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

Firstly, I apologize to all voters for the sources. I copied and pasted the links from an old debate of mine which linked a photo album with screen shots of my evidence. When I copied and pasted, only the "debate.org" part must of went through. Here are the sources used for R1:1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...3. http://www.debate.org...4. http://www.debate.org...5. http://www.debate.org...6. http://www.debate.org...7. http://www.debate.org...8. https://www.ctc.usma.edu...9. http://www.debate.org...For this round, I will be attacking the con case and rebuilding my own. The structure wasn't very clear on whether or not rebuilding my own case is permissible, but since I may not make new arguments in R3, I figured both rebuilding and attacking would be the best option.Con Case"Offensive Operations undermine UN Principles."Con uses this contention to talk about the importance of impartiality. I would agree that impartiality is an important tenet to UN peacekeeping. However, turn her example of comparing impartiality to a good referee over to the pro. Utilizing offensive action attaches a greater cost to violence, and is only used as a last resort. Just like a good referee would penalize infractions committed by players in a game, the UN would use offensive operations to put an end to infractions occurring outside of safe zones instead of sitting by and watching atrocities take place. Under this analogy con has provided, the UN is actually *more* impartial with the use of offensive operations. Look to the fact that the only thing established in this contention is that impartiality important. Con never explains *why* impartiality is violated by offensive operations in the first place.Moreover, even if there was a UN principle that offensive operations came into conflict with, that would not be reason enough to negate unless con provides a clear impact as to how the violation of this principle is hurting people.However, UN principles are not being violated at all. Peace enforcement has been seen as an exception by the UN for around 60 years; most of their mandates talking about consent of parties and impartiality actually stress that Mandate VII (allowing for such enforcement) ought to be seen as an exception. Thus, UN principles support offensive action. "Offensive peacekeeping missions decrease international support."Observe that offensive peacekeeping has been utilized for the past 60 years. However, con has not provided a single example of donors withdrawing enough troops to sufficiently harm the UN. Thus, this point has little support. Her card simply provides a prediction, but since peace enforcement is not a new thing, empirical evidence is needed.The contention ought to be changed to "unsuccessful offensive peacekeeping missions decrease international support" because that is the only thing that would deter donor countries from sending troops. I have established in my constructive that such missions are likely to be successful. Firstly, look to my green meta analysis which documents that a country is three times more likely to be able to terminate a civil war if they utilize offensive operations. This analysis looked at all types of groups including the UN, NATO, and EU. The analysis found that the UN is the most likely to be successful because they do not suffer from partiality, bias, and logistical issue. Secondly, look to the situation in Congo. The UN was highly successful there and was able to coerce the rebel groups into having peace talks with the Congolese government within two weeks. Lastly, look to deterrence. Even a couple offensive operations *did* decrease international support, look to the fact that offensive operations are a tool in the tool box. The need for this tool decreases with time because rebel groups are deterred from causing problems when they know they can be defeated. Since operations are most likely going to be successful, the international community will continue to support UN endeavors, and the deterrence effect will decrease the need for such operations over time."Offensive peacekeeping missions are financially irresponsible."This entire point is nonunique. Con never establishes that offensive operations cost significantly more. Mission creeps and more missions have nothing to do with offensive operations; such problems are just as likely to arise from regular operations. In fact, the need fore *more* operations or *longer* operations specifically links to normal mandates because in many cases, abstaining from offense prolongs conflict. The UN had been in Congo for 17 years with no progress until the offensive brigade. 17 years of funding troops and getting little done in an area is more financially irresponsible than any offensive operation. Moreover, con hasn't established that the UN is spending too much. In order for this point to go through, con must actually show that the UN is spending more because of peace enforcement and con must show why this is bad. My Case"Military peacekeeping requires offense."Con explains that peacekeepers would have had no means of stopping the genocide since offensive operations can only happen with 6 months of discussion by the Security Council. This does nothing to further her point because she hasn't defended the way the security council carries out offensive operations. If offensive operations are utilized, there ought to be an exception which allows peacekeepers to use force in emergency situations like the Rwandan genocide. Since offensive operations had the capability of stopping the genocide, Rwanda is an win for the pro. The workings of a security council are easy to change, causing my generalized practical solution to have little disadvantage. Con's claim that the situation in Congo was a failure is invalid. Since the M23 rebels actually signed a peace treaty the UN achieved their goal (by coercing the rebels to comply with the will of the international community). This was a net gain for Congo, the peacekeepers, and the international community as a whole. Sexual abuse is entirely nonunique to offensive operations. It is a problem existing with almost every operation the UN performs. Thus, it should not be looked to as a reason to negate because offensive operations don't make this problem worse. Moreover, the problem can be solved through other means like making the UN answer back to human rights organizations."Authorization of offensive operations leads to peace."Cross apply my attack on con's first and second contentions. I have established that the international community is not harmed, and actually benefits from offensive operations. I have also established that UN principles support offensive peacekeeping. Con has dropped this entire contention. Firstly, she never answers to my first subpoint which established that offensive peacekeeping operations preformed by the UN will be successful. Thus, I am winning that offensive operations will be a net gain for countries they are preformed in, as well as the international community as a whole. Secondly, she never answers to my second subpoint which talks about deterrence. Thus, I am winning that offensive operations aren't needed on a regular basis because rebel groups will stop instigating conflict due to the increased use of force. Lastly, she never answers to my third subpoint which talks about rebel access to weapons. Thus, I am winning that offensive operations are the only way to deplete rebels of weapon sources.The resolution is affirmed my homies.