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

Is the Establishment of a World Government in the Future Extremely Likely?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 12/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 42526
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




1st Round will be for acceptance. No debate structure required. Please note the 48 hour response time limit. I would define 'future' within this debate as within the next 300 years.


I Accept

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for accepting. I hope I can do my part to make this an interesting debate.

For my first round of arguments, I will present several reasons why I believe our world is moving inexorably toward a World Government.

1) United Nations

The first institution that I'd like to point to is the United Nations. The United Nations has 193 member countries, a number which has grown significantly from the original 51 in 1945[1]. This is the first thing I bring up because it shows that sentiments and dispositions toward world-wide cooperation and unification have been steadily rising. The United Nations could very easily become the forerunner for a World Government. They already serve many functions that any national government would, such as creating and enforcing laws[2]. Many may say that the United Nations, even though it creates and enforces world-wide laws, doesn't wield extensive amounts of power. However, the idea that this international governing force isn't very powerful is not indicative that it will never be. Why exactly this is not indicative of such, I shall get to later in my arguments.

2) Rise of Atheism

When one wants to unify a large group of people under a common law, it is helpful to have them be of similar beliefs and perspectives. I will not say it is necessary, because of the example the US sets, but it cannot be disputed that similar people allow for easier unification. This is where I get to the rise of atheism. As atheism increases, the religious barriers that can keep people apart decrease, and so the ease with which unification occurs increases. Atheists compose the third largest 'religious' group in the world[3], and it is on the rise in America and the rest of the world, at the same time that religion is on the fall in America[4]. While it is not imperative that there be no religions in place before the rise of a World Government, the reduction of it is helpful, and it is a factor that should be considered when determining the possibility of a rise toward world-unification.

3) History

History has shown us that ruling power is always consolidated to higher and higher authorities as time goes on. For example, City-States. Such as Italy. Up until a period of time between 1859 and 1866[5], Italy as we know it today was composed of many separate and independent City-States, such as Florence, Venice, and Genoa, to list a few. They were bullied by countries organized and governed at the national level, and so eventually they consolidated their power into one kingdom: Italy. That is just one example that represents my overall point: that the trend we see in history is one of consolidation to higher levels of authority. That is why we no longer have City-States in our world, because the trend of power consolidation brought them all together into one nation. This trend is likely to manifest itself into nations consolidating their authorities up to higher points, until eventually, they will be joined together as a World Government.

4) Technology

My opponent may bring up the fact that there have been very large empires over the course of history that have attempted to create a one-world empire, and never truly succeeded. This is my main rebuttal to that point. The capability to communicate has been greatly increased over the years, so much so that communication can happen nearly instantly from one end of the globe to the other. This is important to note because problems that arise can be communicated back to sources of leadership, and a solution can be quickly found. Today's technology would make maintaining a world state much easier than it would've been in the past.

5) Language

For my last point I'd like to discuss language. When you look at a country, it usually has a predominant language. The world does not have a language that over half its people use, but there is a language that 1.8 billion of 7 billion people speak, and that is English[6]. It is the most common business language of the world, and the most common second language in the world. Other languages, like Mandarin Chinese, have a little under a billion speakers[7]. Spanish speaker estimates are put at over a half a billion[8]. A World Government would not need to have everybody speak the same language. If they could narrow it down to two or three languages, they could have a functioning society. Canada has two commonly spoken languages[9], and they are able to function. The world has enough commonly spoken languages that a World Government's people could be taught to speak in one of two or three commonly used languages. And that is just at the offset of the establishment of a World Government. After one is created, attempts to establish a single language could be made.

All of these things point to the eventual establishment of a World Government, in both feasibility and trends of consolidation of power and authority.



BlindFollower forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


BlindFollower forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


End Debate.


BlindFollower forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
Well if you guys can think of anybody to take it, send him my way please.
Posted by ndedo 3 years ago
This should be a really interesting debate if a good opponent accepts.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
That's what I was thinking.
Posted by toamatt26 3 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had arguments and sources and he didn't forfeit.