The Instigator
hwp460
Pro (for)
The Contender
Instinctious
Con (against)

Resolved: Nationalism is better than globalism.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Instinctious has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 337 times Debate No: 107628
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

hwp460

Pro

If you were homeless and starving, would you give money to the Salvation Army? That's what globalism is in a sense because, in countries like the United States, we are trillions of dollars in debt. To top it all off, we have a foreign aid budget. We don't have enough money for ourselves, but we still feel the need to inject ourselves into every foreign affair. I propose three arguments why nationalism is inherently better than globalism.

1. Until a country isn't in debt and leading in every possible way (military, education, jobs, scientific research, etc.) they don't have the materials to spare to other countries without betraying their citizens for not giving them the best in these fields.

2. If I told you to watch one kid, it would be easy. Heck, if I told you to watch 20 like-minded kids, it wouldn't be too difficult. Now, what if I told you to watch 193 kids, each completely different, some with guns, and a lot of previous conflicts including past fights. Let's rename the example to the point I was getting at by saying the 193 United Nations member nations, some with nuclear weapons (guns) and a lot of heated tensions (India-China, Argentina-United Kingdom).There is no way that could be governed efficiently. National governments make sure you that you are getting the best for your nation and you are having a closer eye on yourself rather than if it was a global government.

3. For my final argument, I would like to point out that a global government would be impossible to establish. The world is too different from another. Would we have a one-party autocracy like Russia, China, and North Korea or a democracy like the United States, Britain, and France? If we had the same government with different parties that would be one thing, but we don't even have close to the same government, economic or social setting making it impossible for true beliefs to come out.

(I'm aware it might seem confusing because I jumped from a country being globalist to a global government, but the point is pure globalism versus pure nationalism, so we need to debate it in all states it comes in.)
Instinctious

Con

First of all I'd like to say that you bring an interesting argument forward on globalism, and a global government.

1) As for my first argument I would like to ask for the individual to look at the events which inspired the ideas of globalism and the establishment of a global regime. Nationalism and militarism caused the first and second world war, the idea of one society being superior to the other has been tearing our world apart since the medieval era. Nationalism and national pride supports being proud of something in the past you had nothing to do with, it completely crushes our sense of international identity and causes nothing but hate between people in our society. The truth is we are divided by religion, borders, culture and race. We are forgetting that in the end we all stand on one pillar, that pillar is our humanity, which is why a world united is a stronger world. Divided the coming storms will tear us apart, but together, as one, nothing can stand in our way.

2) What you purpose in your first argument is an 'Every man for himself' idea. Many nations across the world rely on this foreign aid provided by the United States of America to be able to run a stable government and to peacefully progress both scientifically, educationally and researchwise. Yes, the U.S is in a horrific amount of debt, but it's good to know that at least a portion of it's income has been spent on international development and the helping of those in desperate need. Sure, many Americans aren't happy with the jobs they have, but there are innocent people out there who are dying as a result of this 'every man for himself' idea, and more innocents will continue to die unless the people of the first world take a stand now and come to the realization that maybe, just maybe their lives aren't as bad as as the lives of others across the globe. The truth is we are stronger united.

3) The only global government which will be accepted in the international community would be a democratic government, a global government would actually improve the economic and social standards of humans. Under a democratic world government citizens from all over the world will have direct rights, no longer will dictatorships, communism and terror divide and enslave a portion of society but now for once in history humans will begin feeling a drift further away from nationalism, and truly embrace their international identity under a central government. Sure, the early days will be rough in the integration process, extremists will take advantage of this, nationalists even more so and will attempt to once again divide us. In the early days we will have some issues with large scale planetary administration, but nothing good ever came out of doing absolutely nothing. Discrimination will slowly fade away and we will truly feel an era of peace. Not to mention with all the scientific minds worldwide working together as one we will experience a dramatic boost in scientific development.

(Opinion will follow) : My point is, I don't dislike nationalists and I'm not against the celebration of traditional/religious holidays or the destruction of culture. But I do believe that only through recognizing our place in the international community can be our best selves and contribute equally to society in the hopes of building a new world for the generations to come.

Perhaps what I say is easier said than done, but for these reasons I stand on the side of globalism and international identity.






Debate Round No. 1
hwp460

Pro

I'll continue the arguments in the same order.

1. For this argument you never actually touched the point I was getting at. My point is that every national government has a duty to provide for its citizens. This was outlawed in the social contract created by John Locke. A government has to try to help its citizens before anything else or it is failing its citizens and that breaking the social contract. The point you brought up is nationalism divides us and caused the World Wars. I believe this to be a gross inclusion on the behalf of nationalism. You are counting racism as nationalism which is unfair. World War II was due to Hitler's racism. He thought his RACE was best and Germany was the country of his RACE. He wanted to spread his country for the fact of exterminating other races while taking over other countries was just a byproduct of the genocide of Jews, gays, and blacks.

(I'm going to divide the US foreign aid example and the argument of countries doing better than a world government. If you feel they should be the same argument, then combine them again. Sorry.)

2. The US spends tons of money to help other countries and you said that the only accomplishment the US gets out of it is warm feelings. That's not enough. You said innocents die, but that happens in America as well. I digress back to argument 1 when I say that innocents die in the United States and until we cut out every unnecessary death in our own country, then we shouldn't help others. I should I give a foreign child food when there are just as many starving kids in the US? I'm not saying we should never ever help foreign countries, but until our country is as perfect as possible and we have surplus cash.

3. On to the question of if a country does better than the world united. It's a matter of keeping a close eye on things. You can't take everything on without biases or even mistakes. One government can't watch the whole world. That's why states and cities exist. You said under a democratic world government, terror wouldn't exist. (I will cover the democratic part of that in argument 4.) A world government would cause even more terrorism, crime, unemployment, etc. It's because an issue wouldn't even be recognized by the world government until it got big enough to affect the planet.

4. On to the last point, the world government would be full of differences. I think there is a great misjudgment in the fervor of communist, fascist and otherwise bad governments. North Korea would not give up their fascism without question. China would not give up communism without question. Middle Eastern nations would not give up their persecution of Jews without question. You said extremists would try to revert the damage at the beginning but I think this would be the biggest problem. If no country can pick a single party without causing inherently evil fascist government, then how would adding more people and opinions make it any better?

Opinion: I don't dislike globalists or their views. I just feel that only people looking out for themselves will equal any sort of good outcomes.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.