The Instigator
david.palbino
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

This house believe in the united states of the world

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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 27451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

david.palbino

Pro


Honorable members of debate.org, I encourage you to support this motion.


Imagine a world in which we don't need to set our taxes lower than the neighbor country just to keep the companies with us,


imagine no need to spend budget in army,


imagine no need to hide the work of our researches to other countries,


imagine a world in which we can agree to limit our labour work to four days a week without loosing competitivity against other countries.


A united states of the world would have more benefits than inconvenient



imabench

Con

"Imagine a world in which we don't need to set our taxes lower than the neighbor country just to keep the companies with us"

Well then those companies would take a hell of a hit in terms of how much profit they bring in at the end of the day. That would cause the people who work for those companies to bring home less pay which in turn limits how much they spend and how much stuff they buy, which then hurts the companies they buy all their stuff from. This further hampers how much money they make and how they would have to limit pay and thus we find ourselves in a never ending cycle of everyone losing. Also the fact that the world is already in bad shape even WITH competition and companies doing as well as they are, a world government with a single tax rate on companies would do tons of damage to just about every company that has low tax rates for companies.

"imagine no need to spend budget in army"

Armies are used for reasons other then defending against other countries though. Within the US you have the coast guard, the national guard, etc who are part of the military but operate for smaller level governments or exist for non-military purposes. If the world suddenly somehow unites then we would still need to pay for an army to keep the world at peace and in good shape following natural disasters. However, given the conflicts in the Middle East, ongoing chaos in Somalia, numerous genocides all across the world, and natural disasters that are now breaking records in damage done, the world would still need a military and still have to pay for it, even more then we did before since now we would be obligated to fund every damn conflict that happens instead of just sitting on the sidelines like most of the world does, including the US once in a while.

"imagine no need to hide the work of our researches to other countries"

Other countries arent the only people we hide research from. Warlords, terrorists, and hackers are just a few people who have it out for what the US is researching, and they dont belong to any one particular country either. They belong to just about ALL countries, and if there were one world government then we would still be forced to hide whatever it is we are researching from those who want to watch the world burn.

"imagine a world in which we can agree to limit our labour work to four days a week without loosing competitivity against other countries."

Remember that first argument I made where corporations suffer = workers lose pay = less spending and buying = harms corporations more = harms workers more, and how that whole never ending cycle would kill the world economy? The same thing applies to this one since limiting labour work to four days a week would wreak havoc on how much money corporations make every quarter.

"A united states of the world would have more benefits than inconvenient"

From what I can tell, a United States of the World has ONLY inconveniences and no foreseeable benefits....
Debate Round No. 1
david.palbino

Pro



If you don't like big countries why you don't emigrate to a smaller one, perhaps you would prefer to life in Tokelau which have less than 2000 people as the total population.

If you are that against super-states, why you don't ask to dissolve the Federal US government? Would you prefer to life in a micro independent state?

Of course you don't, that is why you prefer to stay in the states.

If we had one world government, the terrorists will not have a place to hide, and it will be no need to invade foreigner countries, the regular police would be able to go there and take them.

I can't let you go with the argument about labour,

Let's imagine a sport shop, custocountries not going to buy less stuff just because all all sport shops open fogreedy. a week (the same days), therefore no one will lose money but all workers will work less.

This will reduce the stress of the population without damaging the profit of the companies.

Some companies leave US to other countries in order to pay less taxes, it is not for they own survival, it is just gready.

imabench

Con

"If you don't like big countries why you don't emigrate to a smaller one, perhaps you would prefer to life in Tokelau which have less than 2000 people as the total population."

I dont have a problem with big countries and I never even said that I did. I only have a problem with the proposal that there should only be one country ruling over everything, and im arguing that a world with numerous countries is more beneficial then a world with just one country, which is what we are debating about.... We arent arguing that bigger countries are better then smaller countries ok?.....

"If you are that against super-states, why you don't ask to dissolve the Federal US government? Would you prefer to life in a micro independent state?"

I dont even know what the hell youre trying to argue here.... Im not against big countries and I dont think that the US Federal government should be dissolved, im here to argue against there being only one government and only one country to rule over 7 billion people.

"If we had one world government, the terrorists will not have a place to hide, and it will be no need to invade foreigner countries, the regular police would be able to go there and take them."

Terrorists will still have a place to hide in the world regardless of who is claiming authority over it. A cave in Afghanistan in the middle of nowhere is just the same as a cave in formerly-known-as-Afghanistan in the middle of nowhere, a world government doesnt suddenly eliminate every last hiding spot in the world. If we do have a world government then there would still be places for these groups to organize, hide, and operate out of, and if even US troops cant flush them out, then what the hell makes you think that regular policemen will be able to do much better?

"Let's imagine a sport shop, custocountries not going to buy less stuff just because all all sport shops open fogreedy. a week (the same days), therefore no one will lose money but all workers will work less. This will reduce the stress of the population without damaging the profit of the companies."

Ok I didnt understand a single thing that you typed here. In the video you gave I think youre argument was that when companies are closed for an extra day, it will help workers be less stressful and thus would not damage how profitable companies are. That isnt a valid argument though because less stress doesnt equal more money for companies, the simple fact is that if you somehow force companies to operate only four days a week instead of 5, then youre increasing the number of days where they arent making money.

365 days in a year = 52 weeks in a year of 7 days each
If a store is open 5 out of every 7 days, then in a year they are open for about 260 days a year
If a store is open 4 out of every 7 days, the number of days they are open drops to 208 days a year.

