The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The United Nations should fake an alien invasion of Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,120 times Debate No: 79734
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




First round acceptance. Argue in the spirit of the debate. Must have 5 debates under your belt to accept.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Unfortunately, I'm just going to have to skip the first round. We can shorten the debate by one round or just start me with a one round disadvantage. I'd request that the judges not defect conduct points from me if my opponent accepts a one round advantage, as being disadvantaged by one round is punishment enough.


imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I think my opponent should have a conduct point deducted for that, but it's not my choice. This is a 5,000 character debate, please keep that in mind.

New World Order

A one world government (here after referred to as the NWO) has the benefit of getting rid of the biggest problems facing nation states today. That problem is the Prisoner's Dilemma. The Prisoner's dilemma is described in the following way by (Poundstone 1992) via Wikipedia

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:

1. If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison

2. If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)

3. If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)"

Now it's better if both prisoner's cooperate, but you have no ideal what the other prisoner will do. Here is the dilemma explained further.

"The problem with the prisoner's dilemma is that if both decision-makers were purely rational, they would never cooperate. Indeed, rational decision-making means that you make the decision which is best for you whatever the other actor chooses. Suppose the other one would defect, then it is rational to defect yourself: you won't gain anything, but if you do not defect you will be stuck with a -10 (3 year) loss. Suppose the other one would cooperate, then you will gain anyway, but you will gain more if you do not cooperate, so here too the rational choice is to defect. The problem is that if both actors are rational, both will decide to defect, and none of them will gain anything. However, if both would "irrationally" decide to cooperate, both would gain 5 points.(be free 1 year sooner than had they betrayed the other)

We see this prisoner's dilemma everywhere on the global scale. It's better if all nations disarm their nuclear weapons, but if one betrays the rest by not doing it, he gains a substantial amount of power, and the other nations are at that one's mercy. The same can be said of reducing carbon emissions. It's best if we all have zero emissions, but if the United States has zero emissions and China refuses to cooperate, all of a sudden they can cripple the United States economically by creating a ton of goods for cheaper. Instead of wars which hurt everybody, eliminating the prisoner's dilemma can make it possible for differences to be handled in various world courts.

The Alien Invasions

A world government can be created through democratic means and in a slow way, but meanwhile the threat of nuclear war is hanging over our heads constantly, the planet is slowly being destroyed and massive human right's violations occur on a daily basis. We need a solution that is quick, so we don't accidentally kill ourselves before it is too late.

It's a well known thing that people set aside their differences when faced with an outside threat. The colonists in America did it to fight off the British. Me and my sister used to fight like cats and dogs, but when somebody tried to harm my sister, I was always there to punch them in their face, and she was there for me. When 9/11 occurred Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences to face down the perceived outside terrorist threat.

The world requires some sort of external threat that we can all come together and face. This outside threat will spark all kinds of coordinated efforts to bring everyone together. A world government can be formed under the guise of this fake threat.

No longer will people be Americans, Europeans and Africans, but when this threat occurs, we're just Earthlings. This outside threat should be a fake alien invasion. We can use lasers to to fake an alien invasion. (See project blue Beam) we don't have to fake an attack, their looming presence and maybe some leaked reports that they're about to attack will be enough.

Another option sometimes mentioned to bring the world together is global warming, but it's a threat that is not imminent and nobody seems to care about it. The reason that we'd want the UN to fake this invasion is that they're the closest thing to a world government we have, and it's a much easier transition if they lead the charge.



imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I can't respond to any new arguments in the final round, so this should be counted as a full forfeit by my opponent


imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Me too
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
I say that constitutes acceptance of shortening the debate.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
I was seconds away from taking this debate. I went out for 5 minutes and came back and this debate had been accepted.
Posted by Rezamee 2 years ago
I had this idea a while back. If this is done correctly it would be an easy way to unite most the planet. That's if we could do it though.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
You know, I can see a legitimate argument by Pro here...
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
The temptation to take this debate is real.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Not a very confidence boosting statement BSH1.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture