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

A one world government

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 927 times Debate No: 78798
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




So I was wondering about how the world would look if we were to have a one world government. The world would have just one government with complete control over all nations. This would obviously require so much hard work for it to ever come true but I believe that we could do it, if we joined together as one. There wouldn't need to be countries as we would have only one flag. We would all live together as one. We would be greater, richer and smarter. What do you people think?


I would have to disagree. It would mean so much power. If all the nations were gathered into one and there was only a single goverment that one government would have all the power in the world.

There is an amount of power in the world today. This power is split into equal bits for each government.

Supposing all this power was given to just one government of the whole world.

That government would be so powerful they could just do as they wished. All the power would be theirs. There is no opposing them.

What you are basically saying is lets say all the power in the world belonged to one government. You cannot oppose them.

This government can do as they please and nobody can stop them.

You CANT oppose them. No matter how strong you are. Because this government has all the power in the world. No opposing them.
Debate Round No. 1


And the problem is? There would be nothing wrong with a government to have full control, would there? As long as they make choices which is for the good of the people, and corporations, then what is the issue?

And people could still speak up if they wanted to. It's not like it would be an evil, fascist group, which would kill anyone who stands up, would it? It'd be a democracy. You'd still be able to vote on things. and have a say on things.


Well each country is on a different land isn't it? each country is separated by an ocean. If there were to be a one world government where would it be stationed?

Let's say for example the one world government was in Australia. The role of a government is to protect the people.

There is a serial killer in London which is killing residents of the city. As the government they must stop it musn't they?

But... From AUSTRALIA its quite hard to protect Britain.

Unless you could say the one world government had more then one base which was stated on each country the plan wouldn't work out.

Even when there is a base on each country its not REALLY a one world government then is it?

Plus each land that is a country needs different needs. So the government itself would have to think of solutions to each countries problem.

Where as a solution to a problem in America may not be the solution to a problem in Russia. Each of the countries needs are different.

Plus think of the LEADER of this government. He has control over the entire world. He is more or less the king of the world.

You say as long as they make choices for the good of people then its ok. Supposedly you are correct. But as I have said the good of the americans may be different from the good of the british.

Let's say one country is swarming with disease which is killing many residents. But another country is clean and no disease is spread.

There are a lot of problems in countries which are much more convientently solved if each country has its own government rather then there being a one world government.
Debate Round No. 2


Just because a government doesn't have it building in a certain place doesn't mean that it can't stop crimes. What you said is silly. The government doesn't deal with serial killers the police do. So the police will deal with the issue in that country. That's like me saying because the government is based in London they can't deal with problems in Leeds?

& yes other countries do have different needs to others. But the role of a one world government would be to attend to these needs as best as possible.

It'd be good if countries from all over the world could vote in one person to represent their country. Then whoever they vote in goes into the one world government. There wouldn't be 'one ruler' it'd be a group of people. A new world order.


In Australia things work quite oddly. The middle of the land is very very hot. Where as the outskirts are much cooler. So people tend to live around the outside. Their needs as you can see from that will be very different from the needs of that of Britain which doesn't need as much help keeping cool.

With a one world government the only thing you could really say to solve these mixtures is that there will be a department in the government one for each country and each one is supposed to meet its national needs.

But that kind of defeats the idea of it being a one world goverment doesn't it?
Debate Round No. 3


Basically what you're saying is wrong. A OWG would only have to be based in one place, it wouldn't need to be based in several other locations. & it most certainly wouldn't defeat the object. It would be a good, stable idea, which would most certainly take years and years to implement but it would be worth it.


It would defeat the idea of a OWG if there were departments for each country. Because when you think about it the departments may not have the TITLE "government" but they match the definiton dont they?
"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."-definition of government

The departments match this definition dont they? So there you are.

Plus without the idea of these departments then the government for the whole world won't be good. If it was just one group of people in charge of running the whole world it wouldn't fit would it?

As I have explained.

Taking the example of currency.

Each country has different needs for currency don't they? Each bank is different and thus needs different things.

If there was only one group in charge of all these banks they would have to fit ideas into all the banks needs. And what one bank might need the other bank might not. It would be so much work.

What's more convenient? One group to look after all the banks in the world or one group for each bank?

