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

It is Likely there will be a World Government in the Near Future

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 44121
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Round 1 is for Acceptance.

BoP is shared, I need to show why a World Government would arise, my opponent must show reasons to the opposite.


The Near Future shall be defined as within 300 years from now.

Likely [1]
1.probable: probably going to happen
2.plausible: fit to be believed
3.suitable: appropriate for a particular activity or purpose

Another way to put it: which is more likely, establishment of a World Government or no establishment of a World Government?

And by World Government I mean a one world country, without any holdout countries.



There will most likely not be a world government system because all the countries would never accept. There are too many hostilities towards each other that even the mere suggestion will end a lot of lives in many different countries by means of rebellion. The world will also never become a world government system because one leader could never control that many people. Our leaders today are having trouble dealing with one country, can you imagine someone ruling the entire world? No, that would make anyone crack under stress. And there will be no way for that one leader to be able to focus on his people in different parts of the world because he could only be in one large landmass at a time. So no, I don't think there will ever be a world government.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting Con and thanks for reading voters.

I have several reasons why it is more likely than not that a World Government will arise within the next 300 years.


I think it can be agreed that a properly functioning society needs to have a common language, or common languages. It would be no different for a World Government. Obviously it would be quite an arduous undertaking to get the entire world to speak a single language, but it would be possible to have 3-4 official languages. Many countries operate with multiple languages, Canada for example[1].

Currently there are nearly 2 billion Mandarin Chinese speakers and nearly half a billion Spanish speakers on the planet, including non-native speakers[2]. Numbers for English speakers are 335 million[2]. I bring these statistics up because there are several languages in place a World Government could use as starting points for complete linguistic unification. All students under a World Government society could learn Chinese, Spanish, or English as a second language, if one of those wasn't their first.


Some people might point to ancient times, when large Empires tried or succeeded in creating a world state, but failed in holding it. I submit that these could be avoided with today's current levels of technology. Information of uprisings or civil unrest would reach heads of state much faster, and the counter strike would come much faster, given the speed at which vehicles (especially a plane or predator drone) can move.

Aside from keeping violence and uprisings restrained, technology could also help bridge the language barrier, easing the transition of moving many different langauges into a few. Language translation software has become advanced enough that it can fit into an application for an iPhone[3].

Consolidation of Power

In history we can see how power is always consolidated and centralized. Examples:

Italy. For a long time Italy was not Italy, it was city states such as Florence and Venice, each with their own ruling systems. Italy would unite into a single Kingdom March 17th, 1861, but even before then there are examples of centralization and consolidation of powers. Stronger city-states, such as the aforementioned Florence and Venice, conquered certain city-states around them, making Italy a couple of regional territories, called Signorie[4].

Germany. In the 18th century, there were 1,800 independent principalities in Germany. By 1814, there were 39 soveriegn states. Once 1884 came, Germany had become fully united, save for Austria[5].

These are just two examples out of the many, many instances in which centralizing of power can be seen. Our world ispast the city-state 'phase', and now fully invested in complete countries. So where's the next spot to continue our trend of centralization? At first, it'll be a pack of countries getting together, possibly only five, but, like we saw in Italy and Germany, there are in between steps with the centralization process.

The United Nations

The UN has been growing steadily since 1945 to 2011, going from 51 members to 193[6]. This shows an increase in the willingess of countries around the world for global governmental institutions and global unification. I say this because all countries who are member states agree to the laws and regulations of the UN. 193 countries, or 75% of the world's countries[6][7], have agreed to common laws, which is a positive sign for global unification.

The common belief among people is that the UN really isn't that powerful, and while that may be true, it still has international laws, an international court, and troops[8].

The relation between the UN and it's member states draws unsurprising similarities with the former German Empire. The German Empire was a collection of provinces 'ruled' over by a weak Emperor[5]. Today we can see the UN as the weak Emperor, other countries of the world as the pronvinces, and the world as the German Empire, which did unite under one banner eventually.

Fall of Religion

It is indesputable that religion is the cause of many wars, or at least its practitioners are. So as far as people getting along goes, the world is moving in a positive direction. A recent poll by Gallup-International found that 20% of Americans are not religious or are atheists. China has a whopping 47% population that are convinced atheists. Other countries give or take one percent around 30% convinced atheists are the Czech Republic, Japan, and France[9].

The poll has been disputed somewhat, with certain people saying that some of the higher atheism rates in America could simply be because it's now more socially acceptable to be atheist. Even if that's true, it's still a positive sign for atheism, and thus a positive sign for global unification and eventually a World Government.

Since 1995, the world's atheist population has seen a 421% increase, roughly[10][11].

Next I will refute my opponent's opening arguments.

Too Much Hate

My opponent states that most countries don't get along well enough for them all to unify. Certainly, we couldn't get all countries to unify at this very moment, but there are two factors to keep in mind, which help nullify this problem. The first is the rise of atheism. Many a conflict have been centered around religious disagreements. As time progresses, so too will the rise of atheism, and thus a lessening in tensions and disagreements.

The second thing to keep in mind: If 20 countries who aren't hostile towards each other group up into one country, they can begin to economically pressure hostile or usually hostile countries into joining. Additionally, if 20 nations formed one, that would be a big deterrent to conflict. What holdout countries would want to mess with that?

Leader's Problems

My opponent next comments on the pressure one man would feel if he was the ruler of the world. I'd have to agree that there'd be a lot of pressure, however there are again two things to consider. First, if this is a World Government, there'd be a much larger group of people to draw candidates from, and so there are better chances of finding a candidate with enough confidence to preside over the World Government.

Second, who says there has to be one leader? There could be a tribunal. Who knows?

My opponent also says that it would be inefficient for a leader to rule the Earth because he could only be on one landmass at a time. I believe my section on rising technology refutes this. All the leader needs are a couple phone calls if something comes up on another landmass/continent.


After examining certain trends that would make it easier to creater a World Government, and after anaylzing trends and institutions that show the countries of the world are moving toward global unification, it is reasonable to say as these trends and institutions strengthen, a World Government will arise within 300 years.



Desciuit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Desciuit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


End debate.


Desciuit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
You're right, and I keep lucking out too! I tried this debate earlier and the last guy forfeited too. I shouldn't have even made this one but yeah.
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Too bad con forfeited- these arguments, while well thought out, do not in any way indicate a probability of a single world government. They don't even address the major issues.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This would have made for a really good debate. Unfortunately, Con only posted one round, and in that round he didn't use any spacing and cited no sources. Pro's round 2 argument was excellent. I certainly hope that he does this debate again in the future with a more worthy opponent; I would certainly like to see how it turns out.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro I enjoyed your points I wish Con had not gone and forfeited. Oh well better luck next time.