The Instigator
hilton16
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Fayz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

New World Order: Does the idea of a totalitarian one-world government exist.

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: 2/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,835 times Debate No: 30745
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

hilton16

Con

I look forward to debating anyone! I find this claim an interesting claim that keeps on coming up. And i want to debate it. I respect my opponenet and all he has to say. All ears are open. Please have fun!

-Rules-
There is no rules.

If you do not know what the new world order is let me clearify for you...

" totalitarian one-world government.[2][3][4][5][6]

" conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government"which replaces sovereign nation-states"and an all-encompassing propaganda that ideologizes its establishment as the culmination of history's progress.

"Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an unduly influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.[2][3][4][5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org...(conspiracy_theory)

-:Lets go!!!
Fayz

Pro

While Conspiracy Theories will always be just that: Theories, it is not completely IMPOSSIBLE for something of this nature to be possible. It almost HAS to be "possible" hence the reason it's called a theory. Not only that, but you're asking if the "idea" of a one-world government exists, and if we want to get technical about it every idea "exists" but if we're talking about the physical manifestation of it, that would go back to it's dubbing as a theory. Th topi of a totalitarian government has been brought up before in several well-known novels. Take the book 1984 for example. While the book doesn't portray a "one-world" government it definitely depicts the possibility of a few large totalitarian governments. If you really think about it if the world were to fall into a situation like the one mentioned above, then a one-world government wouldn't be far off. All it would take is intricate scheming, one corrupt person, and the resources need and available to be able to overthrow the other existing governments. Mind you, we are not talking about probability just possibility.
Just to give you a feel for how vividly accurate something such as a "totalitarian" government is, I'll briefly describe the world through 1984. The government is controlled by a small group of people. These people have a superior intellect and showcase a figure that the general public look up to. Not only do they come up with a figure for the public to love and adore, but also a figure for the people to hate. This gives the public two points of contact in which to unite with an almost unbreakable bond using humans' two strongest emotions: hate and love. On top of that, higher ups ensure that they keep the government in a good light through several discreet actions. The main one being the complete alteration of history that renders the government automatically right on any occasion upon study of past text. This combined with other factors leaning toward the same goal accomplish a sense of security throughout the people. In order to stop rebellion, the government then proceeds to completely wipe out anyone who seems to have fix on the system and has an intellect that could pose a threat to their plans. Not only do they exterminate the physical person but they wipe the person from existence through historical alteration. All of these factors work together to accomplish one thing. The government ensures complete domination through mind control.
Through deep analysis one sees that all the mind control referenced in the book is done through media propaganda. Certain facts are withheld and history is rewritten to display "victor" in a positive light. Now, it's safe to say that media works on a global level and effects nearly everybody. Through propaganda, detailed planning, and reliable resources it is entirely possible for a totalitarian government to exist and given enough time a totalitarian "one-world" government.
Debate Round No. 1
hilton16

