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

We should have a world government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 11/3/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,937 times Debate No: 104723
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)




The World, War, and My Government Proposition
There are 195 countries in the world. They vary in size, they vary in resources, and they are led by ambitious men who only care about power and land.
War is about to break out all over the globe, with focuses in the North and Pacific regions of the world. Islands in the Pacific that have large amounts of natural resources are being fought over all the time, if not with guns, with words. Catalonia is seeking independence from Spain, and if they succeed, Spain will begin war, and if they fail, Catalonia, which is in desperate need of independence, will begin the war. Russia is moving their army towards the border, and war between the US and Korea is imminent. China has a standoff with India, and at any moment, combat could break out. The Iraqi Sunnis are likely to demand equal treatment under law, and when the refusal happens, violence will break out. China and the US, also have never really been friends, and since they are the 2 biggest economies, both sides are looking for a way to be the biggest, and war will eventually be seen as the solution, especially once China joins in on the side of North Korea in the upcoming war. China and Japan have also never been friends, so there may possibly be wars there. China and Russia, two big superpowers, both have claims on Siberia, meaning a war is likely to break out there. Also, Venezuela is dealing with inflation, shortages, not to mention that citizen protests, riots, and police brutality point to a civil war in Venezuela, which will likely lead to other countries joining in as to try to get some of its land. Saudi Arabia"s citizens also seem ready to explode.
Also, the world economy is set to collapse. America, one of the primary powers in the world, and the second highest economy, is set to collapse. With the US spending money on outposts which should not be there, not to mention that the country is in major debt, and the only way is printing off so much money that inflation will rise, prices will, and no one will get the staples they need, meaning that riots will break out, throwing the country into chaos. Every country will try to take American land, destroying America, a necessary piece of the world economy. The world economy will then collapse, meaning that the same thing will happen all over. By the time all of this is over, humans will be lucky if there are two million humans left.
Our system of having dozens of independent countries with some light regulations just isn"t working. And ordinary people like you and me pay the price. The politicians, the people who only care about power and money, will just look for profit. But the thing is, us ordinary people are the base of their power. If we all decide to change something, well, the leader is always outnumbered, and they are just people, not gods. We can"t handle our current system, so we need change. I have a proposition for this.
But my point is not to encourage war. I"m not a warmonger, like the people in power are. My suggestion is a blood free, efficient way to set up the world. Divide the world into two hemispheres, the eastern and the western. Each hemisphere elects one primary person, and a few support staff. The primary person works with the other primary person. One works on resource management and the other on the economy. The support staff just supports the primary person on their jobs. This way, if one hemisphere splits off into war, they don"t have the other skills, and can"t manage. Also one person would be elected from each hemisphere to work with the other as Strategoi, or military leaders. Business owners and those who love meddling in politics cannot run for major office so that they cannot only further their own aims. A judgement council would be voted on, three people per hemisphere. They would be a Supreme Court. Lesser leaders would be elected to handle other things, such as environmental laws. There would be one person per hemisphere for those, again
There would be one universal currency, and everyone would have to follow it.
This idea would slowly be edged into the mainstream, until everyone is fine with it, or at least the majority of each country

1) Respect my argument and I'll respect you
2) No personal attacks


I do like you argument, sir. I enjoy how you think outside the box and challenge the rules of society. All I ask for is an engaging argument and a fun time. Here we go.

While a world government would probably stop war forever, it would also have some major flaws. It would destroy the diversity of the world which people cherish. It would make the world much less interesting. And if the entire world is controlled by only one power, that power would have an unlimited ability to control its people without any foreign powers stepping in. Imagine if the entire world was controlled by Nazi Germany, or some kind of twisted dictatorship like that. That would probably be awful. It would definitely be awful. That's how things are in George Orwell's book 1984. Besides, this thing wouldn't last long, because people have different interests and opinions. It would break up into smaller countries, and the whole thing would start over again.

