The Instigator
PatCam
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
IndiJone
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

a nation can only be a super power only once

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
IndiJone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,783 times Debate No: 18738
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

PatCam

Con

I think that you can be a super power more than once.

first acceptance

second/third debate

fourth congratulations
IndiJone

Pro

I will debate this topic with you and post my arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
PatCam

Con

A couple of nations have managed to be super powers twice, with China getting there super power status back soon. The Spaniards have been a super power twice. Once from 1815-1889 and from 1230-1480 and 1492-1815. America is the current super power, being there first time and been in hold of it since the cold war against Russia. Germany was first a super power just before WWI in 1871 and had a colonial empire which had the second strongest navy in the world after Great Britain. Then was they considered as of one of the worlds super powers. They quickly regained it back in WWII when the third Reich was able to actually conquer all the regions of Europe. Germany could have successfully carried out "Operation Barbarossa" which was to conquer the European part of Russia. If Germany would of won WWII they could have taken over the whole of Eurasia and eventually landing in America. England was a super power when they started the industrial revolution and when was in rule of many nations around the world hence the saying "the sun never sets on the British horizon."

timelines http://en.wikipedia.org...
IndiJone

Pro

I will disprove PatCam's assertion that a nation can be a super power more than once by proving that there is no such thing as a "super power", and if there is, it would be irrelevant. By disproving the existence or ability to be a superpower, I will prove that one cannot be something no-existent more than one.

Progression does not happen in isolation. By studying world history, it is evident that the world goes through stages. These stages being: pre-history, development of agriculture, the development of state and complex society, the development of social distinction. Another way to look at these divisions would be Neolithic, Paleolithic, Imperialistic, Classical, Exploration, Industrial, Modern.

Once a group of individuals, better known as a civilization, reached the next stage, the rest of the known world would quickly follow. Example; after the discovery of iron, those who possessed the knowledge where dominant over those who did not, but by conquest they exposed the new technology and the knowledge spread until everyone knew about this discovery.

It is no coincidence that the French revolution took place shortly after the revolution of British Colonies (American Revolution). When the world approached the industrial age, it was a chain reaction. To keep up with demands for goods, a country would have to industrialize to meet these needs. As America became industrial, so did Europe and Asia.

There are no "super powers", because as a country reaches a new stage, it drags the rest of the world with it, weather it is good or bad.

PatCam mentioned that if Germany conquered Eurasia, it would have become a super power. If the world because one large country, wouldn't that mean that there was world peace? By being united, the world would not be under one group's control. If we world did come to world peace, then it would come back from whence it came, and start the cycle all over. By demonstrating that there is no such thing as a "super power", I have negated Pat's argument.
Debate Round No. 2
PatCam

Con

Definition of superpower: A very powerful and influential nation

The U.S. is currently this due to the fact that they had one of the best economies, and most money, influencing many other nations to be like them. China is doing it to well, with their population and economy going up, they have made many nations starting to want to be like them, leaving the U.S. in the dust. They get alot of power world wide these nations, being able to do much more than a non-superpower country like mine which is Sweden. They can help in alot, fight against terrorism alot better only because they get other nations support. My argument might be weak but I urge you to vote for Con (me).
IndiJone

Pro

I stand by my assertion that there a no such "super powers". Economically, countries help each other out. If one country is producing and someone is buying, then they both are benefiting. However, if one country is producing, but no one is buying, that country is not doing well. Other countries look up to the US and China, because they are the first few to set the new "stage". When armies where using superior iron weapons while other where still using inferior bronze, they wanted to use iron to be more powerful.

Conclusion

The world is either doing good or bad. If one country is prosperous, everyone else benefits as well.
Debate Round No. 3
PatCam

Con

A super power is a nation that influences another nation or nations and they want to be like them. Good debate.
IndiJone

Pro

Conclusion:

There are no "superpowers", the world is dominated by its current "stage". Individual power can only be achieved through mutual advantages. Because they world develops as a whole, no independent state is able to claim complete superiority over another.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
It seems that it was a semantics debate... well done.
Posted by IndiJone 5 years ago
IndiJone
Good debate.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
well, given that con hasn't defined "super power," I think an inventive debater with more time on their hands could do it.
Posted by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
I don't think anyone is going to accept this...pretty hard to show that a nation can only be a super power once, seeing as nation's have been super power's multiple times....
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Can't wait to see the "congratulations" round.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
PatCamIndiJoneTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes good points in that the world has got to where it is today by cultural diffusion and sharing of information. Con gives examples but to a limited extend and does not go into detail much further than saying because they where better.
Vote Placed by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
PatCamIndiJoneTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh semantics, you so funny. His history lesson on how superpowers come about was very good though.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
PatCamIndiJoneTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The term superpower is a very common term used to describe the most powerful and influential countries in the world. Pro tries to refute by saying they don't exist and completely disregards Cons definition. Cons argument showed examples of times when this has happened and Pro dropped it so this agrument goes to Con. Sources go to Con for using one for his case, while Pro made many statements of fact with no support.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
PatCamIndiJoneTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is flat out wrong about nations being a superpower once; however he had a better argument. Cons arguments were repetitive and did little to address the issue at hand.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
PatCamIndiJoneTied
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 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: The Con cited many instances of nations being very powerful during different periods of time, Pro used the entire argument trying to say superpowers dont exist. I would have given only arguments to him but i gave him all the points because of Crypto247's uneducated vote
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
PatCamIndiJoneTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Because he sounded better and use bigger words. Also he pretty much just threw the other guys words out.