The Instigator
Cayden.C
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
judey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

One Global 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 1 vote the winner is...
Cayden.C
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 119571
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Cayden.C

Con

I will allow my opponents (affirmative) to have the first argument. But to start off, I will provide the overview of the debate and the format:

Overview: The topic is whether or not we should have one government that would govern the entire world. (Have a plan on how one government would work)

Format:
- Affirmative Opening Argument
- Negative Opening Argument/Rebuttal of Affirmative opening argument
- Refutation of Negatives Rebuttal/Affirmative Summary
- Refutation of Rebuttal of the rebuttal/Negative Summary

Provide Evidence to support your points!
judey

Pro

The reason we should have one global government is simple and clear, The political instability throughout the world causes wars and xenophobic violence, If we were to have a centralized government for the world as a whole it is biggest step we could take for the political instability we face in the world today.
Debate Round No. 1
Cayden.C

Con

First, I will state my argument, Show how my opponents argument falls and rebuild on my own. I understand that you believe that the international system is not at it's highest point at the moment. I, Myself believe international relations could be assisted in many ways, However one global government is most definitely not the solution. The biggest question is who would run the global government, And how could we ever be so sure that they would be reliable? Also, When people have power, They tend to want more of it. That is one of the largest issues with a global government, As we could never be 100% sure that the individuals who would be practically in charge of the entire world wouldn't switch up on us, As a planet. Or, If they entered the position with unlawful intentions. This leads me to my second point. You stated that due to international conflicts and disputes, There is a high chance of war. To refute this, I have to say that one global government would almost 100% cause at least one war. We have to see that if we truly want a global government, EVERY single country/nation/territory on the entire world has to be on board. What if they aren't? What would we do? Declare war on them to force them into joining the global government. Well, That would contradict your argument, As you are wanting to reduce the amount of wars occurring. According to Dr. James Kalb from the Crisis Magazine, "Even so, Something unruly as a global society can't be organized in a way that's both effective and fair, And decisions of major global players need to not match the public good better than those of lower-level institutions more susceptible to popular influence. " >> This is simply stating, A global government would not work or be effective. But instead it would be unfair. This leads me to my last point. Lack of integrity and equity of the global government. How can we be so sure that our government would be honest, And fair to each individual? How would one global government be able to ensure the wellbeing of each individual is as great as the rest? What happens to currency? The inflation would go crazy. There would obviously need to be representatives from each "past country" therefor, It would just be as effective to remain separate. How would election work? How would taxes work? How would one global government benefit the criminal justice system? We ALSO have to see that if just ONE thing fails, Just one, The entire world fails. The planet fails. As of right now if something fails within a country, Then that country fails. However, If one global government forgets to complete something, Or do something, Or put something in order. The entire world fails. This is why the status quo is greater than one global government.

Do you have an effective plan for one global government?
judey

Pro

Ok, So you choose to believe that the only way to get everyone to agree to this government is war, But there is more than one way when two countries come together into one central government, Then others will follow and vise visa until it becomes one central government, And war would not have to happen. This would happen in a confederation with every country having a representative and one central person in charge of the controlling and gets the final choice in laws when a tie occurs.
Debate Round No. 2
Cayden.C

Con

First, I would like to point out that my opponent stated that I thought that the only way possible for this one global government to work was through war. However I did not state that, Nor do I believe it. My opponent seems to believe that when at least two countries come together to form a centralized government all other countries would join in. There are a total of 195 countries on earth, I would need a lot and I mean a lot of evidence to support my opponents argument that all 195 countries even support centralized, One global government. Also, My opponent went on to state their plan for a global government. They stated that their would be one representative from each country, However I don't understand how one person could possibly represent a whole country, I think it would have to be a small 'government' body for each country. I feel like logic and common sense will tell us that the chances that the global government would fail is higher than the chances it would succeed. It would simply be a number of people always arguing, And not being able to come to common ground on an issue. My opponent lacks to support me with evidence or at least an explanation on how exactly they see it would be possible and successful. Let's look at a quick example. We will use the United Nations as an example, As it is practically a small global government. According to The New York Times in 2017, "Most recent the United Nations starkest failure has been the handling of the six-year old conflict with Syria, With Russia backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the United States, Britain and France supporting some opposition groups. The Security Council has failed to take decisive action on Syria, Despite reports of countless war crimes, And similarly failed to halt the conflict in Yemen, Despite its contribution to an outbreak of Cholera, With 600, 000 cases reported so far. Most recently, The Council has been confronted with mounting atrocities against the Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar. " Therefor, If the United Nations, A prime model of a global government body is failing at resolving many of the larges issues in the world, How can we see a global government succeeding in our future? Especially with one representative as my opponent has stated. The simple answer, Is we can't.
judey

Pro

Ok, So lets go a line by line to help disprove my opponent they say that it would be impossible to have all of the courtys come together to even form a central and that war would be necessary to even get this achived witch they did say in their second speech, But this simply is not true, According to multiple news sources, Including new york times, Alliances between countries will choose to stick together rather fall apart. Think about it this way if American and their best ally Canada, Accord to a survey done by the new york times in 2017, Were to come together then it would be unwise for an ally of both America or Canada to not join, As they would more than likely loss that alliance and the gain a powerful enemy in either the American or Canadian population and that would continue until all of the countries agreed to join so my argument still stands that this will solve more war than it will solve. Then my opponent goes on to say that one person can not support the entire contry, But historical we see this with the presidents of the United States which represents the country in my foreign affairs that just have people to back him, Or her, Up, Which is what a representative would have to have to thrive. Then my opponent goes on to say that when people get power they tend to try to want more, Which is true, But again we can look back at the American federal government system that has rules and regulations in place which help people get rid of power hungry officials when they go mad, That would have to be put into place. Then my opponent goes on to talk about the UN and the amount of time that they take to help solve these terrible and awful problems that infect this world. Yes, This extreme halt of progress is insane, But there is an easy way to combat this, More clear and set rules on voting on proposed plans that can help solve this problem that would state that a certain percentage of votes for yes or no has to be met before the law or bill is passed. So is it possible for a centralized government to thrive in the future, Yes!
Debate Round No. 3
Cayden.C

