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

I will now respond to the points made in his last round, roughly in the order that he made them. === MAIN ARGUMENTS === 1) Nuclear war This is the MOST important part of my CBA. If his policy leads to the nuclear destruction of Sparta, then he loses. There are three aspects to my argument here: a) My opponent "[does] not contend that these countries would not sense the attack. .. " They would see that Sparta is trying to attack nuclear stations, and retaliate in kind. The non-existence of a 'prevention' system is irrelevant to their ability to retaliate. b) "All bombs will impact approximately 30 seconds apart" does not mean "all bombs will land within 30 seconds". My opponent cannot change his implementation policy retroactively. c) My opponent: "Furthermore, the likelihood of a counter nuclear strike is no where to be seen. " No: this is the very point of "Mutually Assured Destruction", a policy abided to by all relevant countries. There is EVERY reason to believe not just a likelihood, but a certainty, that nuclear action by Sparta would lead directly to nuclear action against Sparta. Therefore, my opponent's policy results in every Spartan either dead, dying, seriously ill through e. g. radioactive poisoning, or (at very best) seriously psychologically damaged due to the death of the vast majority of their fellow citizens. 2) Slavery The success rate (or otherwise) of slave rebellions is irrelevant; the only important fact is that they happen, constantly and in pretty much every society that has slaves. My opponent said that he'd kill all rebellious slaves, as if this were a point in his favour. On the contrary, it helps MY case, for dead slaves are no longer able to help the Spartan population. One of his own sources, by Nathaniel Turner . http://www.nathanielturner.com... made it clear that black people still have a very negative view of slavery, given the history here. Re-enslavement is not something that they would take lying down. My opponent still rubbishes the point of "goodwill". .. and misses still the fact that Africans are still very sore over their slavery past. Indeed, leaders like Robert Mugabe use this anti-imperialist rhetoric in order to justify their hold on power. If we were to try and enslave them again, there is no reason to think that ANY of them would go without a fight, given this history. They would rebel against Spartan armies, and then my opponent's own implementation would have them killed. Congratulations: you've just killed the vast majority of your "slaves". I'll take my million-plus voluntary (and alive) foreign workers over your indeterminate number of compulsory (and dead) slaves any day. 3) "World peace", and Sparta's army My opponent opened this by saying: "43% of Sparta's economic market is at the hands of a vote in which Sparta only has one of. .. . That is why self-rule is not a very promising claim, and that is why Sparta should not join. " The first section, about Sparta "only having one vote", implies that self-rule isn't in effect. But my opponent then uses this to rebut the concept of self-rule. This does not make sense. My opponent has not yet rebutted my arguments about the likelihood of the UN allowing a degree of self-rule, as I presented in my first round - and if self-rule were to exist to some extent, as I have argued is extremely likely, then Sparta's sovereignty in important matters would remain intact. No problems there. My opponent also argues thus: "To say that a "militaristic nation" (as [I put] it) would not take an economic hit during "world peace" is completely contradictory. " No, it isn't. It's only contradictory if the idea of 'world peace' is that of a literal cessation of every conflict in the world. My resolutional analysis showed this to be a silly interpretation, and my opponent agreed. In a situation where millions of people disagree with the very existence of a world government, riots and rebellions will ensue. There is therefore EVERY need for a peace-keeping arm of the world government, and for the retainment of biological, chemical, etc. arsenal for this purpose. And my opponent still hasn't given reasons why Sparta wouldn't be used for an army - he has merely asserted the contrary. Given that every country in the world wants peace, there is no reason why they would want their citizens to be put in harm's way in peace-keeping. The only country who doesn't mind this is Sparta, given its militaristic nature. In fact, it seems clear that every other country would positively welcome the opportunity to no longer be involved in fighting and warfare. Why wouldn't they? 4) Concept of Spartan unemployment My opponent claims that, if Spartans would have to travel abroad to find work, then he wins. I have two responses to this: 1) It ignores the other viable option I mentioned, that of self-sufficiency. The existence of this other option alone makes travelling overseas entirely optional on Spartans' part, and something which they personally would have to weigh up against the people they "leave behind" (because apparently, phones and the internet doesn't exist in my opponent's scenario). People move abroad on their own free will all the time, and no country is the lesser for it. In order to win this point, my opponent would have to specifically address this. 2) Travelling overseas need not mean that the country is broken up. See France: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Their overseas territories are still an integral part of French democracy, with representation in the French Parliament. === MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS === My opponent provided a list of 6 points made by him, that he wanted me to specifically address. So, without further ado: 1) Economy I have already done this, but will indeed go into more detail. As already argued, the Spartan military would still play a significant role under the UN government, with other countries likely to cede responsibility for this to Sparta. Furthermore, even when you get individuals leaving the military, they would be able to decide which career to transfer into. I've already argued how Sparta would likely get a significant number of foreign workers; this would give a boost to the Spartan economy, and provide job opportunities to match the increase in demand for goods and services. The economy is not harmed under my proposal. 2) Loss of International Power I have already dealt with this, with the following arguments already made linking into this bigger point: a) The likelihood of a degree of self-rule being granted b) The likelihood of Sparta being given precedence on arming the military, given our enthusiasm (which other countries wouldn't share) and superior ability (given that, being a militaristic nation at heart, being good at it is practically Sparta's raison d'etre) 3) Continuous Conflict and Death 4) World Peace after the major conflict For both of these, I cross-reference my point above about nuclear war. Even if 'continuous (and minor) conflict' were to happen under my proposal, my opponent's leads to outright nuclear destruction of Sparta itself. On balance, my side wins this CBA. 5) Carrying Capacity I dealt with this in the third part of my implementation: "3) Propose to the UN that they consider options for population control, perhaps similar to China's one child policy. " If such a carrying capacity does lead to world peace being harmed, it's clear enough that the UN would seek to prevent this problem. 6) Elimination of Disease The world can combine its scientific forces to investigate cures, and ways of making such diseases non-contagious. Such non-contagious individuals could thus continue to be productive workers; no need to kill them. I very much look forward to the final round of this debate :-)