The Instigator
Masterire
Pro (for)
The Contender
RicePharmer
Con (against)

The nation state is the most moral form of government.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
RicePharmer 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: 1/14/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 98990
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Masterire

Pro

The Nation State is a form of government where each people (nation) have their own state for that cultural group. Nation States as a concept emerged in noteriety after the European Enlightenment and birth of nationalism and was fundamental in the formation of states for single cultural groups, particularly in Europe.

I believe this is a great thing. I think we can clearly see that stability is lacking in diversity. Fake states as we see in Africa with arbitrary borders encompassing many ethnic and cultural groups spawns conflict. Conflict is much lower in European stye nation states. Where as the Czech Republic is unlikely to collapse into civil war anytime soon, grouping people's together from many groups about three hours away in what was once Yugoslavia lead to as deadly ethnic and cultural conflict. Nation states tend to be more tolerant, peaceful, wealthy and productive and this more moral. They also ensure that no nation has an empire or rules over other people's as each nation purely governs their own cultural group. Nation states avoid racial and cultural conflict and domination.
RicePharmer

Con

My opponent did not set forth any detailed definition for morality, so I'll argue against it as best as I can and allow the readers to judge whether I did a good job despite having to argue against vague terminology. I do not believe that a discussion of morality needs to preclude the ideal. Realism does not need to be factored in with a discussion about whether something is "the most moral". As such, I would argue that the most moral form of government would be any government or lack of government agreed upon among peaceful and unified human beings who no longer feel it necessary to differentiate between self and other using drawn lines in the sand.

The reality of the situation is that my opponent admits that human beings tend towards conflict, and human beings tend toward conflict because they seek to preserve a false sense of self. An ego. A carefully constructed notion of who they are as individuals, banding together with some like minded individuals while also taking care to exclude others lest they have their identity watered down. It's a psychological affliction as old as time and it is the primary cause of conflict. The problem is that all of this stuff is imaginary. We all have the same capacity to love. To dream. To be.

Recognizing our shared humanity and eliminating arbitrary divisive concepts like "nationality" or "race" is our only shot to a moral future as a globalized community, not my opponent's proposed system of further grouping and dividing people. In fact, doing so won't prevent conflict. It will escalate it. Conflict happens when things get in the way of recognizing our similarities and more succinctly, the fact that we really are one large organic being made up of smaller parts. My opponent tries to argue that it will somehow create more cohesive countries and lists a handful of supposed benefits but creating "nation states" would do nothing but displace small hostilities between individuals of a country into major hostilities between nations that will inevitably lead to war. It is far easier to convince people to murder each other when you harp on your differences, and that is exactly what my opponent's proposal would do.
Debate Round No. 1
Masterire

Pro

My opponent falsely prescribes statelessness and lack of nationality as moral. Not only is the breaking down of national identities unrealistic it is also immoral.

Many groups have fought subjugation throughout the ages, oppressed by larger stares. The Polish, The Irish, The Jews and native Americans come to mind. To deny these people their own land where they can guarantee themselves civil rights and sense of self is immoral as long as no other group is displaced.

These people groups did not fight empires and larger more powerfully states to have their national identity eraser to become the same as the people who once oppressed them in the past. To certify that, the destruction or assimilation of these people's distinctiveness in their own lands , as the larger power they fought would have gladly desired decades or centuries prior as progressive or moral is false. Globalismand statelessness is merely another form of imperialism that leads to the destruction or subjugation of smaller powers by bigger ones.

Not only is it immoral it is unrealistic. Attempts to scratch national identity have lead to disasters like the Yugoslav war. The kudish conflicts, Irish Plantations etc. The reality is all humans have a sense of self that has evolved through the ages, primarily influenced by geography and events in history.

For instance the Polynesian people's. All racially the same, yet upon their discovery they were so vastly difference influenced by theither mere surroundings and they only culturally diverged a few centuries prior. Some, like the Malaori or New Zealands south island even regressed to hunter gatherers while on New Zealands North island the Maori formed advanced army and social stuck res and could fend of their he British for months. They were so close that the Maori could easily invade (they did in 1836) but thet were so different. They came from the same race and culture. Mere distance and local geography ensures humans will always culturally diverge no matter how many times you establish a universal culture.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.