The Instigator
Realdy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wxyz2000
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

World Goverment will give Advantage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 53413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Realdy

Pro

1st round acceptance, Just Say Yes
2nd Round Background why should aggre/disagree and Definition
3rd Round Argument
4th Round Argument And Rebuttal
5th Round Rebuttal and Conclucion
wxyz2000

Con

Hello,

I'll be debating against you, then.
Debate Round No. 1
Realdy

Pro

why i should agree with this, Actually we know that if we have world Government we, our world will be in peace and we easily develop many region, because we aren't focus on one Region.
and the definition in world government http://en.wikipedia.org...
so we will elaminated all nation, and we just have government. so there are no many country.
and this will make world in peace

(remember in this round we aren't have any rebuttal)
wxyz2000

Con

Thank you Pro for reminding me that we are not rebutting this round.
I will define advantage as absolute advantage, and disadvantage as absolute disadvantage. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then world government will "give advantage". If the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, then world government will "give disadvantage".
I will accept Pro"s definition of World Government, that it is "a single common political authority for all of humanity".
My premises for arguing against world government are as such:

Loss if individuality:
To the everyday man or woman, the world government becomes an abstract concept. It becomes too difficult to participate in worldly issues. Even if systems of voting and lobbying (the cornerstones of democracy) continued to exist, many citizens would discontinue their participation. For this reason, Ancient Greece - the cradle of democracy - never had city units of more than a few hundred people. Famous philosopher H. Taine elaborates this in his writings on Greek culture. This is also why municipal elections have higher participation rates than federal elections.

World government will inhibit competition and therefore limit human progress:
The Roman poet Horace once said: "adversity has the effect of eliciting talent which in prosperous circumstances would have lain dormant". History has proved Horace"s point many times through the rise and fall of empires. Civilizations reach its golden years, and then deteriorate rapidly. While analyzing the conditions under which Western Civilization gave birth to scores of genius minds, renowned professor Niall Ferguson proposed the "six killer apps", of which competition is foremost. He wrote that our high standard of living today was largely in part due to the competition between the European states. The European spice race led to growing markets and innovations. While China, having been closed from the rest of the world by Emperor Qianlong, stagnated.
The launching of satellites, the evolution of the Ethernet to internet, and the advent of the mobile cell has been propelled by the Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The emergence from the dark ages into the Italian Renaissance would not have occurred if it was not for the bickering Italian nobles and families, which led to patronage and the accumulation of talent. This is backed by H. Taine in his work on "The Philosophy of Art in Italy". Establish a World Government, and you lower competition and inhibit the human progress.

Bureaucracy:
The world government increases risk of dictatorship/bureaucracy and loss of human rights. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor and then later became Fuhrer. Unlike Adolf Hitler though, the usurper would not have opponents in other world leaders such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as this is the world government. All it takes is one fanatic to degenerate the world into darkness and chaos.

Inequality:
Winner of the Nobel Prize in economics Joseph Stieglitz warned America of the dangers of inequality in his book "The Price of Inequality". Dissensions and discord will inevitably arise out of inequality, as they do today in America. Certain people of the Texas state (one of the wealthier states in America) have already spoken about leaving the United States. The schism between the people of the poorer Main Street and the wealthier Wall Street has grown.
What is the implication of third-world countries joining the richest countries in the world? The inequality, as one can imagine, will be unbelievably high. The Economist reported that in America 5% of the share of the national income goes to the top 0.01%. But in America, even many of the lower class citizens can afford to watch television. While in Liberia, most people cannot afford clean drinking water. The citizens of the once third-world country will rally against their much wealthier compatriots if they will not share their wealth. But if the richer citizens will have to take responsibility of the poorer ones, they will grumble and complain and threaten to separate from the world government.

I look forward to hearing from your reply.
Debate Round No. 2
Realdy

Pro

Realdy forfeited this round.
wxyz2000

Con

I will follow up with my refuting statement

Pro argues that world government "makes world in peace", while in actuality it should be "peace that makes world government". It is absurd to claim that America and Russia will suddenly form a joint coalition while they are still trading blows about Crimea, or that China and Japan will suddenly become allies while they are currently fight over Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Just as unlikely it is for China and Japan, Jews and Muslims forget the drops of blood that has been spilled in past conflicts. For a world government to be formed therefore, mutual respect and understanding must develop between all races, cultures and religions. All war must end as well. Therefore peace is a premise for world government and not the other way around.

"We are not focused on one region". This is not necessarily true. Post World War II, the United States was the major industrial giant (along with the Soviet Union) while Europe lay recovering from its wounds. The US then established new rules of global commerce and trade that would be beneficial to itself (at least in that period of time). If the world government was instituted, the more powerful countries would strive to ensure that they would secure a favorable place in the right society. Just as the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France are the most powerful countries in the United Nations, as they were the victors of WWII. This will, along with the economic inequality previously mentioned, serve to only exacerbate the tensions among the once countries. It would not be able to maintain peace.

Cultures, religion and political ideology will also continue to raise tensions. Just as citizens in Quebec wishes to separate from Canada because of different culture and civilians in Taiwan separated (or wants to separate, depending on which side of the globe you are on) from China because they had different views on how to run a country, so will regions of the world government.

In conclusion, it is both unlikely and impractical for humans to unite under the banner of the world government.
Debate Round No. 3
Realdy

Pro

Realdy forfeited this round.
wxyz2000

Con

wxyz2000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Realdy

Pro

Realdy forfeited this round.
wxyz2000

Con

Thank you for reading. Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
I feel like this would be a better debate if it was about whether or not world government would provide more advantages than disadvantages. Because currently all Pro has to do is point out one single benefit and call it good.
No votes have been placed for this debate.