will the world unite? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Learn more about DebateIsland.com's EdTech solution aimed at Middle Schools and High Schools, DebateIsland Education, here!

will the world unite?

Debate Information

should the world become one nation?  can the world become one nation? benefits/ reasons for/ against



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @maxx
    You're asking the wrong question Maxx as the world is already held in a united state by governing of justice, crime prevention, and prosecution.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    no, if the world was united, then all the people, not just the government(s) would be united as well@John_C_87
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    I dislike the concept of "nations", and one single nation worldwide has the obvious problem of someone who does not share its values being unable to leave it. What I would rather see is a worldwide community of free individuals interacting with each other outside the boundaries imposed by national borders, passports, legal systems and so on.

    It is this kind of unification which I see as the most desirable outcome for human civilization: erosion of political groups and extreme decentralization down to the level of the self-governing individual. Needless to say, it would not feature any governments in the sense in which this word is used nowadays, although there certainly would be think tanks and voluntary cooperatives of people who seek to change the world in certain directions.

    The main benefits of this would be obvious: liberation of individuals and erosion of barriers to individual cooperation. When no legal obstacles stand between you and your potential friend or a business partner from the opposite side of the planet, and when nobody imposes their values on you through force, then you can truly build your ideal life with your bare hands and invite only those people to it who you want to be in it.
    The main downside would be full individual responsibility. There would be no guarantors obliged to help you at the time of need, so it would be up to you to not mess up your life and to get on the good side of other people.

    Freedom is always a double-edged sword, and while it provides immense benefits, those benefits do not come for free. I personally am more than willing to pay the price, and it is my conviction that everyone else would as well if they fully thought this through - but that is not something I can prove formally.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    self governing individuals.  would this not lack leadership as a whole?@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Well, this does not really preclude spontaneously formed leadership. Humanity would still have leading intellectuals, gurus, inspirers, bosses, et cetera; they just would no longer wield legal coercive power and have to get through to people through dialog and trade.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    that would require a huge jump of intellect to the masses, for otherwise fightd and arguments would constantly occur between people due to interaction alone. @MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    I disagree with this; as I see it, most real conflicts between people are a result of certain systematic effects. You can argue, for example, that the millennia-long conflict between Arabs and Jews is a result of mostly individual irrationality - but it seems to me that, without the corruptive influence of the kings ruling over them historically and ideologies pushed by them with force, this conflict would not be a thing. People with very different backgrounds finding themselves in neutral conditions typically get along very well, and conflict only arises when some other human-made factors are at play.

    As such, I do not think that it is as much about intellect, or even morality, as it is about proper institutions (not necessarily governmental ones) put in place. Now, I do not think that such conflicts would be completely ruled out - they would just be extremely rare and inconsequential on the grand scale. There would not be warlords sending millions of people to die for their abstract causes; there would be some small gangs fighting it out, perhaps, but that would mostly be it.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 12
    how can self rule work, when it rarely works in household without a leader? the leader in the house hold has the final say and that would negate the self rule. that would also seem to be the same with people in cities, not to mention the rest of the world. even with self rule, one would have to obey la\ws posted, so at what point does self rule stop and interaction with laws in society begin?@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Authoritarian family members certainly exist and would exist in such a society - but in a system with no legalized coercion and problems of this kind spontaneous institutions would arise addressing family abuse. Not to mention that the culture of such global society itself would move people away from exhibiting such behaviors.

    Rules to follow can be pretty common sense: one does not need a law to know that murdering people on the streets may lead to terrible consequences for them. Finer rules such as internal corporate rules or hiking trail rules could be enforced through private contractual agreements, as they often do nowadays.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    if i am self governing, then how am i required to obey any other law aside from my own?@MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Self-governances of multiple people may collide. In that case peaceful interaction warrants some kind of legal consensus between the individuals. I think that such a consensus would naturally arise in a free society, just as it naturally arises in countless modes of regular social interaction nowadays, such as that between friends. Two friends may have very different ideas on what they want to do this evening, but if they choose to spend it together, they will have to find a compromise that works for both of them.
  • maxx said:
    no, if the world was united, then all the people, not just the government(s) would be united as well@John_C_87
    people on a global scale are Maxx they are held in a united state by use of law assembled as a republic under basic comment legal precedent. It appears what you are asking is can a representation of a republic prove in an unprejudiced legal way a democracy can not form such a unite states of juditice. The answer is simple yes it can. This means basically a law does not need to be designed and written to group people together under states of criminal affairs and a union can be performed without legal prejudice. Legal precedent is the wording that is used to limit, reduce, and expose hypocrisy. 
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    no  basically i am asking is should we unite as a world government; and why or why not.@John_C_87
  • maxx said:
    no  basically i am asking is should we unite as a world government; and why or why not.@John_C_87
    Oh! then no, we should not be united as a world government the creation of nations has already a legal precedent for separation of governing on earth. The constitutional union of the world takes place in the efforts of international space as a global frontier. The world has a common interest as a common defense with a different set of conditions in establishing space colonies on a global scale. There at the moment is not a basic principle which requires a world elect a President or Presadera, King and Queen,
  • The world is already and has been one nation under a guide of axiom for many years without many on earth ever being the wiser as a united state created by a republic is not as intrusive as a Democratic majority and falls under need to know. Meaning not that by implications of no cost it is a secrete but that it is not information that would change costs in place as a common defense to the general welfare of those who understand what is taking place.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    i do not agree, for if the world was one nation, we wpould not be warring@John_C_87

