The Instigator
Brendan21
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

World government > present day UN

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 7 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,238 times Debate No: 12432
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

Brendan21

Pro

For this debate, Con and I will discuss what will be more helpful for mankind, one world government or the way the world works right now. The world government will work much like the United States' states. Each country would be a state in the world government.
1)No lasting wars.
If the world was united in a world government, wars would not be a common thing. The knowledge that if one state attacked another then the world army would get involved would scare off any ideas of war.

2)Combined technology.
If the world was united under one government, than each state would share its research and technology with the government. This would lead to great technological advances. With united research and no wars no worry about, humans could very likely find the cure for many diseases, improve space faring technology, find alternate resources as fuel, and many more discoveries.

3)Greater acceptance of other cultures.
Once humans united into a world government, they will be ready to forget the little differences between each other and realize, we are all human. This acceptance will also lead to better cooperation between states and the government that leads them.

I look forward to Cons arguments and for the debate to get started.
wjmelements

Con

I contend that, as demonstrated when other cultures were forced together, coerced coexistence will lead to violence. First, I will address my opponent's points.

1) No lasting wars.
The United Nations currently does the function described by my opponent, and it has lead to covert, unofficial and terrorist warfare. This is demonstrated with the current war on terrorism, where small groups are engaging in guerrilla warfare across the Middle East. This unofficial warfare is more difficult to end because the enemy is hidden, spread out, and hidden amongst innocent civilians.

2) Combined Technology
Because the only technology secret between governments is military technology, no such great innovations will occur. In fact, because this technology is used for warfare, if this information were shared, belligerent nations would be more capable of successfully expanding than before.

3) Greater Acceptance of Other Cultures
This is perhaps the most utopian argument presented. There are countless historical examples that prove that when you remove an individual culture's sovereignty, they fight to regain it. Examples include the War Between the States (where the Southern States fought to maintain self-governance), the Niger Civil War [1] (an ethnic civil war), and Chad's constant civil wars [2]. Ignoring history, my opponent forgets that political unions between hostile peoples doesn't lead to peace.

Now, I will present my case against a Federalist World Government.
1) Taxation
Such a government would have to have revenue, and expecting individual nations to donate results in a free-rider problem, so this revenue would have to be forced. Because many nations are socialist, no universal taxation method can be used.

2) Civil Wars
Civil wars would be common, as discussed earlier. In such a case, who is the world government to side with? To pick one is to enact favoritism and damage a country's civilians. To pick both is to fight one's self and aid the war. To pick neither is to do nothing, and the purpose of the world government is defeated.

3) Sovereignty
Sovereignty would end, as demonstrated with the United States example, within a few centuries, as the world government expands. Governmental responsibilities would overlap, creating inefficiency. Sovereignty would be infringed upon at many levels, preventing the competition of political ideas and public policies. Because of this, politics would become only a theory, and no more of a science than sociology or economics.

The world government proposal is full of idealist optimism, and fails through historical examples and realistic application.

[1] http://www.onwar.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Brendan21

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this challenge. I feel I need to define my world government a bit more for Con. For the world government to exist at all, all the countries in the world must willingly give up their sovereignty to the world government. For the sake of the debate, this has happened already for my world government to exist. For this reason, the states will not being trying to win back anything from the government. The stage that it is currently at is new, within a year or two, so some hiccups still occur, such as a small war, so a world army would still be viable. Taxation was agreed upon when the world government was established.
1)Lasting wars.
The UN has proven time and time again that it is incompetent to take care of global issues. Con mentioned the Middle East, well let's start there. If the entire world was united, than as soon as the terrorists committed an act of terror, the entire world army would intervene, and attack the individuals involved. Because all countries are states in the world government, 3rd world countries would no longer exist. Everyone will be accounted for electronically, like in 1st world counties. Individuals in acts of terror would be much easier to find than the way the present day works.

2)Combined technology.
The great leaps in technology would not happen right away. Military spending would be viable for several years until a world army was no longer practical. Once this happens, much more money would be spent in technology for what I've already mention in round 1.

My opponent has not made a case as of yet. I look forward to Con's round 2.
wjmelements

Con

First, I will point out that my opponent has contradicted himself in defining his utopian dream. In Round 1, he clearly defines a federal system:
"The world government will work much like the United States' states. Each country would be a state in the world government."
However, in Round 2, my opponent denies that there are nation states:
"all the countries in the world must willingly give up their sovereignty"
Because I accepted this debate arguing against what was defined in the first round, I feel it is fair that this debate follows what was originally presented.

Second, I will point out that my opponent's new position is clearly an attempt to define his way around my case. He states without backing that taxes were agreed upon, although I listed before the reasons they wouldn't be. In addition, he erases discussion of the introduction of this utopia, one of my key points.

Third, my opponent has ignored my 3-point case entirely, claiming that I have not even "made a case as of yet." I encourage my opponent to read what is written in my half of round one and reconsider that statement. If he makes no response in Round 3, I will assume that he concedes my case.

With that, I'm off to answer my opponent's case.

First, he has dropped his third point, that somehow redrawing political boundaries will cause ethnic groups to forget their differences.

Second, he has proposed a 1984 society in which "Everyone will be accounted for electronically," which is a clear violation of privacy rights, while insisting that terrorists would be much easier to find with 1st world technology. My opponent quickly forgets that the United States has been using 1st world technology for almost two decades and has been incapable of finding terrorists, or even stinting terrorist activity. In addition, my opponent has stated that the UN has proven itself incompetent without drawing any real distinction between the approach of the UN to the approach of his proposal.

