The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A 'New World Order' would have a positive impact on the well-being of humanity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 265 times Debate No: 80849
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




To clarify, I am arguing that an international governing agency of some sort would have a positive impact on the well-being of humanity. By "international governing agency", I mean something more powerful than the UN. Defining terms below.

'New World Order' - A metaphor. This term means some governing body that has objective international authority. This does not necessarily include all countries, but enough countries such that the power is unrivaled in strength and powerful enough to cause direct change.

positive impact - Self explanatory. If something has a positive impact on an agent, the agent is better off for it in the end, on balance.

humanity - The whole of mankind.

well-being - A state characterised by happiness, health, prosperity and productivity, on balance.


1. Definition are non-negotiable and are accepted as is. Clarifications are to be made in the comment section prior to the debate. Acceptance of debate without clarification is equivalent to accepting definitions provided.

2. No semantic arguments. You are to argue the obvious counter-point. Unique arguments are encouraged. Obviously semantic and non-constructive arguments are not encouraged and will result in an immediate loss.

3. Burden of proof is shared. Since pro can't objectively prove this point should stand and since con can't objectively prove it shouldn't, the more compelling argument wins.


R1: Acceptance. Any definitions clarified in comments and accepted by me should be mentioned by Con.

R2: Arguments. No rebuttals. Don't address the opponent's arguments.

R3: Rebuttals. New arguments allowed.

R4: Rebuttals. No new arguments. Only clarifications.

R5: Closing remarks. No new arguments. You can address opponent's arguments, but focus on making your point.



whats wrong with democracy??? it works fine, one world government is horrible isn't that why we broke away from England in the first place, to escape a monarch and chance of tyranny why would we back step all the way and further past that?
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank my opponent, TheDodoLord, for accepting. In accepting this debate, he has also accepted all rules that go with it. I'd like to remind my opponent that Round 1 is for acceptance only and that Round 2 is for making your original arguments.

As such, I will not address my opponent's R1 arguments until he makes them in R2. I'd also like to remind my opponent, one last time, that in Round 2 he is not to address my oponening arguments. That is what R3-5 are for.

I'll begin with my arguments. Any additional clarification or evidence can be provided upon command.

A Case for the New World Order

As was stated previously, by saying "New World Order", I don't intend for it to mean the same thing as it is stereotypicall referred to. Rather, it is a collection of governments united under an authority that has a large degree of control over many of the actions of these countries. I am not arguing that all countries in the world should be a part of this, rather that a majority of them are (in terms of political, military and economic strength.) It is clear that some countries, perhaps those like North Korea, would not be suitable NWO candidates.

The Advantages

1. A centralized authority would hedge against technological mass-destruction.

It is quite apparent to anyone who has lived for more than a decade that technology is rapidly developing and changing. Just ten years ago there did not exist an iPhone. It wasn't until the '70's that internet existed. Before that was the advent of the nuclear weapon. As technological prowess increases, so does the ability for people to help and hurt others.

We can define a ratio -- which we will call the Kills Until Death ratio -- which is the number of casualities a single individual can cause before being apprehended or killed. This Ratio has changed throughout time. Before the advent of the gun, a good swordsman likely had a ratio of 3 or 4. (3 or 4 kills before being stopped.) With the gun, this was increased, perhaps to around 10 or so. With automatic weapons and more powerful semi-automatic weaponry, the KUD ratio was around 50.

Militaristically, before the 40's we saw powerful mortars, cannons, and armored vehicles. If a signle man somehow got control of this, their KUD could be in the hundreds. Then, in 1945, a bomb fell on Hiroshima, resulting in about 75,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries. Clearly one man does not, at this time, have to power to cause such damage. But nuclear weapons have only become more numerous and more deadly. This gives one mad man a KUD in the hundreds of thousands.

Hopefully this compact table will illustrate my point.

Pre-1360's Swords/Cannons 4+
1364 Handguns 10+
1892 Automatic Wps 40+
1916 Tank 80+
1945 Nuclear Wps 75,000+
2015 Mdrn/Imprvd Wp 250,000+

It is clear that technology is evolving at such a rapid rate that it's misuse gives madmen unnaceptably high KUD's. This cannot be totally circumvented, as madmen will always exist. However, robust oversight and monitoring of international militaristic affairs would hedge much of this threat. With a NWO, development of technology specifically geared toward miitary use would not be a high priority, as the combined existing military strength of the NWO would protect and the ties of the NWO itself would prevent countries from going to war with one another.

Additionally, all countries would be held to the same international laws as one another. The local laws may very, given cultural and environmental differences, but decisions that affect other countries would necessary need to conform to law. A lot of tension in today's world exists either because a) one country's actions are not prohibited by treaty or b) the lack of real power of such a treaty of international ruling is not strong enough to deter action.

A technological disaster is not a maybe, it is a definite. However, with a NWO, we would be able to curb this threat, perhaps long enough to find a more permanent solution to the issue.

2. A NWO would result in a redistribution of resources, helping many in need.

Currently, superpowers are quite charitable toward many countries less fortunate. However, the formation of a NWO, with the power to levy taxes and fines, would create a financial and technological redistribution, allowing countries to receive additional and much needed aid. Currently, superpowers are only willing to give what is politically convenient. A NWO would necessariy do this, as it would be a politically convenient move to develop underutiized resources in poor countries -- specifically human capital.

3. NWO would allow humanity to better conquer its many issues.

There is no doubt that the majority of humanity wants to improve itself, but the actual goals of improvement differ from country to country and most often are not in synch. An overarching power would allow better focusing of resources, given the additional intelligence and direction given by a NWO.

Additionally, a concerted effort to fight enemies of the NWO could be made. Cultures that refuse to accept the NWO's ideals and who refuse to live cooperatively or dettached from the NWO would be met with unrivaled force. For instance, it's quite probable some countries would wish not to partake in the NWO, given certain religious beliefs. Should said country act violently against the NWO, the perpetrator of such acts could easily be removed.


I would have provided a few more arguments as well as made more clear my existing ones, but based upon my opponent's original response, I'm afraid that he may have accepted this debate without realizing what all that would entail. (I certainly hope he proves me wrong.)

Again, simply present your case, Con. We will present rebuttals next round, not this one.



TheDodoLord forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Carry over my arguments from the previous round.


TheDodoLord forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


TheDodoLord forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I made arguments. The opponent did not address these. Extend these arguments and vote for me. Thanks.


TheDodoLord forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.