One world goverment.

Thanks for your reply! Now to continue on to round 2. One of my main arguments was that ideas will indeed die, but new ideas will be born. At the same time, human imperfections never change, as these are part of our nature. And these, I believe, are crucial contributors to conflict, even with the existence of a world government. It is rather unfortunate that my opponent has not sufficiently addressed these issues. Let me begin with a note that it is very difficult"if not unrealistic"for one idea to be "correct" in its universality. For instance, there will be times when a more libertarian approach can be more appropriate than a socialist one"and vice-versa. The fact that a polity remains stubborn to remain in one ideological path is a cause of conflict, as it does not care to consider the difficulties by other people who do not benefit from the system. This is because an ideology simply does not cover all of the issues posed by the complexity that is the world. Next, the best solution may well be "assertive" in one's point of view, but, as I have said, there will be new ideas and unheard experiences which tell people to act aggressively"especially ideas which provides people with a scapegoat. Furthermore, a notion of a "uniformity of good ideas" is unrealistic, as this fails to recognize the differences of all people"be it their beliefs, identities, or experiences. I also say this not only because new ideas emerge over time, but also because removing "bad" ideas may be perceived as a method of thought-policing. People become more aggressive if their ideas are not considered. And even if we win a debate through pure reason alone, there is no guarantee that the opponent will follow suit. Atheism alone will not guarantee world peace. Atheists can very well go against other atheists in areas other than religion. One atheist can be a libertarian. Another can be a socialist. Another can be a feminist. So on and so forth. Such ideologies have the potential to tell one who is an enemy and who isn't, because almost every ideology has a unique reading of threat. What complicates things is the personal interpretation of these ideologies. A libertarian can take arms against the government. A socialist can start a revolution. A feminist can call for the sustained negligence of men's issues or anyone who disagrees with the ideology. Yet other libertarians, socialists and feminists will say that said "radicals" are not "true" to their creed. And that has potential for further divide, just like in the Sunni/Shi'a and Catholic/Protestant divides. Science may also well be a path to improving lives. It is true that blood-letting is no longer a legitimate medical practice, thanks to the scientific method. However, it can also be a path to danger, as shown in more complex weapons that could decimate the lives of many. Give a WMD to a non-state ideologue, and the entire human race is in trouble"even with the existence of a world government. (Because face it, there will be non-state actors in any form of system.) Monarchy may well be dead, but tyranny/autocracy (or at least perceptions of it) can come in many different forms. For example, an overpowered royalty or government is an old form of tyranny (or "monarchy")"yet we have the Social Justice Warriors thinking that the majority is some sort of tyranny. Meanwhile, reactionaries see that these SJWs are a minority that is trying to control the masses. So a "monarchy" may well be dead, but the fact remains that people still see terrible things about other people or the system. This revisionist sentiment has never changed since the dawn of humankind. That is why politics, I believe is eternal. And so long as it is eternal, the danger of armed conflict lurks, even if we are all under a world government. May I strongly recommend my opponent to read "Scientific Man vs Power Politics" by Hans J. Mogenthau to get a closer look at the argument posed by political realists. I thank her for continuing the stimulating debate as well.