The Instigator
brendanfmcclelland
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MicaylaMae
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should we have a one world government?

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 2 votes the winner is...
MicaylaMae
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 89034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

brendanfmcclelland

Pro

I think we should because it could do so much a national government couldn't do like stop unwanted and unnecessary wars, battle global recessions, provide universal healthcare worldwide, prosecute corrupt politicians, and so much more. The UN has been rather ineffective towards global affairs. And with a one world government the world would be more civilized than ever.
MicaylaMae

Con

I believe that only one government throughout the world would lead to dictatorship. Who would be at the top of the government? Many of our greatest, and largest empires throughout history fell because they had too much land to control. Romans, Mongols, and many others had too much land, now imagine the world in just a few peoples hands. Would people want to give up their cultures? With a world-wide government, they could take away your religion.
Debate Round No. 1
brendanfmcclelland

Pro

A one world government would not make this world one country. It can be democratic and people can still live distinct cultures and such.
MicaylaMae

Con

That only is true if the head of the government agrees with that. People would try to join groups, and may fight the government through civil war.
Debate Round No. 2
brendanfmcclelland

Pro

Will you know many people consider the European Union a prototype for a one world government and that being said if you don't think we should have a one world government then we shouldn't have the European Union either and nor should we have the UN either.
MicaylaMae

Con

Both the UN and the European Union only control a section of the world. The UN only controls 20% of the world population. Even now they are saying that there has been a huge increase in population, and there is global hunger in several different countries. If a global government were to take place, then now people would not have as much as a voice, because there would be almost 7 billion other people. how will they would stop reccesion if the government goes into reccesion?
http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MicaylaMae 1 year ago
MicaylaMae
its possible. if you think this is in my favor so much, then why wont you vote?? We debated. Its over. start your own debate with him.
Posted by LittleDreamer 1 year ago
LittleDreamer
@Brendan: UNPA is not 'reorganization of the UN' as such though, but an addition to it. I do not mind such an additional organ to an existing international organisation, nor the purpose of the UN as a whole. Nor do I think that it's even close to the formation of a one-world government. But the UN has been constantly criticised as ineffective, which is true because even though it claims to be fair and democratic, it's fairly obvious that most of the powers rest within the hands of the UNSC, or to say the Big Five. Moreover, I highly doubt that all countries would surrender their powers to form a one-world government, no matter how impartial it claims to be it will still be corrupted. Countries these days wish to be more independent and powerful, so just the thought of organising themselves into such a government seems rather redundant and unfavourable.
Posted by brendanfmcclelland 1 year ago
brendanfmcclelland
@LittleDreamer Will perhaps yes. In case you haven't noticed there has actually been plans to reorganize the UN into such. Google United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. It is a proposed concept.
Posted by LittleDreamer 1 year ago
LittleDreamer
@Brendan: Do you really think that a democratic one-world government is even remotely possible? Sounds like a highly utopian, hypothetical model to me.
Posted by MicaylaMae 1 year ago
MicaylaMae
This was a very good debate. Con made some strong points, and i can see how it may be possible in the future. I told my reasons, and he told his. all fairness.
Posted by brendanfmcclelland 1 year ago
brendanfmcclelland
Um I disagree with your comment 100%. A one world government could work if it is democratic. And I do remember what con said about people joining groups and starting a civil war against the government. Will the world government should utilize a military force against any corrupt military forces that will start a civil war and the world government wins it can remain in operation but if it loses I suppose it will have to dissolve. For those who are against it are grossly underestimating the concept.
Posted by LittleDreamer 1 year ago
LittleDreamer
Oh no. That won't work at all practically and in all honesty it sounds more like the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. For ex; I come from an extremely diverse country, where each state has it's own distinct identity. Thus, we have conflicts occasionally if the government at the centre fails to recognise/acknowledge their identity, resolve their disputes, concede to their demands etc. This is the same for the international community, where each nation has it's own interests except that conflicts in this case will happen on a much larger and possibly appalling scale. You cannot expect to give similar solutions to varied problems or interfere in the welfare of the state without considering their interests, which will more or less contradict yours. The UN can exercise control only up to the extent that it's member nations allow it to, plus it's mostly dominated by Western nations who advance their own quoted interests so it's been ineffective. And from the likes of it, the EU hasn't panned out too well. Greeks were more or less submitted into it and now they face unemployment issues along with Spain. The UK has differences with the EU cause of the many restrictions the organisation imposes on it. The EU has outreached it's initial goal of economic cooperation and isn't exactly stable.
Posted by brendanfmcclelland 1 year ago
brendanfmcclelland
I should of put five rounds in this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 1 year ago
Phenenas
brendanfmcclellandMicaylaMaeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no logic or reasoning for his argument, and used no sources. Con, however, gave specific examples of times where one world government did not work, and Pro failed to refute them. Con also cited an official source from the UN's website.
Vote Placed by stschiffman 1 year ago
stschiffman
brendanfmcclellandMicaylaMaeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used examples from history. Pro did not. Con did an excellent job rebutting Pro's EU and UN point. Also, Con cited a source, Pro did not.