Con

Thank you Mr. Fayz for accepting this debate. I look forward to having a great debate with you.
First and forthermost: The dream of a one world government is unachieveable. This world is just too big to compromise. No secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government""which replaces sovereign nation-states, because a nation respect it's sovereign.
-A nation woudln't want it country to be under authoritarian world when ever nations have its own beliefs. Let's take the US for example: The US basic human rights belief: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Hapiness is not universally respected. The US wouldn't want it's citizens to enjoy the freedoms no other nations enjoy. "It is hard to imagine any US president giving up American sovereignty to any organization, particularly the UN. However, some especially paranoid conservatives and libertarians believe that now that the Democrats are in power, it's only a matter of time until a socialist one-world government is instated and American sovereignty is given up. Dissenters would naturally have to be controlled or eliminated somehow." "Its popularization among conspiracy theorists can be traced to over thirty years ago when "New World Order" appeared in the 1972 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, a John Birch Society writer. Allen claimed it to be the "code word" which the International Communist ConspiracyTM would use when they were ready to unveil their secret plans for a socialist world government. This book was widely read in right-wing conspiracy-minded circles during the 1970s and is probably the source of the hysteria that later erupted over the term.
The first high-profile use of "New World Order" by a politician was in a speech given by George H. W. Bush after the Cold War ended.[3] In that speech, Bush was explaining that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and Russia would cooperate, rather than compete. All international relations experts agree that at that point, the old order of bipolarity had ended, and a new system was coming into place. The exact nature of the new system has been greatly debated over the years."
History of the terms...: During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II.
-This world as been through so many wars. Some the terms "a new world order" was used as a time of change in this world. The balance of power not meaning bringing the world under one control, both a balance of power in politcal so as to has one person making all decisions which could eventually lead to war. Let's take Adolf Hitler for example, a military dictator who used Germany with iron fist. Where all decisions were made by him and him only. Where the whole country follow. Through all this an estimated 50m people will murder! This balance of power is to make sure such history does not repeat itself.
- NWo is an opportunities to implement idealitstic proposals for global governance to address worldwide problems such as poverty, wars, and ruthless governments. For decades nations have remain nation-states trying to solve all problems by itself. And no nations can. And that's why this idea came up. These proposals has lend to the creation of the United Nations, IMF, WB, NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which many people as refer to as the regime to create a one world government. The United Nations is a organizations of Nations with each representatives, it is not a orgnization with secretaive to control world domination. Some of us may claim that the United Nations is of this one world government but yet the same United Nation is the same organization helping poor nations around the world. Trying to provide the basic things for human beings. Risking sons and daughters into nations that are in civil war only to bring the peace and to keep the peace.
Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. These creations in particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, would always be criticized and opposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists from the 1930s on.[8]
-Capitalism has build better economys than that of Socalism and Communism. But some countries haven come to relieze that thats why there countries still reamins poor today. I am not saying that Socialism or Communism world but if we can see China has been making many reforms with its Communism beliefs and today it turning to Capitalism. Though it have full pick it up. So BWS and GATT are working to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism so nations can better.
Progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes in the aftermath of the two World Wars, but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice. The United Nations was designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states (the same nation that created the United Nation and intent to reamin a free association wouldn't change the whole UN into a authorain government. Because that is abiviously want they don't want.), not a transition to democratic world government. Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement hoping in vain to create a "real" new world order.[9]
"British writer and futurist H. G. Wells would go further than progressives in the 1940s by appropriating and redefining the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state and planned economy.[10] Despite the popularity of his ideas in some state socialist circles, Wells failed to exert a deeper and more lasting influence because he was unable to concentrate his energies on a direct appeal to intelligentsias who would, ultimately, have to coordinate a Wellsian new world order."[11]
- many of our people can get influence easily these days. Most don't think for the better. Many will fall for the trap. Simply because this guy wrote a book a new orld order---technocratic world state and planned economy, it has gain popularity. Let me extend on this...because some people said that the pyramid symbol on the back of the US dollar represent the new orld order many people has felt for it. So many of our people haven't learned history. I don't know weather its not taught in our schools or we just simply ignore it. The symbol on the back of the US dollar represent a pyramid and the eye of God watching upon this nation during its war with Great Britain.
During the Red Scare of 1947"1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy". The threat of "Godless communism" in the form of a state atheistic and bureaucratic collectivist world government, demonized as a "Red Menace", therefore became the main focus of apocalyptic millenarian conspiracism.
-Didn't Adolf Hitler acus the Jews of the Germany the Jews of the Germany losing the war. Wasn't that his purpose of killing all those jews. Isn't it these same acuse people are now trying to use against fremasons, illuminati, and the jews as the "driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy."
GEO-POLITICAL and ECONOMIC UNIONS
-Pe
Fayz

