Instigator / Pro
6
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2533
Any Topic 3
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
seldiora
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1517
rating
11
debates
59.09%
won
Description
Pro waives round 1 and con posts a topic and definitions. Pro will CHOOSE HIS SIDE in round 2 (he can become con on the topic, and then con will argue pro side) and then they will debate the resolution. Have fun.
“Rap battle” and “song battle” cannot be chosen as topic.
Round 1
pass
Resolved: The United Nations should become a one world government.
I'm not going to post any definitions, so if you want to create the framing in your first speech, you can, but it's up for debate.
Round 2
I pick CON side, so opponent has to argue PRO side. He can call me "pro" or CON, to avoid confusion, the all caps is the side we are actually on.
I will merely open up with common logic ideas. A world government would be incredibly difficult to sustain. How would it even work? Can it enforce laws? The different ideologies among countries and vast bureaucracy would make enforcing ideas near impossible, and become about the individual countries anyways.
Is the world government even necessary? US is already considering itself the "police of freedom", exercising its control over Iraq war and terrorists who would oppose the World Government. They hold the majority of military power, technology and force, making it unnecessary to distribute resources to other countries to enforce this peace, or even assist in areas that need help.
How can the world government prevent corruption? Having such responsibility and power is difficult to place in the hands of a few people alone. How would these people be decided? How would they be able to enforce specific laws for the world in general?
Why the UN? There are other organization that may be able to establish the same goal, such as EU, WTO, and other ideas that may be better organized. Because the UN's leaders come from five drastically different countries, the vetoes mean that they can hardly accomplish any laws at all. The EU at least, is similar in concepts (European ideology) such that they may potentially be able to establish the world government better than the UN.
I await con's answers.
Forfeited
Round 3
Extend
Forfeited
Round 4
vote for me.
Forfeited
In the future, whoever initiated this debate [my vote concluded it was Ancap460, but now I'm not so sure, recalling that the instigator is is usually Pro, but that can be properly assigned by hte instigator, and that was a failed effort.
Whichever of you was really instigator, in the future, don't get cute with not providing a subject, not choosing your side of the debate clearly, and waiving a round [which I consider a forfeit]. Good thing this was just a winner system and not a four-point judgment, because this would have been conduct failure for making the debate incohenrent.
easy vote
Bump