It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Round 1. Grimreaper797 vs. Xraided: Building Africa

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:07 AM
The topic for this debate is "Africa must organize itself to handle problems such as Rwanda and the Darfur, not the UN or NATO".

Grimreaper797 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Xraided will argue con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.

Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only one image and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:07 PM
I would like to open by saying "thank you" to all the Mods who have made this debate possible. I would further like to thank all of ATS for being able to make such an event possible. 37

Now, we can all agree that such tragedies happening in Africa must be handled because they are crimes against humanity. However, the real question is "Shouldn't Africa be handling such tragedies instead of the UN or NATO?" The answer to that is simple, Yes. It is obvious as day that Africa must handle its own affairs. Though the UN may be able to help, it is not their job to do so. The state in africa should serve justice in their state, not NATO. A failure to do so should be brought up with the UN to punish the Leaders of these states. The state should try its own people though. 109

We should all be aware that major nations such as the U.S.A., Russia, and China, would be permitted to handle such affairs on their own rather then the UN getting involved. Incidence such as the holocaust cannot be counted because it was an international affair. Something that takes place over multiple nations must be referred to the UN. Think of the UN as like the FBI. The FBI has no right to be in an investigation unless it links to a possible multiple state crime. This is the standard we must set for the UN. Africa must live up to its expectations as a nation, and handle its affairs accordingly. Only if it fails to do so then the Government of such states should be brought to the UN. 129

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:54 AM
Xraided has missed the deadline and forfeited their opening statement. Grimreaper797, please prepare and post a continuance of your arguement. Xraided will have a maximum deadline within which to post of 24 hours after that.

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:47 AM
Let us first start with what reasons the UN was formed.

The primary objectives of the United Nations (UN), as laid down in its Charter, are to avoid the recurrence of violent conflicts, affirm fundamental human rights, guarantee respect for international law and improve living standards across the globe.

so in a sense the UN can help in such circumstances. But and this is a big but, the UN's job is not to handle it fully. If a country or state in africa cannot handle its own crisises then they should not be in such positions of the government and should be replaced. It is not the job of the UN to be the government of every nation but rather make sure every government abides by international rules. The UN takes part more in enforcing international rules through the government rather then directly with the people.

There simply isnt much to argue after that, if a government of a country cant handle its affairs then UN should make sure that this government goes out of power and a new government comes in. The UN is most likely to not put in a government bias to a certain country since all major countries are represented in the UN. Any government installed by the UN will obviously be impartial to all major nations. The UN installing a government that will handle its affairs like a government should is our best bet. The UN cant go running around fighting every battle on every front. They must use that countries government so they can combat such tragedies while having the maximum effect.

In the end its the countries government to handle the affairs, and its the UNs job to make sure that these governments do

The trial and judgment of these men combined with other recent events demonstrate the government's readiness to deny the civil and political rights of individuals and civil society organizations that dare to criticize the RPF-controlled government.

maybe if the UN upheld what it should be doing, a government life this wouldn't be around to let such tragedies happen. Overall we should ask the UN why haven't they forced the government to act, after all the government there are the ones in charge of their country. Shouldn't they be the first ones to handle a tragedy in their own country?

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:57 PM
Xraided has missed another deadline, and thus forfeits the debate. Grimreaper797 advances to Round 2.

top topics

log in