Pro

-Ok first off, I would like to remind you that your debate states: Does the IDEA of a totalitarian one-world government exist. Again, I"m telling you that the idea exists. Us debating this topic right now clearly proves that the idea, that the acknowledgement of the possibility of a totalitarian one-world government exists (the idea not the actual government.) However, I"m going to assume you mean "Can a totalitarian one world government exist " or "Is it possible that a totalitarian one-world government can or may exist"
-If that"s what you mean I"d like to take you back to your own link (http://en.wikipedia.org....) It states as a definition: "The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government." It never says anything about the whole world coming to one common consensus about being ruled under one government. It says a "secretive power elite" which means one or a combination of a few things: a) Elite is singular therefore it is one person conspiring to rule many
b) The "elite"s" singular form could be one group conspiring for one common goal in order to rule many
c) The term "secretive" implies that it is not a known government or government affiliated party, therefore completely opposing your claim of "It is hard to imagine any US president giving up American sovereignty to any organization." It wouldn"t be any known organization (like the UN you brought up) that America would give its rights and freedoms to. You even quoted in reference to the UN : "It is not a organization with secretive to control world domination." That means you can"t really use the UN as an example because it isn"t the secretive organization that the definition states in the Wikipedia reference you gave us.
- Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
a) The above definition eludes to the fact (by saying whenever necessary) that this new world government is going to be seeking a peaceful compromise. As a matter of fact in the article it states: a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. So if a situation like this was to happen, it"s not going to simply be "The US giving up American sovereignty." It will be taken by force. Making this happening that much more possible. You eluded to that fact, under false pretenses, several times. You"re saying that it"s unlikely that the US would willingly give up these civil rights, which is true, but in this case it"s not a matter of want, again I"m saying a matter of this magnitude in order to implement that kind of totalitarian government would be done by force not by achieving common consent. Here are where you say it
1. It is hard to imagine any US president giving up American sovereignty to any organization
2. A nation wouldn"t want it country to be under authoritarian world whenever nations have its own beliefs.
You use the terms "want" and "giving up" as if by definition a totalitarian government would happen peacefully with a non-war related type of transition into that type of rule and government.
-As an example we can use Hitler. Ironically, you brought him up too. Hitler didn"t ask the nations surrounding him if he could take over. He used his military resources to catch them off guard and take over Poland and then other surrounding countries. By doing this, he integrated them, one by one (not all at once by COMMON CONSENSUS) into his nazi party so that he had influence over that land and restructured the economy and implemented his personal views on morals, societal structure, etc on the parts that he dominated and conquered.
-Totalitarianism is much different from Authoritarianism. The main differences are their goals and slightly the way they go about achieving. While at face value, that makes it seem like they are completely different, in actuality the ethical way they are run are extremely similar.
-Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians. (Again very similar in the aspect that it is a very small power trying to take control over a larger populace which is what this whole debate is about.)[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. (Political repression is where a particular group is persecuted for political reasons.) Using the definition of political repression, I think that could very accurately describe Hitler"s form of take over which falls under authoritarianism BUT is also characterized by totalitarianism as well. This only further proves my point that totalitarianism and authoritarianism are so closely related.
Backing up my former argument and further explaining how authoritarianism works from the same wiki article: Authoritarianism emphasizes arbitrary law rather than the rule of law, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules,[dubious " discuss] which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition"". Election rigging, political decisions made behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of the rules which does not properly supervise elected officials. A leadership that is self appointed. All of this supports my argument. Your argument relies way too heavily upon the concept and ideal that something of this nature would happen voluntarily. All of this that I"m giving you blatantly points in the opposite direction. None of this even slightly insinuates that a form of government that falls either under the closely related authoritarian or totalitarian governmental system would happen through any nations consent. All of this to say, this makes the occurrence of a totalitarian one world government MORE likely (not likely, just more likely) of happening if we considered that one government or nation had the technological resources to do so. If we take that off the table (which in real life is impossible because the {sometimes not} last resort to anything is violence) then something of this nature is extremely unlikely and borders near impossible.
Lastly, I"d like to remind you and qualify my argument by saying that the chances of something like this happening at all are above highly unlikely. There is no singular government that in this day and age, has the sheer power and resources to be able to topple a nation without bordering global nuclear warfare and if that was the case there would be no world left to govern after that point. On top of that, something of this magnitude would not just happen without another country or set of countries stepping in to also stop world domination. Again, I"d like to reiterate the situation of Hitler. After his intention
Debate Round No. 2
hilton16

Con

Let's restart the debate. The new debate will be "Can a totalitarian one world government exist" or "is it possible that a totalitarian one world government can or may exist." if you do not want to restart we can continue this debate. i got my debate, this is not to sure that i've given up.
Fayz

Pro

Nah let's just continue with this one. I don't think I could come up with another 5 rounds. Just now that you've clarified what the argument truly is we can orient our arguments around it, but even still for the most part we've been arguing where it's supposed to be. But in any case it's all good just continue what you were gonna say.
Debate Round No. 3
hilton16

Con

This Argument is a burden of proof on you! Who is the "secretive power elite" since you point out the definition "As wikipedia states "The common theme in conspiracy theories about a new world order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world world" "

 

Yes i met "Can a totalitarian one world government exist." This is the case in this debate so i will state no a "totalitarian one world government" cannot exist. As my previous statement said this world is just too big to compromise. As wikipedia states "The common theme in conspiracy theories about a new world order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world world" you seem to read that part don't didn't look any further to know that the "New World Order"was first used and i quote "History of the term" "During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination." now many people now days have completely change the definition of the world as the idea for a "one-world government." Let me ask you a question, what conspiracy was true that was ever true? the media have potrayed all source of information to get us distracted and get us thinking differently. Moving us from the things that matter the most. " "It wouldn"t be any known organization (like the UN you brought up) " well that's the main body people have used to make their claim of a one-world governemnt. Many as seen this UN as the backbone to the one-world government or new world order. but people have got the fact wrong. Because that isn't what the UN is about. "The above definition eludes to the fact (by saying whenever necessary) that this new world government is going to be seeking a peaceful compromise. " i didn't mention its going to be a peaceful compromise if my idea is the the idea of a "totalitarian one world government exist" stating that i mean that i don't believe it exist so why would i think if its going to be a peaceful compromise or whatever.





