Debate Rounds (4)
to achieve this man has to strip away its "Ego". What are most people saying when you ask them what they are ? They first name there nationality or religion what's the most important them and then the less important things (like Im black or white, Im busniess man etc) . BUT NEVER... NEVER has someoe first said "I am Human being". That sounds a bit hippie like but we are all HUMAN and under a World Government building on the system that everyone is the same wars and other violent acts against fellow Man would turn into absurditiy. There are no resource differnces, cultural diffrences and national differnces to support or even justifiy conflicts.
Of course such World government would A: literally the weight of the World on there shoulders. B: fear of the people that the power is missused by the few in charge.
Completly understandable fears but lets first get to point A:
If there would be a world government it can not function if it is structred as the UNO. The UNO sounded in the past lika myth too and held very high promises when it was firt introdeuced. BUT the way it was structered it could never keep up to its promises and goals. Like a standing UN Army ready to enforce peace and human rights and could hav been useful in rwanda or on the balkan. Why is the UNO so ineffective first: Veto powers they hinder and block every single step which could lead the UN to actual acomplishments and succses and second: Bureaucracy which is a major poit in the UNO ineffectivness. Decisions take month or year which in a crisis situation which requiers quick reactions is unacceptable.
A world government would quickliy lead to the tought that with some much bureaucracy World Government would not be capeable to function correctliy. Bt if the World Government was structred with a federal system like the US or germany and all the other 28 nation which are structred after this system the way of a World Government would be shortend to a minmum. Nations would be remain like they are but are now like states like texas for example, who belong to a continet and each continent would sent representivtes to form a senate. A council would watch over them to asure they dont do anything stupid. And because everybody is the same there would be no Veto powers or other powes who could oppress one another.
If it is bit counusing I apologies english is not my forte and sometimes I cant organize all my thoughts running throug my head at once so if I worte a bit weird or cryptic please tell me that would help me very much :)
I am looking foward hearing (reading your respone) :) and I look forward for an excitng debate with a very cunning person. :)
Thanks, Pro, for challenging me to this debate.
I'll begin by responding to some of my opponent's claims (which I will highlight in bold) in the order in which he presents them. Then I will present my arguments against a single world government.
[[ REBUTTAL ]]
Re: Mankind's goal of a single unified World Government. Through World Government there would be no wars among Man we would finally have the strength and unity to achieve goals we at our current state could not achieve...
First, it is a bare assertion to say that a world government is mankind's goal. Mankind as a collective cannot have a single goal; goals are unique to the individual. My position in this debate will be to establish that not only is a world government impractical, but also immoral. Pro hasn't explained how a world government would lead to no war. A single government domain can most certainly create war/conflict. For example, the American Civil War was carried out among people unified under the domain of the United States federal government.
Re: There are no resource differnces, cultural diffrences and national differnces to support or even justifiy conflicts.
While I agree that we are all human beings with the fundamental right to life and the pursuit of happiness, it is simply untrue that we are not separated by unique cultural differences that may lead to a conflict in values. Nationalism is not the only thing that separates people or dictates culture. Each person's right to recognize their own religious beliefs, place a different weight on certain ethical standards, have their own subjective preferences, and an entirely different life experience based on factors like race, class, etc. (which would not be eliminated even under a single government) indicate that differences and thus conflict is inevitable.
Re: Of course such World government would A: literally the weight of the World on there shoulders. B: fear of the people that the power is missused by the few in charge... A world government would quickliy lead to the tought that with some much bureaucracy World Government would not be capeable to function correctliy...
My opponent brings up a good point about power being insulated in the hands of a small, bureaucratic minority and indeed I believe that would be a disastrous (and immoral), probably inevitable facet of world government. I will talk more about this in my Arguments section. I agree that like whatever my opponent is referencing here (his grammar made it very hard to understand what exactly he is referring to), this would be a negative and harmful result of any attempt at a world government.
Re: Nations would be remain like they are but are now like states like texas for example, who belong to a continet and each continent would sent representivtes to form a senate.
