The Instigator
Matthew_Mullen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NausicaaFrostfire
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

A coming new age, is global government needed for a technocratic society?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
NausicaaFrostfire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 35849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Matthew_Mullen

Pro

I believe global government is beneficial for the foundation of global empowerment of earth. A one world currency would create a stable economic world. A global military would create a never before global super power that will eradicate any form of opposition. The future holds a global government, there has to be a alien like power base equalized among the people. The social class wouldn't have rich and poor. People would be born to serve the state(world.)
NausicaaFrostfire

Con

I do not agree with you in that a one world currency would create a stable economic world. Even with every country having the same type of money it does not change that countries will owe each other money, there will be really rich people and really poor people.
A global military also would not work. There would be some power hunger leader who would slowly start to create their own army inside the global military. Countries all have pride for themselves and it would be hard for them to push past this pride and work together as on big military force.
Finally if it were possibly to create an equalized power among people there would still be some inequalities. People are greedy so even if everyone earned the same, there would be thieves and burglars who would forcefully push themselves to be richer than everyone else. You also have to wonder if it is fair for a doctor to be making the same amount of money as a housekeeper.
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew_Mullen

Pro

Almost every country is in major debt, the only solution is to give up their individual currency and accept a global currency. If you have a technocratic society, people would still have the same social order. Same apartments, etc. Paper money would not exist, it would be all digital. And having a global government, only the country would have the money power, not the people. All the people would just serve the state. If we have a technological society, you wouldn't really have any privacy because all speech would go into a super computer. So any talk of opposition would be quickly exterminated. You have to think, a new age creates a new type of human, a new way of thinking. If people had no idea of paper money, that would change the entire way of human thinking. Just think about it, it's a bigger picture.
NausicaaFrostfire

Con

If the world was run the way you think it should be, wouldn't the government have way to much power over the people of their countries. I will agree with you it would help get countries out of debt but in return we would lose are individuality. People also should have the right to rise up for the beliefs and not get "exterminated" for wanting to change the way they live. I also belief that if people start to rely to much on technology it will take over are lives. We need to remember how to live our lives are way and not have to need technology every were we go. There is nothing wrong with staying in the past. A world filled with technology loses all its personality and that is the bigger picture.
Debate Round No. 2
Matthew_Mullen

Pro

Yes, the government would have all the power over its people. But their would be a higher power above that, and like I mentioned, would eradicate any acts of opposition to the main agenda. Technology has already controlled 80% of our lives. With this new age, heaven will fall, and sin; devour all. With a technocratic society, people would have the same minds, only a few with different minds, but all with the same agenda. We will gain the power of the human genome, and create man in OUR image. My vision of the future will be a technological society, and reproduction will be controlled. Any child born with a mental illness, autism, etc, will be silently eliminated. One child policy, any more children will need government approval. This way, we can control the food and produce a totally new system of food.
NausicaaFrostfire

Con

If the government has total power over its people live it would seem to be like more of a dictatorship across the entire world. There has been times in history where this way of running the country has proven to not be so good. (World War 2). In any case the government is not always right, and it should not be allowed to have complete power over are lives. Technology also can not solve all problems in life. Even if we do gain greater technology it does have its limits and people need to know how to life if those limits are reach (therefore not completely relying on technology). I do not agree at all with the fact that you believe that if any child is born with any short of disability should be "eliminated" as you so kindly put it. Every one deserves to live their life even if they are not perfect; which no one on this world is. Getting government approval to have more than one child also seems very ridiculous. What would the standards be to have more than one children. This just seems like favoritism towards certain people. It will not help control food problem because no matter how you distribute food across the world; there will still be those who get more and those who get less. Having more technology will help the world I will agree to that, but letting technology and the government control are lives does not help anyone, not at all.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Matthew_MullenNausicaaFrostfireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, pro is essentially the borg. Neither side gave any sources or definitions. Pro gave no proof as to how individuals rights would be guaranteed in a global government. Plus, it would work because someone would want to take it over.