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 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.





The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it. You?

Debate Information

The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it.  You?

 

Given my old criminal mind and delinquent attitude; I know that if I was my old self, I would hate the notion of a one world government.

 

Such a bank would prevent me from talking advantage of the white economy.

 

Fair taxation makes my criminal wallet lose twofold. I lose my gain and now must pay and play fair. Bummer.

 

Given my reform and apotheosis, I feel it is my duty to tell all my fellow white economy taxpayers, we all pay taxes, and it is foolish not to have a fair system.

 

Leaving unfair advantage to the black market does not seem like a good idea. Right?

 

I think I would vote for a One World Government, just to get the One World Bank.

 

If your government preaches against a One World Government, they are voting with the criminals who hate the idea.

 

Economically speaking; given that single source banking governance is easy, --- I think that moving a huge economic advantage from the black market to our white market, --- is a good idea.

 

I estimate that we all get a 30% raise in pay.

 

I am bought off. You?

 

Regards.

DL




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    GnosticChristian said:

    I am bought off. You?

    Hello DL:

    Nahhh...  Nobody would pay for the cra*p you just posted.

    excon
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -   edited April 2023
    @jack

    Thanks for the educated guess.

    I guess you like the thieves hands in your pocket.

    Like most second class bots of your ilk, you have no decent argument against.

    Regards
    DL
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  

    Like most second class bots of your ilk, you have no decent argument against.

    Regards
    DL
    Hello DL:

    There's no argument to be had..  You made a series of assertions, backed up by nothing.  Certainly, I should be afforded the same latitude.

    excon


    GnosticChristianNomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @jack
    There's no argument to be had..  You made a series of assertions, backed up by nothing.

    Seriously?

    Tell us more about your career as a Jewish military hero, you unfathomable hypocrite.

    ZeusAres42GnosticChristian
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: More Personal Insults

    "Nomenclature" just can't stop.
    jackGnosticChristian
  • @GnosticChristian

    You can not by fact have a worldwide single government that is by law describing a dictatorship. Really. We can by United State Constitution however form a Global International Reserve Note as a means of payment between nations of the global community. This though a hard task to put on the international negotiating tables it is factual republic initiative in governing fairly.


    GnosticChristian
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it. You?

    The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it.  You?

     

    Given my old criminal mind and delinquent attitude; I know that if I was my old self, I would hate the notion of a one world government.


    Absolutely terrible argument - fallacious Utilitarianism  ..     If it makes it harder for criminals - - its automaticly legitimate law.  

    but - is a very common argument .. and whats worse .. a commonly accepted argument ..    most folks not knowing no better  - 12 years of school and we fail to teach the basics of Philosophy ==  Lobic, Lobical Fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument , critical thinking ..    nor do we teach the founding principle .. legitimacy of authority. 

    As such the public is very ill equiped to handle the cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down from media - politicians on a daily basis.   .. end up adopting some very bad arguments .. on the basis of which policy is often made. 

    Giving up all privacy for example would make it easier to catch criminals ..   or .. make laws so severe -- cutting off limbs for stealing --    ..   that gonna make real difficult for theif to steal again .. 

    Many have quite willingly given up much Privacy .. for the sake of convenience  cell phones et all ... so why should we care . put up cameras everywhere like China == facial and gate recognition ----   monitor every movement of everyone  .. 

     So back to the Gnostic who lost his way ---    "Why should we care" ?     What is the problem with givnig away all privacy .. if we can have less crime..     Do salvage some of my faith in humanity and come up with something. 


  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The Pros And Cons Of A One World Government

    Pros:
    1. Peace and Security - One government could implement and enforce rules to prevent inter-country conflicts, ensuring security and safety for everyone around the world.
    2. Uniformity of Laws - A single government could enforce laws that are uniform worldwide making the legal system less complex and more globally understandable.
    3. Global Governance - A single-world government would be best placed to enact laws to regulate global issues such as environmental and economic policies, terrorism, and conflict resolution.
    4. Cost-Effective - A central government would eliminate the need for individual national governments, as a result, save money that is currently being spent on military, infrastructure and other programs.
    5. Resource Allocation - Equitably distributed natural resources such as clean water, food, infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, etc. can be allocated worldwide, encouraging potential economic growth.

