nations is corrupt. It would be useless for me to argue with the overwhelming fact that the United Nations isn't what the ideal concept of a worldwide government would be. But what I will say, is that by the United States withdrawing, it will allow this organization to further corrupt itself. My opponent states "Despite its reputation, one has to wonder how legitimate the credibility of the UN really is". This sentence implies that on the outside the United Nations is seen as credible, but on the inside it is not. I agree to this. But this only backs up the idea that many people only see the outside, thus are in favor for it, support it, even endorse it. So by the United States withdrawing, their are still people who are for the corrupt government. The United States may very well be the sole factor preventing this organization from further corruption, or an extreme abuse of there power. This point is only backed up when my opponent states "In 2001 the United States was voted out of the UN Human Rights Commission. Nations such as Sudan and Libya - known rights violating nations - were voted in. Syria was promoted to the security council despite the country being known to aid terrorism (talk about irony). Russia has been a part of the commission despite being a totalitarian state where human rights were non-existent for most of the time after its inception. As we can see, many unjust nations are valued as part of the UN despite its commitment to human rights." My opponent and I agree that the United Nations have some very "unjust" and just plain bad countries holding very powerful positions. My opponent furthers "The United States is hypocritical in standing in opposition to many of these country's regimes and yet supporting them through funding as a sponsor of the UN". I will later address the expenses, but I would like to point out that it would be hypocritical of America to withdraw knowing that the United Nations is corrupt. Just because America leaves doesn't mean the U.N is abolished. That just further defends that the U.N could misuse their power with America, the tip of the spear against injustices and terrorism, out of the picture. The rest of this contention and be addressed with my previous argument. 2. Usefulness Once again, this goes in line with corruption. I agree that the current U.N is close to useless, but the concept is not. It is close to useless due to corruption. My only points...If left unchecked, the U.N could go from close to useless to outright abusive and contradictory to U.S objectives. Just like when Hitler rose to power from the ashes of Germany, so could another malicious leader rise from the corruption that is the U.N. Also, we can't blame the corruption on the ideal, only on the situation. Did Einstein invent the light bulb on the first try? No. But the light bulb remained an ingenious idea and proved to benefit our lives IMMENSLY. 3. Expenses My opponent writes "American tax dollars should be used solely to advance American interests". This is a debate for another time and place, but as of right now America is the leading force against terrorism and injustices around the world. These efforts cost money, and to suddenly stop these efforts would be hypocritical considering America's objectives. (I bring up hypocrisy a lot since my opponent finds it a weighing factor in the round). On the expenses....1) Since America is such a big benefactor to the U.N, we have leverage to use to better shape the U.N to what we want. To rid it of corruption. 2) I will concede that America could cut back on the amount of funding. That however does not win my opponent the debate. 4. American Laws and Sentiments This just furthers corruption and contradiction to American objectives. But if we withdraw from the U.N, the U.N continues to exist and enforce the laws. They also then have the opportunity to abuse their power even more and extremely contradict American laws and sentiments. =========Con Points========== 1. Morally wrong Leaving the U.N is morally wrong on the grounds that since the U.N is as corrupt as me and my opponent agree on, then it could easy become a oppressive regime on a worldwide scale. This could cause mass genocide and/or injustices. My opponent's 4th and last point spoke of the contradictions to American law, but this only furthers that the U.N's morals do not align with our morals, increasing the chance of violating our morality. For these reasons, it is morally wrong to withdraw from the U.N. 2. Politically wrong In terms of politics, withdrawing from the U.N could severely hurt us by either 1) Cutting our ties with other nations who are members of the U.N. 2) Angering the U.N to take action against us, seeing as they just lost "1/4 of the entire budget!". 3) If we stay in the U.N, purge it and it becomes the ideal worldwide government, that would greatly prosper America and take a huge leap to achieve our foreign objectives. Not doing this wouldn't hurt us, it would just throw away a golden opportunity. 4) If the U.N becomes a worldwide regime without us there to stop them, they could start ANOTHER war for America that could either A) America wins and suffers immensely due to monetary losses, loss of lives, etc. or B) We lose, America falls, the world is screwed. So for these reasons, withdrawing for the U.N would be politically wrong. 3. Hope for an ideal worldwide government in the future If you combine my two first points, you will see that if the U.S withdraws, horrible things can happen. On the off chance we recover from said horrible things, who will honestly want another worldwide government? If we fix it now, there is still hope for that great ideal that my opponent and I agree upon. Also, if said horrible things don't happen, then a corrupt worldwide government is still in place, eliminating the chance of another "better" one. Can't have two worldwide governments. ;) =======Conclusion======= For these reasons, a Con vote is necessary. I hope I met the expectations of my esteemed opponent, and all of the people reading and voting on this debate. Sorry for the lengthy argument, but I'd like to note that I barely made the character limit. Nice call on 8,000 characters. I look forward to L's response, I'm sure it will be fantastic. Back to you Pro. =)