CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
2
They should be They shouldn't be
Debate Score:8
Arguments:7
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 They should be (4)
 
 They shouldn't be (1)

Debate Creator

Mariel33(456) pic



All nations should be ended


They should be

Side Score: 6
VS.

They shouldn't be

Side Score: 2
2 points

I'm sure there would still be problems, but, the "ONE WORLD" theory has a lot going for it. No borders, no religious pockets (of the size that nations an political entities create), languages would soon become one and political differences would be so scattered that they could likely gain no strength. I'm for it, but we are not yet ready. That wont come until the time of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spok.

Side: They should be
1 point

The nation itself isn't the issue for me; the issue for me is much more fundamental - content.

Side: They should be
1 point

Because the reason for existence is every life form, and the reason for existence isn't the existence of any nation, all nations should be ended.

Side: They should be
2 points

A significant number of people believe that the existence of life has a religious meaning, and as there are a number of different religions as well as atheism, so there are differing views regarding the reason for existence. Billions of people would contend that the reason for existence is not primarily for all life forms but to '' glorify God and enjoy him forever''. The world's population is broken up into nations/groups and these divisions, usually of like minded people, make for a more efficient provision of the needs and general welfare of the populations. It is a characteristic of mankind, and indeed most animals to form groups/nations/packs which consist of those with compatible beliefs, values and principles. Even within these 'nations' we see the forming of sub groups, usually made up by those of different ethnic minorities, faiths and political ideologies. Insofar that your attestation that reason for existence is 'for every life' is not accepted by most, if not all of the world's population your assertion is nullified and your argument diminished to the point of ''non-existence''. Practically, can you provide your proposed plans for the governance, and all which that implies, for some 7 billion people scattered over the face of the earth?

Side: They shouldn't be
Mariel33(456) Disputed
1 point

Referencing would be the means to safeguarding people from one condition of existence to another. And as for the fact of people by and large supporting the existence of nations, of course they would - reality is uniformity (which in turn vindicates the cause to reference).

Every life form is universal principle, and universal principle includes both supporting the status quo and opposing it.. Thus, every life form is meant to be "publicly identified" as universal principle (in turn ending the global status quo).

Side: They should be
Antrim(1287) Clarified
1 point

By concentrating and digging deeply into my limited intellect I can only get glimpses of the profound argument which you are presenting. I am therefore unable to offer any meaningful counter argument on the same level as you as my brain is in danger of blowing a fuse. I would comment that opposing the status-quo would, at the moment appear to be worth serious consideration as the world as it is now appears in need of a complete overhaul. I trust you find a worthy site participant with whom to share in your mind bending philosophical discussions. I'll look out for any other debate/argument you present and decide whether I may be able to engage with you.

Side: They should be