    Cons:
    1. Loss of Sovereignty - Countries would no longer have independent powers. Government leaders that were previously elected by their people will no longer have decision-making authority over their citizens' welfare and will lead to a lack of autonomy.
    2. Homogenization of Culture - One rule of law can lead to a loss of cultural identity as a result of cultural assimilation and uniformity. This could cause backlash in terms of heritage and traditions that people have been practicing for centuries.
    3. Corruption - A one-world government will centralize power in smaller groups, which can lead to corruption, power imbalance, and potentially abuse of authority.
    4. Inefficient and Large Scale Governance: Most people would not know their leaders and will be in an unaccountable situation making it hard to regulate, monitor and control governance. The scale of the government will be too large to have effective policies, governing, and decision-making.
    5. Resistance to Change - There may be strong resistance from countries feeling that their uniqueness and political culture may be diminished, which can lead to long-standing disputes, and possibly unexpected consequences.

  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  

    The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it.  You?

     

    Given my old criminal mind and delinquent attitude; I know that if I was my old self, I would hate the notion of a one world government.

     

    Such a bank would prevent me from talking advantage of the white economy.

    Hello DL:

    So, the criminal element is BLACK, huh??  Du*de!  How utterly racist of you??

    excon

    GnosticChristian
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: So back to the Gnostic who lost his way --- "Why should we care" ? What is the problem with giving away all privacy .. if we can have less crime.. Do salvage some of my faith in humanity and come up with something.

    @JulesKorngold

    Appreciate the detailed summary of your position but you did not address the question.     Can you find no problems with giving away all privacy ? 

    Nothing salvaged as of yet. 
    GnosticChristian
  • The agreed form of international governing is already met by written law as it is the assembly of law which creates the United State of Earth.

  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: What does that have to do with the criminal element wishing for a one world Gov't ?

     @John_C_87

     why would one not wish to give up right to privacy to fight the criminal element ? 
    GnosticChristian
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @Sargonski
     why would one not wish to give up right to privacy to fight the criminal element ? 
    The United States Consitutional union is created in the form of a quesition here. The combination of poorly regulated demcocarcy and a law like the Rico act create self-incrimination second to only the matlpratice of law creating self-incrimination around abortion legilsation as admission to murder. Law is the one world wide governing body the argument of debate is not ever been about democratic law it has always been about United States of Consitutional law held in a state of the a search for more perfect union.


    GnosticChristian
  • In whole truth what the united state of criminal conduct hates is one registered receipt as payment on all debt. Look at the truth this way. Every nation in the world holding the same serial numbers and advanced tracking on receipts as payment of all human forms of debt links is all together under the legality of the payments made towards services and goods as united states of law.

    GnosticChristian
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @jack

    Seriously?

    Tell us more about your career as a Jewish military hero, you unfathomable hypocrite.

    Hello hater:

    If you COULD beat me in a debate you WOULD..  But, you CAN'T, so instead you call names.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha..

    excon
    GnosticChristian
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: why would one not wish to give up right to privacy to fight the criminal element ?

    @John_C_87

    I didn't quote you John .. because nothing you said addressed the question relating to giving up the right to privacy
    GnosticChristian
  • I didn't quote you John .. because nothing you said addressed the question relating to giving up the right to privacy.
    What kind of right to privacy, legal, medical, or constitutional? It is not that I haven't stated a grievance on the loss of privacy it is that you do not understand the grievance as a whole. Because of certian liberties granted to a lawyer by pratice of law the criminal acts of the lawyer as reprentation is past on to the client who may have lost a consitutinal right to privacy by picking one lawyer over another. To establish a united state of common defense we are to address the lawyer or legal firm with malratice of law.

