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

Is it actually possible to take over the World ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/23/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,323 times Debate No: 16109
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




Is it possible for one Leader, one Team, one Army, one Country and/or even a Continent, to actually take over the world by domination, where every human on the planet recognises that one Leader/Team/Army/Country and/or Continent as in control and they rule without any hindrance or resistance ?

This has been a question of man since time began can I rule the world and make everyone do what I think should be the best way to live. This question will also be relevant in the future, and as long as there are two human beings left on the planet, one will decide and the other one will disagree.

My argument is this I can prove it has not been done in the past, It will be impossible to be done in the present (or my life time) and it is impossible to be done in the future.


The question is it possible to take over the world

The answer would be yes, but only after the killing of millions of people. One might be able to win over large areas of land by bribery or promises of a better future. Now this may seam evil (which it is) but it could be in theory possible.
The best way to start would to take over poorer countries by seizing control over them diplomatically, or more simply bribe the leaders and the people. Next one should go about training huge armies of men and women. One should also stock up on large amounts of resources and weaponry.

Wouldn't this draw suspicion?

not if you play your cards right, soldiers would be completely under stood after acwiring large amounts of poor land.
Weapons would seam important to defend off protesters or rebels. Now it seams perfectly likely to send these soldiers and weapon to you new plots of land but it would also give you a perfect change to set up borders and bases.

Other more powerful countries would hopefully not see this coming and think along the lines of helping and kind.killing would also be a major step in taking over the world. you would probaly have to kill all or most of the protesters and other armies.

The easiest way though would be to nuke all the other countries and kill all there citizens. After this you would be killed youself by your country but since you country would be the only one left that country would have control over the hole world
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Pro for a swift response and thank you for taking up my challenge.

Ok firstly I knew this was coming, when you said by killing millions of people and winning over land through bribery and the promise of a better future.

Yes certainly by decreasing the population will increase your chances to dominate and control the people but in doing so you will surly create more division between the people and also for example if you had 5 million people in the world and you kill 3 million you have 2 million left, and this would be a massive problem if you do not control the majority especially after just killing 3 million people, so I am sure you will see the dilemma there. And surly if they become a problem will you simply just kill them and then kill more people so eventually you will have no one left until its just you in the world.
Technically you would then claim to control the world but you would have no one to tell.

Reference in history
The Spanish Empire killed thousands of south American people of the Inca, eventually the Spanish defeated and took control of south America, they used help from the local Inca population by offering them their own freedom if they fight for the Spanish.
This did result in a Spanish victory and they did control the South American Continent, they had all of the massive wealth of gold in there possession.
With this in consideration they had control of one Continent on the planet all the wealth of this continent and their own country in Europe, they later took many islands all over the world but they did not conquer the world even having complete control of a single Continent. The only thing that remains today is the language that was left behind.

The Empire which has ever come close to dominating the world by the percentage of world population was the Achaemenid Empire, Persia
Please reference the table a third of the way down the list you will see the Persian Empire controlled 44% of the worlds population which was 49.4 million people out of 112 million total population of the world from the 5th century BC to 480 BC.

The Persian Empire had the best chance in history to take control of the world by domination as they did control nearly half of the worlds population which they held for 475 years, Until famously they met Alexander the Great who then crushed the Persian Empire.
This certainly proves with hindsight If there was ever a chance to take over the world by domination this would have been the best opportunity an Empire has ever had.

Taking control of poorer countries and establishing a secret army from there is again a good idea but simply not possible.
This is not possible as we have satellites that constantly map the world (Google earth) and any changes that happen anywhere in the world will not go un noticed i.e. new buildings or increased activity in a specific area.

