Smaller First World Countries are Better than Larger First World Countries
Debate Rounds (3)
I will argue that smaller first world countries are better than larger first world countries.
Definition of 'smaller first world country' - Any country on the list linked below under the population of ten million.
Definition of 'larger first world country' - Any country on the list linked below over the population of ten million,
First round: acceptance
Second round: arguments
Third round: rebuttals
A forfeiture results in an instant lose.
I look forward to your arguments.
Smaller first world countries are generally more astutely organised socially and economically than larger countries who are often found to be in momentous amounts of debts, corruption and other futile complexities, such as war. According to the World Happiness Report (1) published in 2013 which utilises factors such as real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, freedom from corruption and generosity - smaller first world countries are far happier than larger ones. From the list, it can be seen that SEVEN out of TEN countries in the top ten of the report are all smaller first world nations. Larger first world nations such as the United States of America, Russia and China all fall below the top twenty spots. This proves that on average, smaller first world countries are socially more developed than larger countries and this results in a more pleased population as a whole.
Smaller first world countries also appear to be significantly less corrupt than larger first world nations. The Corruptions Perception Index (2) produced in 2014 again appears to deem smaller first world countries such as Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Singapore and Luxembourg all less broken than larger (world leaders) namely mass producer China (100th) and the vast land mass that is Russia that meanders depressingly at 136th. All countries that appear in the top five are smaller first world countries under the population of ten million and the only large country that exists in the top ten is Canada, which runs on a similar political structure to that of Denmark, Finland and Iceland. The fact is, smaller first world countries are generally less corrupt than larger first world countries.
To top things off, it has been proven that smaller first world countries are more bountifully more peaceful than larger ones, with the Global Peace Index (3) displaying similar results to the previous two lists. Once again, SEVEN out of the top TEN countries listed in the index are all small first world nations under the population of ten million. The United States of America are ranked 101th, China 108th and Russia 152nd. Other large populations of Brazil and India are all over the 100th mark.
To summarise, first world countries with smaller populations are generally happier, less corrupt and more peaceful than larger first world countries and are therefore better in the most crucial aspects for the basis of any countries well-being.
(1) - http://unsdsn.org...
(2) - http://www.transparency.org...
(3) - http://www.visionofhumanity.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.