    Argument Topic: why would one not wish to give up right to privacy to fight the criminal element? To start, there is more than one right to privacy so what you are in fact asking of me, why would one not wish to give up multiple, or all rights to privacy. A lawyer would ask me why nothing is in writting when entering agreements such as this is the first thing which comes to mind. We know in advance there is not one right as there is no united state to hold as truth in this matter said to be truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth.

    The argument is if you are right or wrong it is if the principle has been tried and has failed to connect with established justice completely or just partially.

  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it. You?

    John_C_87 said:
    I didn't quote you John .. because nothing you said addressed the question relating to giving up the right to privacy.
    What kind of right to privacy, legal, medical, or constitutional? It is not that I haven't stated a grievance on the loss of privacy it is that you do not understand the grievance as a whole. Because of certian liberties granted to a lawyer by pratice of law the criminal acts of the lawyer as reprentation is past on to the client who may have lost a consitutinal right to privacy by picking one lawyer over another. To establish a united state of common defense we are to address the lawyer or legal firm with malratice of law.

    Argument Topic: why would one not wish to give up right to privacy to fight the criminal element? To start, there is more than one right to privacy so what you are in fact asking of me, why would one not wish to give up multiple, or all rights to privacy. A lawyer would ask me why nothing is in writting when entering agreements such as this is the first thing which comes to mind. We know in advance there is not one right as there is no united state to hold as truth in this matter said to be truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth.

    The argument is if you are right or wrong it is if the principle has been tried and has failed to connect with established justice completely or just partially.


    Did you understand the OP Question ?    and we are talking all right to privacy in general  ...   are you having trouble understanding whats been happening in the world  w/r to privacy out the window on many fronts ..      now folks talking  Utilitarianism justification for Law.. 

    You are missing the boat --- arguing into the wind  --- get on page ..   

    The question --  Why would you NOT give up privacy ?  --- ?   can you think of any reasons Not to agree ..  or do you agree that privacy should be sacrificed to catch more criminals..  

    you seem not to be understanding the question
    GnosticChristian
  • @Sargonski
    The question --  Why would you NOT give up privacy ?  --- ?   can you think of any reasons Not to agree ..  or do you agree that privacy should be sacrificed to catch more criminals..  

    I already told you in post's prior, self publications the reason is self-incrimination is why agreeing to a loss of any privacy is a violation of constitutional right. It is an imperfect state of union with established justice. A person is not a lawyer, we the people do not study law. It is impossible for a lawyer to even understand all practices of law let alone a person. As fact, whole truth, nothing but truth every person in the world breaks at least one law a day. The reason why this is fact is due to the laws themselves being so often imperfect we cannot follow one law without breaking another.

    Part of this grievance is taking place now in reflection of the House of Rep. argument on National Debt ceiling crisis. Just how much of the national Debt is created by civil litigations which can be overturned in a court of law? The principle of government raising cost on the economy and regulating the spread of cost by law has a very high price tag. Much of the cost of our national debt is directly in the violation of privacy of some kind and its legal cost. This might be acceptable if the legal practice was not entangled with malpractice of law in the pursuit of establishing authority of a connection to established justice.

    As a common defense the writing of articles and writings online is a broadcast not a secured part of the computer that is at home. In focus of a state of the Consitutional union a direction of affairs would be required in the form of a state of the union or executive order from the Oval office to focus congresses efforts to establish a consitent united state of truth, whole truth and self-evident truth in which a Consitutional Right can be held as true equally through all states legilsation of law. 


    GnosticChristian
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The question -- Why would you NOT give up privacy ? --- ? can you think of any reasons Not to agree .. or do you agree that privacy should be sacrificed to catch more criminals..

