The Instigator
PatCam
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Aldric_Winterblade
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 18710
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

PatCam

Pro

What would you think of a planet wich there is no nation that can declare war on antoher. Were the riches of the world is shared with each other. It could be like the USA were all nations are states and they elect a president.
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

Greetings! I will be happy to accept the Con side of this debate (though I'd be happier if debate.org's text editor didn't cut out a letter here and there all the time), and wish my opponent good luck in what is sure to be a more unique debate!
Debate Round No. 1
PatCam

Pro

Can you give me a counter argument against this one

What would you think of a planet which there is no nation that can declare war on another. Where the riches of the world is shared with each other. It could be like the USA where all nations are states and they elect a president. There would be no problems, which would make all fair to every land, and no need for a change, with everyone being friends and possibly speaking the same language.
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

(Ignore the YouTube video for now)

My opponent's contention is that a one-world government would be good because:

A) No nation could declare war on another

B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world

C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language.

I shall proceed in order with my responses to these contentions.

A) No nation could declare war on another

Response: What would stop them? In current society, we say "you can't steal," meaning it's illegal, but in reality, I am fully capable of stealing if I so please. There will only be consequences if I do. In a one-world government, nothing could stop one nation from declaring war on another. The world government could only declare consequences of waging war, such as being attacked, or having trade cut off. In the former case, war would be more destructive than ever for the nation which had declared war initially, and for its citizens, because the entire world would be attacking a single nation. In the latter case, the world government would have to declare that no nation may trade with that nation, which would, first, be an infringement on the rights of free trade, and, secondly, if any nation violated this embargo, what would the consequences be? It could become quite chaotic.

B) Everything could be distributed fairly among the nations of the world

How does voting decide what is fair? If the majority of world leaders arrange the distribution plan, and one nation doesn't like their part of the bargain, then you would have problems, possibly even wars of rebellion against the world government, or at least, much bickering and slow-moving government. However, that is rather speculative, so let us assume that it would work out, and such a plan could be put into effect: You are now infringing on the rights of everyone on Earth by declaring where each product shall be shipped and who shall get it. I contend that it is unjust to try and dictate to a nation of people how much they are permitted to have (because that is what you would be doing, because it would be necessary to take away a portion of what is produced in that nation and ship it to other nations).

A good example is scare resources. The more scarce a resource is, the less each individual person can have - such as gold. By extension, the more widely distributed that gold is from one source, the less each individual can have, also. So, in a one-world government, any resource would be overall spread more thinly to everyone, because every source of any resource (it just gets more noticeable if it is a scare resource) is being forced to distribute to a much wider range of people than it previously did. By contrast, on a smaller scale, such as with individual nations working for their own good, that nation's water supply is only servicing that nation, so everyone there benefits more. If a nation which has very little water wishes to obtain water from another nation, then they can trade with them, in which case the water-rich nation receives direct compensation for the water they are giving up. It is their choice what they choose to receive as compensation, as opposed to being forced to give up a larger percentage of their water (because they're helping to service the whole world as opposed to just a single nation they actively chose to trade with) and being compensated, not by what they choose for themselves as adequate compensation, but by some resources chosen by the world government in which that particular nation has only one vote.

C) Everyone would be "friends" and possibly speak the same language

I disagree. Cross-cultural differences would continue to dominate, just as they always have. Observe, for example, "White flight," where White people regularly leave the cities and relocate to the country: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Also observe how different cultures treat life: (see YouTube video at upper right)

And how we differ drastically on important issues: http://www.squidoo.com...

To the Chinese, eating dogs is perfectly normal, but to most Americans, it is an act worthy of a shotgun blast to the head for the perpetrator (to which I agree; my one emotional "outburst" for the debate). Hence why we are two separate cultures and countries and why we will never live together and be the same.

Also, if a person truly appreciates the variations in cultures of the world, how can they support multiculturalism? By mixing all the cultures together, you will only produce conflict, and, if you succeed in mixing all the cultures completely, you will end up with one world culture, or close to it, in which case you've lost "diversity."

My contentions:

C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species
C2) Separate nations facilitate competition
- Therefore, separate nations are a healthy practice

C1) Competition is healthy for the growth of a species

This is basic science. Without competition, a species will die out. For example: http://www.huppi.com...

Competition is used to ensure that the best and most intelligent survive to reproduce, thus strengthening the species. Humans have divided themselves into nations based on similarity of race, appearance, religion, culture etc., because, being such a diverse species, we find that cooperation with every human would fly quite in the face of Nature. For an example from the animal kingdom, take the various species capable of interbreeding that do not do so. A tiger and a lion *can* interbreed to produce a "liger," but they do not. Why? Because they are different. Observe: http://animals.about.com...

And: http://answers.yahoo.com...

To summarize, all animals, including humans, gravitate towards those who are most similar to them and combine forces with them to successfully compete in Nature. Since Natural law is the supreme law, attempts at a one-world government would fail because it contradicts Nature's demands for separation of distinct groups. The only reason America exists as a nation is because of forced (1) multiculturalism, and we see that racial tensions are still high even here in America (2).

I thank my opponent for his opening arguments, and await his rebuttals.

(1) http://t3.gstatic.com...

- Soldiers forcing high school pupils to attend a racially integrated school in Little Rock, Arkansas

(2) http://www.blackpressusa.com...
Debate Round No. 2
PatCam

Pro

All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother, and ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The seperate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules. Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries. Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen. And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted.
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

"All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother"

This does not answer what I previously postulated: If all nations producing water are required to share that water in such a way that everyone has the same amount, then most nations will end up with less water than they have now. I won't repost my entire previous argument, however.

"ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The separate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules."

A natural "mix-and-flow" of cultures through trade does this already, and is quite another thing from forcing everyone to live under the same flag and in the same land.

"Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries."

This would go over very badly as it would mean many nations would have to give up land, something I doubt is going to happen easily. Also, some nations need more land than others, and thus it's perfectly right that their country should be bigger. A nation of 3 million obviously doesn't need and shouldn't have as much land as a land of 300 million, and that land of 300 million, already packed, shouldn't be forced to give up its territory, thus packing its population even tighter, just to give extra land to people who do not even need it.

"Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen."

What about when people become unhappy with the decisions the world government is making for their country? All governments ultimately fall; nothing is permanent.

"And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted."

In other words, like all governments, a world government would keep its position of power by force. If a leader chose to go against the world government, they would remove him from power, meaning if he and his people resisted, there *would* be war. That is international totalitarianism. I contend that a world government would make the world even more war-prone than it already is, since, if everyone was involved in the governing of everyone else, it would be next to impossible for nations to mind their own business and leave others be.

I await my opponent's closing remarks.
Debate Round No. 3
PatCam

Pro

Ok. its the last round and im going to use this round to congratulate you. I think you deserve a win here. You did alot of research into this and see you was hihly interested. Good Job :)
Aldric_Winterblade

Con

Why, thank you. I have to admit, that's quite an unexpected end to a debate, lol, but, it certainly did serve to make the debate even more unique than it already was! A pleasure debating you, sir. :)
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
PatCamAldric_WinterbladeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I was open to either side of the debate but Con made a hell of a good argument about how there would be dissent between nations under one government and so i feel he won the debate
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
PatCamAldric_WinterbladeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
PatCamAldric_WinterbladeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession