CreateDebate


Debate Info

62
62
There should not be veto power There should be veto power
Debate Score:124
Arguments:52
Total Votes:155
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 There should not be veto power (25)
 
 There should be veto power (24)

Debate Creator

doucettej(75) pic



Veto powers for permanent members of the UN Security Council be abolished P #8

The United Nations Security Council has 15 members, but only its five permanent members - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia - hold the power to impose a veto on the council's resolutions. This means that if one of the five does not want a resolution to be passed all it has to do is veto it.

There should not be veto power

Side Score: 62
VS.

There should be veto power

Side Score: 62
4 points

Fir the third time, No. It is an anachronism that the countries of the Allies during WWII should have a veto over the rest of the world today.

Side: There should not be veto power
4 points

Veto power should not be given to the security council. Many member states of the UN have disputed the concept of veto power. The abolishing of the veto is already being pushed even more in the category of genocide and crimes against humanity, where this power could cost the lives of large numbers of people. Many nations believe there are too many occasions where veto power has blocked the functionality of the council and not allowed them to take action.

http://www.centerforunreform.org/?q=node/414

Side: There should not be veto power
2 points

I agree Eric because people are debating about Veto out side of our class and veto has coast the lives of other people

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

In fact 12,000,000 people have died because of veto power

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

I disagree with you. The five countries are given the most power with the veto power because they are the strongest and wisest.

Side: There should not be veto power
Miralhi-TM(11) Disputed
1 point

Really the only reasons they were given these titles, is because they were the "big" allies in WWII

Side: There should be veto power
4 points

I think veto power is too much.Veto power can be used as good or mostly for bad. Number one it overrides ANYTHING and stops it and itself can not be stopped.Say UN wanted to restrict how much oil North Korea is making and selling but if ONE out of the FIFTEEN say no the plan is amediatly stopped.And now North Korea is sitting on money they don’t deserve or need.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-veto-power-wielded-by-the-Security-Councils-permanent-members

Side: There should not be veto power
HPC2 Disputed
2 points

I do not understand what it means when you wrote "It" in sentence 3.

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

I agree because when veto power is used every person has to agree with the case and if one person does not then the case will be granted and i personally think that that is unfair do to other peoples personal decisions when the 5 people make there decisions

Side: There should not be veto power
4 points

There should not be veto power. The veto power has caused vital international security issues and multiple crisis. [http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm] One country's objection, rather than the opinions of most of the countries, could change the responses to a crisis. This means that a country could say no to an important decision just because they have a reason to favor the other country being protested against.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedNationsSecurityCouncilveto_power]

The veto is a threat to international peace and security, and as many members

propose, should be abolished. [https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/security-council-as-an-institution/the-power-of-the-veto-0-40/tables-and-charts-on-the-power-of-the-veto.html]

Side: There should not be veto power
3 points

When the national security council comes together for a meeting, I very important decision is usually extremely important to our nation. When all countries say yes but one country says no....the whole thing is over. Giving one country the power to overrule all the other countries, it can pose as a major problem. Veto power is a huge amount of power to be given to a country, for instance if a country has a dictator that is in the security council, and they do horrible things to their country, and the security council comes to stop him, he has the power to veto all of their decisions. Another reason why veto power can be bad is because if a country is in a war with us and we go to the security council to attempt to stop it, the country in the security council can very easily veto the decision and continue the war. This is why giving countries veto powers is too much power to be given.

Side: There should not be veto power
2 points

The information was received by multiple websites, for instance. the information is a brief and modified summary to my opinion but is still supported by this website.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/russian-vetoes-putting-un-security-council-legitimacy-at-risk-says-us

Side: There should not be veto power
3 points

There should be no Veto power because the UN should have a very subjective look at the problems and come to an agreement democratically. One country should not be able to stop any changes. 12,000,000 people have died because of veto.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-veto-powers-of-the-permanent- members-of-the-un-security-council-be-abolished

Side: There should not be veto power
NickStraka(3) Disputed
2 points

If there was no veto and a country decided to do something the rest of the countries would dislike because it damages their country, then the other countries can't stop them until the problem turns into a war.