      

    I already told you in post's prior, self publications the reason is self-incrimination is why agreeing to a loss of any privacy is a violation of constitutional right. It is an imperfect state of union with established justice. A person is not a lawyer, we the people do not study law.

    @John_C_87

    Did you wish to try to make sense out of this unintelligible  hodge podge ?      Self Publication - is self incrimination   ?       what the freak are you talking about mate.    We are not talking about self publication - self incrimination ---     When you own a phone .. you have not agreed that people can spy on you using that device --   and would be illegitimacy in law to infer such agreement  ..  

    Throwing up hands and crying  "We are imperfect" -  not students of Law ..  is a cry of desperation perhaps but ...not much of an answer to the question of whether or not it is legitimate .. justifiable .. that we give up rights to catch more criminals .. or if this is just a really bad argument for law ..      fallacious utilitarianism .. if you wish a specific Legal Term   ..     The Borg Law if you want a Start Trek Term. 




    John_C_87GnosticChristian
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    The general criminal may hate it but the power hungry individuals love this idea.
    It would give a powerful authoritarian government control over every aspect of your life.
    GnosticChristian
  • @Sargonski
    When you own a phone .. you have not agreed that people can spy on you using that device --   and would be illegitimacy in law to infer such agreement.

    In Law? There is no inference being made, as an officer outside official government commission, such an officer would provide three walkie talkies, a pencil, a loaded gun in the hands of a commissioned officer of that court, three scripts with a secret code written on them. Four additional persons as volunteer of the Court, and the direction of all persons as evidence of fact.

    Do people know a cell phone transmits over the air waves or does it have a wire attached belonging to them or the phone company? A F.F.C. license is to transmit and receive it is not a deed on airspace above them or beyond their own body, that principle is simply not possible. Self-publishing is self-incrimination is a different and more truthful way to describe texting on a phone or typing on a web page for we self-publish information, it is possibly a state of the union in the first Amendment of the person making the claim might exist if they can hold the state of the union as truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth to preamble. When the state of the Union is broken by a lawyer on behalf of their client to just free speech the principle of no cost must then at least be provable. This is not law it is United States of American Constitutional Right.  


    Throwing up hands and crying  "We are imperfect not students of Law ..  is a cry of desperation perhaps but ...not much of an answer to the question of whether or not it is legitimate .. justifiable .. that we give up rights to catch more criminals

    A United States Constitutional right does not get debated by its popularity or by influence on statistics of survey it is argued by its level of connection which is described to have a limit of perfection when finaly met in several categories of Consitutional preamble. Law is not catching criminals for the United States Constitutional right describes the many laws now make all American criminal and we are not all in jail or prison.


    Polpulation in U.S 2021 331,893,745.00
    Number of people in prision highest 2007 t the number of people being 7.34 Million, the number of people in 2020 5.5 million.
    All Americans have broken the law yet on 7.34 million have been convicted at best following your state of the union already. The only reason those American have broken the law is because of the legislators of the laws themselves have their failure too Constitutional right or ignored it. This is from admission as fact already made on public media its self-incrimination wasn't even hidden.

    US population by year, race, age, ethnicity, & more | USAFacts
    Adult correctional population in the U.S. 2020 | Statista
    GnosticChristian
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: When you own a phone .. you have not agreed that people can spy on you using that device -- and would be illegitimacy in law to infer such agreement.

    @John_C_87

    Using you cell phone is not self incrimination ..  such that Gov't spying on you through your phone is justified ... and no one said the Constitution was a popularity contest -- even though it is -- but this has nothign to do with the fact that you are really having trouble figuring out what the question is
    GnosticChristian
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @Sargonski

    The government cannot spy by cell phone if a person knew the truth a cellphone was not ever secure. The person listening to another can, however, commit other types of crimes with information heard. Any open speaking and writing of law are self-incrimination as part of a whole truth unless you are one-hundred percent sure of all law. Are you the exception and are the one person who is One-Hundred percent sure of all law?