The nuclear weapon approach again will not work because as in every warfare action, there is a counter action and most of the worlds super powers have technology like the Americans SDI system which they sold to some European countries. The SDI system is a basic form of counter nuclear missile technology which simply blows the missile up in the outer atmosphere miles above the earth and limit any damage a 'Nuke' can do to the earth or an enemy. I found this reference
to back up my explanation. This proves it is not possible to take over the world by nuclear power or even the threat of nuclear power as a deterrent is worthless as they can not be used on the super powers of the world.

I stand by the fact in history no one has ever taken over the world, no one has taken over the world at present and I believe that the world will never be taken in the future by one.
If I am proven to be right that the world can not be taken by one then as a human race in general we have wasted a lot of time in history trying to something which is actually impossible.
The sooner we or us as a human race realise this point we can actually move forward as a one world team and not as the many divisions there are in the world that divide us in our day to day lives.


A strong argument you have my friend, a strong argument in dead.

But you forget one thing about al this technology, they all produce there own demise. What do i mean you might ask, will what i mean is that they all produce a "electric magnetic pulse". Now an electric magnetic pulse from a coffe maker or a washing machine is practicly useless, but a an emp (electric magnetic pulse) from a nuclear missile detanated in the atmosphere can cause a great enough effect to destroy any thing electric for miles.

What is an emp, will I will tell you. An electromagnetic pulse (sometimes abbreviated EMP) is a burst of electromagnetic radiation

Now if one country were too detonate enough nuclear missiles in the atmosphere they would be able to destroy all traces of anything electric including missile defences BELOW I HAVE INCLUDED AN EXPLANATION OF HOW

A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earths magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.
The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400 to 500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS.
Debate Round No. 2


Very nice Pro a good direction to take this debate into and a very good come back.

Taking into account that if you detonate or explode a nuclear weapon in the outer atmosphere (exoatmospheric) known as (HANE - High Altitude Nuclear Explosion), the explosion happens not as a mushroom cloud as we commonly see within the earth's atmosphere but as a high energy kind of electrical storm circular blast which can be seen for up to 30mins after the initial explosion which as you (Pro) accurately described then releases an EMP and gamma rays which get caught up in the earth's own magnetic field and then get dispersed towards the land on the earth and as Pro said can knock out a complete continent.
This was recently in the news and backs up Pro's theory when the North Koreans had developed a ICBM, which can travel into the outer atmosphere and detonated over the U.S.A to have the (above) catastrophe happen. This posed a serious threat to the whole world as all the North Korean government had to do was get the missile into the outer atmosphere and they could then cause a lot of havoc all over the world as even if the weapon did not land and wipe out millions they can still cause the above stated catastrophe.
The American response was they know the location of the weapon and if it is to launch it will never leave North Korean air space.

This in it's self is obviously a massive threat to the worlds super powers today as yes there is no real defence to counter this EMP situation and Pro has a seriously good argument.

Please bare in mind that you now have only taken the power away from one continent on the planet, and I assume your next steps would be to then conquer the continent with your armies and tactical teams while they are blind and cease control of their government and name yourself the mighty leader of a new continent.

This scenario has two downfalls, firstly reference in round one how the Spanish took control of a rich and thriving continent, they still did not take over the world and so backs up my theory so far that you have only conquered one continent and does not justify taking the whole world by EMP.

The second downfall to your EMP theory is you now have a continent with no power, technology, economy or stable system to provide anything for the people. To which you will then have to rebuild and re-organise quickly, as what is to stop another country just coming in and wiping you out, as you will be just as blind to attack as the initial target continent.

I understand that Pro may come back and say that using the same system and knocking out the other continents at the same time in one strike in a very well planned attack on the world will stop any other enemy from wiping him out while he systematically takes over the world, or would this be a double edged sword.

I will then refer to the second downfall (above) and also ask the question with nothing electrical working how would you then cross oceans (keep in mind this is based on today's technology with modern aircraft and boats)?

How would you expand your empire as you would not be able to create more existing weapons i.e. guns, ammo and other none electrical weapons without the use of factories?

How would you support an advancing and expanding army to conquer the modern world without the modern tech?

