Argument: The veto power is an anachronism that does not suit the contemporary international society and it's power relations.

The permanent five (P5) were given this privilege for two reasons that have no application in the post-Cold War world. Firstly, the Allied powers, with the addition of China, sought to bind themselves to the UN organisation that was designed to prevent the depredations of the Second World War ever recurring. Secondly, the P5 held unrivalled strategic might through their possession of nuclear weapon technology or imminent nuclear capacity. Yet, the UN is no longer in any danger of imminent collapse. The P5 will abandon neither the organisation nor the cause of global peace by loss of the veto power. Moreover, the global power balance has shifted dramatically since 1945; the P5 'do not reflect the geopolitical realities of today'1. Nuclear proliferation has accelerated in the past decade, such that inter alia India, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq and Iran are developing inter-continental ballistic capacity. 1 Kafala, T. (2003, September 17). The veto and how to use it. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from BBC News

Candidate 1: "Constitutional change within the UN is possible and thus worthy of full discussion. As Richard Butler has observed, a proper debate about the defects of the veto might at the least yield a more constructive interpretation of the nature of the veto and its application1. An informed public awareness of the potential for the Security Council to be bypassed or hijacked might lead to pressure for exercise of the power in accordance with the Charter aims. Notably, China was persuaded or compelled not to cast the veto in respect of the Council measures on Kosovo. This reasonable approach prevailed in spite of vocal Chinese opposition to the bombing campaign, and the destruction of the Chinese embassy by NATO forces. 1 Butler, R. (1999, August 19). Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Chicago Tribune:"
Candidate 2: "The efficacy of the United Nations Security Council is dependent on the participation of the world's most powerful states, which is in large part due to the possession of the veto power. Removing the veto, or granting it only to those who contribute their fair share to the United Nations budget risks undermining the very structures that have made the Security Council the platform for co-ordinated international action. For example, whilst China is not one of the top contributors to the budget of the organization, it's economic and military strength are enormous and if the Security Council is to remain relevant, China must be encouraged to remain at the table. The veto power ensures unilateralism is a secondary thought."
Candidate 3: "The veto is not wielded as an ideological tool, but rather a tool of national interest like any other diplomatic tool. The recent case of Libya, whereby the veto power was not used by any of the P5, demonstrated the ability of the Security Council to align themselves to the cause of civilian protection. For this reason, it should also be noted that collective security is often indistinguishable from the national interests of the P5. The military might of each of the P5 members individually, and within separate groups, notably the UK and US axis within NATO, is such that the avoidance of disagreement is crucial to international peace. Even if the P5 did cast their vetoes for reasons of ideological self-interest, this cost is outweighed by the maintenance of unity that becomes ever more critical in the post-Cold War multipolar world."
Candidate 4: "Only the abolishment of the veto power would enable global action free from the political motives and inherent power politics of the veto powers. Absent of the veto, motions would be considered and passed on merit, not on the self-interest and political motives of the veto powers.As Tarik Kafala argues, 'the majority view at the Council would prevail and we might expect more resolutions passed, more situations identified as threats to world security, more cases of states being reprimanded and sanctions being imposed'1. Far from destabilising the world order, the removal of veto power would merely enshrine self-determination within the organization that purports to carry that principle to the world. 1 Kafala, T. (2003, September 17). The veto and how to use it. Retrieved May 13, 2011, from BBC News"
Candidate 5: "The veto power is still as relevant as it ever was. As the opposition notes, the veto power was granted to ensure the victors in World War II that they could prevent the escalation to world war that had so ravaged their lands and populations. The maintenance of the 'long peace' over the subsequent half-century can be at least partially attributed to the effectiveness of the Security Council veto; the P5 are tempted away from military solutions towards diplomatic feuds due to their ability to bring overbearing political power to bear on rivals. For example, fears of Iran's acquirement of a nuclear weapon have been abetted by US-sponsored efforts to impose sanctions on the regime. Without the veto power, the Security Council would not remain in its current, useful form and may not have prevented a resort to war in this case."
Candidate 6: "Treaties do not confer permanent and inalienable rights; they should be constantly subject to reform when their dictates conflict with the wishes of their voters. In an institution like the United Nations, which espouses self-determination, the existence of a power which is immune from reform is not a source of pride. If the veto powers had a right to the veto when they were first introduced, that right has now been lost in the chorus of disapproval found among the very same U.N. member states that granted them that right. In a political environment, if an elected official loses the will of their voters, the elected official does not get to choose whether they keep those elected powers. The power remains with they who grant the powers, the voters."
Candidate 7: "The Security Council is a unifying force, regardless of its veto powers. Its history of mandating U.N. interventions to prevent humanitarian disasters is on the record and clear. Though many point to the Srebrenica massacre in the former Yugoslavia, few recall the success of the U.N. mission in bringing that conflict to a peaceful resolution. Furthermore, unilateral actions, undertaken without recourse to the Security Council, are often eventually rectified through the Council anyway. The legality of the NATO action in both Yugoslavia and Kosovo was subsequently scheduled for consideration by another organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice. Following the conflict NATO and Russia sought and achieved Security Council endorsement of the campaign. The Council then authorised the deployment of a peacekeeping force in order to police Kosovo. The Security Council thus proved to be a unifying force despite the presence of the veto power."

The veto power is still as relevant as it ever was. As the opposition notes, the veto power was granted to ensure the victors in World War II that they could prevent the escalation to world war that had so ravaged their lands and populations. The maintenance of the 'long peace' over the subsequent half-century can be at least partially attributed to the effectiveness of the Security Council veto; the P5 are tempted away from military solutions towards diplomatic feuds due to their ability to bring overbearing political power to bear on rivals. For example, fears of Iran's acquirement of a nuclear weapon have been abetted by US-sponsored efforts to impose sanctions on the regime. Without the veto power, the Security Council would not remain in its current, useful form and may not have prevented a resort to war in this case.
