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

Thank you for your response. COST I: Sovereignty A. Definition http://dictionary.reference.com... --- Supremeï¿½andï¿½independentï¿½powerï¿½orï¿½authorityï¿½inï¿½government as possessedï¿½or claimed byï¿½a state or community. B. Sparta would lose most sovereignty claims. --- Once there is one government controlling the world, there would literally be no governmental freedom for Sparta, or for the rest of the world. We would simply be one vote amongst hundreds of other countries. We would simply have to bend over and "take it." C. Harm of losing 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.) --- It basically comes down to this: Loss of Sovereignty . . . Loss of Control. COST II: Economy A. Resolutional Clarification: --- The Scenario specifies that a peace treaty will be agreed upon. Therefore, it is unlikely that section 2 of my opponents IMPLEMENTATION would be accepted by the U.N. After all, why would they need troops, if there is world peace? B. Spartan troops would unlikely be picked anyway. --- There are plenty of troops in the world. Why would the U.N. concern themselves with the last treaty signature in order to find them? I am certain, furthermore, that every country would be willing to submit their troops for consideration in order to stabilize their job market. Therefore, it is unlikely the U.N. would need troops. The few that they PERHAPS may need would likely come from other countries who signed earlier. C. Job Loss --- Out of the 70 Million citizens in Sparta, 30 Million of them are militants. Therefore, Sparta would have to deal with 43% of their population losing their job in a worse case scenario. Such a percentage of unemployment destroys any economic foundation. D. Negative Costs due to Unemployment --- http://www.academon.com... --- "Some of the other problems caused by unemployment include psychological harm, ill health, lack of motivation, loss of family life, and racial and gender inequality. Psychological harm comes from the perception that someone who cannot find work must not be good for anything (Danser & Laub, 1981). It can destroy the lives of the unemployed turning them to alcoholism, suicide, and other problems." --- CON must answer where job replacement will come from. Without it, Sparta can have no hope of having any reputable quality of life. COST III: Loss of International Power --- 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. COST IV: Continuous Conflict and Death --- It seems, at first glance, that the most death would occur on my side (not Spartan death). However, if we continue to attempt to achieve world peace as the CON side, 6 billion people will unlikely agree to everything. Conflict will continue, and unnecessary death may be slowed, but it would still exist if only at the local level. --- PRO's option, however, offers a control tactic that would surely decrease the death in the long run. Furthermore, the livelihood for Sparta (which is the point of the debate) would WITHOUT A DOUBT be better than this controlling idea offered by CON. We would have no power, no economy, and overall no quality of life. It would be an inadequate life for everyone. ===================================================== I have a few case points that I would like to discuss. === ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION === 1) I agree that a Utopia is impossible, which is why the resolution states that you would merely complete the objective for world peace, NOT that you would be completing world peace. In other words, offering an objective and meeting the objective are two different things. CON merely has to strive for the goal so to speak. Also, I agree that conflict would be lessened, but I do not agree that they would be completely diminished. Local conflicts and civil war type conflict could still exist. For example, the problem is Israel would continue on. 2) Sparta is on Earth. === IMPLEMENTATION === 1) Although I agree that some sovereignty would exist, I must stand strong that in order to obtain world peace, severe liberal government is needed. It does no good to say that we are under one nation of world peace if nothing is done about abusive sub-governments in Africa or the Middle East. Laws would have to be adopted to feed the hungry and protect the weak. To assume that this sort of legislation and enforcement would not reach Sparta is ridiculous. Submitting to such an aggressive objective requires obscure results. 2) I have already discussed the unemployment of soldiers. Please cross apply that point here. 3) Cross Apply my Loss of Sovereignty: Loss of Control argument. This is an ideal example as to why Sovereignty is so crucial. === BENEFITS === 1) You get an okay version of world peace whereas PRO gets a much more ideal form. Imagine a world where you have control of everything and can do anything... That is the world that Sparta will live in under my context of the resolution. Therefore... not only do I get world peace, I get a realistic form of it. 2) Goodwill never gets anyone anywhere. 3) I doubt slavery would be allowed by the U.N. Maybe I would be wrong. But even if it was, could you show how these cheap wage slaves would be at least as good as (if not better) than my slaves? Thank you again. I thoroughly look forward to the conclusion of this debate!