If one, or two world governments were created, then everybody on the planet would have to learn one official language, and all media would be spoken in that language. All traditions and cultures would be destroyed. You wouldn't live in Japan, China, Russia, or wherever you live. You would only be one part of a giant empire that stretched onward forever. People who were used to living in their own country would have to adapt to new laws and new regulations, and the diversity of certain regions could result in riots and catastrophes. Two world governments would bring about the largest catastrophe of all time, the end of democracy and race. Unity is not always a good thing, sir.

Of course, your simple mind considers unity as the greatest thing a world like ours could achieve, but you must understand that every historical change, especially an enormous one such as this, would have a massive effect on the people who inhabit our fragile planet. We have to work up small steps to reach an absolute utopia, gradually. If we unified all at once, the world would go berserk and people would be very upset.

I agree that we should stop war forever. But I think that there are alternatives. For instance, instead of unifying, why not just stop war, and keep the countries how they are? My strategy is as follows:

If two countries (For instance, the U.S. and North Korea) want to fight and refuse to compromise, then they can argue before a committee of three or so countries, all of which are very diverse, to prevent bias. For instance, let's say Germany, China, and Russia. It wouldn't necessarily be those three, it's just an example. before these three countries, the two fighting countries must state, in turn, their reasons for hating the other country, how they run their country, and how they would run the other country if they took it over.

After a few weeks of retiring to decide, the three council countries come back and choose which country presented a more valid argument. For instance, if one country is more restrictive on its citizens, or the government has more power, then that country loses and the winning country either decides to take over the losing country or allow it to keep running in exchange for more just laws and no more arguments. If the losing country is invaded, and after three years, the citizens do not like their new government, then the old government is restored. It's simple, and it's easy. We do not need war anymore, because we are civilized people and we can handle everything, even international relations, in a civilized manner. The key is not to avoid war, but rather, to accept that it is a natural process and the fact that it can be handled without killing anyone.

This system makes much more sense than uniting all the countries in the world just to stop war. This is ridiculous. I also notice that you point out how corrupt the government of today is, but you don't change the government at all in your new utopia. You only have five or so people per hemisphere! That's insane! You understand that each hemisphere contains about 3.5 billion people, don't you? Five people to 3.5 billion is a much more unfair ratio than, say, the current U.S. ratio, which is 323 million people to about fifty people, including all three branches of our government. In your new utopia, it would be much harder to get elected for even the smallest position, because you would be competing against many more people. Your Utopian government sounds much more corrupt than our government now. In the next round, I will propose what I think is the best method of government.

I await your next argument. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


You aren't wrong, however, I never said anything about one official language and all others dying out. My proposition is more of one secondary language, one that is only really used if there is no communication. My aim is to keep as much cultural diversity while having a government that would handle some of the bigger issues. I do understand that people will argue, but if we keep cultural diversity, while the government has some authority, while we leave some of the smaller issues to the people.
You are correct in there being some corruption, but much of it can be prevented by the government running certain propositions through the people. Also, some of the corruption that comes from crime bosses running illegal immigration. With no countries to immigrate between, there would be no illegal immigration. Not too mention those crime bosses wouldn't be able to escape by going to another country. The police would be able follow them everywhere.
Also, I know we would have to ease it in and I know some countries would not accept. I did address this in a comment.
"I know it won't be accepted at once. So we would probably slowly ease the world into it. And country leaders might not agree, but the people will likely want a better government, and the leader is ultimately just a person"
I know unity is not the greatest thing, but I am against war, and right now, unity is the only way to achieve this. Your proposition for the committee is a good idea, however, the countries just likely won't listen. And if they invade, and after 3 years the citizens don't like it, who says the conqueror won't just keep the country?
I am interested in your proposition, however, I have thought at as many angles as I can, and this is the best idea I could think of.
If it does break up, well it will have delayed war by a couple decades, which is necessary, because by then things can be worked out.
Good luck


I believe that unity will mean the end of all cultural diversity. This is unavoidable. You will no longer be American, or Scottish, or Mongolian. There will only be two countries, which means that, essentially, there will be an east side and a west side. This could mean the beginning of a new cold war. Splitting the country in two would also take some careful planning. Australia is all the way over near Asia, but they may want to be grouped with the West side. Although people live in a certain region, they may like the other side better. They might want to go there, but the line to get in would be pretty long, considering that each country houses 3.5 billion people. If one side experiences a major catastrophe, the other side will be hit with floods of immigrants, all begging to get in, and it would create overpopulation. Immigration between the two countries would constantly have to be kept in check.

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of war. Here's an idea that talks some about all of it:

War, although heavily thought about these days, is actually at a lower point than ever before. You've been brainwashed by the masses and stirred up into thinking about an invisible threat. There really is no threat to the United States as of right now. ISIS is a ragtag group of hoboes who can only conduct a mass shooting every five years or so, and they have no atomic weapons. North Korea is a tiny blip on the map, it's not supported by any other country, and they don't currently possess the technology to blow us up. We're not facing Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany anymore, and the civil war is long gone. The world is actually very peaceful, despite what you may hear. According to recent statistics, 10% of Americans were in the war during world war 2, about 2% in Vietnam, and 0.2% nowadays.

In a sense, the world actually is united, although we seldom think about it. Following the defeat of Hitler in 1945, the United Nations was formed, a team of all the countries on the planet, and their sole purpose is to protect the world from Armageddon. The doomsday clock is now much less than it was back during, say, 1970. The United Nations serves to glue the whole world together, without completely gluing it together. There is no war and we don't need to worry about any war. If there really was a horrible war, we would be a lot more scared.

You say that this unity will have delayed war by a couple decades, but also understand that it will also have completely altered the world. Chances are the countries will be completely different. Japan will be called Shoki or something, and we'll be called New England. You can't implement a big change like that without expecting some major consequences. And it'll only delay war by a COUPLE DECADES? We can do that on our own, without uniting all the countries into a giant behemoth. The key to preventing war, I think, is to become a pacifist. Just tell the whole world to become pacifists and we can keep going without killing. We don't need to alter the course of history just to stop war. This would be the biggest change since the fall of Rome, for gosh sakes. Anyway, that's what I have to say right now.
Debate Round No. 2


First off, a major catastrophe, no matter how big, won't destroy half the world.
"Just tell the whole world to become pacifists and we can keep going without killing."
Just how well do you do think that your proposition there will work?
You also said that there is no threat for America. You forgot the other 194 countries. Some are going to break out into war, and with the tangled net of alliances, who knows how that will work. Also, my expectation for Catalonia have begun. Arrests are happening, and there is civil unrest. How long until the others begin war? 1 month?
"For the last two years, the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock stayed set at three minutes before the hour, the closest it had been to midnight since the early 1980's. In its two most recent annual announcements on the Clock, the Science and Security Board warned: "The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon." In 2017, we find the danger to be even greater, the need for action more urgent. It is two and a half minutes to midnight, the Clock is ticking, global danger looms. Wise public officials should act immediately, guiding humanity away from the brink. If they do not, wise citizens must step forward and lead the way."(
If your argument is "America is fine" and you don't mention the other countries, you don't see the full picture, and therefore, you can't really argue that all is fine. It is very likely that in less than 5 years, a majority of US citizens will be holding guns in some world war.
"A segment of the American population fears the creation of a world government, thinking it will become some kind of totalitarian regime " la the Third Reich or Soviet Russia or a superstate out of Orwell's "1984". A logical consequence of such a government for these folks would be the curtailing of their freedoms. Probably no guns allowed. Universal health care. Too many taxes. Eventual dictatorship." (
Also, a world government would mean that each individual government would share their advancements, we could have scientists across the globe working together, meaning better medical, scientific, and industrial advancements all over.
The UN and EU are both some form of a higher government, with the UN basically being a world government, with less authority.
Einstein said, "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever."
All the money spent on military would be used for better things, like changing energy sources as to prevent global warming, or helping the poor and homeless. We could actually discover a cure to HIV and cancer.
I personally support a world government, and I hope others do.
Good Luck


The threat of war is used by violent hate groups to encourage hatred toward certain ethnic groups and so on. There is some tension, but it's often heavily exaggerated by mass media, because their job is to make things as sensationalized as possible. Facts often become distorted. We don't know what Kim Jong Un is thinking. I think the key to stopping war is to understand that it is unnecessary to conduct wars any more. We should regard war as a useless carryover from our barbaric past and refuse to have any. My system from round one could work particularly well. We do not need to unify the world.