As you can see it'll be a bad idea if option two is not taken. And if option two IS taken it does defeat the idea of being a OWG because while it may have the title of "department" it has the definition of a government. So it more or less for that reason IS a government.
Debate Round No. 4


Take a look at the European Union. They are basically taking over the world because they will be soon coming out of Europe, as they make other countries join them. They have changed the currency for many countries in Europe, they make many, many laws & they have been having talks about an EU army. So a one world currency would work. Along side a 'one world army.' It is a brilliant idea, which should be implemented sooner rather than later.


Perhaps a one world currency isn't such a bad idea but there would be no need for a one world army seeing as we aren't going to be invaded by Mars or something.

Plus what about power addicts?

Thinking about world war two for example. If there had been your idea of a one world government the world would be in a worse state.

People like Hitler will always exist. Those who want power and won't rest until they get it. When these power maniacs come into power the only reason we can stop them is because we have something of more or equal power.

For example we could only defeat the Nazi Party and end the Holocaust because we had a British Government which was matched in power to Hitler. If we didn't have that we wouldn't have the ability to beat him would we?

Things like that aren't only happening in those days no no. There are many Hitlers in the world. People always come into power.

And when these power maniacs do the only reason we can stop them is because we have equal power.

Supposing one of these power maniacs got to be the one world government. We do NOT have equal power.

There is no equal power. There is only one government remember? and this government has all the power in the world. For this reason we have nothing of equal power. Thus the Hitler of this century wins. A OWG for that reason could do some very very big harm and might possibly lead to the end of humanity.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sooner 3 years ago
Clash of religions fighting to control Earth would cause a big problem...
Posted by Towarzysz 3 years ago

I think we are taking the idea of the one world government to the kind of extreme and unrealistic level. The closest we might get to one world government is extending the authority and importance of United Nations.
We could restructure the UN facilities and craft the "One World Government or Council" out of said organisation.

Countries would stay as they are. Of course they would officially cease to exist (along with the borders) but the cultures and regional governments (answering to UN in one form or another) would remain in place. It's foolish to assume just because One World Government would be formed all of the diversity, culture and local laws around the world would vanish over night. The chances are, average citizens would not even notice that something like One World Government exists until many years after its founding. Creating OWG (One World Government, gonna use this shortcut from now on since the word is kidna long :D) would be a massive responsibility which would call for decentralised power. In other words, decision making would never belong to one person and instead would be voted in by some sort of democratic council. However OWG would most likely call for a new type of political system not yet ever seen or tested before, a liquid type of society which might switch from socialist to capitalist over time in regards to the current need.

Stabilising the world and redistribution of wealth among poorer nations would be another OWG concern which would require total and I mean TOTAL 100% co-operation within the OWG members. Such cooperation is not possible and the conflicts are bound to happen and therefore creating something as OWG would take a very long time and several generations educated to carry on the project of uniting the world. I would estimate it would take around 3-5 generations of citizen to fully establish a working One World Government.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 3 years ago
The problem with a one world government is that power corrupts, and infinite power corrupts infinitely. Individual nation's governments can't govern their land effectively, harming businesses and the general population with absurd taxes and stupid laws, and you expect a world government to be better? One of the great things about the U.S. is that if you don't like the laws of the state you live in, you can move to a location with more favorable laws. The same thing, to some extent, is true with the world. Another great thing about America is that we have a Constitution to reinforce our rights, with the unique idea that they're given to us by our Creator (or, for Darwinists, "nature") and not by man. Foreign countries don't have this distinct advantage, and creating a universal government would destroy both of these ideas, leaving everyone open to oppression and voicelessness. If you can't speak your mind, there is tyranny. And to enforce your right to speak your mind, you need to be armed. If you can't arm yourself (many countries have already banned firearms to some extent), if the universal government decides to outlaw firearms, then how can you enssure freedom?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: It was a close argument, but I elected to vote for Con since they actually introduced new points, while Pro simply refuted Con's arguments or repeated his debate topic without backing it up. Their grammar was about on par, and neither used sources. Finally, Pro tended to make generalizations like "What you're saying is silly" or "What you're saying is wrong" without explaining why. Con at least attempted to back up his arguments.