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

Yes, along with that if the entire council was anti-something they would claim war. There would be nothing anyone could do without the Veto power.

Side: There should be veto power
2 points

If veto power is abolished, it might lead to disastrous effects on the world, because small countries might make alliances to pass resolutions which would make other countries pay for their development. The UN needs help from the P5 members to fund peacekeeping missions and a lot of other stuff,Israel will be unfairly bashed, and US won't be able to help.Veto power has helped keep peace, and limit the human rights violations all around the world. Abolishing veto power will only lead to another war or even more bad things.

Side: There should not be veto power
JB26 Clarified
2 points

I think that whoever this is accidentally put the argument on the wrong side, it sounds like it is for veto power.

Side: There should not be veto power
2 points

Veto should be abolished because if one of the five countries declines a resolution then the resolution will be passed but that can lead to conflicts between the countries and permanent members are not elected into the council but temporary members have to be voted into the council.

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

Because it has been written in the rules that there is no discrimination and members have equal right, but with the presence of veto right is contrary to the rules, and the veto rights is dominated by modern nations which have large ego with its self , and how about the developing nation which still not represented yet in veto right. The UN should not have veto powers only because if there is an important veto for something threatening, it could get denied and all goes down badly. Especially with China and north Korea. If war or a request comes in, China is probably going to do something about it.Link to evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/sep/23/un-security-council-failing-70-years.

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

I agree with this claim because the veto has dominated a is too powerful and has dominated the UN.

Side: There should not be veto power
NickStraka(3) Disputed
1 point

We need veto because countries need to have the right to stop other countries from attacking their country.

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

veto power should be banned because its not fair to the other people in it because the other people may like the idea but if one person says no they cant do it

Side: There should not be veto power
6 points

With the Veto power, the 5 main countries have to power to stop a plan despite popular vote. One pro to a veto is, if a chair member brings in something that would effect a country greatly, a veto would stop it right away. Veto's keep things from going too low, too fast. If a majority of people always want to change a lot things, then the world would change very often. Thus with the Veto power that The United States, The United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China can make sure that wouldn't be the case.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-veto-power-wielded-by-the-Security-Councils-permanent-members

membershttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201225152330761377.html

Side: There should be veto power
3 points

I agree because when Veto power is used it can change the world and with Veto power the world may not change.

Side: There should be veto power
ErkWeicht(10) Disputed
2 points

Veto power may be used for good, but in the event of civilians being killed or other rights violations, a country could be bribed. The case of China vetoing North Korean sanctions mainly because they are prime trading partners is an example of this. The veto could cost many innocent lives in the event of a war.

http://www.centerforunreform.org/?q=node/414

Side: There should not be veto power
4 points

Veto power is important because if a country wants to do something that will affect your country you should be able to say they can't do that. The time when veto is used are outnumbered by resolutions adopted unanimously. Diplomacy is about to compromise after all.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/193352-un-urkaine-human-rights/

Side: There should be veto power
2 points

I agree with this. Veto allows also allows a country to protect another country that is not on the security council.

Side: There should be veto power
ErkWeicht(10) Disputed
1 point

If a country is doing awful things to his people, and vetoes sanctions or other restrictions, this is still conforming to you first example. How is this a good thing? Veto could allow a country to kill civilians, violate their rights, and starve them.

http://www.centerforunreform.org/?q=node/414

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

I agree with you. I like what you said. This is good information. Thank You very Muchness

Side: There should be veto power
4 points

Veto power is important because it keeps the Security Console together and balances their decisions. Veto power was established to help escape one-sided decisions and to impose a culture of consensus.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/193352-un-urkaine-human-rights/

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

I agree with you because the United Nations also helps keep disasters and wars under control.

Side: There should be veto power
3 points

Veto powers regulate the power of the UN councils. Without them, any sanction is passable, any war declaration is passable etc.

Side: There should be veto power
ChickNugget(9) Disputed
2 points

Where is the proof or evidence for this simple sentence for the UN veto power? Is true but needed more clarification.