Thats a difference of 52 days, which is just south of 2 MONTHS. If companies were closed for an extra two months every year, then its just a given that they will make far less money then they otherwise would have. This in turn would cause corporations to make a lot less money then they otherwise would have, and that would cause them to have less left to pay employee salaries and pension plans which in turn causes that whole looping circle of suffering that would drive us into a recession if a world government came into power.

"Some companies leave US to other countries in order to pay less taxes, it is not for they own survival, it is just gready."

Then just levy punishments for companies that outsource jobs.... We dont need to abolish all governments just to create one super government to rule over the world and hopefully fix this issue when we can just simply punish companies for outsourcing and make the practice less profitable which would discourage them from outsourcing even more.

Extend all arguments about how there would still be need for a military to respond to natural disasters such as famine and storm seasons, to maintain order in historically unstable regions like the Middle East.

Also extend argument about how the military has numerous roles other then just invading other countries.

Also extend all arguments about how we would still need to hide whatever it is the government is researching from terrorists and hackers who just want to watch the world burn.

Debate Round No. 2
david.palbino

Pro



This time I post the text under the video in youtube
imabench

Con

Sorry I waited until the very last second to post my final round....

In the video the pro argues that the amount of time the shop is open is completely irrelevant to profits because consumers plan what they buy and can plan when they buy it, but that is simply not true. If you follow around any woman in America into a mall, for every one thing she actually needs she will buy 6 others things she doesnt need. This is because Americans, like much of the rest of the world, are impulse buyers, who often buy stuff they dont need right away and probably will never really 'need' but buy stuff just because they want to. People are impulse buyers, and if you start to cut out the days that are available to them to go out and buy on impulse rather then on necessity, then you are doing great damage to how much money corporations and these shopping malls take in at the end of the year.

After that the pro goes on to say that the current map of the world and all the borders of countries happened on accident and that if you changed one thing in history it would have ended up drastically different. Then the pro argues that if you dont have one world government then you will end up with many many small countries like in the stone age. That is completely false though because if history has taught us anything its that countries try to expand their borders and not divide themselves into oblivion. The United States, Russia, China, England, France, Spain, Germany, etc are all countries who have long histories of trying to expand their borders or colonize other parts of the world rather then divide into smaller and smaller nations. On another hand, its irrational to claim that without a world government nations will divide and divide because the one thing that makes nations hold together is nationalism. People will almost always be proud of the country they came from and would always fight for that country to maintain its own independence from any occupation, and nationalism is the reason why that nations fight back against other invading nations, because people want to maintain their own independence under their own terms.

Countries will not divide and divide into oblivion as long as nationalism and other senses of unity keep certain people together. However, since nationalism also doubles as an agent against foreign occupation, you could even go on to argue that a world government would never work because people are simply too divided and diverse to ever agree to be under one world government.

After that argument the pro gives a speech on why countries should stop funding armies and use that money to research technology or something, but he is once again overlooking the point that a nations military exists for many reasons other then to just wage war against other armies. A nations military is used to preserve order, to give citizens a sense of protection, they can also be used to provide assistance to disaster stricken countries, and as Ive have brought up numerous times before that the pro keeps ignoring, other countries are not the only threat to a nations security. There will always be warlords and terrorist organizations who will be threatening governments they do not agree with and this combined with all the other reasons I just mentioned are why nations do need a military, and also that a world government would still need a military.

Lastly the pro asks I give another argument against world government but I wont because A) Its considered bad conduct to give a new argument in the final round when the opponent cant respond to it, and B) Seeing as how half my other arguments have been dropped I dont see why I should introduce even more of them if they are simply going to be ignored.

That concludes the arguments I have made, as for the number of dropped arguments by the Pro:

- 1 - Pro dropped the argument that less stress for workers doesnt offset the amount of profit lost by forcing businesses to operate just 4 days a week
- 2 - Pro dropped the argument that a nations military is used for numerous reasons other then to just wage wars
- 3 - Pro dropped the argument that there would still be a need for the military to fight against warlords and terrorist organizations
- 4 - Pro dropped the argument that we would still have to hide some of the technology we are researching against terrorists and hackers, meaning that in a world government we wouldnt be able to simply be free of keeping secrets...
- 5 - Pro dropped the argument that even if there was a world government, terrorist organizations would still have numerous places to hide in and operate out of.
- 6 - Pro dropped the argument that simple police officers would not be able to fight these terrorists and that we would still need a military to fight them.
- 7 - Pro dropped the argument that a world government would have a fixed tax rate on corporations which would harm how much profit they could make since in a world with numerous governments, countries compete by keeping tax rates lower which helps businesses grow, profit, expand, and thrive

I would like to thank everyone for reading this debate and I hope you vote
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Yeah this got pretty weird pretty fast....
Posted by david.palbino 4 years ago
david.palbino
I'm sorry if this don't feel like a debate, I will try to do my best to amuse you
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
Yeah, looks like he want's someone to oppose the idea of the United States of Earth.
Posted by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
I'm confused, is this a debate?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
david.palbinoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G to Con because he had better spelling/grammar, Arguments to Imabench because he used logic on Pro's 4 day labor contention and does not drop arguments.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
david.palbinoimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I was about to read this debate until I saw the scary HUGE text from PRO. Then I stopped and just dropped my vote for conduct to CON.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
david.palbinoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were sometimes hard to understand and didn't make much sense. His grammar was also difficult to understand at times. Pro dropped multiple arguments, while his arguments were easily refuted by Con.