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

Are you in favor of a new world order?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 56002
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Our society is mess up and we need to change it by burning it and rebuild it from the ashes.


I accept the debate, but Pro has to elaborate as to what extent would the destruction/burning of society would go to. There seems to be two answers to that question, one is complete a complete restart of society, from scratch, under one unified society. The second is the destruction of certain parts of society. Which of course would require much elaboration on your part as to what exactly would be destroyed such as, wealthy, poor, Jews, blacks, whites, political groups, religious groups, ect.

I am primarily against a one world order because it puts too much power in one government's hands. Every country in the history of humanity has been torn apart by war, famine, disease, economics, and politics, what would stop this from occurring in the new world order and reverting back to a large number of countries? Destroying society completely would cause groups to split from each other and form their own countries because of the lack of communication, cooperation, political ties,regional differences, and military differences. Humanity is inherently violent and to maintain the peace in a new world order would be an impossible task that would lead to independent militant groups that are out of control of the one government. I believe that even if a new world order were to be created successfully, it would soon fall apart just as the soviet union did over cultural, economic, and political views.
Debate Round No. 1


It is needed to place all the power on and unchanged figure which will punish the bad base on their culture it would have to be fear and love kind of like a god . To reduce tension between ethnicities (also other things that separate people)they should be device and given the option to also interact with other ethnicities.Another option for a set rule furtatly they are already made they just need to be super impose (in my option the ten commandment of Christianity sound good but there might be better ones out there).


It would be near impossible to find an unchanging steadfast figure to lead the new society. People are always susceptible to change, especially when there's money involved. And how are they to decide what is right and wrong? It again places far too much power on one person, and what happens when there needs to be a successor? Eventually there would be a bad lead that falls to corruption and could ruin the entire order of things. Democracy based governments allow change over time for laws and rules because the general population's views are expressed through the government. That allows the society to evolve and keep up with social and economic issues. This one person authoritarian state doesn't seem like it would take the average views of citizens into account and wouldn't be able to change in time.
Debate Round No. 2


beastboy13 forfeited this round.


SethAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RulerOfNone 2 years ago
If human civilization is to make any further leaps in expansion, if we are to ever travel to the stars, we must unite as a planet. Unfortunately, I don't exactly trust humans to effectively run a world government.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 2 years ago
I'd support new world order, European style, not new world caliphate, middle eastern style, or new world police state, American style. That's my two centences
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
"New World Order" is many different things to many different people. I see it as a natural blending of cultures in time. Cultural blending is part of the Constructal Law guided by the mechanism of life"s Unalienable Rights:

The Constructal Law relating to culture (Adrian Bejan):

"Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [Constructal Law]"a tapestry of morphing linkages in our minds and on the globe"all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain). As such, culture is the same kind of design as the tapestry of vascular architectures, animate and inanimate, all superimposed on the Earth"s surface."

This process is guided by life"s Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (Happiness for us humans)."

Books and Trade started cultural blending centuries ago to where it is today. Trade is a function of the pursuit of positive-feedback from the desired products, minerals, spices, food, energy, etc found throughout the world that is unique relative to location. Books is a transfer of ideas.

With the onset of the internet, the transfer of ideas on an instantaneous global level, puts this cultural blending in high gear. Hence, this debate.

Last, but not least, morality is the key in preserving a civil global blending of cultures in time.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
The trouble with the " burn it down and start over" model of social change is that most of us will be in the burned down part and not the started over part.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
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: Pro never really made a case