    You sound like you are trying to argue Israeli Constitution of Law over American United States Constitutional Right. To make something clear United State Constitutional Right is superior to Constitutional law for the simple reason United State Constitutional Right provides liberty and justice for all. Why this is self-evident right is simply a law will be broken, the choice then is either to be the criminal or be an accuser of a crime, there is no state of the union made upon liberty and justice. Whereas "United States Constitutional Right" we the people are either right or wrong we are held by the republic of constitution above the law. We are not criminal we are not accuser of crime. EVER! This way. The more perfect way?

    I understand that a constitution is comprised of basic principle but the united states that are often held as self-evident truths can become very complex principles as they hover above the law. Right hovers above law much like the light hovers above darkness for liberty and justice for all are not a standard of law as there will be punishment this Is a purpose of law, correct?

    even though it is

    But, you did by self-incrimination.


  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: "You Can Not Spy On someone by Cell Phone"

    @John_C_87

    Well John --     hate to go around bursting bubbles but .. indeed .. You Can,       the one cell phone company was selling peoples location - within 10 meters - to bounty hunters.     The Spooks can Listen ..   watch ..  so keep camera covered. 

    Welcome to 1984 Mate - :)     Big Brother ..  
  • @Sargonski

    Invading privacy is not spying, you are taking advantage of the liberty of speech as an attempt to attract attention. What you do not understand is you are breaking a state of the union set on constitutional 1st Amendment Right. The freedom of speech is connected to freedom press & freedom of religion, along with peacful assembly our tow chioces are hold no cost or decaler are method of filing and our grievacne befoe common defense of the gedereal welfare. Medai and now Social Media as the networks being to invade comuter based broadcasting  are only the selfproclade gardians of peaceful secure freedoms of futures states of liberty.

    No, they can't they really couldn't, you can make a false statement unrelated to fact saying they have. No bubble busted here I have advance notice going back to the late 1960s of security issues.So if ever placed under oath in truth I knew my cell phone was a public transmission and unsecure. I remember being told how unsecure these type networks would be in the early late 60s early 70s. Are you saying Micro soft, Apple, and many kinds of media company's had possibly failed to  lable or place warning on devices sold to the public? Yeah they possibly did. 

    T.V. and radio broadcasting was secure at one time by use of government monopoly in the United States.... Media has entered a not secure zone of public interaction willingly and is part of the reason for rocketing cost reflected as National Debts. For what you are saying to be true the world would need to go backward and place communications back under government monopoly first. Then move to secure the process be stripping the public of general participation. Can we go backward and do this by vote and congressional pressure(question) maybe. You’re not wrong just not holding truth as cause for common defense toward a federal welfare, you are doing half the job required by constitutional representation.


  • It is 2023 not 1984.
     :) 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    @GnosticChristian

    An unfair economic system would be one that purposely inhibits people from making profit, or owning their own business, or choosing what they want to do for work at all. The European economic model (socialism) is renowned for targeting people based on their ethnicity or religion or political associations. Lets not beat around the bush here, Europe may be a cultural titan that shaped the world, but they also invented the pogrom!!! If you want to have an economic system in place that has no shame in instantly stripping entire cultures of their right to own a business and provide for themselves, then the European socialist model would be the one for you!! They got that $hit down to a science over there.

    If that's the kind of unfairness you're talking about, I fully agree with you. A traditional economic system based on the idea that people should be free to decide how they want to provide for themselves and their families is the most fair method of economic policy. This system cannot be claimed to have been invented by anybody because it's based on a natural traditional method of simple trade where each person or group of people have equal economic freedom to trade with others who also share the same freedoms. This method of economics has no rule that taxes can never be taken from anybody, and this natural system of economics will function just fine when people and businesses are taxed. Although, it should be pointed out that taxes are a function of government, not economics, and this economic system I'm talking about will not work properly if certain groups of people are taxed more than others. If a certain group of people is targeted and taxed more than others, then it becomes an unnatural and unfair policy which renders the economic system itself an unfair and unnatural system. Free trade is the most fair policy. 
    GnosticChristian
  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @Sargonski ;     what the freak are you talking about mate. 