I still stand by the fact that it is Impossible to take over the world as one. I believe in round 2 Pro has provided a great argument for his cause but I believe in this round I will/have proven that the use of nuclear weapons or EMP will not grant you the power to take over the world or be recognised as the ruler of the world. I stand by the fact that with the super powers in the world today and their differences, If it was possible to take over the world by EMP they would have already done so as this technology has been around since Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the 1950's.


I believe my opponent thinks that i would bomb myself and so i would like to point out that i would not be doing that to myself. Also to avoid further confusions I have decided to be the country of america . now since launching an emp attack on canada and mexico would be to dangerous it would be easier to launch my atack on there alies. once canadas alies have bean disabled they well swiftly be taken over. mexico being so close to south america would probally have a large chunk destroyed by the emp. both countries have always had little armies and would be very easy to take over without any alies

Now i know what your thinking is that america would probaly be against this idea. Will in my opinion i dough they would, america is runing out of land and is far to dependent on forieghn oil. In a way this would actully be a good thing.
the reason i chose america is because it is the curenet world super power making it the most likely to strick.

you also said that emp technolegy was available in the 1950, i do believ this but would like to point out that they did not know how destructive it could be until 1962 long after world war 2 which ended in 1945.
Debate Round No. 3


Pro I believe you have misread or misunderstood my points in round three.
Of course you will not bomb yourself that would defeat the purpose of taking over the world, The main point I am trying to make is after you have sent an EMP over the South American Continent for example, The continent will not have any power or electric so how do you propose to setup a military base to operate from to
a) keep back resistance fighters as it is fair to say not everyone will agree with you taking over the world
b) after destroying the worlds economy by taking out all of the power how will you import your oil for example as you are very dependant on foreign import oil.

Your choice of country or continent is irrelevant to this argument so there is no need to justify why you have picked a specific country and I would like to remind you of the argument you took up in the first place which is, Is it possible to actually take over the world and be recognised by the world as the ruler of the world.
This is something you have failed to prove in any round so far.

I applaud your knowledge on EMP's and the actual dates they became apparent to the world.

I stand by the fact that you have not proven that you can take over the world by Domination, the fact that it has not been done to this present day proves my theory and Pro has not convinced anyone that the world can be taken over and Pro has not backed anything of his theory from the previous round, Also Pro has tried to dodge some simple questions on his theory with the assumption that I thought he would blow himself up.


I have not bean able too prove that domination is the answer and that leaves us with one other option. That option is water control.

now for years we have know we have bean polluting are water, but know more than ever are we cocerened with it. Know if in the futur that water is so valuble because of it being limited to small amounts then it would be able to sell enough water to raise enough money to create an armie big enough to take over the world. Or if one was smart he could use that water to bribe his/her own citizens to help concor the world. The other countries having less water than a country like canada or america would be almost completely destroyed as it is, making them easy to take over. This would be in the future so there is no way to know if this water crises well actuly happen a more likely posibility would be a drought.

the emp idea would be able to work but it would be a good idea to be prepared, things like reserve fuel and exuipment, all it would take is time and effort. but since destroying all there electrical items would creat problems i have come up with a much more evil plan.creat a new killing disese as well as a vacine to go with it. next slip the vacine with the regular vacine you would get through school and as an adult. Creat a plan so that in 20 years who ever is in charge can realess the virous. Now who ever is in charge just has two sit and wait. Eventully entire countries will fall to there nees or die off leaving every thing to your taking.
Debate Round No. 4


Pro in your opening statement you have said you can not prove you can take over the world by domination.

I do like your water theory for the future, I suppose taking away the basic need of a human population will eventually turn them around to your way of thinking, I hope something like this will not happen in my life time as if the world was to ever get that desperate there would be a lot of killing.

I do admire the 'never say die' trait you have displayed in your second paragraph with the virus and the vaccine scenario. It is a good plan and obviously if planned properly has the potential to work and only leaving America (for example) left on the planet. It would take you lifetimes of generations to re-populate the planet again or about 2000 - 6000 years. But again by killing the world you have reduced it to one continent left and defeats the purpose of actually trying to take over the world.

As this is the last chance I will have to say my piece I will say this. Pro you are a worthy adversary and for your age it is good to see you taking part in debates. I hope to see you in the future and will always be happy to take up a challenge with you as you have shown maturity and guile in each round.


Thank you con, I only have one more way of taking over the world and it does not envolve killing anyone (hopefully). This idea was sugested by a friend, he said that if you controled the internet than you control the world. I under stand the main idea but am not sure how one would be able to have full control of the internet. But if one does gain complete control of the internet than logicly he/she has control over anyone useing it. One could basicly if planed carfully find out almost anything he wanted about almost anyone. One could also charge as much as he wanted for people to use it. One could even knock out ones goverment through a powerfull virus. The bigest point though is that in the futur it is very likely that almost every one will have acces to a computer and internet there for the internet could be a hole new type of goverment. Not an official goverment but you still would have control over every country with internet users.

I do realize this is not the domination one would think of but is still a form of domination world wide (more specificly domination of the world wide web).
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by foxjohnnington 2 years ago
you to annex all of south america.

9. agree to help countries remove dystopias and bad countries.
if you as a leader of south america at this point were to assist america with military aid and power to remove countries like north Korea and gain power over them. you are set. if you remain in military power and hand over the border rights to south Korea, you are beloved. at this point you control south Asia and south america. this is the good part. you remove china. north Korea can no longer help them. china will perish before its economy grows too high and powerful. (Also have all manufacturing in your country to increase economy. just like china. no wonder they are doing so well. they pay workers 2 cents an hour) after that remain quiet for a few years then remove Russia. give the baltics a break for a bit. assist NATO after. NATO Was made to protect baltics from communist and soviet Russia. Don be communist. warning u right now. then begin your evilness. Africa is full of dystopias not necessarily all of them are. no threat there. takeover Europe. after that takeover america and bazam. the rest you should be intelligent enough to deal with if you find your self in the right place to takeover the world. worst of luck if u try this. this is my plan. nerds.
Posted by foxjohnnington 2 years ago
After a world dictator has died a congress should take over, an inseperable group with anyone demanding exit to be annexed,

4. power to the people. surely people will not approve of a dictator, but what of a new form of government? a congressional dictatorship, a dictatorship of which the one and only dictator would have a vote from its people who are literate on what should be done with a certain situation, such as healthcare if it became an issue, people will still have problems with lack of individual power, but give them what they want. Also if a world dictator were to not be a racist, and not issue genocides' maby they would be liked, or just a dictator in a individual country before a world dictator.

5. dont be a racist. if a dictator is racist dont you think people would not like him? you want the people below you loyal, not necessarily a totalitarian government, but one that listens to its people and pays attention to what it requires, my point is if there is a separate religion, have a theocracy style acceptance.

6. dont tax everything. why would anyone think adding taxes to everything is a good idea? find other ways of revenue, EXPORTS!

7. takeover. if you start in south america you are in luck. many countries such as Nicaragua and belize are having problems with their not too well government leaders. (Corrupt) they require aid from a better government and will embrace with what they have heard. if you have a 45% military budget, you will have a overwhelming military force. you will need soldiers to join from annexed or conquered countries to join, their support will increase since there would be 70,000 yearly soldier pay,

8. make treaties and alliances. let me just get this straight before i continue. every. leader. ever. was a crook or a criminal in some form. countries like Nicaragua exports to america and other "Good Guy"countries. if you agreed to increase trade with them or make a oil trade agreement? well they would allow (Read nex
Posted by foxjohnnington 2 years ago
Why Taking Over The World Is Possible

1. if someone were to start a government to replace the old, in a dystopia such as Nicaragua, where literacy rates are at 75% where people need help, would be a good place to start. if someone was a good leader and knew what to do they could double the yearly revenue from taxes,exports,ect. AND increase literacy rates? well they would have many supporters.