Third, my opponent has still not given any reason any "great leaps in technology" would occur at all, while ignoring my point that the only hidden technology was the technology of war. My opponent also pretends that the military would be useless after this prevalent world peace he imagines, but he ignores my first round arguments that war would be unaffected by redrawing political boundaries.

That's all for now. I hope this debate develops more in the third round.
Debate Round No. 2
Brendan21

Pro

1) No lasting wars.
If the world is united under one government, these terrorists will be given representation, all countries will have "state rights" much like the U.S. states rights. Thus these terrorists have nothing to fight for or against because they have their rights as long as they are in their own country.

2) Combined technology.
If there is one world government, we don't need to invest in military technology at all. And can devote all those funds, time, and manpower to develop other more beneficial technology like the ones I've already mentioned.

3) Acceptance of other Cultures.
Con has mislabeled my argument. There will be greater acceptance, no removing or integrating involved at all. Each country will be represented in the world government.

To counter my opponents points:

"1) Taxation
Such a government would have to have revenue, and expecting individual nations to donate results in a free-rider problem, so this revenue would have to be forced. Because many nations are socialist, no universal taxation method can be used."

Each country will function as a state, they will donate based on population in a rate that is voted and agreed upon by the representatives of the countries.

"2) Civil Wars
Civil wars would be common, as discussed earlier. In such a case, who is the world government to side with? To pick one is to enact favoritism and damage a country's civilians. To pick both is to fight one's self and aid the war. To pick neither is to do nothing, and the purpose of the world government is defeated."

The government does not take sides, it neutralize both parties.

"3) Sovereignty.
Sovereignty would end, as demonstrated with the United States example, within a few centuries, as the world government expands. Governmental responsibilities would overlap, creating inefficiency. Sovereignty would be infringed upon at many levels, preventing the competition of political ideas and public policies. Because of this, politics would become only a theory, and no more of a science than sociology or economics."

A country in the world government can feel free to secede, if it feels that it is being misrepresented or is discontent. They will, however, have a limited military, if they want one at all.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Note: I will use the American Civil War example a lot in this round because the World Government is supposedly structured as the United States were.

1) Wars.
While my opponent claims that political groups would not wage guerrilla or open war because they have representation and state's rights, the seceding states in the American Civil War had representation and state's rights and still fought a civil war. Union doesn't promise peace. Minorities will still fight for safety from whom they perceive to be oppressors.

2) Technology.
As already demonstrated, wars will still occur, so the need for military technology will never disappear. In addition, the dissolution of the war technology sector will not necessarily (or likely) lead to more private investment in technology.

3) Cultures.
I reiterate that cultures prefer to maintain sovereignty over themselves, and any sort of world governmental assembly will threaten that. History demonstrates (from the first round) that hostile cultures cannot hold active jurisdiction over each other and expect peace. While the UN has no authority to trespass sovereignty, a world government based on the United States federal system would certainly have such trespassing capability, and would therefore lead to unofficial wars and create cultural tensions.

To my case:
1) Taxation
My opponent has clarified that he envisions a per-person tax to sustain the world government. Such a law may lead to more unethical population control laws (discussed briefly below) in nation states and will no doubt be unfair to poorer and more undeveloped countries, which cannot afford to pay as much per person as the industrialized ones.

==Population Control==
It can only be enforced in one or more of the following ways, all of which are widely considered unethical:
- Aborting excess fetuses
- Forcibly sterilizing women with the allowed children already produced
- Infanticide of excess population

2) Civil Wars
I concede there is no blatant issue here; however, this is effectively what the United Nations attempts to do.

3) Sovereignty
My opponent has stated that a nation is free to secede from this world government. First, such a government would cease to be a world government, but an oversized military alliance. Second, following the United States format, nations are in fact not free to secede [1][2], and such secession results in an act of aggression by the remaining parties [3], perhaps starting because the remaining parties insist on keeping an unwarranted military fort within the seceding country [4], and probably resulting in the total (but unnecessary) destruction of this seceding country and its economy [5], leading to the formation of racist hate groups [6] that will still commit terrorism centuries later [7].

Besides history, no small victimized nation could possibly stand alone against the rest of the world, and so it is more likely that any democratic abuse taken would be chronic.

CONCLUSION
The World Government proposition has effectively the same role and power as the United Nations, with the exception that it threatens the sovereignty of individual cultures and would probably lead to more conflict than there already is. Therefore, this proposition is not superior to the present day United Nations.

Thank you.

==Sources==
[1] http://www.oyez.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://library.thinkquest.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.pinzler.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I don't know why the Instigator gave himself the source vote.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Brendan, why'd you give yourself sources?
Posted by Brendan21 7 years ago
Brendan21
Ya i didn't realize how little you understood about how my World Gov. would work. I might redo this in the future with a better definition of my Gov.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I think this debate would have been better if he started out with a more strict definition of this government and how it would function.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Pro did horribly.

I'm Pro, but Brendan failed at this.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Correct.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
'Each country will function as a state, they will donate based on population in a rate that is voted and agreed upon by the representatives of the countries'

So basically, no country will ever give the World Government squat.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Ah, no, PRO just claimed that states' rights exist. Against wjmelements.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Secede from a World Government? How?
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Your contentions are far too idealistic and erroneous to function.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 years ago
Brendan21
Brendan21wjmelementsTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Brendan21wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Ibap 7 years ago
Ibap
Brendan21wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 7 years ago
ArtTheWino
Brendan21wjmelementsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Brendan21wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Brendan21wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Brendan21wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05