    John C is an interesing case, Sargonski.      He can submit quite reasonable and intelligently written submissions when he puts his mind to it.   But as soon as you try to debate him, he degenerates into total gabbledegook.   I have not figured out yet if he just gets too excited and starts to rave, or if he does it deliberately as a tactic.    I tend towards the former, myself.     I keep asking him to take his pills but he never listens.
    GnosticChristian
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    This is a pretty common fallacy: "X hates Y, and X is an abominable entity, hence Y is good". You know, the criminal element also hates eating excrement... Are you sold, my friend?
    GnosticChristian
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited July 2023
    Pros:
    1. Peace and Security - One government could implement and enforce rules to prevent inter-country conflicts, ensuring security and safety for everyone around the world.
    2. Uniformity of Laws - A single government could enforce laws that are uniform worldwide making the legal system less complex and more globally understandable.
    3. Global Governance - A single-world government would be best placed to enact laws to regulate global issues such as environmental and economic policies, terrorism, and conflict resolution.
    4. Cost-Effective - A central government would eliminate the need for individual national governments, as a result, save money that is currently being spent on military, infrastructure and other programs.
    5. Resource Allocation - Equitably distributed natural resources such as clean water, food, infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, etc. can be allocated worldwide, encouraging potential economic growth.

    Cons:
    1. Loss of Sovereignty - Countries would no longer have independent powers. Government leaders that were previously elected by their people will no longer have decision-making authority over their citizens' welfare and will lead to a lack of autonomy.
    2. Homogenization of Culture - One rule of law can lead to a loss of cultural identity as a result of cultural assimilation and uniformity. This could cause backlash in terms of heritage and traditions that people have been practicing for centuries.
    3. Corruption - A one-world government will centralize power in smaller groups, which can lead to corruption, power imbalance, and potentially abuse of authority.
    4. Inefficient and Large Scale Governance: Most people would not know their leaders and will be in an unaccountable situation making it hard to regulate, monitor and control governance. The scale of the government will be too large to have effective policies, governing, and decision-making.
    5. Resistance to Change - There may be strong resistance from countries feeling that their uniqueness and political culture may be diminished, which can lead to long-standing disputes, and possibly unexpected consequences.

    Indeed a one world government will centralize power in smaller groups, but you said this can lead to corruption.  That is not completely accurate.  It WILL lead to corruption, and that is a good enough reason to not have a one world government.  I think I prefer my privacy.  Big Brother doesn't need to know every time I wanna take a dump.  Honestly, I'd rather be surrounded by criminals than by those who think a one world government is a good idea.
    GnosticChristian
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited July 2023

    Okay, here is a simple explanation to the complex run around. A cell phone is a transmitter that also acts as a receiver, it is not just a transmitter it is a receiver as well, unlike its cousin the radio which can be one or both a cell phone is always only both. We do not spy on radio transmitters we listen to them. Do we have to be invited to listen to the cell phone making a transmission no we do not need to be invited. It is a broadcast. It is open mic night. It is the spy who for the record has always been transmits using the broadcast signal, as a tool against government infrastructure. The end point is the person transmitting information on a cell phone has been knowingly or unknowingly spying or possibly committing acts of espionage against United States Constitutional and constitutional Right.

    The extreme example is Article II describes an American President as a" He" nothing else, just,"He" big inappropriate mistake not she appropriate legilsation, this means specifically every time a person has talked on the phone or cell phone about a woman as President of the United States of America it is a type of espionage even sabatage an act or process tending to hamper or hurt

     The APPROPRIATE LEGILSATION would be to describe and Executive officer by vote in Article II as He / She. Executive officer not President as then oath of office in Article II has questions of directing appropriate legislation of its own in describes the job requirements or duty of President as it relates at the moment to only a male, even after a woman has been elected by perjury on ballot to office, in violation of both law and United States Constitutional right.

