The Instigator
tpmassive
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
A341
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Allowing the World's Strongest superpowers to control the world will strengthen it.

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: 4/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 52768
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

tpmassive

Pro

With all the economic failures that are dogging the world ( especially in Africa), it would prove fruitful to allow the world's strongest superpowers eg. USA and Britain to control the world's resources. Observing how effectively these countries have used their own resources, one may insinuate that these countries are able to maximize the use of other countries' reserves as well.
A341

Con

The reason why countries like the US and UK are superpowers has very little to do with their effective management of resources and much more to do with the agricultural superiority of Europe [1]. This allowed for the Europeans to invest more time in warfare and also gave warfare higher rewards, with the arrival of gunpowder in the late 13th century Europeans had more time that anyone else to develop weapons, this allowed them to create colonies and funnel the profits back to Europe, eventually the US broke free and was able to advance its interests through genocide [2] and enslaving Africans [3]. Meanwhile Britain captured colonies all around the world and went about destroying their people for profit [4] [5] [6] [7].

The reason why superpowers are superpowers is a combination of agricultural superiority and ruthless slaughter.

There was a time when the superpowers did control almost all the resources and that worked well, colonial Europeans ransacked Africa once (or three times [8] [9] [10]) and of course the world powers would do it again.

Now a more effective way of doing things would be to assist African (because lets be honest you said it your self "especially in Africa") governments to stamp out corruption through entities like the UN and assist economically developing nations regain control of their territory through precise military action like the French intervention in Mali [11].

[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org...

[2] http://www.nps.gov...

[3] http://www.humanities.uci.edu...

[4] http://projects.ecfs.org...

[5] http://www.sdstate.edu...

[6] http://www.scottish-history.com...

[7] http://www.globalr2p.org...

[8] http://www.history.upenn.edu...

[9] http://electronicintifada.net...

[10] http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org...

[11] http://www.peacebuilding.no...
Debate Round No. 1
tpmassive

Pro

It is true that African slavery played an important role in the advancement of most European countries and the USA. To a larger extent,however, it was the innovation of the Europeans that won the day. For example, the Europeans designed new and better forms of infrastructure and then used African labour to construct the buildings. Never the less, technological advancements brought forward by the industrial revolution would render African labour useless hence the abolition of slavery had a very trivial impact on European economy and industry. If the LEDCs in Africa and other continents had the same intellectual power possesed by the MEDCs they would be able to implement the best possible strategies to utilise their resources and refurbish the current position of international trade. Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that the post colonial period showed that African countries are unable to cater for themselves. For instance, after the Southern African country Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980 , it had a stronger economy than China; the Zimbabwean dollar was comparable to the British pound. Zimbabwe had become the "bread-basket of Africa" as a result of British leadership. As fate would have it, Zimbabwe became independent and the African leaders who took control sank the ship,so to speak. In 2008, hyper-inflation rendered the Zim dollar void. This is simply an archetype of the atrocities that befall some countries without leadership of some innovative countries. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, one can easily see that the debate has been won in the favour of the affirmative delegation.
A341

Con

European Innovation

As I think I already explained last round the reason Europeans were able to innovate was because they had the time to do so because they had agricultural superiority over the rest of the world [1] [2].

European History

Remember it wasn't just African slavery (though the reprehensible nature of slavery should by no means by underplayed) that placed Europe and America at the top of the peaking order. The united states needed to expand its borders and to achieve this European colonists murdered countless millions of people [3], the British Raj killed seven million people [4] in the 1940's through controlled starvation (more than Jews killed in the holocaust). What is now the "first world" has carved a bloody path to economic supremacy and still do.

Lust for Resources

The modern industrial powerhouses have not stopped in their exploitation of smaller, weaker nations. The Iraq war was fought mainly to have a conflict so that the US military industrial complex could have an unstable region in which to sell their weapons [5] (and Britain isn't much better). A country which would invade another so that they could sell guns is not a nation that should be given ultimate control over the world and more its resources.

Another Way

"If the LEDCs in Africa and other continents had the same intellectual power possesed by the MEDCs they would be able to implement the best possible strategies to utilise their resources and refurbish the current position of international trade."

What you seem to be suggesting is sending economic advisers with experience from the worlds superpowers to help the developing economies. This has worked before for instance Taiwan which is now one of the strongest economies in Asia was helped by economic advisers in the years after the war of independence. This is not a reason to grant control of LEDC's to the superpowers.

[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org...

[2] Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies 1997 by Jared Diamond

[3] http://www.nps.gov...

[4] https://sites.google.com...

[5] http://www.aljazeera.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tpmassive

Pro

tpmassive forfeited this round.
A341

Con

A341 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Your_Logical_Fallacy 3 years ago
Your_Logical_Fallacy
I think a NWO is a really good idea when you think about it, BUT only if there is no corruption involved
Posted by Lucie71 3 years ago
Lucie71
on the contrary it is the WORSE thing you can do.
Taking Africa again as an example. Although Africa is rich in natural resources, its people are poor. Why? Because other nations are taking Africa's natural resources!

Another example: If you look at the US, the mega-corporations are the ones taking all the natural resources. It is also by the way they extract the natural resources that pollutes our world and yet they pay the scientists to tell the world otherwise so that they can continue to extract the natural resources.

You can then imagine those that control the natural resources will use it to their own benefit. Even when a superpower doesn't have the control over a natural resource, they will take it by force.
No votes have been placed for this debate.