Side: There should not be veto power
MarcoPolo(9) Disputed
1 point

There is not enough evidence here. You need to explain how it has benefits and why it is good for the UN to keep.

Side: There should not be veto power
3 points

With veto power, the security council can keep balance in power between countries. If the countries do not have a balance in power, one country can be able to do anything they want with little consequence, and making it very unfair for other countries. Without this balance of power, other countries would not only be treated unfairly, but would be vulnerable to being taken over or even damaged by that 1 country.

Side: There should be veto power
3 points

The veto powers of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council should not be abolished. If the power was abolished national disasters, such as a war. Also, if new members take the place of countries like the USA the UN would need more money to support it. The USA gives about 40% of the UN funds.

http://www.debate.org

Side: There should be veto power
3 points

Veto power should not be abolished because without the veto, dictatorship could occur. The five countries who gained the power deserved the power because they won WWII. The veto is imperative to ensure no bad or crazy actions occur globally. Also, some people say that new countries deserve veto power, but if new countries were granted veto power the countries could misuse the power and not have enough money to support it.

Side: There should be veto power
JB26 Clarified
2 points

I forgot to put the link so here it is : www.Debate.org

Side: There should not be veto power
3 points

Veto power is important and is in place for a reason. Veto power is in place to protect a country or establishment. If a vote does not do good or it is bad for a country/establishment can veto it therefore eradicating the idea. Without veto any sanction or request etc. is possible. It prevents conflicts or arguments by having the veto power "card" be a no argument thing. It is about upholding diplomacy.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/193352-un-urkaine-human-rights/

Side: There should be veto power
JB26 Clarified
1 point

I agree with these reasonings about not being a majority vote because if one of the 5 countries don't want something whatever they do not want does not happen.

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

correct. we need to think before we take veto away from us.

Side: There should be veto power
2 points

If a country is faced with unilateral aggression(military) then the veto power could save the country from such. For example if the USSR hadn't vetoed a decision for ceasefire in Bangladesh in 1971, the country wouldn't have existed and would have gone through countless human rights abuses by West Pakistan. Also, it keeps the world from changing too quickly and general chaos ensuing. For example, if they make drastic changes all the time it could turn right into wrong and left into right. Also an example is if we didn't have veto power and someone wanted to blow up North Korea, they could do so. Since there is veto, this kind of chaos won't occur.

Supporting Evidence: Pros and cons of veto power (www.quora.com)
Side: There should be veto power
4 points

Since there is veto, this kind of chaos won't occur.

Tell that to the Iraqis.

Side: There should not be veto power
ChickNugget(9) Disputed
3 points

I agree with most of it, but the thing is we need to worry about what is going to happen in the future. If one of the security council declines a request, Something could go wrong with an event that may cause devastation.

Side: There should not be veto power
2 points

Vetoing something is mainly used for good things like restrictions.

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

i agree that we need to think about future plans before making veto go away.

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

i agree that we need to think about future plans before making veto go away.

Side: There should not be veto power
1 point

A veto is a powerful and strong tool in the hands of a few responsible leaders of the council members of the UN All countries in the world are not on equal level of development. Especially in the part of the meeting of human rights and freedoms are huge differences between member States of the UN.

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

Why veto power is good:

Motivates security council to make balanced decisions

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/193352-un-urkaine-human-rights/

Helps to restrain violence

*Can bring irrational decisions to an end

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201225152330761377.html

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

I believe that there should be voting power. The five countries that never switch out, Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, and the United States, have veto power. These countries fought against the German Nazis in World War II and won, therefore giving them veto power. This veto power gives them all the power to stop something that they do not want to happen and think is a bad idea. These countries are the strongest and smartest countries therefore they have the most power. http://www.un.org/en/sc/meetings/voting.shtml

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

Veto is good for the un because if something is bad you can veto it they could all agree to bombing north korea and if you didn't want to start war then you could veto it.

Side: There should be veto power
1 point

There should be veto power because with out it countries could disagree. If countries disagree with each other people might protest or start riots leading to war.

Side: There should be veto power