2. job crisis'. if there was something such as a job crisis, use it as an advantage, build government farms for people with low literacy rates and increase country revenue. make the best of a bad thing.

3. military. if a country with say a income of 40 billion a year, were to spend 45% yearly on military, well it would be good for soldiers since they could be paid up to 70,000 a year. i have spent alot of time calculating this and you would be able to arm each soldier with an ar-15 rifle with enough ammo, interceptor armor used by the US military a few years ago, boots, gloves, outfits, gas masks, and helmets and still have a large portion left over to spend on military programs, vehicles, aircraft, navy, groundforce, and other sorts. arming and paying a soldier yearly would probably take around 2 billion a year if u have a national army force of 30,000 (large for nicaragua). you could start a government of your own if u wanted too.

3. takeover. dictators such as adolf hitler, and joseph stalin got to where they were by killing anyone against them, this was completely unnecessary. hitler used the jews as an escape goat after the economy plummeted, instead he could have used the fallen economy as a way to go against government and rise to power, if he hadent killed anyone by genocide, and redistributed wealth via socialism, he could have been a good dictator, which would be a good way for a government to rule if in the right hands, there can never be a line of dictators, after 1 good dictator there cannot be another, after a world dictator has died, Read next comm
Posted by zarano 5 years ago
well i got a few ideas too about taking over the world like the fact of first stopping the money crisis in your own country than when the welfare is flowing through you start to what wizkid already said buying the other countrys up when that is done you need to make the scientist start to work on some new technologie to make better weapons and vehicles, like more advanced planes more advanced land vehicles ( this is the military way though) if you got every thing you need for war you need to prepare a good stragety becouse you know stragety without tactics is the slowest way to victory tactics without stragety is the noice before defeat. when you made every thing fully ready to advance you can start to break your way through some main bases from countrys so you will be able to defeat them. while every thing is happening i would reccomend improve the technologies from the nuke like when the athomic bomb gets releast the cores start to split if one is able to make the cores get back to each other after detonation you will get something like an implosion it will pull everything in its range together that will make a thing like a giant hole in the ground if you would launch it there, another of my ideas is to make an improved tank with 2 a 3 rectangle barrels with a bit of a circling inside to make them fly straight. if you know things that could mess up the plan tell me becouse iam very interested in things like this. (bytheway iam not from america or england so i may have grammar faults.)
Posted by wizkid345 7 years ago
any one like the part about the internet
Posted by BOMB1 7 years ago
Yea please vote anyone
Posted by wizkid345 7 years ago
Please vote
Posted by BOMB1 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability lol that is one of the biggest debates in the word between science and religion which no one will ever know the answer to until God or Son of God comes to earth or science comes up with actual evidence of how we were created. I believe with the Universe so big that God may still be visiting all of the other planets with life on it and telling them who he is and when he says Ill be back and return one day, He does mean it he just takes his time travelling the rest of the universe.
And for science they will take millions of years to get to the far reaches of the universe and then understand it all.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
Biblical prophesies indicate that someone will "take over the world," so to speak. He will be a charismatic leader in a time of disaster - the type of "trustworthy" leader that people can depend upon and support. Once appointed to power, this man will squash rebellion and instate a despotic regime.

Therefore, if the Bible is true, then yes, somebody will one day rule the entire world.
Posted by wizkid345 7 years ago
I don't know maybe there is not allot of people on now
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bigpoppajustice 7 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 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 provided evidence to support his argument, Con did not prove it was impossible. Con simply criticized Pro's points.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 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: Con did not prove it was impossible, he simply attacked the ideas of Pro, that did not sustain the BoP they established for themselves in the OP.