  • i do not agree, for if the world was one nation, we wpould not be warring@John_C_87
    Yes, if the world was one nation the people would in fact still have a war it would simply always be by definition a world war, most ongoing wars are of a civil nature and a single united state created around legislation of governing would not limit violence which takes place on a battlefield.
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    that would by defintion be a civil war@John_C_87
  • maxx said:
    that would by defintion be a civil war@John_C_87
    Or, multiple Civil Wars there are many reasons behind a civil war, and the combat is not held as a united state by democracy. The sky is the limit to the number of civil wars that can become a cause. So much for the great power of democracy? 
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    but the world is under one flag; that is what i am asking@John_C_87
  • The basic point is a world never has any necessity to be one nation whereas the governing of a solarsystem or international space waypoint station does. @ Maxx
  • Realistically what will most likely take place overall as we expand out into the universe is a station, a base will have a commander while nationalities of ethnic races of people will elect a Precedent or Precadera. This as a person who is born off-planet will lose context of citizenship and unlike the undertaking of unconstitutional law diplomatic precedent sets the citizenship without question.

    Legal quarreling bickers over citizen by birth yet totally ignored the basic principle of diplomatic attache' as being a right of "state" to be assigned to those who enter as a spokesperson from another Nation.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    for if the world was one nation, we wpould not be warring

    Are you back on those goofy comics and whacky websites again? And you were showing signs of improvement. I guess we have to allow for intermittent regression. 

    Impossible for a nation to be at war with itself, eh?

  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    You said ......

    for if the world was one nation, we wpould not be warring

    Then as usual contradicted yourself ......Also everyone knows your spelling is dreadful but could you at least try it’s hard enough reading your childish arguments as is 

    that would by defintion be a civil war


    What part of a civil war is not a war?  Watch everyone as Mad Maxx does his usual and actually claims civil war is not a war 
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    no  basically i am asking is should we unite as a world government; and why or why not.

    Because we could never agree on basic human rights to start Americans would want gun rights most the world wouldn’t , Muslims would want alcohol bans most the world wouldn’t , Europeans would want Universal healthcare , social housing , minimun wage Americans again would shriek like banshees etc , etc 

    So how does your master “plan work”?
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -  
    if people never heard of typos or equipment failure, then it is no wonder that people believe that 2 pieces of meat in the same skillet are different@Dee
  • maxxmaxx 707 Pts   -   edited July 14
    i never said i had a plan.  my debate if you read; is "can" and should" i never said one way or another.  you enjoy putting words into peoples mouths??  troll@Dee
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    if people never heard of typos or equipment failure

    Yet you make them daily so you’re still sticking with “equipment failure” how’s that work you’re actually saying you type correctly but your trailer trash computer mistypes when it fails ......LOL keep digging Maxx

    , then it is no wonder that people believe that 2 pieces of meat in the same skillet are different

    You still don’t know what a rare steak , medium rare , well done or burnt means never mind troll when you grow up an adult might take you somewhere where real chefs do it on request 
  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    i never said i had a plan.  my debate if you read; is "can" and should" i never said one way or another.  you enjoy putting words into peoples mouths?? 

    I know because you don’t yet you st-pidly asked “  should we unite as a world government;” and couldn’t figure out why it was a ridiculous idea 
  • Swolliw said:
    @maxx
    for if the world was one nation, we wpould not be warring

    Are you back on those goofy comics and whacky websites again? And you were showing signs of improvement. I guess we have to allow for intermittent regression. 

    Impossible for a nation to be at war with itself, eh?

    For the record two opposing nations and nations who are allies as well as just people in a country can be involved in a civil war.
  • @Dee
    Freedom of speech involves asking a nieve question when the person seeking the question is really not nievbe. All battles are not wars and it is this possible is what Maxx tried to bring to our discussion. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch