This is a mini debate I had against myself for History. REPOSTING!!! Done on a forum in AsknLearn. My gosh, i hate online work TT.TT But it was kind of ok to have a forum.
Here goes XDXDXD
(This House Believes That the League Of Nations was a Toothless Tiger.)

Ok, i read all the "hence" and nice sentences, and i'm sorry to say i don't flow like that in forums. Forums are fun, and being informal makes it much better and flexible, as long as you aren't rude :) so... well, yeah.

A'ight. Let's go, let's go!! XD
Um, yeah. I do think so. The whole "LON is just a toothless tiger thing." well, firstly, yeah, i do remember that i did this debating thing FOR the LON, but i mean, come on ==" it was because i preferred fighting the tough side. And there are actually a lot of failures of the LON, and holes in my case to be POKED.
Firstly, i quoted lots of successes of the LON, but hey, these successes were really TINY. Really. Ok, they solved territorial issues like the whole Sweden verses Finland over the Aaland Islands thing. But check this. They weren't able to prevent BIG things from happening. LIKE?
WARS. (-gasps- WARS!!! Ahhh!!!!!)
MAJOR DISPUTES. (OMG, that's bad.)
INVASIONS. (Wow. That's not good either.)
Ok, these are SERIOUS issues, people. Granted that there are reasons for these disputes, but despite that, it was the ONUS (it's a fancy word for responsibility, ok, so you can use that in your essays :D) of the LON to solve these disputes, or it would VIOLATE its main cause, which was to maintain peace. And we all know that the LON FAILED to maintain peace between many people, and so the treaty is FLAWED.
Heh.
(Yeah, i really wasn't kidding when i said i post informally, i know.)
But if you want it formal style, all that stuff up there can be summarised like this :D >>>>>>>>
No, it isn't true that the LON was a success. It had FAILED in MANY different areas, such as the disputes between Poland and Vilna, Greece and Turkey. And the FAILURE to settle these disputes in a SATISFACTORY MANNER led to invasions and the LOSS of many LIVES. This proves that the LON also failed to uphold its main priority aim of PEACE.
Even if the LON had managed to somehow uphold it's priority of peace, it STILL FAILS because it's other aims were not fulfilled EITHER, such as DISARMAMENT. Notice that nothing was done about the situation of weaponry till other external treaties were set up, such as the Kellog-Briand treaty. This is a vital and pivotal aim that the LON had FAILED to fulfill.
Furthermore, the successes of LON were MINOR and INSIGNIFICANT compared to its LARGE FAILURES, which led to the loss of LIVES and ultimately much INSECURITY, which defeats its ORIGINAL PURPOSE of assuring people that there was PEACE and SAFETY between themselves and OTHER COUNTRIES.
(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Debators will understand the No, Even if and Furthermore thing. rofl, lol. Inside joke, sorry, sorry. Onward, people. Actually, the thing is when someone says COMPLETE failure or sucess. Ok, this is a History forum, but you have to sound convincing in an essay, yes yes? :D The word to ATTACK is COMPLETE. Even if the LON fails by a little bit, it is STILL A FAILURE, since the word COMPLETE leaves no room for greys and only black and white. [Get it, get it??] Gosh, i hope i'm making sense.)


Ok, but if i was fighting FOR the LON (again... =="), My argument would run something like this.
Alright, look. LON really DID have its uses, ok. (Wow, MAJOR contradiction from my top argument XD) See here, it HAD solved many disputes. Even if they seemed like SMALL and INSIGNIFICANT things, these would have SNOWBALLED into larger arguments later on if not NIPPED IN THE BUD, right?? They would have ESCALATED into full blown wars. Just because the LON didn't manage to solve a few other disputes which seemed large doesn't mean that it was a COMPLETE failure.
The LON succeeded in the following:
SOCIAL WELFARE (V. Important, peeps. Especially after WAR, ok.)
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES (It was stated intheir AIMS, so yeah, it MATTERS.)
(Note: If you want to make the LON seem like a failure, use stronger words like FAILED or INSIGNIFICANT SUCCESSES, but if you want to make it seem like a success, say things like "other disputes that SEEMED large". The difference it makes is appalling. Rofl =v=)
'Sides, we have to remember that the LON helped in terms of social welfare and stuff like that. so actually, it isn't really a failure. Lookie down.
And also, if the LON is really SO ridiculously useless, why is it still around in the form of UN??! Doesn't make sense. It's a weak argument though, so just use it as the furthermore...
Let's go FORMAL!!:
No, it is an ACCUSATION that the LON is a COMPLETE failure. The LON, while it had failed to prevent several MINOR DISPUTES from escalating, had managed to stop a MAJORITY of the NOTICABLE disputes from SNOWBALLING into something more.
Even if these efforts were unsuccessful, It helped with POST-WAR CONDITIONS in several ways, especially SOCIALLY, whereby many efforts to IMPROVE post war conditions were made. These included ENSURING everyone had a STABLE source of FOOD and DRINK, and bring WAR VETERANS back to their HOMES.
Furthermore, as the LON had managed to fulfill ALL of its aims to a RATHER LARGE EXTENT, it is STILL around in the form of the UN. This proves that even though the LON MAY have failed in SELECTED areas, it had SUCCEEDED MORE than it has failed, and THUS the LON is a SUCCESS!!
(Ok, it sounds nice and looks pretty, but actually, that's alot of crap. There are LOADS of HOLES to POKE!! But YOU have to find those on YOUR OWN :D have fun!)

And this concludes my case on the LON ^^

Info from Wikipedia and lots of other sites and the Textbook.