The world should be united under one goverment.
Debate Rounds (2)
- Civil Wars will become unavoidable. Humans have never been able to work together. We cannot simply turn a switch and start cooperating. It may takes a few years to set up a world government, but humans will not be able to adapt as a civilization in such a short time and in such a drastic way. On the other hand, in our own divided nations, governments will be able to establish more control in a socially beneficial manner. Civil wars do affect nations, but in a World Government, a civil war would be more catastrophic and would negatively affect all people.
- Persecution - Our world is imperfect as it is. If we were to establish one government, eventually, persecution of some group, based on age, gender association, race, or religion, would arise, which would ensure the eventual downfall of the government.
Economies would not improve world wide. We depend on globalization and international trade to bolster the global economy. Creating one government that manages one economy would lead to the inefficient allocation of economic resources, resulting in more inequality in income distribution and greater environmental problems along with more negative economic externalities of production and consumption.
We can never completely eradicate terrorists or radical groups. In fact, in attempting to create a world government, we would generate even more enemies, causing the general downturn of the global society. A government so large with so many constituents would be unstable and would face many more enemies.
And no, you are right that terrorists could not be completely destroyed, but we would find it much easier to oppose terrorist groups if we had a large government that had combined funds. Our world economy would be boosted drastically. A $40 item might cost just $6. Gas and oil trade would be boosted drastically. We would not have all these international tensions between countries.
You also discuss nuclear weapons and how they would be less of a threat. I think they'd still be a large threat. Your argument seems to based on the assumption that the world government would be a beneficial force, but there would always be corruption. What would happen if a war-like leader came to power and used nuclear weapons to obliterate areas of the world that contain many of his military opponents? It is entirely possible, as history has shown. Hitler came to power in Germany in the 1930s with promises of making Germany a better place. In my previous argument, I discussed how the economy would not be stable due to the lack of globalization and international trade. The business cycle would continue even under a world government, and if a recession or depression were to come, the economy would provide fertile grounds for someone like Hitler to return. Nuclear weapons and oppression would be a threat once again, except refugees would have no where to run as the whole world would be a trap against them.
The fundamental flaw in the argument for a united world government is the assumption that nations, including the radical ones, would simply lay down their arms and join in. This simply would not happen. Those patriotic to their nations would take up arms against those who are trying to enforce a world government. If you believe we should use military force to implement the world government, which it seems your argument may be subtly hinting, then it would cause more unrest and discontent from other groups, undermining the authority of the world government, and causing the system to fail. We cannot cooperate on such a large scale, so does this mean we would turn to inhumane acts of violence to enforce the government and its laws?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: most convincing arguments to con (1st round) he convinced me. better grammar from con as well, he/she was able to more fluently articulate arguments.
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.