The United States should withdraw from the United Nations.

Thanks, Con! == Defense of Contentions == 1. Con admits that the UN is a corrupt organization with little credibility. He says that US withdrawal would further corrupt the group. If we're not funding it, then it doesn't matter to us where other countries choose to spend their time and money. When the US doesn't agree with the UN, we simply go against them just like George Bush did in 2003 in going to war with Iraq. As you can see, just because you're a part of the UN doesn't mean the UN has any impact on your decisions whatsoever. Likewise, you don't have to be a part of the UN to be a functioning country (i.e. Kosovo and Taiwan). If the UN became so corrupt without our participation, then inevitably other countries would follow suit and also leave. In a world where technology allows us to have direct connection with people all over the globe, and in one that values peace and prosperity, nations would find a way to resolve conflicts without the need for an expensive, corrupt and unuseful bureaucratic behemoth of an organization. Con says that it would be hypocritical for us to withdraw from the UN on the basis of its corruption, but I don't see how or why that's true. 2. Con admits that the UN is useless at accomplishing their goals. This is not only due to corruption, but just bad ideas in general. Again, consider the example of the US going to war with Iraq despite the UN being against it. Clearly the UN is unable to really enforce anything or punish anyone. Corruption is also not to blame for the other examples I gave in the last round (such as the US not being able to accomplish any of their objectives). Con says that having a bad leader of the UN could hurt the US, and compared said leader to Hitler of Germany. This is a poor analogy because the world is a much different place from then (i.e. we have nuclear weapons, thus bringing the concept/possibility of war into a whole new ball game), and further, the same thing Con suggests could happen regardless of the US's involvement or not (since we proved that nobody including the US has any real power -- people are going to do what they want regardless of their involvement). By the way, Con, Einstein didn't invent the light bulb... 3. Con says that whether or not American tax dollars should be used to advance American interests is subjective. I vehemently believe that this is an objective fact. While taxes in general can be likened to stealing, the social contract implies that taxes are permissible so long as they benefit the State we live in and pay into. Yes, the US is anti-terrorism and (unfortunately) tries to police the world for what it deems injustices. However Con's suggestion that leaving the UN would be "hypocritical" is actually backwards. It's BECAUSE the UN hinders our interests to police the world that leaving would be beneficial to our objectives. As I've stated in the last round, the UN frequently blocks us in our attempt to do good i.e. when the U.S. tried to pass resolutions against the Sudanese government's sponsorship of genocide, and China and the Russian Federation stopped us. As you can see, we're paying into something that works against our interests. Con writes, "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." My examples prove contrary. The US is still stopped from achieving its goals, and moreover we won't get the UN to agree with us just because we pay a lot of money into it (again, the Iraq war example). I'm glad my opponent concedes that we pay far too much money into the UN to boot. 4. I pointed out that many UN programs violate the US constitution and other laws, such as habeus corpus. I also pointed out America's traditional sentiments of avoiding involvement in foreign affairs. Con's rebuttal merely stated, "This just furthers corruption and contradiction to American objectives." How does this even make sense or apply to what I said? Con, please explain how the UN not upholding US laws and values has anything to do with corruption and presents contradictions to US objectives. On the contrary, being a part of something that is opposed to US objectives is what's going on here. Con continues, "But if we withdraw from the U.N, the U.N continues to exist and enforce the laws." Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with my points about the UN standing in opposition to US laws and sentiments. If your point is that the UN would become even more corrupt without US involvement, I've already explained how and why that isn't our problem, and how it wouldn't have much impact on the US at all. The US is a powerful nation with or without the UN; the same can be said for other nations (like China, Russia, etc.). As I've explained, the UN isn't useful and many of the things we presume to thank the UN for (i.e. world peace, a stable US government, etc.) has nothing to do with the UN, and could still easily be achieved without the UN. Con insisting that the US would fall apart to some corrupt and unstable world government is fallacious and backed up by nothing but faulty imperatives. == Rebuttal == 1. Con suggests that the US withdrawing is morally wrong because the result may be mass genocide or other grave injustices. This is quite obviously nothing but a "what if" scenario; we have absolutely no reason to believe that the world would undergo some massively immoral feat by the US withdrawing. Quite obviously there are horrible things going on all over the world despite the US's involvement (i.e. Darfur) proving once again that our involvement has nothing to do with what goes on in the rest of the world. And again, since the US is blocked whenever we try to do good, it just further establishes that our involvement doesn't help anything. On the contrary, I would presume that if the US could actually invest its resources in positive things without being blocked, we would have a better chance at combating corruption and other injustices throughout the world. Ergo the world would actually be a better place without the US involved in the UN. Further, I think it's immoral to force Americans to pay into the UN when the UN is blatantly against the US in so many endeavors. It's stealing from the tax payers, and that is morally wrong. 2. A - Con says that it would be against our political interests to withdraw from the UN because it might cut our ties with other nations. We have no reason to accept this; the US is one of the most powerful nations in the world and still would be even without our involvement in the UN. We have deep ties and connections throughout the globe mainly due to our economic, political and military prowess. B - If the UN were to take "action against us" because they'd be mad that they lost 1/4 of their budget, this just proves that the UN is corrupt, immoral, and that the US should have absolutely no part in it. C - Con says that we should use the UN to create a worldwide government. More about that later. D - Finally, the US has the greatest military in the world; I highly doubt the entire UN would wage a war on the US given our possession of a LOT of nuclear weapons. Moreover, if that was their goal, they can/would do it even with our participation. 3. Con concludes, "If you combine my two first points, you will see that if the U.S withdraws, horrible things can happen." This is a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy. Con continues to say that our withdrawal would lead to a corrupt world government; instead he wants to create an American-friendly worldwide government. I am out of characters, but will respond vehemently opposed to this idea (worldwide government) if/when Con expands on why that could possibly be a good thing, or even possible at all. The goal of US involvement is not and should not be to create a world government. It is in our best interest to withdraw from the United Nations. Thank you.