Browse By

Advertisements

Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.

Need help taking your debate skills to the next level? Click here to visit my Debate Academy to get personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more. Let’s work together to make you the best.

Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.

This is an interesting resolution. Ultimately, it’s not one which has huge impact points one or the other, but it’s interesting to consider how the UN should make decisions. To that point, it’s important to remember that that is the central question of the resolution. How does the UN determine what it should do?

Definitions

You don’t really need to define anything for this resolution as all the terms are pretty self explanatory. What you do need to make sure you do, though, is have a framework which explains how the UN should make its decisions. Then you need to apply that framework through your contentions to address the resolution.

Pro

1. India is a super power – Security council seats should be determined by a country’s influence on global security. India is a nation that has a dramatic influence on global security. Not only has it been involved in repeated military conflicts with Pakistan, but it’s geographic location in South Asia puts it right between China and the Middle East. It is a necessary cross through for trans-Asian trade and military movements.

2. Military strength and contributions – Few nations contribute more “peace keepers” to the UN than India does. Additionally, India is a nuclear power, which immediately puts it into contention for the security council seat. FDR’s original intent for the security council was to be a police force for the different regions of the world. South Asia and the Middle East lack a representative warden on the council. India is the best candidate for the seat.

**Note: I will make an additional point here that affirming the resolution doesn’t mean other countries should be excluded. You’ll get a lot of, “Why not Japan, Germany, or Brazil?” And you should be comfortable saying, “Sure, give them seats as well.” The same criteria apply to those countries too.

Con

1. The UN Security Council should be dissolved – This resolution affords a great opportunity for a counter plan or kritik (in PF, I know right?!). We can argue that the UNSC is an outdated body that might have made sense after WWII to address fears of another Hitler, but it is actually a barrier now that the political landscape has change. The allied empires are long gone, and though Russia and China might have helped the allies in WWII, their political growth has been dramatically opposed to democratic ideals. Ultimately, the result is that India should not be granted a permanent seat, nobody should. The UNSC should just go away.

2. India has a bad track record – India does not have a good record of security. Terrorist attacks, military conflicts, and even genocide are present within the country’s recent history. Seats are limited, so a country like Germany or Japan will be much better suited to take one of the permanent seats. While their histories may be similarly negative, they have made great strides and progress in changing, while India has not.

Like I said, ultimately this is a low impact theoretical discussion, but hopefully these points help you get started. Good luck!

38 thoughts on “Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.”

  1. unablehippo says:

    I thought that plans are not allowed in PF debate

    1. sxa255 says:

      Who told you that? you can offer a plan/counter plan if you want.

    2. unablehippo says:

      even this website says so: A No. In Public Forum Debate, a plan or counterplan is defined by the NFL as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy.

      1. sxa255 says:

        what website is that?

        1. unablehippo says:

          The website is shattering the lens

          1. sxa255 says:

            Can you give me a link to the page where I said that? If I did, it’s wrong, and I need to fix it.

          2. unablehippo says:
          1. sxa255 says:

            The NFL rules say you’re allowed to offer generalized practical solutions. That’s what we mean when we talk about plans/counterplans. You’re not allowed to offer a detailed implementation plan, like in policy, which is different. Nothing in the post outlines a detailed implementation of anything.

  2. unicorn123 says:

    Note to author: Sorry for all these comments. They were written by some stupid friends. Please delete them.

    1. sxa255 says:

      Note to your friends:

      Hey guys, I can appreciate that it might be fun to do things like this now, but spamming comments on someone else’s page is childish and pointless. I’ve created this place to help debaters with basic frameworks and ideas and create a place where debaters can engage with me and others to discuss the current topics. All you’re doing is unnecessarily interrupting that. I can delete your comments and block your emails, so you’re not accomplishing anything either. If your goal was to annoy me, though, then you’ve accomplished that. This website isn’t hurting you, so if it helps someone and they want to engage with the content, why do you feel compelled to be negative about that? What enjoyment does that bring you? And if it does make you happy to annoy other people and make their lives more difficult, then think about what that says about the kind of person you are. If you want to engage with me about the topic, feel free, but please stop spamming my blog.