I will talk more about this in the Arguments section, but this suggestion seems to complicate if not negate Pro's argument. Having multiple governments within a "single" government seems contradictory.
[[ ARGUMENTS ]]
If people can't even agree on what the purpose of government is or should be, then how can we suppose that people can agree on the principles that should be established for a united, single world government? Such a proposition seems absurd.
Governments are supposed to protect the rights of its people by holding them accountable to certain social standards a.k.a. laws. Laws are supposed to reflect human rights. Of course outside of the right to life, rights are little more than arbitrary opinions. We know that based on the evolution of rights throughout history. For example, abortion was once not a legal right in America, and now it is.
There are a few ways in which governments are established and upheld. Some governments are authoritarian, and some are democratic. Some are a combination of the two. Regardless of the structure, the law of the land - any law in any land - is upheld through law enforcement, typically police and/or a military. With that said, it seems obvious that creating a world government is implausible, impractical, and even immoral. As such, it is fundamentally not a good idea.
First, let's consider the fact that the globe is populated with more than 6 billion people. These people come from vastly different backgrounds and have completely different values. Even people who come from similar backgrounds and cultures often have completely different values (see: some Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.). If the purpose of government is to establish laws that protect important social values, how can we expect so many people coming to a consensus about what rules we should use to govern? Such a possibility seems absurd and would inevitably create conflict. For example, in Africa they practice female circumcision; in the Middle East they stone adulterers. Are those customs that people in the West would appreciate or even tolerate? Of course not.
In trying to dictate how another population lives or governs their lives, tension, hostility, resentment and other animosity would inevitably ensue. History shows us how populations react to this kind of conflict: the formation of a small militia type group that fights (literally - violently) to protect their values within a community. This has happened since the beginning of mankind. With a multitude of groups doing that, you ultimately have the formation and creation of various governments. As such, a single world government is completely unlikely of ever being possible or successful.
In choosing what values to put into law, due to differences in opinion, a significant amount of people are going to be upset if they are forced to abide by a specific value they disagree with which would inevitably be the case. For instance, consider how in the U.S., Republicans threatened to leave the country or revolt of Obama were re-elected. Of course Americans are too lazy/distracted/apathetic to ever actually fight back... and are ridiculed when doing so, eg. Occupy Wall Street... but that is not the case in other parts of the world where people have nothing better to do than care about their political agenda and fight to change it. Expecting everyone to accept unwanted laws is unrealistic. Clearly there would be a significant backlash against the authorities, which would be completely disruptive and expensive both in terms of resources and human capital. Productivity will be stifled and people would lose their lives fighting for freedom from the oppression of global tyranny. It is not moral to suggest that people from one culture should be forcefully influential in dictating laws that govern people from a completely different culture.
I'm curious as to what type of government my opponent intends would be successful (or moral) anyhow. There are dangers of a single authoritative state. Essentially every citizen of the world would be a slave unable to escape an aggressive government. That is inherently oppressive in the truest sense of the word oppression. The ruling class (politicians) and those that protect it (the military) would hold indisputable power over everyone else. That is incredibly problematic. The extent of unpopularity would create perpetual dissonance under such a system.
In conclusion, the fact that people shouldn't be forced to abide by values they don't agree with on such a massive scale; the fact that expecting that to happen despite such vast difference in values would inevitably result in violent conflict as demonstrated through history; the fact that such conflict would infringe on people's right to live freely, as well as create war and inhibit prosperity; and the inevitable futility of trying to implement and sustain such a system in addition to all consideration on a cost-benefit analysis proves why a world government is fundamentally not a good idea.
So back to the debate:
Like I said People would immediately think of an authoriative dictatorship when a one world goverment would be introduced. The way to counter that would be if the World Goverment was structuredround the concept of a Federal Republic like I said in my first argument. And if it was contradictory than why does it work in the USA and the other 27 nations ? A World Goverment that is founded on one simple principle would easily overcome unique cultures and values: Human rights. But not like UNO "if" and "should be" laws, but REAL laws based on the Human rights. With that your argument that th unique culutres, vaules and freedom would ot be opressed.
Now to your argument that there will be always resistance against a goverment and you are right.Lets say a few exsampels: USA, France, Turkish republic etc... they all had their conflicts with selfish person, deluded ones but all overcame it it's only a matter of time. There was always some who swam against the tide. You cant expect that a Perfect World Goverment would come out of nowhereby just snapping the fingers. It's a long and painful road like every thing in life but if humanity support it's self and helps each other a World Goverment is good chances to succeed. So after your arguments should the USA be disbanded into 50 diffrent nations because each state can act on there own ? Remember my vision of a World Goverment is inspierd by the federal republic which the same system that is used in the US and the 27 other states around the globe.
I have written my arguments in the first post to I can repeat it again:
First: We are all humans!!! IF we come to that conclusion and strip away our singlemindedness the chancess for a world goverment would be much higher.
Second: It's humans fate. I think World Goverment is the inevitable social goal of humanity. Why ? Lets look at history shall we; first in the stoneage in the early years of man came the family, than tribes, than viliages, cities, nations now we have the european union, african union and ok even you UNO. So we expand ourselves and work together because we realise we are all the same Human. And through working together we achive so much more. But the MOST important reason is that to survive a species we MUST band together and work as one.
Third: There would finaly be peace and prosperity.
So in conclusion through a federal republican system and laws based on the human rights an authoritarian world regime would be safely evaded. Back to you my dear greetings from Deutschland.
Pro says that a world government could be structured like a federal republic, where there is a division of powers between the national ("federal") government, and the government of the individual subdivisions.
First, there would still be a widespread division regarding the size and scope of the federal government. Views would differ on what issues should be of sub-divisional governmental structures, and whether or not the the subdivisions also have sovereignty in some matters where the federal government does not have jurisdiction. Widespread conflict would still inevitable, so please extend all of my arguments regarding that problematic concern.
Pro says that this suggestion is not problematic because it works in the United States. Let's consider the fact that the U.S. is theoretically in a 50/50 split between the two major parties: Democrats and Republicans, which often have starkly contrasting views on how the government should function. After each presidential election, roughly half of all voters are disgruntled, though the reality is that many people either don't vote (on purpose, like Voluntaryists) or don't vote D/R, so there is even more division than meets the eye.
Pro says that a unified government would be premised on the concept of human rights, ignoring that what is considered a "human right" is still largely disputed. People argue about human, legal and governmental rights all the time. He is throwing around catch phrases with no basis in reality of how those rights are viewed or determined - not only across the country, but all over the world.
My opponent says that we cannot expect a world (or any) government to be perfect and I would agree. He then asked if I believed the federal government should be dismantled into 50 smaller governments run by each state. Yes, I do think state governments are a better idea than a federal government, but that's neither here nor there.
The rest of my opponent's case rests on the concept of "humanity" and in favor of human rights which I've already addressed.
I'll repeat and number the arguments of mine that I don't believe were adequately addressed:
1. If people can't even agree on what the purpose of government is or should be, then how can we suppose that people can agree on the principles that should be established for a united, single world government? Even in a federal republic type structure, people would still have to agree on the rights and responsibilities of the federal (single) authoritative power.
2. That's another thing - Pro says that a world government wouldn't necessarily be authoritative in nature because of the federal republic type structure, but that ignores the reality that the "federal" government would still have complete and utter jurisdiction over all disputes, as well as the power to override the smaller governments.
3. How can we expect everyone or even most people to agree on the rights a single world government ought to uphold?
4. Regardless of the structure, the law of the land - any law in any land - is upheld through law enforcement, typically police and/or a military. Having a single militaristic power seems dangerous and problematic (tyrannical). It also wouldn't prevent conflict or "war" between separate smaller governments. See: The Civil War in the U.S.
My previous conclusion is upheld.
TheConqueror forfeited this round.
Danielle forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: concession
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.