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

National Borders should be abolished

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: 5/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,307 times Debate No: 54880
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The world is already so intermingled that national boarders do little to benefit countries anymore. We can tell this in the case of the EU, all countries in the European Union are given the freedom to roam around all countries in the European union. This is beneficial, not only does it lead to lots of diversity, but it allows different religions to mix together. In our modern world, religious differences are still a problem. When national boarders are abolished, it will likely lead to less religious discrimination. If many religions can live together in harmony this would ultimately be beneficial to the international community.


First, as this is my first debate I would like to thank my opponent, ashleyaa, for posting such interesting topic for us to engage.

I argue against the proposition with the following argument points:

1. Religious discrimination - while I, much like my opponent, would love to see a world where people from across all different religious can co-exist peacefully, we have yet to possess such an education/tolerate level to achieve such a result. One does not have to look any further than the conflicts of Russians/Chechen, Israelis/Palestinians, Han Chinese/Muslims/Tibetans, Sunni/Shia Muslims, Serbs/Bosnian (in former Yugoslavia), etc., which all exist within their own national borders. The elimination of boundaries separating people of different beliefs does not necessarily promote religious tolerance; one can actually argue the opposite.

2. Economic disparity - many bordering nations has much different economic structure and development level, for example, the United States/Canada/Mexico and Malaya/Singapore. Differences includes healthcare system, social programs, public infrastructures... Will a unified North America adapt a single-payer system or a private insurance system? It seems like more conflicts would arise from such move.

3. Political systems - much like (2), while most states are democratic in nature, they do have different democratic process (Parliamentary vs Presidential), who will get to decide which system is a better suited one for a unified world? Besides, there are still a number of autocracies around, such as China and Cuba.

P.S. European Union still has national borders among its member states and they have the freedom to withdraw from E.U. at will; besides, their political and economic systems are quite similar with a majority of their population being secular.

Thank you and I look forward to my opponent's response!
Debate Round No. 1


ashleyaa123 forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Grazhoper5 7 years ago
Ashleyaa123 has forfeited both this argument and another she challenged me to...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 7 years ago
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: FF

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