The Instigator
SenatorZhen
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Lildrummerboy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We should reform the World Bank Election Process.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
SenatorZhen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 60276
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

SenatorZhen

Pro

Hello debate.org users! I would like to take the affirmation for the argument that we should reform the World Bank election process.

A little background: Since its inception, every President of the World Bank has been a U.S. Citizen.
The reform would establish a process where each President has a term limit of 5 years, and each President must come from a different continent: The cycle would be N.America, Africa, Europe, S. America, and Australia.

First round is for acceptance and any greetings, then we will commence a 2 round debate.

This will be one of my beginning debates, so I look forward to enjoying and learning from this debate. Good luck to my fellow debater on the negation side!
Lildrummerboy

Con

Hello! This is my first debate as well, and I look forward to a great one. I wish you good luck, and may the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
SenatorZhen

Pro

I'd like to welcome you to debate.org Lildrummerboy, and I wish you good luck as well.

The World Bank was founded in July 1994. Since then, every single president has been a U.S. citizen. Arguably, we can see that America has a monopoly on the presidency. What this reform would accomplish is the removal of the monopoly while making the election process more transparent.

As stated before, the US currently has a monopoly over the World Bank presidency. This is due to the fact that developed countries have a majority of voting shares, and therefore have more say than developing countries. However, in actuality this could be counterproductive. As a March 18, 2012 Financial Times article reports, developing countries are "close to the turning point where developing countries will represent half of real global output". Furthermore, they drive global growth, and represent 6 billion out of the world population of 7 billion. Arguably, they should have more of a say, just like the developed countries do.

This Financial Times article goes to state that this monopoly is "outdated and counterproductive". This makes sense, as developing countries know that the monopoly exists, and might not put forward a candidate that they support, because they know he does not have a good chance in the election process. Thus, this leads to less competition for the US, and a limited selection for the Executive Board of Directors to choose from as their next president. Consequently, we would not know about candidates that could be more qualified for the job.

Therefore, this reform would establish a more merit-based and transparent election process by mandating that the President's origin much change continents every 5 years. This will operate in a cycle: N. America, Africa, Europe, S. America, Australia. Ultimately, this leads to more of an international consensus to the World Bank.

http://www.ft.com...
Lildrummerboy

Con

Lildrummerboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SenatorZhen

Pro

Unfortunately, Lildrummerboy forfeited this round. I look forward to his constructive case and rebuttals.
Lildrummerboy

Con

Lildrummerboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
SenatorZhenLildrummerboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfit.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SenatorZhenLildrummerboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
SenatorZhenLildrummerboyTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited