The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
repete21
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Mankind is developed enough where we should no longer need territory

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,428 times Debate No: 295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (18)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

I believe that we, meaning humans as an entire species, should remove all borders in terms of individual states.

Wikipedia.com's definition of territory is: any geographical area that an animal of a particular species consistently defends against con specifics (and, occasionally, animals of other species).

Dictionary.com defines borders as: the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another

Webster's New World Definition defines a state as: a body of people politically organized under one government/nation

Territory, when used in the days that we where still australopithecus, and among every predator know to date, territory was a necessity to insure the safety of the species food supply, by marking of boundaries where prey grazed or fruits grew. It was a basic necessity for survival, and reasonable seeing as how we still had animal instincts. Now, however, seeing as how we are so keen to describe ourselves beyond our primal selves, we should be able to abandon this most animalistic trait that has lead to the deaths of trillions of humans. No longer do we have to defend against predators because we are the top predator. We keep our prey contained, so we no longer need to maintain a game trail. The only predator we face is our own kind. The only thing that we are defending within our borders and territories is the ground that comprises them. Dirt that has existed since before the first amoeba formed is the number one cause for war. In ALL wars. Countries may attempt to justify the bloody events with political, or religious reason's, but the simple matter is that there is no such thing as a country, we've only convinced ourselves that there is. So, to put it bluntly, we are all fighting over something in our imagination's. I believe the end to wars hinges on our elimination of these imaginary lines.

Examples of wars caused by territory conflict: name one, and there's your example.
repete21

Con

First off, you are correct, in that humans no longer need "territories" as a grazing ground in which they hunt their prey, but, you have clearly overlooked your third definition "a body of people politically organized under one government/nation". A territory is no longer a necessity for survival, but it has come into new light, as a place where people can be among other who believe in the same thing as them, and support each other. Without territories, there would be chaos among governments, unless you think that all governments should also be abolished, and there should be world wide anarchy. Assuming that governments attempted to stay and power, and people continued to rely on their government, as a form of protection, for education, for social services, to maintain infrastructure, and as a larger entity which defends their views, there would be no way that this could happen, as the number one form of government revenue is taxes, which could not be collected if there was no "body of people politically organized under one government/nation", because the laws could not be enforced, and people couldn't be forced to pay taxes, so the governments would go bankrupt, and collapse, leading to anarchy. This plan would also be ineffective, because of things such as racism, and elitism. As long as these two things exist, the groups with either, A) separate themselves, creating territories, or B)Try to bring the other under their rule, such as has happened in history with slavery. This will cause one of two things, either a united force of people who defend their views as a group, which I believe meets your third definition, or the weaker of the two will flee to a different area, such as Taiwan, and China, creating borders, and territories, separating the two. I have proven that unless anarchy could work, and all people could come to rely on themselves, and get over their differences, borders will continue to exist.
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

I apologize for not being more specific on the front of my "state" definition. What I meant to imply was that should these magical boundaries be abolished the world could exist as one whole state, but rather than the limited definition supplied by Webster, it would then be: The entirety of the human race politically organized under one planetary organization. This also is my rebuttal to your anarchy argument. The destruction of the borders is not meant to simply make a map clean, but to unite the governments of the world under one common force, which while it may seem to be an impossible ideal, is hardly one. The only thing is that it would be tremendously difficult, and time consuming. However, it is far from impossible. Russia is the largest country in the world that still has a working government. Then Canada, which has a stupendously established one, followed by the States and China. All are relatively big countries in comparison to other countries, and still run better than their smaller neighbors. Look at the civil wars in the African countries, North and South Korea, among dozens of others. Yet the larger countries are all able to maintain a state where there is not civil war within the countries (currently) and are the greater of the worlds powers. Now just imagine this but on a much larger scale: a global one. Hardly impossible, and people are still paying taxes, law is still being managed (just as well as any other place on Earth). Protection would no longer be needed save for the loonies who would cause trouble. Education would still last, seeing as how most of it already is fairly uniform. Social Services is a concept becoming more and more ready in the "1st World" countries, spanning across the continents. Infrastructure can still be maintained, as it is already doing so across the world. All that needs to be removed is the imaginary lines that we are so sure separate us from every other homo sapien on this rock.

Secondly, on the matter of territories being a safe haven for peoples beliefs shared by the entire nation, that is a complete fantasy. No nation, in the history of this planet has ever been a place unified under one common belief, unless done so forcefully, which never turns out well. Even America is hardly an understanding place when it comes to beliefs and ideals. However, most countries, save for the less developed, have accepted the concept of "freedom of speech and religion". The Church of England is no longer killing non believers. The Spanish Inquisition has passed, and Jews are no longer criminals in Germany. Slavery is a widely abolished practice save for the underground community, which will be severely crippled when countries are no longer in need of WMD's and other weapons of war. The only resistance would be the ignorant and self deceived. So yes, while maybe 100% of the world may not accept it immediately, time would fix it, as it has with many, many, many of all the other revolutionary idea's of this race (flight, electricity, separation of church and state, etc).

I have proved it can work. It's already an idea in place, just not fully recognized.
repete21

Con

First off, you are lucky, I had 6,000 Characters used, then I pushed the back button someone conveniently put on the side of our new mouse :(

Moving on, now that you have clarified, there are other, large problems you have overlooked. First off, you have forgotten one major thing, if you remove borders to ALL states, not only nations, but their provinces, and states, there will be large problems. Think back to the American Revolution, it was caused because the British government did not know what problems American colonist faced, and did not adjust laws according to the colonist's needs. The same happened in the American civil war, the north wanted laws put in place that jeopardized the southern economy, again, leading to civil war. The purpose of having separate state governments, is so that laws can be made where they are needed to take care of situations in local areas, for example, the south would have been destroyed, had there been sanctions against European countries, as the north wanted. In places such as Africa, the main export, oil, would loose some value, when the government took over, and was able to control oil prices more effectively. Another problem that you overlooked is the demographics of the nations which your plan would attempt to unite. Uniting countries such as Israel, and the surrounding Islamic countries, or the Koreas, which have been in conflict for years, would be impossible, especially in the middle east, where factions of the Islamic religion are constantly at war. Also, the reason that the United States has kept a decent poverty level is that we take care of each other, to an extent. The young take care of the retired, with Social Security, and the middle/upper classes take care of the poor with programs such as welfare. This is possible, because the population is not divided between rich and poor, but, when the nations where united, places such as Africa would expect government benefits, but wouldn't be able to pay, so the burden would fall on the shoulders of the west, to expect the west to pay for all the impoverished in the world, is illogical. On the topic of preventing civil war, statistically, democratic countries have the lowest chances of civil war, assuming you would have a democratic nation, it would be impossible to fairly represent the people, without borders between different areas, such as the agricultural areas of the midwest, and the manufacturing areas of the northeast in the United States, without proper representation, the same thing would happen as in the American Revolution. It would be impossible for a government to contain all of these internal conflicts without civil war, and as soon as there is civil war, your plan would fail. I don't believe, nor do I expect that anyone does honestly believe that all the people of the world could live together in harmony without war, while putting other regions such as Africa before themselves.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

In the Rev. War, Britain was perfectly aware of problems the Colonists faced, as there where numerous revolts and paper editorials about it, they just didn't care. The civil war was a dumb economic mistake, which ultimately lead to a greater good. This is beside the point.

The destruction of borders would not negate laws specific to the individual areas. Rather, the unification would act more like the United States, all joined under one common government, yet zoned so that they can have certain laws that apply to their direct needs. Your main concern seems to be that you believe economic trading with other places would be utterly destroyed, but this is not the case. Trade can take place just as easily from San Francisco to Las Angeles within California, as it can from San Fran to Las Vegas in Nevada. But I'm not talking about destroying the States of America's borders, so much as the different countries. This sort of unification has been used already, in both Europe and America, and when united, they developed a common currency. With the invention of the Euro, the European countries economy's that where joined boomed. America, as you may know, started out with several different currency's, with different exchange rates, but when America truly united after the civil war, and one currency was establish, it truly became the richest country in the world. Thus, on a global unification, and with the invention of a common currency, its highly probably that all the countries economy's would boom, rather than decline. The worlds wealth would be shared, and yes, even places like Africa could get a piece of the pie.

Secondly, yes, I do see what you mean. After all, peace is an impossible idea. Exactly the same as how the warring countries of Germany, Japan, Britain, and America, could never be allies. After all, at some point or another, they all fought a war against each other. How could they ever come to a peaceful outcome? How silly of me.

I thus conclude, that I do believe, that with serious time and effort, the worlds separate countries could all become unified and equal. One Global Nation, divided only on a map via zoning, rather than politcally. There would not have to be an special treatment for countries. Instead of several strangers behind walls roughly trying to tolerate each other, we could be a unified family, completely willing to take care of its own. Just like how people are individual, so too could the differing regions maintain their own special needs, while still being able to cater to the greater power. Yes, there will be bickering. Yes, there will be resentment. But out of these conflicts will come compromise. There are certain programs and plans, such as national insurance, and minimum wage, that can benefit the entirety of globe. There can also be programs that only certain zones require, while others do not, such as water management, and goods trade. I can see absolutely no reason why the human will cannot overcome the many childish arguments and resentments, that while they have existed in the past, are more and more being refuted and exiled, such as racism and feudal privileges.

Mr. repete21, you have fought valiantly, and made many well thought and intelligently made arguments. I respect your opinions, while I may not fully agree. T' was an honor. And I'm sorry for your computer glich, I'm sure it would've blown me out of the water.

To the reader, I hope I've presented my subject well. If I've done it right, I pray most, if not all of you, can see my perspective. Good luck with your decision.

Darth_Grievous_42 out.
repete21

Con

Fortunately I have an extra computer :), but thank you for your concern.

It seems that in your last argument you changed from wanting no borders, to wanting world peace. I understand your argument about Germany, Japan, Britain, but these can not be paralleled to the deep hatred between Judaism, and Islam. I also believe that your "zoning" would create borders, which isn't compatible with your plan.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
There seems to be some confusion. I am in no way trying to say the countries should unite under America, nor any other pre existing state. I'm only using these countries to highlight values that are working and could be used to build the unified planet.
Posted by conservativemike08 9 years ago
conservativemike08
I don't think any country would give up it's sovereignty so quickly. People are too nationalistic. I would be up in arms if America even considered it.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I think we can get rid of the borders as soon as we impose our form of government on everyone : )
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Just to clarify, the zoning would not be used to create countries, but would meerly be used for mapping purposes.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by brie 9 years ago
brie
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by behindblueeyes 9 years ago
behindblueeyes
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by nrw 9 years ago
nrw
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by wheelhouse3 9 years ago
wheelhouse3
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by takinit2farrr 9 years ago
takinit2farrr
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by conservativemike08 9 years ago
conservativemike08
Darth_Grievous_42repete21Tied
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