Hitler: Now with Hitler. Hitler wasn't trying to achieve a "one-world government" Hitler was trying to achieve what the US already is...Germany will either be a world power or will not be at all." he's not stating that he wants a one-world government. but that Germany will be a world power. The US is the world power but it is not consider as a "one-world government" as you trying to point out hitler and the wars. "Hitler didn"t ask the nations surrounding him if he could take over. He used his military resources to catch them off guard and take over Poland and then other surrounding countries. By doing this, he integrated them, one by one (not all at once by COMMON CONSENSUS) into his nazi party so that he had influence over that land and restructured the economy and implemented his personal views on morals, societal structure, etc on the parts that he dominated and conquered." this was imperialism. As in the case with the US and its manifest destiny. What Hitler was doing was expand from nations to nation. He wasn't trying to acheive a "one-world government."

 

"Your argument relies way too heavily upon the concept and ideal that something of this nature would happen voluntarily." from where did you see me point out such claim? if it this new world order was trying to get all nations under "one-world government" how would i made the statment voluntarily when i know that this "secretive elite" are trying to rule the world under its control and its idea. "None of this even slightly insinuates that a form of government that falls either under the closely related authoritarian or totalitarian governmental system would happen through any nations consent." no it wouldn't happen under any nation consent. but the definition "secretive power elite with a globalist agenda " who is this secretive power elite. If it was some secret people that are not in the government how are they going to get citizens, build up their military that is not part of the nation in which its in, train, equip, and take them to war when without the nations government. And if it was in the government, who are these secretive power elite and what country are they in? If they were in this government how can they keep there secretive without all the other government officials knowing?

"All of this to say, this makes the occurrence of a totalitarian one world government MORE likely (not likely, just more likely) of happening if we considered that one government or nation had the technological resources to do so." having technological resources cannot do anything or prove of it can bring the world under "totalitarian one world government" if that was the case the US could do it for it is the most advance technological nation in the world. (if i'm not wrong). if thats the case than " this makes the occurrence of a totalitarian one world government MORE likely (not likely, just more likely) of happening if we considered that one government or nation had the technological resources to do so" than why haven't China done so in Asia as it is one of the most advanced countries in the world.

"If we take that off the table (which in real life is impossible because the {sometimes not} last resort to anything is violence) then something of this nature is extremely unlikely and borders near impossible." i'm glad you put that out. so the question is "is it achievable" (as the restated topic is as you restate it because of "However, I"m going to assume you mean "Can a totalitarian one world government exist " or "Is it possible that a totalitarian one-world government can or may exist" so the question is and as you pick pro on this topic whats your position if its achievable? or is it still pro. because if its not pro than no need of continuing this debate because than we both con.

 

"Lastly, I"d like to remind you and qualify my argument by saying that the chances of something like this happening at all are above highly unlikely. There is no singular government that in this day and age, has the sheer power and resources to be able to topple a nation without bordering global nuclear warfare and if that was the case there would be no world left to govern after that point. On top of that, something of this magnitude would not just happen without another country or set of countries stepping in to also stop world domination."

-great argument you have and i respect that. since you made the statement that the chances of something like this is above highly unlikely means this debate is over. Thank you for accepting this debate and expessing your opinion. you are a great debater. maybe we can debate on another topic next time?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fayz

Pro

Fayz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
hilton16

Con

good game. would u like to do a different debate?
Fayz

Pro

Fayz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DrHaz3 3 years ago
DrHaz3
Before starting the new topic be sure to clearly understand your position and what it is you are trying to argue for and against. Test the idea both ways to make sure it is coherent both ways. Take an extra moment to word it properly or see if it can be more precisely defined. A few topic examples might be, Is there a real threat to a totalitation one world governement coming into power? Can a totalitarian one world government exist in society today?
Posted by hilton16 3 years ago
hilton16
Credits:
wikipedia
http://rationalwiki.org...
http://www.brainyquote.com...
There weren't space to insert it
Posted by hilton16 3 years ago
hilton16
My debate continues on this...
GEO-POLITICAL and ECONOMIC UNIONS
-People have widely use the geo-political and econmic union as an assertion to their claims. All of the following organizations are only working to collaborate and fight for the better of the people. African Union (UA) Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).The European Union (EU) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR)
(i pick this quote because a one world government means lasting peace and will mankind has grown strong in ternal struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace." it's impossible to have external peace. There are some 194 countries in the world to simply united all of them for a one world government.
"I don't think that I really feel that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood or even that it would be desirable to have a single government elected by the people of the world ... There have been people, ever since I've had any kind of position in the world, who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crackpots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't true, and won't be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible.[50]" - Rockefeller
Mankind has grown strong in eternal struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.
-Adolf Hitler.
Posted by Consummator 3 years ago
Consummator
Obviously the idea exists or this debate can't happen.
No votes have been placed for this debate.