Do you think People should live in certain countries based on their views?
Debate Rounds (4)
Example if we went for it:
Atheists have one country,
Christians have another,
Jews have another,
Communists have one,
Capitalists have another.
It would be difficult to choose what lands would be difficult but if you notice it's already being done like how the United States is a strong supporter of Democracy and Freedom while Russia supports Communism and North Korea enjoys controlling its people like tamed fodder.
Also I believe that it would be difficult for us to keep going like the whole Pro Life vs. Pro Choice; and this has caused many extremists to pop up destroying many abortion clinics. What if this progresses? If you think about it our country is already divided because of views like how there is two parties that wouldn't even agree if we breathed or not.
Another thing is how Theists and Atheists are chewing each other out over online every day? What if someone says the wrong or right words and cause another Holocaust how would we save people in time? Before many die? I mean it might not happen in this country, but anything could happen. . .
If you looked at say... Ukraine and how they keeped (or kepted, Idk) pro Russia and pro Independent Ukraine and saw how that came out of the bag? Or how president Washington kicked the slavery issue down the century and every president until Lincoln had to be in the bloodiest war in American History? I think if we don't make separate countries at least we should deal with these problems other than bloodshed, arguments, and degradement.
I. "Anything could happen..." should be immediately discredited. I understand that in this context it was being used (to an extent) as a figure of speech, but it is not correct in any way that could contribute to the content of this debate.
III. Infinite Amounts of Countries: One primary flaw in my opponents case is that his subdivision of nations to each whim of the people is simply unrealistic. This leads us to an "every man is an island" mentality. One communistic atheistic pro-abortion anti-gay pro-dictator anti-polygamist pro-rap anti-opera (etc.,) country. Simply not a feasible proposition.
IV. Concession! In my opponent's final statement in round two, he even states that there is a functional alternative to his proposition that satisfactorily solves his contentions. This being proven, I need not even build a case of my own (but I will).
An Alternative Proposition: One World, No Countries
I will keep my constructive as brief as possible. The ultimate purpose of government is to defend its individual citizens from infringing on each others freedom- not to inhibit the freedom of the individual. Therefore, a global order is ideal and plausible. Abortion is legalized and those who radically attack others are punished accordingly- not patronized with a nation of their own. The system is utilitarian, just and ideal. My opponent's is not.
2. Thank you for kept for some reason my computer says it's a misspell and I don't want to misspell anything. Like misspell or miss spell.
3. So I don't want a country simply made for random views I mostly mean like major problems like what-if christians had a section of territory where everyone is christian like how the Middle East is mostly Islam. So we don't have to have people dividing over it in our country like how well Democrats and Republicans divided our country. Not like peoples views on music or any other hobby or small opinion.
4. A Global Country with many Nationalities and divided cultures would be way harder to make than small countries with their own views. Not only will people in countries that don't want to be absorbed in a larger more controlling country would rebel and cause civil war but how would we make a International currency; we would have to print thousands upon thousands of dollars just to get by and the line between the Rich and Poor would get much bigger than it is now.
5. The problem with Legalizing Abortion and punishing Extremists is that the reason why Extremists are made is that no one will listen to their argument and just legalize Abortion without others' consent. I'm neutral in the matter so don't excuse me of supporting Pro Life or Pro Choice.
1. My opponent argues that when two groups with opposing beliefs cohabitate the same geographic region that ultimately "anything can happen" in the sense that extremists from either group may attack the other. My counter-argument is this: these extremists are not to be patronized by being granted their own nation. There is peaceful coexistence with differing belief, and then there is violent extremism. Violent extremists are not to be granted a country- they are to be isolated from the rest of functioning society in a prison. This is simply and most fundamentally the purpose of law.
2. Nothing further.
3. My opponent claims that his country-by-view system provides for groups of extreme difference in regards to areas of thought that are more definitive than insignificant differences of taste- or "random". The problem is this: who defines what views and beliefs are arbitrary and which warrant a new nation to be developed? My opponent has presented no feasible system for making these choices and I propose that such a system cannot objectively be created. One man's preference is another man's jihad.
4. My Opponent's Contentions Regarding A One-World Nation
A. Absorption Into A More Controlling System
The system is not by definition more controlling. While proving that was the case could make for a more difficult transition, it is reasonable to assume that there exists a perfect functioning legal system that would preserve the rights of the individual to the fullest possible extent. In this idealist nation (this is a debate of ideals after all), over controlling government is non-existent.
B. The Currency Contention
My opponent's contentions with the creation of a universally accepted currency seem to stem from both a fundamental lack of understanding of economics and a misinterpretation of my proposed nation. Currency is already exchangeable the world over (i.e., dollars convert to euros, euros convert to yen) showing that there is an objective standard for wealth outside of a nation's individual currency. His statement about a growing gap between the rich and the poor are not only discredited by this- but are also discredited by the fact that he assumes the government I propose is a capitalist one. I have not provided specification, but the statement was made generally and cannot be applied so.
5. I have already touched on the issue of dealing with extremists in point one and so I will make this rebuttal brief. Granting nations to individuals motivated enough to bomb abortion clinics is comparable to awarding the Taliban a nation for destroying the World Trade Center of giving the whole of the Gaza Strip over to Palestinian extremists because "they were driven to fight". This way of thinking is not only dysfunctional- but immoral.
6. I point out that my opponent has not provided any rebuttal to my pointing out of his concession. As such, I extend that argument.
How would these new countries be made? Through the people not the government. The government would just make the warrant and the people would elect themselves representatives that would make the country's constituion. On how the country would be placed? It can be done if we take the opinions from the Natives and the New Country Peoples and try to have debates over in court houses. Or we can divide sections of the present countries that are already divided. Like for example: the South is mostly Republican so I'm guessing Pro Life so we could divide them. All of our drugies could go to Mexico. . . The Liberals go to California. Communists go to Russia. Capitalists go to New York State.
One of the arguments that you've made is that the problem of making new countries is that the Natives or native government would be a difficult barrier for the creation of the new bias country but you failed to realize that a global country would have the same problems.
I'm not granting terrorists countries i'm granting countries to people with different biases that don't have their voices heard.
2. A protester is someone reacting to not having his voice heard, and in a reasonable way. The extremists you present in the case of anti-abortion are not peaceful. They are not interested in discussing ethics in the public square of thought. These are violent men, and there violence does not justify them anything but punishment. There are freedoms we may have and freedoms we may not. As long as an individual's personal rights are not being infringed on, then to act out in violence is criminal.
3. My opponent has offered a skeletal system for the formation of potential countries but it is (and I think obviously) over simplified. Additionally, my contention regarding what believes are counted worthy of nation forming and which are not has not been addressed.
All this being said, and not feeling the need to continue further, you must vote Con. Thanks for the debate, Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: It doesn't matter if Con goes un-refuted because Pro holds the BOP, Pro still had standing arguments that weren't properly addressed. Next time you try to disprove a point use evidence to show how it is illogical, telling me its a "over simplified" but then not showing me how or why doesn't disprove his point. Con did have better grammar and spelling throughout the round one example is the statement "What if this progresses?", make sure you are double checking your posts, we are all guilty of it. Overall good round!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.