    The argument is they do not understand the crime of purgury which creates even larger conflicts of law as teachers in most stater also have laws and regulations describing who can give instruction to potential witnesses in the gedneral jury pool of the public. Before trials even can take place  yes most people call this a conspiracy. : an agreement among conspirators.

    Conspiracy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    Sabotage Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster



  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited July 2023
    @Bogan
    I have no recored of you debating my under that tag name............
    If it was under a assumed other name that is all I would need to know...I do not always need full detail in preserving othes connections attempted at establishing justice as United State Constitutional right.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    Sargonski said:
    @JulesKorngold

    Appreciate the detailed summary of your position but you did not address the question.     Can you find no problems with giving away all privacy ? 

    Nothing salvaged as of yet. 
    No one like financial privacy more than criminals.

    That aside, what privacy do you now enjoy that you think you will lose?

    A new world bank would just access whatever your own government already has.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    The general criminal may hate it but the power hungry individuals love this idea.
    It would give a powerful authoritarian government control over every aspect of your life.
    Does the U.N. or your own government, that would sign into a one world bank, not a governing body, become  the powerful authoritarian government you fear?

    Fear the criminal hand on your wallet as it is active as we speak.

    It is worth your worry and not your other privacy issues. You can feel that hand if you are astute.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    This is a pretty common fallacy: "X hates Y, and X is an abominable entity, hence Y is good". You know, the criminal element also hates eating excrement... Are you sold, my friend?

    I am sold on less crime and more for those who do not do crime.

    Do you hate the % of tax you pay thanks to the criminal hand in your wallet, as we speak?
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 285 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Pros:
    1. Peace and Security - One government could implement and enforce rules to prevent inter-country conflicts, ensuring security and safety for everyone around the world.
    2. Uniformity of Laws - A single government could enforce laws that are uniform worldwide making the legal system less complex and more globally understandable.
    3. Global Governance - A single-world government would be best placed to enact laws to regulate global issues such as environmental and economic policies, terrorism, and conflict resolution.
    4. Cost-Effective - A central government would eliminate the need for individual national governments, as a result, save money that is currently being spent on military, infrastructure and other programs.
    5. Resource Allocation - Equitably distributed natural resources such as clean water, food, infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, etc. can be allocated worldwide, encouraging potential economic growth.

    Cons:
    1. Loss of Sovereignty - Countries would no longer have independent powers. Government leaders that were previously elected by their people will no longer have decision-making authority over their citizens' welfare and will lead to a lack of autonomy.
    2. Homogenization of Culture - One rule of law can lead to a loss of cultural identity as a result of cultural assimilation and uniformity. This could cause backlash in terms of heritage and traditions that people have been practicing for centuries.
    3. Corruption - A one-world government will centralize power in smaller groups, which can lead to corruption, power imbalance, and potentially abuse of authority.
    4. Inefficient and Large Scale Governance: Most people would not know their leaders and will be in an unaccountable situation making it hard to regulate, monitor and control governance. The scale of the government will be too large to have effective policies, governing, and decision-making.
    5. Resistance to Change - There may be strong resistance from countries feeling that their uniqueness and political culture may be diminished, which can lead to long-standing disputes, and possibly unexpected consequences.

    Indeed a one world government will centralize power in smaller groups, but you said this can lead to corruption.  That is not completely accurate.  It WILL lead to corruption, and that is a good enough reason to not have a one world government.  I think I prefer my privacy.  Big Brother doesn't need to know every time I wanna take a dump.  Honestly, I'd rather be surrounded by criminals than by those who think a one world government is a good idea.
    While our cities are filling with tent cities to house the poor, --- that would not be poor, --- if not for those you want to surround yourself with. 

    You are correct that we do not need to know when you take a dump, so .
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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