Instigator / Con
11
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2956

THW Grant India Permanent Membership on Security Council

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
9
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Burden of proof is shared.

Whiteflame and Misterchris must comment before accepting. (I will extend argument time to one week due to their greater debate ability)

Security council: The United Nations Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.

Information about permanent membership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council

Con will argue that India should not be granted permanent membership to the security council.

-->
@RationalMadman

That may have been implicit in your argument, but I did not see you set that aside as an alternative framework and argue that it was preferable to Pro's. You argued that the P5 is problematic, but never established what makes a nation sufficiently powerful to be on the permanent security council, never established what specific perspective other nations would bring that would, as you put it, "balance each other's greed and powerlust out", and instead just said that India represents a large enough subset of the population to warrant their participation as a permanent member without ever really explaining what's gained by adding to global representation. If you're going to argue that there's a need for diversity of opinion and greater representation of the total population of the world, then establish what's gained by adding to it. Don't just assert that there's some greater balance without examining the value of having it.

I agree that Con didn't establish any basis for his points, either, but at least in his case, I have a clear means of seeing how it harms the current P5 in their ability to pursue given actions. Maybe those actions are bad, but I'm not given any reason to believe that. I'm just being told that India's addition to the permanent security council needs to have clear value. If that value is reduced or even made nonexistent by India's lack of will to take action, then it doesn't matter what they actually bring to the table, even if that is diversity and numbers of people being represented.

-->
@whiteflame

I defaulted membership to be available for all powerful nations that balance each other's greed and powerlust out. This was made crystal clear as the basis for SC membership, I made clear how and why India irrefutably qualifies as representing enough of our species and enough of global interest to compete with at least China and balance it out.

You are the one lying saying I didn't give a basis, Con never gave a shred of it.

-->
@RationalMadman

That's a pretty vague critique. Considering that I agree with your side, I'm not sure what I'm confirming with my bias, nor am I very clear about what words I twisted.

-->
@whiteflame

your vote here has a lot of confirmation bias and twisting of words involved.

-->
@Undefeatable

Mainly, if you're going to try other strategies (say, advocating for an end to the permanent Security Council), do it up front. You had points regarding the veto power that you could have used to build such a case early on, but you'd have to dig into it more to really get there. Also, emphasize why you have a framework in the first place. Even if it's not a great way to establish what the Security Council should do, it's the only clear option discussed in the debate. RM suggests some ways to determine who should be on the council, but they're never all that explicit and they seem a bit arbitrary (you expose yourself to that argument, but at least you have a framework for why your arbitrary choice should be preferred).

-->
@whiteflame

thank you for the vote and spotting the crucial human rights argument! I had difficulty making my mind up whether to keep things practical (why we're currently rejecting India) or keeping things more theoretical (why China is admittedly bad and maybe there's a more objective example of a good country than US/Britain).

Any other tips?

-->
@Undefeatable

TY. Btw I don't really think the rivalry is twosided in terms of who is wrong, I actually think Pakistan is completely in the wrong but I said it was two-sided to neutralise your point and make you turn away from India vs Pakistan as that kind of was the only strong thing for you to build on.

Pakistan was founded on the idea that Muslim Indians couldn't coexist with Hindu Indians. That was the literal justification for the partition. It's also shat led Pakistan to fight within itself (as East Pakistan which included Bangladesh, even though it's on the other side of India, had a more peaceful outlook than West Pakistan). That's what most of India vs Pakistan has been about.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Theweakeredge

thanks for the vote, edge. Also Madman, you are CRUSHING me in the political topics haha. I think I'm pretty bad/mediocre at politics all in all.

-->
@Undefeatable

I actually know nothing about this topic - so I can go in and vote with little bias in regard to the topic, I'll try to read through it and get a vote out by tommorow

-->
@Undefeatable

Got coal’s debate to do first, then this one.

-->
@coal
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
@Theweakeredge

about a week or so left.

-->
@RationalMadman

Didn’t say it was tedious, just a lot on my plate.

-->
@whiteflame

I just vote whenever I feel like it so I understand it's tedious.

-->
@RationalMadman

Just remind me as this goes on. Got a bit of a backlog going that I’m hoping to blitz through this weekend.

-->
@whiteflame

It's complete, if you care to read.

-->
@RationalMadman

I suppose Con side isn't quite as good as "substance" especially for my standard, but a lot of it's related to the simple logic of why status quo is happening

-->
@Undefeatable

I have yet to see this substance but okay. I frankly think the SC is bullshit and should be abolished but if it's not, India absolutely has earned a seat at the table. The only thing you should have focused on is particular aspects of Nuclear treaty agreements that India refuses to be a part of. The rest of the 'military' stuff isn't worth bringing up.

-->
@RationalMadman

Nicely done, madman.

Also funny note: I am actually also PRO on this topic but I found CON fun to argue because there's a lot of substance that you can use to twist it to your favor

-->
@RationalMadman

sorry, I mixed up pro and con again. Silly me.

Be interested to see how this plays out.