You say that the world becoming pacifist is impossible. It may sound ridiculous, but it's no more ridiculous than expecting every country on Earth to willingly join as one people. Nobody would ever do that. The countries might coagulate a little, sure, but some will always want to remain independent, and when the bigger countries invade the smaller ones, it will only mean more war and more death. You can't enact an enormous change like this without decades, maybe centuries, of preparation. This wouldn't be tiddlywinks, it would be the largest thing in human history. It's not an idea to toy around with.

Your quote from Einstein is cool, and he's entitled to his opinion, but other people have more of a cultural identity, and they will not give that up. Einstein can be whoever he wants to be, but presenting a quote from Einstein doesn't mean it's a smart quote, or that it's correct. Einstein perpetually stated that, like all other people, he was only human, and he stuck his tongue out to show that intellect can be humorous. His quote is great, but it doesn't mean it's correct. Nobody is like him. He's smart, not to be biased toward one country or another, but nobody is as smart as him. Nobody will enact this grandiose plan.

We don't need a world government. We have the United Nations, and they should improve slightly, but they function quite well. Before 1945, we were in a constant state of peril, but after we realized that a threat like Hitler could rise again, we decided to do something about it. We can feel some kind of unity without being completely united. It's absolutely true, a superstate would destroy the world using complete and total domination. The current system works because if somebody doesn't like where they're at, they can leave. But what happens when there are only two choices? People will be forced to do what they don't want to do. There will be no escape from the country. If the country functions well, everything is hunky dory. If the country goes berserk, it means the end.

A world with only two countries would not aid democracy, it would hinder it. As I have said, even if one of these huge countries uses a democracy, the ratio of president to citizens is much higher than the current ratio in the United States. The president will be able to control many more people, do whatever he wants, with only the other hemisphere to stop him. The key to preventing war, I think, is to keep countries small. Two superstates would feel an equal sense of power, so they would be equally willing to destroy one another. That was the problem during the cold war, when our ego and the Russian ego expanded so far that we almost committed global suicide. If there are many small countries, they feel less power, so they understand that a war could anger a larger country. Our system is the best.

Your idea is insane and you act as if it would be easy. It would not be easy. It would create more problems than what it was trying to prevent. We should just stop war and keep our countries how they are. We can end war. Look at my system above. Wouldn't it be a good alternative to war? It wouldn't kill anybody, and it would still accomplish what wars have always tried to accomplish. We can stop war. We just don't, because we're stupid.

Judges, both me and my opponent have presented good arguments, but vote wisely. This is a very serious issue. Vote wrong, and your decision could haunt you. I hope you choose right, whichever that may be. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
You think two countries will have LESS power than 195?
Posted by Caden335 2 years ago
What's insane is how corrupt out leaders are, how the armies kill civilians, how we hide vital medical and technological advancements from each other, and how disunited the world is! If you accuse me, remember what I'm speaking against, and think about that
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
It's still wrong to have five people rule three billion. That's still frickin' insane.
Posted by Caden335 2 years ago
Not one president, a council. Have you not read my arguments
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
You think YOUR unified system would reduce how the wealthy flaunt their power? If there's one president for a whole HEMISPHERE, it would mean chaos!
Posted by Caden335 2 years ago
Not everyone likes their country. The US is horrible and corrupt.
Some of this is intended to give individuals the right of self determination. What I don't respect is the corrupt politicians, and the rich who lounge around
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
Pro is another globalist parasite using the rise of national socialism to justify a one-world government. That is the wish of the elite. Individuals should have the right of self determination, and Pro does not respect this.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
Right. Neither is a world with only two places to be and a loss of personal identity.
Posted by Caden335 2 years ago
Dozens of wars is not optimistic
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
You live in some kind of fantasy world where nothing matters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nd2400 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a hard one to pick. But i just think Con made a better argument on why a world government would not work. Either though i also disagree with his proposition on the solution. But he did make a better argument on why a world government wouldn't work. A world government would have just too many flaws. So Con wins.

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