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

The world should be united under one goverment.

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  
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: 2/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 715 times Debate No: 69679
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I believe that the world should unite under one government. If we were to do this than all war between nations would be stopped. It might require one huge war but if we could convince as many countries as possible to join in the act we could take over or intimidate into submission with sheer size of might. We could stop world hunger by uniting and spreading food more effectively. World economy would be boosted immensely and therefore we would have a greater work force. Hostilities involving religion could be stopped and terrorist groups could be eliminated totally.


As humans, we must be divided into smaller factions, such as nations. Wars are not solved by one government - in fact, wars maybe encouraged. Historical fact has shown that governments ruling from vast distances often have trouble keeping people in line. The American Revolution was based on this premise - Thomas Paine's Common Sense stated that the American people should not be ruled by a monarch 3,000 miles away. Several cons against a World Government include the following:
- 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.
Debate Round No. 1


But we would not be ruling from a distance if all nations world wide were to unite. We would be one nation with absolute power and one military might larger than any ever on earth. One faction would rise up but if you give people over all world peace they would not be as ready to attack , especially if the government ruled together as one body. Nuclear war would be less of a threat. Nukes would not be readily launched at the countries own people. Instead of a complicated list of many national priorities , we could meet a mass crisis with strategic understanding rather than worrying about safe placement that does not spark war. So, if we had this much local power globally, how would it be stretched out over a distance?

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.


Unfortunately, it seems that your argument maybe a little to optimistic in viewing human nature. I probably sound pessimistic, but the truth is that we cannot simply unit under one government. Even if we tried, the first major issue we would face is finding a capital city, which would immediately wage fights. I won't say that there are not good candidates, such as the Hague or Geneva, perhaps, that are already in use for diplomacy between nations, but in truth, no city could be perfect. You also speak of "having this much local power globally", but how could we do so? What methods would we employ to keep a localized government in equal reign around the whole world? It seems that this is more wishful thinking rather than an actual possibility. In order for a world government to even attempt to function, it would need to be divided into smaller subcategories, and because of population and ethnic differences around the world, there would be inequalities, which would spark more disputes and general discontent.

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?
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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.