New World Order: Does the idea of a totalitarian one-world government exist.

This Argument is a burden of proof on you! Who is the "secretive power elite" since you point out the definition "As wikipedia states "The common theme in conspiracy theories about a new world order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world world" " 　 Yes i met "Can a totalitarian one world government exist." This is the case in this debate so i will state no a "totalitarian one world government" cannot exist. As my previous statement said this world is just too big to compromise. As wikipedia states "The common theme in conspiracy theories about a new world order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world world" you seem to read that part don't didn't look any further to know that the "New World Order"was first used and i quote "History of the term" "During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination." now many people now days have completely change the definition of the world as the idea for a "one-world government." Let me ask you a question, what conspiracy was true that was ever true? the media have potrayed all source of information to get us distracted and get us thinking differently. Moving us from the things that matter the most. " "It wouldn"t be any known organization (like the UN you brought up) " well that's the main body people have used to make their claim of a one-world governemnt. Many as seen this UN as the backbone to the one-world government or new world order. but people have got the fact wrong. Because that isn't what the UN is about. "The above definition eludes to the fact (by saying whenever necessary) that this new world government is going to be seeking a peaceful compromise. " i didn't mention its going to be a peaceful compromise if my idea is the the idea of a "totalitarian one world government exist" stating that i mean that i don't believe it exist so why would i think if its going to be a peaceful compromise or whatever.Hitler: Now with Hitler. Hitler wasn't trying to achieve a "one-world government" Hitler was trying to achieve what the US already is...Germany will either be a world power or will not be at all." he's not stating that he wants a one-world government. but that Germany will be a world power. The US is the world power but it is not consider as a "one-world government" as you trying to point out hitler and the wars. "Hitler didn"t ask the nations surrounding him if he could take over. He used his military resources to catch them off guard and take over Poland and then other surrounding countries. By doing this, he integrated them, one by one (not all at once by COMMON CONSENSUS) into his nazi party so that he had influence over that land and restructured the economy and implemented his personal views on morals, societal structure, etc on the parts that he dominated and conquered." this was imperialism. As in the case with the US and its manifest destiny. What Hitler was doing was expand from nations to nation. He wasn't trying to acheive a "one-world government." 　 "Your argument relies way too heavily upon the concept and ideal that something of this nature would happen voluntarily." from where did you see me point out such claim? if it this new world order was trying to get all nations under "one-world government" how would i made the statment voluntarily when i know that this "secretive elite" are trying to rule the world under its control and its idea. "None of this even slightly insinuates that a form of government that falls either under the closely related authoritarian or totalitarian governmental system would happen through any nations consent." no it wouldn't happen under any nation consent. but the definition "secretive power elite with a globalist agenda " who is this secretive power elite. If it was some secret people that are not in the government how are they going to get citizens, build up their military that is not part of the nation in which its in, train, equip, and take them to war when without the nations government. And if it was in the government, who are these secretive power elite and what country are they in? If they were in this government how can they keep there secretive without all the other government officials knowing? "All of this to say, this makes the occurrence of a totalitarian one world government MORE likely (not likely, just more likely) of happening if we considered that one government or nation had the technological resources to do so." having technological resources cannot do anything or prove of it can bring the world under "totalitarian one world government" if that was the case the US could do it for it is the most advance technological nation in the world. (if i'm not wrong). if thats the case than " this makes the occurrence of a totalitarian one world government MORE likely (not likely, just more likely) of happening if we considered that one government or nation had the technological resources to do so" than why haven't China done so in Asia as it is one of the most advanced countries in the world. "If we take that off the table (which in real life is impossible because the {sometimes not} last resort to anything is violence) then something of this nature is extremely unlikely and borders near impossible." i'm glad you put that out. so the question is "is it achievable" (as the restated topic is as you restate it because of "However, I"m going to assume you mean "Can a totalitarian one world government exist " or "Is it possible that a totalitarian one-world government can or may exist" so the question is and as you pick pro on this topic whats your position if its achievable? or is it still pro. because if its not pro than no need of continuing this debate because than we both con. 　 "Lastly, I"d like to remind you and qualify my argument by saying that the chances of something like this happening at all are above highly unlikely. There is no singular government that in this day and age, has the sheer power and resources to be able to topple a nation without bordering global nuclear warfare and if that was the case there would be no world left to govern after that point. On top of that, something of this magnitude would not just happen without another country or set of countries stepping in to also stop world domination." -great argument you have and i respect that. since you made the statement that the chances of something like this is above highly unlikely means this debate is over. Thank you for accepting this debate and expessing your opinion. you are a great debater. maybe we can debate on another topic next time?