The Idea for a unified world governemt is not a feasible possibility at the current moment.
Debate Rounds (4)
Ok to start this debate i will thank my opponent for taking the time to actually argue this topic in the first place, as i was curious about this topic and could only see this side but was curious about the other, thus this debate.
Now to the actual debate.
I would prefer if my opponent would stay within reason, and if possible cite at least one credible source with most of their contentions, or whatever points they make, and i will do the same. Again, this is just a debate to satisfy my own curiosity of seeing something on my mind from a different point of view.
No government will ever give up war, for the simple reason that it will lose all its power over the people. A government is designed to protect its people from threats, both foreign and abroad; in fact most countries have their officials swear as such, in one way or the other. But if the world was to follow the same leadership, the governements lose all but a fragment of its power. This obviously is not a realistic point of view for 1 simple reason.
1) Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrups Absolutely.
Lord Acton had it right with the quote i just used. We see it all the time in the news, When we, the people elect, or give power to a single person, they use that power for their own use in the end. From the begining of time Empire have risen and fallen following this principle. The Chinese Dynasties all followed the same pattern, The first ruler under the monarchy was chosen for their self-sacrifice, leadership, and for putting the people's needs above their own. However as time went on, all those qualities pulled a 180 and became instead qualities of Selfishness, greed, and Corruption. This pattern showed up over and over throughout history, from Eqypt, to Rome, and even to the British Crown. This pattern has shown up time and time again, over and over, and yet the people of the world never tried to stop it, or come up with a system that rose above the failures so commonly characterized by the human race. In a perfect world, A Unified World Government is a perfect solution. But if the Human history has taught us one single thing, its that this is not a perfect world.
This is the crux of my point of view, so for this single reason, the world is forced to stay apart.
So i hope you, the neg can help me see the other side and i look forward to your argument(s)
THE IDEA of it is feasible at the current moment.
THis is regardless of whether the government itself is feasible.
You are absolutely right, and i concede the fact that the idea for a singular world government is feasable. But as there is no such thing as a Unified World Government, it is only an idea, thus proving that it exists as it is right now. So this debate can only be about a "real" world government.
A real world government is ALSO feasible. The issue is would the subjective emotions of the individual leaders we appoint to represent nations in the world-wide state not influence them to engage in wars? I think that this is the reason for different states (meaning separate government controlled nations) in the first place. If we make sure there are no feuds it could happen. You are literally saying something that is possible is impossible. Very foolish.
I would disagree... The only way for any country to achive union with another, is by an agreement by both sides leaders... Simple philosopy and politics. But it is not FEASABLE because people will not give up their power once they achieve it, now yes there are some exceptions, but the rule, unfortunate as it is, is that when someone achieves their power they sparingly choose to relinquish it. So while the idea is DREAMABLE it is not Feasable.
The entire pro side of this debate relies on the idea that if EVERYONE got on suddenly everyone would let power get to their head. This is a silly assumption.
Hacnet forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.