CreateDebate


Debate Info

40
41
No National Sovereignty Many Nations are Sovereign
Debate Score:81
Arguments:69
Total Votes:91
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No National Sovereignty (31)
 
 Many Nations are Sovereign (31)

Debate Creator

Amarel(2350) pic



Does the UN Rule the World?

Some on CD seem to think that the UN rules the world. They think that the UN has jurisdiction everywhere, including matters of domestic policy. They think that the US is subject to this foreign power and thus has lost its sovereignty. 
Do you agree? Does the UN rule the world or do nations rule themselves? Is the UN the worlds sovereign, or is there national sovereignty?

No National Sovereignty

Side Score: 40
VS.

Many Nations are Sovereign

Side Score: 41
No arguments found. Add one!
3 points

The U.N. is no more than a blustering paper tiger unable to stand up to even the weakest challenge.

None of the world's dictatorships pay a blind bit of notice to the rulings the this ineffectual institution.

For instance, North Korea totally disregarded the high-sounding declarations of the mousey U.N. and told their executive body to go and yodel up the canyon, metaphorically speaking.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
FactMachine(375) Disputed
1 point

I can tell you don't know anything about marijuana and have never actually consumed it, you are oblivious to the nature of it's effects.

People who are lazy, delusional, stupid, etc. will be that way whether they smoke weed or not, most people who smoke weed are not that way because they smoke weed, they are that way because most people are that way to begin with...If Einstein smoked a fat spleefer it wouldn't make him any less coherent or intelligent, I know this because I smoked marijuana all throughout high school and it didn't effect my performance at all, in fact it increased my motivation and reduced the stress of being around a bunch of people I hated.

Pot smokers do not pose any danger as drivers compared to people who are drunk, marijuana doesn't actually IMPAIR cognitive functions unless your brain has very low THC tolerance or if you are not mentally healthy to begin with

There is no evidence that Marijuana can induce mental illness, just that it can exacerbate symptoms in those who are already mentally ill.

My father smoked Marijuana for 30 years, he was an engineer who constructed medical devices and aircraft parts for the U.S military. Do you think he was a "useless lotus eater in a semi-stupor?"

Your worst offence is that you failed to mention or even consider that there are people who NEED marijuana as a legitimate treatment for disorders such as epilepsy.

Side: No National Sovereignty
Amarel(2350) Disputed
1 point

Hmm interesting. Could one of the effects be that you ramble about marijuana even when it is irrelevant? Say, for example, in a thread about the UN?

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign

You are just abusing language again, Amarel. It appears to be all that you know how to do. Nobody has made the claim that the UN rules the world. The UN has full legal authority over a country's domestic policies where those domestic policies violate international law. For example, you are not legally allowed to commit genocide against your own population. The UN can and has stepped in to prevent those situations. Another example is illegally invading another sovereign UN nation (such as Iraq in 2003), since the UN only has a responsibility to the domestic rights of the invaded nation. The UN has no responsibility to the domestic rights of the invaders, because the invaders are not in their own country and hence none of their domestic laws apply.

You can keep defending the indefensible as long as you like. You will still be wrong and you will still be a liar when you finish.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
3 points

For example, you are not legally allowed to commit genocide against your own population

Asad did it and Russia took over Crimea. China has done it and so has North Korea. Even Iran has done it, and the UN sat there with its head up its ass. It's a useless clown show.

Side: No National Sovereignty
1 point

Asad did it and Russia took over Crimea

Assad got away with it because Russia vetoed 8 separate resolutions targeted against Syria. I do not agree with the UN veto system. In fact I think it's retarded. In similar fashion, Israeli pressure against the United States caused it to use its veto repeatedly against resolutions ending economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s. The result was a million dead Iraqis.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
1 point

@Nomenclature. You are just abusing language again, Amarel...Nobody has made the claim that the UN rules the world...The UN has full legal authority over a country's domestic policies where those domestic policies violate international law...You can keep defending the indefensible as long as you like. You will still be wrong and you will still be a liar when you finish.

Well put, ally.

@Amarel.

We need to settle this matter once and for all. I am over 90% confident that you have not so much as read 1 formal book/journal on International Law nor any notable amount of the salient Charter, International Laws, and Principles under the UN and are speaking as though you are an authority on the matter. I have already provided you with a list of International Humanitarian Laws/Principles not to mention the rest of the formal UN Documents and the official position of the major Human Rights Organizations in the World on the topic (e.i. their description of the legal framework). You have as of yet not provided a single source that supports your contention.

I am not going to perpetually engage you on a matter that has a clear right and wrong answer. It has been a few years since I have read all of the requisite material so I want to make sure that I get the wording correct. I'm going to respond back to this topic in a few days after I brush up and find the requisite sources to cite. Provide a Legal Journal pertaining to International Law (and the US) that bares out your contention in no vague/equivocal terms or else you have brought absolutely nothing aside from your "Armchair Philosophy" to this discussion.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

posted in error. This issue was already resolved .

Side: No National Sovereignty
Amarel(2350) Clarified
0 points

Nobody has made the claim that the UN rules the world

Followed by

The UN has full legal authority over a country's domestic policies

I love when your contradictions are literally separated by a period. See how I used the word “literally”?

