CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
8
Yes No
Debate Score:15
Arguments:27
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (6)
 
 No (7)

Debate Creator

Nomoturtle(848) pic



Globalism

I want to see what people think about the concept of a unified global state, specifically relating to the conflict of personal and higher interests.

And of course there's also regarding the value of the current paradigm of living in many nations, and the value of any particular individual nation.

Yes

Side Score: 7
VS.

No

Side Score: 8
1 point

Globalism

Hello N:

Since the get go, we've been forming groups. We went from little gatherings to tribes, to villages, to cities, to states, and then to nations..

The next step is obvious.

excon

Side: Yes
Nomoturtle(848) Clarified
1 point

What do we lose from the current system by going to 'the next step'?

Side: Yes
Nomoturtle(848) Clarified
1 point

Furthermore, what is the benefit to this "next step"? Is a greater collection of people an inherent benefit?

Side: Yes
excon(15375) Disputed
1 point

Furthermore, what is the benefit to this "next step"?

Hello N:

I didn't say there was a benefit. I just said that's where we're headed.. Maybe it'll be an evolutionary dead end. Maybe we'll all go kaput.. I dunno.

excon

Side: No
1 point

a 'global state' will only ever be a visage of unification, just as current non-global states are and always have been.

Side: No
Nomoturtle(848) Clarified
1 point

You may not believe in such symbols and ideals, but regardless, others do. Is that not enough for it to work?

Side: Yes
Jace(5164) Disputed
1 point

no. ihdk why u even think it could be enough.

Side: Yes
1 point

There could be no legitimate world government any time soon. The people of the world perceive too little in common to share a single form of government. The best we can do at this point is improve the standards and practices of the WTO. Commerce tends to foster peace between otherwise hostile people. It would all be different upon meeting an extraterrestrial species though. We would not see our differences as so different.

Side: No
1 point

The people of the world perceive too little in common to share a single form of government.

Oh shut up with your irritating circular reasoning. They perceive too little in common precisely because of the nation-state system. The nation-state system and the perpetual class struggle created by capitalism. If you want to change people's attitudes and behaviours you need to change the environment they live in.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5562) Disputed
1 point

People's environments are shaped by their attitudes and behaviors. Their attitudes and behaviors are not solely a function of their environment, only partly. The class struggle narrative is not only overly narrow, it's wrong. But it works well to fire up ignorant rabble so there ya go.

Side: No
Nomoturtle(848) Clarified
1 point

I would consider the differences between nations a positive aspect. When nations persecute their own, or more mundanely if you just disagree with your nations ideas, people can flee to other countries and seek better lives as according to their beliefs and principles.

You identify here that these differences are the source, the very reason why it's so difficult to create a unified globalist state. So, it would follow that the creation and maintainence of such a state may require enforced homogeneity. What do you do with those that reject it? Where do those people go to escape their opression? The current global system allows for this in part, either by revolution of escape. A unified state gives more power to the state with which to opress, and nowhere for the oppressed to go.

Side: Yes

Revelation 13, will tell you everything I think about globalism...............................................................................

Side: No