CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

COST I: INEFFECTIVENESS A. CON did not guarantee that the United Nations would be joined. --- "Agree to join the United Nations AS LONG AS WE GET TO GOVERN OUR OWN COUNTRY." B. Such a stance is abusive. --- The CON has 2 burdens to meet in the implementation method: 1. Join the United Nations 2. Get World Peace --- With such an argument, CON does not guarantee that the United Nations will be joined. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the CON burden will be met. C. Sparta would not join under the CON implementation method. --- In order to get world peace, you have to give up at least a bit of governing power. For example, no longer would you be able to invade another country. That gives up governing power, and if the U.N. was interested in world peace, they would not allow that, therefore, CON would not join under the implementation method. --- Furthermore, internal affairs, such as torture, or certain Judicial workings, under world peace would seize to exist. The U.N. enforcing Sparta to seize such operations, even if they are not practicing them, would not allow a self governing nation. Once again, this would lead to Sparta not joining the U.N. -Face it, if you are joining any sort of international establishment that has power, you will lose self-governing control. This contradiction in the implementation method makes it so the CON does not join the U.N., does not get world peace, and fails the entire point of the CON side of the debate. D. Under "world peace", no more nuclear, or biological weapons would exist making CON's supporting claim useless. --- The reason that CON argues that he would be allowed to join the U.N. anyway was supported by basically blackmailing the U.N. through power. Do you really think an organization with the goal of world peace would allow such weapons to exist? It is unlikely at best. Joining such an establishment would demand that the military lose some of its power. Therefore, by following CON's own implementation method, we could not join, leaving the ONLY option left on the table to nuke and kill everyone, which is the PRO's option in the first place. COST II: Loss of Sovereignty --- If we were to join the United Nations, it would simply lead to another situation similar to ‘taxation without representation'. We would no longer get to use our military that takes up 43% of our population, nor would we be able to make any use out of our weapons. We immediately, therefore, go from a country that has all sorts of power, to a useless country. --- Furthermore, some of our own internal decisions would be affected (torture, death penalty, etc.). Face it, world peace is like having parents that won't let you do what you want, and it simply isn't any fun! COST III: Economic Disaster COST IV: Internationally Powerless A. 43% of Sparta is the military. It would become useless after achieving world peace. --- The implementation method provided by CON doesn't show where the members of ‘New Sparta' would get jobs. How can you truly justify paying 43% of your population without them doing anything (military useless during ‘world peace'). Furthermore, HOW would you actually pay them? Your implementation method is vague and foolishly selfless. It looks to the benefits of others and leaves Sparta to be internationally powerless, and economically destroyed. B. We would have nothing to offer the international trade community that they could use. --- There are really 2 types of power. Power that is obtained by offering service to others, and power obtained by force. Sparta was purely one that obtains power through force. In this new society, the power that is obtained by offering service will truly be the only thing left, leaving Sparta without any possibility of importing goods, and once again leaves them powerless. Argument V: The ONLY benefit presented by CON is achieved with fewer costs to Sparta on the PRO side. --- The only benefit (of world peace) presented by CON, is achieved on PRO. But not only is it achieved, but it is actually conceivable. Furthermore, the world peace presented by CON has carrying capacity burdens to deal with, diseases to deal with, civil wars to deal with, and numerous sovereignty issues. Quite simply, it's a worse world to live in. The CON case either: A) Does not meet the burden presented in their resolution (and PRO wins), or, B) A bunch of costs and no benefits are obtained. Vote PRO! Thanks and good luck!