When UN forces invade a nation, that nation has lost its sovereignty. Do you know what sovereignty is?

Side: No National Sovereignty
Nomenclature(1134) Clarified
2 points

Followed by

WHERE THOSE POLICIES VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Stop butchering my sentences you dishonest twit.

Side: No National Sovereignty
1 point

When UN forces invade a nation, that nation has lost its sovereignty. Do you know what sovereignty is?

Yes. It's having borders, your own culture, and not being over-run by foreigners. All things that Progressives oppose.

Side: No National Sovereignty

Remember what the UN did with the brutal dictator Saddam Hussien? They helped him with his oil when the world had approved sanctions against him.

The UN is as corrupt as it gets and it is typical that Liberals would support it.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
1 point

Remember what the UN did with the brutal dictator Saddam Hussien? They helped him with his oil

Remember what the Americans did? They sold him chemical and biological weapons to use on Iranian civilians.

Side: No National Sovereignty
FromWithin(5436) Disputed
1 point

Thanks for admitting what hideous corrupt supporters of dictators the UN is..........

Changing the subject shows you lost once again.

Yes, every nation has helped the lessor of two evils to stop a more dangerous evil. The UN on the other hand is an absolutely worthless entity.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
1 point

Which has nothing to do with the UN. Avoiding the topic means? You avoided the topic. Why would you do this? Because you can't defend the UN. An Ad hominem on the U.S. doesn't make the UN any less a piece of trash.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
1 point

No it certainly doesn't the U N follows " The rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.”

A country is the same thing as a sovereign state which is also called a nation over which the U N certainly cannot rule

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
1 point

Quoted from Nomenclature: You are just abusing language again, Amarel...Nobody has made the claim that the UN rules the world...The UN has full legal authority over a country's domestic policies where those domestic policies violate international law...You can keep defending the indefensible as long as you like. You will still be wrong and you will still be a liar when you finish.

Well put, ally.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Amarel.

We need to settle this matter once and for all. I am over 90% confident that you have not so much as read 1 formal book/journal on International Law nor any notable amount of the salient Charter, International Laws, and Principles under the UN and are speaking as though you are an authority on the matter. I have already provided you with a list of International Humanitarian Laws/Principles not to mention the rest of the formal UN Documents and the official position of the major Human Rights Organizations in the World on the topic (e.i. their description of the legal framework). You have as of yet not provided a single source that supports your contention.

I am not going to perpetually engage you on a matter that has a clear right and wrong answer. It has been a few years since I have read all of the requisite material so I want to make sure that I get the wording correct. I'm going to respond back to this topic in a few days after I brush up and find the requisite sources to cite. Provide a Legal Journal pertaining to International Law (and the US) that bares out your contention in no vague/equivocal terms or else you have brought absolutely nothing aside from your "Armchair Philosophy" to this discussion.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
WinstonC(854) Disputed
2 points

Sovereignty: supreme power especially over a body politic

Or: freedom from external control: autonomy

How do nations possess supreme control and freedom from external control if international law supersedes domestic law?

Sources:

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty

Side: No National Sovereignty
1 point

Sovereign, noun: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty.

You are using the wrong definition you idiot.

Sovereignty: a self-governing state.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sovereignty

Sovereignty is the right of a state to govern itself. It is not the right to invade another sovereign state 3,000 miles away.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign
Amarel(2350) Disputed
1 point

We need to settle this matter once and for all.

You said this, but then you proceeded to not settle anything.

speaking as though you are an authority on the matter

I know it would trouble you greatly if you thought I was an authority on the matter, since that would compel you to agree with me without reason or reflection. Appeals to authority and to popularity are all you seem to know.

I responded to your previous cites, and you gave up. Much like you are about to here. It is the US Congress gives power to ratified international policies within our borders. They either create a coinciding law, or they call the policy self-executing (they almost never do the latter).

Did you know that in January of this year, there was a Congressional Bill proposed to leave the UN? Do you know what the UN would do if we did that? They would continue to not enforce any laws within the US. Absent our permission, we will never have a presence of roving blue pedo-rapists known as UN Peacekeepers within our borders.

For a long time after the American Revolution, England thought that the US was in breach of the law as it was a subject of the Crown. This wasn't true of course, and the matter was finally settled in 1812.

International law is as valid as Amarel law, which I just scribbled down, which says that you are committing crimes. Does that mean that you are actually doing something illegal? No. I have no power to enforce it.

Side: No National Sovereignty
Amarel(2350) Disputed
1 point

We need to settle this matter once and for all

I don't believe you are interested in settling this, but lets find out.

When I say that, among other qualities, Law is a statement of consequences, do you agree? If you do not agree, can you say why? Can you give an example of a Law (in the legal sense) that is not a statement of consequences that we may discuss?

Side: No National Sovereignty
xMathFanx(671) Disputed
1 point

Listen, I'm not interested in your "armchair reasoning". Provide academic journals/textbooks on the nature of international law (and how it applies to the U.S. as well as other countries) or stfu. I'll get back to you with said pertinent sources in a few days after i have time to brush up on the topic.

Side: Many Nations are Sovereign