The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Do you think People should live in certain countries based on their views?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 851 times Debate No: 58485
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




First Round is for acceptance.
Example if we went for it:
Atheists have one country,
Christians have another,
Jews have another,
Muslims another,
Communists have one,
Capitalists have another.
et cetera.
Good Luck!


Thank you for proposing such an interesting topic. I gladly accept. Since this debate is one of ideals, I will be defending the position that instead of dividing the world into geographical regions where people with similar values amass, that it would be more beneficial to have no countries at all and exist in one world order. I look forward to what promises to be an interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 1


So my argument is that we should be divided by our views:
It would be difficult to choose what lands would be difficult but if you notice it's already being done like how the United States is a strong supporter of Democracy and Freedom while Russia supports Communism and North Korea enjoys controlling its people like tamed fodder.

Also I believe that it would be difficult for us to keep going like the whole Pro Life vs. Pro Choice; and this has caused many extremists to pop up destroying many abortion clinics. What if this progresses? If you think about it our country is already divided because of views like how there is two parties that wouldn't even agree if we breathed or not.
Another thing is how Theists and Atheists are chewing each other out over online every day? What if someone says the wrong or right words and cause another Holocaust how would we save people in time? Before many die? I mean it might not happen in this country, but anything could happen. . .
If you looked at say... Ukraine and how they keeped (or kepted, Idk) pro Russia and pro Independent Ukraine and saw how that came out of the bag? Or how president Washington kicked the slavery issue down the century and every president until Lincoln had to be in the bloodiest war in American History? I think if we don't make separate countries at least we should deal with these problems other than bloodshed, arguments, and degradement.


Points of Rebuttal:

I. "Anything could happen..." should be immediately discredited. I understand that in this context it was being used (to an extent) as a figure of speech, but it is not correct in any way that could contribute to the content of this debate.

II. Kept

III. Infinite Amounts of Countries: One primary flaw in my opponents case is that his subdivision of nations to each whim of the people is simply unrealistic. This leads us to an "every man is an island" mentality. One communistic atheistic pro-abortion anti-gay pro-dictator anti-polygamist pro-rap anti-opera (etc.,) country. Simply not a feasible proposition.

IV. Concession! In my opponent's final statement in round two, he even states that there is a functional alternative to his proposition that satisfactorily solves his contentions. This being proven, I need not even build a case of my own (but I will).

An Alternative Proposition: One World, No Countries

I will keep my constructive as brief as possible. The ultimate purpose of government is to defend its individual citizens from infringing on each others freedom- not to inhibit the freedom of the individual. Therefore, a global order is ideal and plausible. Abortion is legalized and those who radically attack others are punished accordingly- not patronized with a nation of their own. The system is utilitarian, just and ideal. My opponent's is not.
Debate Round No. 2


1. When I meant " 'Anything could happen' " it was mostly bringing up that if two people live under the same roof (country) with different views like Atheism and Theism for too long, something would happen. Like how at Red white and BOOM! parade for July 4th I saw some guy with a microphone yelling something to the effect of: "YOU'LL DIE IN HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD, YOU'LL SUFFER FOR YOUR SINS AND HOW WILL YOU STAND IN FRONT OF GOD ON JUDGEMENT DAY? . . ." : I am christian myself but I don't agree with how this guy was dealing with Atheists, I like to have a philosophy discussion with Atheists though i'm 15 and have a lot to learn. Also I would believe Atheists could ignore this but if it keeps happening they might lose rationality; and then the christians would be like "see told you they're like that!" And the divide would get larger and larger until the pot boils over.

2. Thank you for kept for some reason my computer says it's a misspell and I don't want to misspell anything. Like misspell or miss spell.

3. So I don't want a country simply made for random views I mostly mean like major problems like what-if christians had a section of territory where everyone is christian like how the Middle East is mostly Islam. So we don't have to have people dividing over it in our country like how well Democrats and Republicans divided our country. Not like peoples views on music or any other hobby or small opinion.

4. A Global Country with many Nationalities and divided cultures would be way harder to make than small countries with their own views. Not only will people in countries that don't want to be absorbed in a larger more controlling country would rebel and cause civil war but how would we make a International currency; we would have to print thousands upon thousands of dollars just to get by and the line between the Rich and Poor would get much bigger than it is now.

5. The problem with Legalizing Abortion and punishing Extremists is that the reason why Extremists are made is that no one will listen to their argument and just legalize Abortion without others' consent. I'm neutral in the matter so don't excuse me of supporting Pro Life or Pro Choice.


To adopt my opponent's point structure:

1. My opponent argues that when two groups with opposing beliefs cohabitate the same geographic region that ultimately "anything can happen" in the sense that extremists from either group may attack the other. My counter-argument is this: these extremists are not to be patronized by being granted their own nation. There is peaceful coexistence with differing belief, and then there is violent extremism. Violent extremists are not to be granted a country- they are to be isolated from the rest of functioning society in a prison. This is simply and most fundamentally the purpose of law.

2. Nothing further.

3. My opponent claims that his country-by-view system provides for groups of extreme difference in regards to areas of thought that are more definitive than insignificant differences of taste- or "random". The problem is this: who defines what views and beliefs are arbitrary and which warrant a new nation to be developed? My opponent has presented no feasible system for making these choices and I propose that such a system cannot objectively be created. One man's preference is another man's jihad.

4. My Opponent's Contentions Regarding A One-World Nation

A. Absorption Into A More Controlling System

The system is not by definition more controlling. While proving that was the case could make for a more difficult transition, it is reasonable to assume that there exists a perfect functioning legal system that would preserve the rights of the individual to the fullest possible extent. In this idealist nation (this is a debate of ideals after all), over controlling government is non-existent.

B. The Currency Contention

My opponent's contentions with the creation of a universally accepted currency seem to stem from both a fundamental lack of understanding of economics and a misinterpretation of my proposed nation. Currency is already exchangeable the world over (i.e., dollars convert to euros, euros convert to yen) showing that there is an objective standard for wealth outside of a nation's individual currency. His statement about a growing gap between the rich and the poor are not only discredited by this- but are also discredited by the fact that he assumes the government I propose is a capitalist one. I have not provided specification, but the statement was made generally and cannot be applied so.

5. I have already touched on the issue of dealing with extremists in point one and so I will make this rebuttal brief. Granting nations to individuals motivated enough to bomb abortion clinics is comparable to awarding the Taliban a nation for destroying the World Trade Center of giving the whole of the Gaza Strip over to Palestinian extremists because "they were driven to fight". This way of thinking is not only dysfunctional- but immoral.

6. I point out that my opponent has not provided any rebuttal to my pointing out of his concession. As such, I extend that argument.
Debate Round No. 3


You brought up extremists multiple times so I'm guessing I need to start there. My thoughts on extremists is that the only reason they are made in this country is that they disagree with the ations of the government or people and that they feel they are not heard so they take action else where. Like the Abortion problem: the government allowed it but as you know the Pro Life vs. Pro Choice war is still heated but to me all I see is the government's only understanding is towards Pro Choice. So to me I believe if Pro Life had their own country or state where they could ban abortion everyone could be happy, even though they would probably just try to change things outside their territory like what all humans do.

How would these new countries be made? Through the people not the government. The government would just make the warrant and the people would elect themselves representatives that would make the country's constituion. On how the country would be placed? It can be done if we take the opinions from the Natives and the New Country Peoples and try to have debates over in court houses. Or we can divide sections of the present countries that are already divided. Like for example: the South is mostly Republican so I'm guessing Pro Life so we could divide them. All of our drugies could go to Mexico. . . The Liberals go to California. Communists go to Russia. Capitalists go to New York State.

One of the arguments that you've made is that the problem of making new countries is that the Natives or native government would be a difficult barrier for the creation of the new bias country but you failed to realize that a global country would have the same problems.

I'm not granting terrorists countries i'm granting countries to people with different biases that don't have their voices heard.


1. The concession remains uncontested, therefore regardless of the results of the rest of this debate you must still vote Con. If Pro has conceded that there are functional alternatives to his proposition that match all of his criterion, we are left with no reason to pursue his more extreme offered alternative.

2. A protester is someone reacting to not having his voice heard, and in a reasonable way. The extremists you present in the case of anti-abortion are not peaceful. They are not interested in discussing ethics in the public square of thought. These are violent men, and there violence does not justify them anything but punishment. There are freedoms we may have and freedoms we may not. As long as an individual's personal rights are not being infringed on, then to act out in violence is criminal.

3. My opponent has offered a skeletal system for the formation of potential countries but it is (and I think obviously) over simplified. Additionally, my contention regarding what believes are counted worthy of nation forming and which are not has not been addressed.

All this being said, and not feeling the need to continue further, you must vote Con. Thanks for the debate, Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DominicFairbrass 7 years ago
I certainly agree that it would only separate various groups more, causing arguments over what share of the earth each group gets and so on, furthermore the only instance when this tactic has been tried (the founding of Israel) the opposite of what was hoped happened, instead of creating a safe haven in fact creating a violent hot spot of religious and cultural dispute destined to end with even more bloodshed.
Posted by BrandonFromCanada 7 years ago
I think this would only deepen the divide between societies and cause a LOT of wars.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Preston 7 years ago
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: It doesn't matter if Con goes un-refuted because Pro holds the BOP, Pro still had standing arguments that weren't properly addressed. Next time you try to disprove a point use evidence to show how it is illogical, telling me its a "over simplified" but then not showing me how or why doesn't disprove his point. Con did have better grammar and spelling throughout the round one example is the statement "What if this progresses?", make sure you are double checking your posts, we are all guilty of it. Overall good round!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.