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

It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 42266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




First, I acknowledge that a global government could be beneficial in some aspects. This is a debate on the negative side of a global government, negative aspects that I believe outweigh the positive aspects of a global government. That being side, I shall begin.

For my argument, I will use a fictional example. Imagine that WWIII begins in 2045, and it ends in 2050. The allied nations end up occupying all the nations on the other side, a large percentage of the world's land. Two years later, the "World Republic" is established. The World Republic is Earth's only nation.
The World Republic is established by wise people who make the system almost perfect. Every inhabited region of the Earth has representation through senators and representatives in the World Republic. After all, as the name states, it is a republic. The World Republic Constitution guarantees all the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the former US's constitution, and maybe a few new ones for the modern day, concerning things like the internet and communications technology. Anyhow, the system is perfect.
However, let's say that eventually a group of people who oppose basic freedoms take hold of the World Republic. They are Fascists/Communists (which one doesn't matter), and they have control of the world's military. A few people with shotguns (or even several million people with shotguns) could not stand up to the ultra-modern, high-tech, disciplined World Republic Army. If the rebels try hiding in the woods, the high-tech equipment will find them instantly. In fact, the group's leader would be dead in less than a day because of a government drone strike. This army is just too powerful for a group of rebels to defeat.
So, if such a thing happens, what then? Think about it this way. In the real world, if there's persecution of a group in some country, it's likely the people being persecuted will flee to another country. They'll cross the border to the nearest country or something, whether it's legal or not. But if a single government rules the entire world, where will a targeted people flee to? Outer Space? If the global government outlaws religion, religious people will be helpless. They won't be able to flee to another country. If a certain race is targeted (let's say Arab people or Jews), where will these people go to escape?
Therefore, I would only advocate a global government if other alien species that humans could reach were discovered. By reach, I mean take a trip on a space vehicle and fly over to the planet where the aliens are. Then again, I doubt this will happen any time soon, if ever.

That is my starting argument. I await a response.


1) First of all, it is not dangerous to have a single government over mankind.
2) Why? As the Pro had stated, the World Republic is established by wise people who make the system almost perfect. Therefore, if they are wise enough to gain victory in WWIII, they would definitely be wise enough to rule and control the World Republic.
3) Due to the risk of civilians with guns rebelling/protesting against the World Republic that the Pro had stated, wouldn't the government be wise enough to even think of the slightest possibility of that ever happen? If so, the government would definitely hire a group of civilians as spies. If there are any people who discuss about rebelling and decide to do so, the civilian spies will inform the government. Giving the government an upper hand to act before the rebels.
4) As the Pro stated, if the rebels try to hide in the woods, they would definitely be hunted down by the World Republic Army, but that doesn't mean they have to be killed. The World Republic Army can use tasers' to tase the rebels, preventing rebel deaths. By doing so, innocent civilians will see the World Republic as a merciful government. And of course, the World Republic will definitely have a Plan B if the rebels can't be defeated: the World Republic will use the same tactic used in the Malayan Emergency-giving large sums of money to rebels who decide to change sides as a reward and also give bounties to rebels who kill their leaders.
5) That is all from me, I await your next argument.

Debate Round No. 1


I do not believe that you understood my argument.
About what you said concerning the wise people who established this nation, think of the American Founding Fathers. They were quite wise, and the system they created was almost perfect. But flash forward several centuries to the modern day. The US Government is doing all sorts of crazy stuff, and I believe it will get worse in the following decades. I argue that even the most perfect government can and will, given enough time, perhaps in several decades or even several centuries, grow corrupt and despotic.
As for what I stated about the rebels, the rebels were not antagonistic in my scenario. The rebels mentioned are the good guys (though there would most certainly be antagonistic rebel groups that are even worse than the government). These good rebels who want to bring back freedom and liberty would be fighting against a government that has turned despotic, a government that decides to outlaw religion or something like that. According to your profile you have a religion, so I don't think you could argue this is a good thing. We've both admitted that rebels could not win against this ultra-powerful government.
And also, whether or not the rebels are killed or imprisoned for life is not the issue. Either way the despotic government is not overthrown.


1) First of all, how sure are you that a country that is controlled by a wise government will turn corrupt and and despotic?
2) By the year 2050, things would definitely have changed, a lot of things. It only takes breakthroughs or inventions by people, and everything changes. Example: Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, Instagram and so on. The possibilities are endless in our universe. As I was saying, civilians in the future may respect and obey the government, they may also become disobedient and rebellious, as you said, or they may just suck up to the government: we simply do not know, no one knows.
3) I await further arguments from you.
Debate Round No. 2


Did I not state this before? If the US Government can grow corrupt, a government founded on the principles of equality and equal representation of the populace through a republic system, then just about any country can grow corrupt. Don't forget that wise people eventually grow old and die and they're often replaced by fools, or at least less wise people.
And I don't see how new technology affects anything. Would this new technology somehow end corruption in government? Would the global government be ruled by computers? If that were the case, we'd have good reason to be worried because a computer cannot have compassion. A computer may think religion is a liability and it'd wipe out religion. A computer may think a certain ethnic group that causes the most trouble is a liability and it'd order a genocide. If it was a "humane computer," somebody could hack it or it could develop glitches over time.
As I stated before, a rebellious populace would be attempting to overthrow a despotic global regime. Granted, there would be rebels with evil intentions during the time that the government is still wise. The point is, that if the government ever needed to be overthrown, it would be well nigh impossible for anyone to do so. The tyrannical government would rule for pretty much forever, and if any politician who entered the scene with the intent of bringing reform, the corrupt government would do stuff to eliminate him or her. There would be election rigging or something like that.

My overall point in this debate is that once you get a global government with a military strong enough to put down any rebellion, you're stuck with this government, whether it's good or bad. If this government stays good, the whole world will be living like the United States or like people in Western Europe or Japan. But, even the best governments can corrupt with time, and when the government gets dictatorial, (and I guarantee you it will eventually) you're stuck with it forever and ever, perhaps for thousands of years, or even eternity.


Didn't I also state this before? How sure are you that a government can be replaced by fools? How sure are you that a government will grow corrupt? First of all, the government is elected by civilians. Civilians with common sense would definitely not elect fools, idiots and dictators to become the government, to rule over a country. Next, we are not sure what will happen in the future, unless someone somehow invents a time machine. We can only predict the future, which is not 100% accurate. One example was the illustrations created by French artist Villemard in 1910 that shows his prediction of the 21st century. He predicted that we would have air traffic policemen, firemen equipped with bat wings for easy access to top floors and roofs during fires, schools equipped with audio books and so on. However, not all of them were correct. That's all from me, hoped you had a good debate with me. :)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.