Resolved: The United Nations should abolish permanent membership on its Security Council.

Legitimacy versus engagement

Pro’s indictment is easy to write. Five states, the victors of a war eighty years ago, hold permanent seats and vetoes that let any one of them block responses to aggression, including their own. India, Africa and Latin America have no permanent seat. The Council’s deadlock on the defining conflicts of this era is Pro’s main exhibit for a body whose structure has outlived its legitimacy. Con’s foundational answer is the lesson of the League of Nations: institutions that outvote great powers don’t restrain them, they lose them. Permanence and the veto keep nuclear powers negotiating in the same room instead of walking away from the system.

The transition problem

Con’s most practical weapon is Article 108. Amending the Charter requires the P5’s own consent, so abolition is something the targets would have to ratify. Pro shouldn’t retreat into pure idealism. The better response treats the resolution ("should") as the direction of institutional pressure and argues that reform coalitions, General Assembly workarounds and legitimacy costs are how impossible reforms become inevitable. Still, expect Con to win feasibility often. Pro’s path is winning that a Council broken by design is worse than a risky transition.

What replaces permanence matters

Abolishing permanent membership doesn’t abolish the Council, and rounds get better when teams debate what comes after: all seats elected, regional rotation, weighted majorities for decisions on the use of force. Pro gains credibility by sketching the mechanism, and Con gains offense by stress-testing it. Would rotating members resist great-power pressure better or worse than entrenched ones? The side that fills in the post-abolition picture with specifics usually shapes what the judge imagines.