Con

Firstly, I would like to to point out that my opponents most previous speech has very low relevance to the overall topic of' One Global Government'. My opponent has stated that it would be "unwise" for countries to come together after two largest allies do so. However this evidence lacks relevance to the resolution, Again, As my opponents entire speech does. Just because something is "unwise" that does not mean that it will not occur. I believe common sense can tell us all that. My opponent has also said that history shows that one individual can indeed represent a whole country. This is not true or logical on any level whatsoever, Due to the fact that one person has never ruled the whole country by themselves (in the United States) without a governing body that they had to pass their laws through and follow other policies. This proves that my opponents argument has indeed fallen, As it lacks logic, Reasoning and EVIDENCE. My opponent has not provided any evidence throughout the debate so far, Which proves to me that he/she is not educated on the topic. Also they go on to state that the American Federal Government System that has rules and regulations in which assist restrict the power of individuals or branches of government (checks and balances, Term limits etc. ) however, We are not talking about the American Government in this debate, We are talking about why or why not all 195 countries on earth coming together as one to rule the entire world as one governing body. EVEN if one global government did happen in the future, There is no evidence to prove that the global government would follow American policies. Also, My opponent goes on to state a brief plan for assisting the global government with not going down the road that the United Nations is currently going down. However they fail to realize that the United Nations already has strict policies and rules to follow, It's just simply the fact that they are avoiding resolving the life threatening international disputes. We as a country can not state that we want/wish to have a global government in our future and not even ATTEMPT or at least put effort towards assisting international conflicts. Let's look at the global governmental stability to prove the centralized government would indeed fail. According to PBS News, "There are over 25 failed states, Failed states are countries in which could not uphold their own, Which leads to their government failing. There are over 175 countries that have been labeled as 'Fragile States'. Fragile states are countries in which are on the fence of governmental stability, But mainly leaning towards the failing side. " This is clear and conspicuous evidence that proves that there are already a number of countries in which have either already failed, Or are very close to failing. Let's keep in mind that there are 195 countries on earth, And 175 out of the 195 countries are at a large risk of failing. So how do you suppose those failing countries would be able to accept entering a global government? The stability of a global government would be so low, It would almost definitely fail.
judey

Pro

yeah, He wins I can't do anything to combat that with my current knowledge.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
And if everyone was a good person. That as well. If we all do become bad people Anarchy will reign and everyone will kill each other. Either it will lead to human extinction or rebuilding a government.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
I sure would have agreed with the information thing when I was younger. But I've found out just how rotten evil and low life about half the human race is.
You'll need to just get away from all the vermin - move to an exoplanet, And don't let rotten people move there. That's honestly the only way.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
The issue would be information. I think it is always has. Which is why people think Anarchy, Laissez faire capitalism or socialism/communism is a good idea.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
The voters (the human race) is ultimately the problem. The majority have low low low standards. I'm sure someone really good could never get elected, Because all the vermin would vote against them. Because half of socialism is whipping bad voters, And half of capitalism is whipping bad company leaders. All the bad people (the majority) would never vote to get whipped.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
" If there is global governance who is in charge? "

No one lol. The multinational corporations have no leader - it's all chaos, And they love it. Because they have no feeling of making the human race into something to be proud of.

Just like with the federal government. No one is in charge. They're just a big debating finger pointing club, Which never really does much of anything. And the majority of people are dopes for putting up with it. And that's what happens when voters simply have low standards. Which is what most people have.

Things have to get insanely screwed up before those bunch of worthless scammer politicians get off their lazy butt and actually do something. They could all die and you'd never know the difference for many years.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
If you want someone else to debate this with please challenge me directly, Cayden.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Basically career politicians. In it for the money. Sometimes we have good people but mostly are there for the money is what I see. I don't see the best represenation I see politicians who do not know what they are doing. Example: Kamala Harris, Maxine Water (Could list of most of the Democrats but I'll leave it that), Trump in a sense but at least he knows about the economy and I think he took soldiers out Syria so another good thing, Mitch Mconnel. Could list others but leave it at that.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
As I said, Corporations run day to day regular life, Not the government. Governments obviously have way vastly more power, But they rarely exercise it in democracies. Even in modern communist countries they're too chicken to exercise much power for fear of losing power. In other words, For all practical purposes the corporations are the government. They are what affects your life, Not any government. Not usually.
In the US, The politicians are a bunch of worthless do nothings. They could all die and if it weren't reported on tv it would be years at least before anyone could tell the difference.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@hsteacher

That is a business. There is a difference. One has sole aim to make money and the other is to govern a certain territory. If there is global governance who is in charge?
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
I think we have a one world gov. Right now, Except that the small fry nations aren't in it.
The gov. Consists of multinational conglomerates running, , Pretty much all the day to day normal life things.
In case you didn't know, With a Master Card, You can buy almost anything from almost any country. Even pretty illegal things. It's called Alibaba.
If you've got the money, You belong to the one world government.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Cayden.CjudeyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. Claims that Pro did give were rebutted by Con sufficiently.

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