The Instigator
s-wangam
Con (against)
The Contender
Nagoyablue
Pro (for)

One World 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
s-wangam has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 109764
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

s-wangam

Con

First round is acceptance. Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments, and round 4 is for rebuttal, no bringing up new arguments.
I take con.
Nagoyablue

Pro

I accept. I take pro.
Debate Round No. 1
s-wangam

Con

I will start my debate.

Granted, a one world government would stop a certain type of war-a war between countries, but this may actually increase wars.
The only type of war left would be civil war. And since there is only one country, every war would involve the whole world. Think about how many world wars that is!
Not to mention the many different cultures, ideas, traditions, and languages. Every country is unique in it's own way, and it would be near impossible to create a law that doesn't offend the traditions and/or laws of a certain country.
For example, if country A has a law saying the maximum speed limit is 50 mph, and country B says the minimum speed limit is 60 mph, the world government can't make a law on the speed limit that won't offend another law of another country.

I look forward to your argument, and as this is my first debate please afford me some leniency on mistakes.

Sources:

  1. https://steemit.com...
  2. https://www.reddit.com...



Nagoyablue

Pro

For this debate, I have 2 main points. I will now outline my first main point:

The BBC tells us that the number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth h is over 7.3 billion. However, scientists estimate that Earth could support up to 11 billion people!

Despite this, humans are dying.

1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.

805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat.

More than 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water. Diarrhea caused by inadequate drinking water, sanitation, and hand hygiene kills an estimated 842,000 people every year globally, or approximately 2,300 people per day.

In 2011, 165 million children under the age 5 were stunted (reduced rate of growth and development) due to chronic malnutrition.

1/4 of all humans live without electricity " approximately 1.6 billion people.

(all facts from https://www.dosomething.org...)

So why are we dying and suffering in a world with enough for everyone? Because or individual countries putting the needs and desires of their own citizens first. And while this is a completely natural way to behave, it's killing children.

The answer? One world government. A government that is responsible for not some, but all humans. A government that will ensure equal distribution of food, water medicine and electricity for all citizens of Earth.

Whilst regional and national governments continue to act in the best interests of only their own citizens, needless death through hunger and disease will never end.

This is my first reason why we need one world government.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
That one world government better be a democracy or humanity is probaly fucked before it's even established.
Posted by Negotiate 3 years ago
Negotiate
ButterEater- I'm fairly certain that anarchy is fair game, man. Anarchy is a political theory. If you have some strong support for your idea and passion to back- why not? Sounds like that's two checks to me.
Posted by ButterEater 3 years ago
ButterEater
Can I argue for one world anarchy???
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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