      1. javascript929 says:

        Mr.Sultan Ahmed I have a question. Will India being in the security council stabilize the Middle east? and will India not being in the security council destabilize the middle east?

        1. javascript929 says:

          also will india reduce terrorism by joining the security council?

          1. sxa255 says:

            Also a hypothetical. You could argue that it will, but you can also argue that it won’t.

        2. sxa255 says:

          That’s a broad hypothetical question. You could argue it either way.

  3. Unicorn123 says:

    What to do you think of this topic? Do you think it will be fun to debate? Also I don’t understand why the UNSC should be disassembled. Isn’t it essential for keeping peace.

    Thank you.

    1. sxa255 says:

      I think it’s a pretty boring topic because we’re mostly talking in hypotheticals about a “governing” body which ultimately has little global impact.

      1. Devil123 says:

        This topic is not low impact. War and security are serious issues. UNSC has a huge impact on fighting terrorism, and other stuff. With India’s help they can fight these very serious problems. Even you talk about genocide and the bad stuff happening in India, and how with India’s influence the UNSC could get distracted. Innocent people dying isn’t a low impact.

        1. Cat In The Hat 112 says:

          I have a question. In your second Neg contention, you say that India has a bad track record, but can’t opponents state that India is a nuclear power (basically your second Aff contention). How should Neg refute this?

          1. bruhhh says:

            You’re so bad…….. India’s nuclear power obviously hasn’t worked cuz genocide and terrorist attacks still happen genius.

          2. sxa255 says:

            Keep it respectful, and check your arrogance. You don’t know everything, and your arguments aren’t that great. Genocide is not happening in India. And the existence of terrorist attacks doesn’t say anything about nuclear weapons.

          3. sxa255 says:

            I don’t understand your question. How does India being a nuclear power refute India having a bad track record?

        2. sxa255 says:

          You have a very surface level understanding of international politics. The UNSC has ultimately had very little impact on the actual actions of countries. The UN’s impotence when it comes to actual action is one of its biggest criticisms. It is difficult to warrant any argument that speculates on what will happen if India does or doesn’t join the UN.

  4. unicorn123 says:

    Is it okay if I cite you for my case? Sorry if it seems like I am pestering you with questions.

    Thank you.

    1. sxa255 says:

      I am not an expert or a legitimate source. You should be citing actual research.

      1. Ashwin says:

        So your not actually a graduate in philosophy and bioethics….

        1. sxa255 says:

          I am, yes, but neither of those are degrees in South Asian geopolitics

  5. booboofacebuthead1234 says:

    how is this topic low impact since it could involve terrorism which could lead to death?

    1. sxa255 says:

      It’s low impact because India getting on the security is unlikely to suddenly cause huge changes. It’s very difficult to make a good argument about terrorism that is high impact.

  6. PFD8 says:

    Are there any impacts that would negatively affect people if India did not join UNSC?

    1. sxa255 says:

      I’ve given you a few frameworks in the post. You can take a look at those.

  7. unicorn123 says:

    Can we run nuclear proliferation on neg, saying that India tried to join the council by going nuclear, and if we let them do that, then we’re setting a bad example for other countries? We could talk about how this lead to a nuclear arms race with Pakistan. Other countries might try to go nuclear to join the council, if we let India get away with it.

    1. sxa255 says:

      Sure, I like that argument.

  8. unablehippo says:

    Hey sultan Ahmed, is India bad at dicision making

    1. sxa255 says:

      I’m not sure what you’re asking here, so I don’t know how to answer this question. What do you mean bad at decision making?

  9. gdhsjkl. says:

    India said that they are ready to join the UNSC without veto power. Right?

  10. unablehippo says:

    on neg can we run efficiency saying that with more countries in the UNSC the decision making will slow down because more countries will have the power to veto.

  11. dska; says:

    on neg can we run efficiency saying that with more countries in the UNSC the decision making will slow down because more countries will have the power to veto.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *