The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

all countries should be ruled by one democratic government

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 376 times Debate No: 91738
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I think that all the countries of the world should band together to create one goverment. 195 countries should turn into 195 provinces allowing for easier trade under one curency and simple international fair trade policies:;possibly allowing for 3rd world countries to trade freely so the human race can grow as one. Equal rights for every person along with one army to stop petty wars over wich country gets this or that and allowing every nation to get an equal say in what happens so large countries like america dont swallow all other nations alive.


First of all, thank you for this debate, I hope we can both have an engaging discussion, I would like to start with one simple fact:

People don't get along.

It's simply unrealistic for a world government to exist, you'd have to get 195 countries to all agree to have no conflict with the other 194, forget current tensions and ask their government to be removed from a position of power.

I would elaborate and bring other points to my argument, but I believe that point is sufficient enough to support my belief.
Debate Round No. 1


all valid points, but it would help retain peace if 194 nations fought one rather than a few nations with personal agendas. unity worked for canada and the united states, so why not everyone. You're absouloutly right, people hold grudges, but if they work past that by free will or force it would mean world peace. i think they should keep most power in their own country but major descisions would be overseen by the international goverment, it would be like the UN but more democratic and assertive.


I agree with the fact that it would retain peace but it's simply unrealistic.

Pro says 'they should keep most power in their own country but major decisions would be overseen by the international government'

This defeats the point of the entire argument, the countries would still exist and still have wars an agendas, but other countries would be forcibly dragged into war, wether it suits their economy or not.

Pro, it is the UN. What you're describing is exactly the UN, and it doesn't bring world peace or make countries surrender their armies, which would never be accepted by any country.
Debate Round No. 2


con, 'countries would be forcibly dragged into war, wether it suits their economy or not.' this has been done in the past with canada and other countries in the british commonwealth, where countries are forced into war but theychoose how involved they are, therefore they can declare war as an act of dissaproval and to show their support for the united government.
This government would not be driven by greed to better a single country but the whole world and would benifit the entire human race with policies and laws voted on by each country, allowing for the world to finally agree on something.


Pro, I believe you misunderstood my point. Countries like Canada going to war with far off nations and choosing their amount of involvement is fine, but a poor country close to a defective country would be all but defenseless if they were forcibly dragged into war.
If it were not the case, they could possibly stay neutral and avoid their land being used as battlegrounds.

Another place to consider would be switzerland, which stayed largely neutral in world war two, this was due to the fact that they were surrounded by nazi occupied territory, so an invasion would achieve nothing. Another factor was that there was a military deterrence, their entire army was mobilized in three days.

Consider if they were forced to take a side in this war, If they were forced to side with the allies they'd be surrounded on all sides by enemies and the conflict would be bloody and extensive.

If the united government forced them to side with the nazis, They would have a larger military at their disposal, possibly allowing them to further their conquest and persecute more minorities and occupy more territory.

Furthermore, Pro assumes that a united government would eliminate any sense of national pride, people would still want the best for their community and nation. It's human nature.

Another issue is the cultural differences between various nations, Which laws would pass and which would be discontinued? Would sharia law become enforced or would it be widely controversial in countries where it is abided? Being forced to adopt someone else's culture and set of morals wouldn't be acceptable by most people

I've had a fun debate and I hope pro did too, thank you for this.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: DebaterGood// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to con because he/she was able to rebut points while still being able to hold sound arguments that were not really refuted.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate. Generalizing by stating that one side did rebuttals better and defended their points is insufficient.
No votes have been placed for this debate.