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

Cool. I'd like to thank my opponent for a very thorough, interesting and detailed first round. I look very much forward to this debate, I'm sure it'll be a good one :-) To re-iterate, I am in support of the following: Sparta should complete the objective for world peace and join the United Nations. === ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION === I accept my opponent's analysis regarding our burdens in this debate. I will add two extra points of analysis: 1) "World peace", understood literally as there being no disagreements or conflicts anywhere in the world, is an overly-utopic impossibility. Given that the resolution does not specifically set us in a hypothetical world where everyone is in such a non-conflictual state (with the possible exception of Sparta being under debate) - and indeed does not even use the phrase "world peace" (or an equivalent) until the CON policy - this literal understanding is not the one that I shall use in this debate. The more realistic understanding that I shall use is that the UN's ideal is this world peace, and that by creating a world government, tensions may be reduced and conflicts be diminished. This can perhaps be understood as a close sibling to the already-existing "democratic peace theory". http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) My opponent does not state in the resolution where Sparta is located in the world, geographically speaking. Given that he has not mentioned to the contrary, I would assume that it would be located somewhere on Earth, as currently constituted. I'd like to ask my opponent, therefore, to clarify this in the next round. === IMPLEMENTATION === Given the simpler nature of my policy, as compared to my opponent's, my implementation is not as complex as his. It does, however, come in three key parts: 1) Co-operate with the UN's goal for a world government. Push, during negotiations both before the merger and afterwards, for devolved or state powers for Sparta. This will NOT be a red line in the negotiations, but there is good reason to be confident - given near-unanimous (if not actually unanimous) precedent [1] - that this will be successful. 2) Offer our army to the UN as a civil-war peacekeeping force. Given that not everyone is in favour of the UN even as currently constituted [2], there will always be a need for an army ready to keep the peace, even under the UN's world government. 3) Propose to the UN that they consider options for population control, perhaps similar to China's one child policy. [3] === BENEFITS === I have three key benefits to present in this first round. 1) World peace, as understood in the resolutional analysis presented above. Fairly straightforward. 2) Goodwill from the rest of the world. By acting peacefully, and not killing almost everyone in sight, we will be in people's good books, which means that they are more likely to help us in our endeavours. Happy people are more productive people, and less likely to be rebellious people. 3) Billions of people still alive to feed back into a positive spiral of continuing prosperity. With more people in the world, there's a better chance of creativity, intelligence and general prosperity. Spartans can benefit from this spiral as much as everyone else, especially if we get foreign workers voluntarily in Sparta under the open trading agreement mentioned in the original scenario. Such a migration can be evidenced through the EU with similar policies: the classic example in the UK is of the influx of Polish workers coming to Britain. [4] If we want "cheap wage-slaves", there's no need to do it by force - history shows they'll come voluntarily :-) - Like my opponent, I reserve the right to add more benefits and clarify my intent. I await my opponent's next round. Footnotes / sources: [1] This is due to the obvious size of the world government that will ensue. Every large country that I have investigated has some form of devolution or federal system in place - the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia (both Soviet and current), China and India being key examples. The UK, Germany and Mexico are smaller - yet also key - examples to back this up. There seems to very good precedent, therefore, for the idea that a world government would/should nonetheless have a degree of self-autonomy across the world. [2] 1,093 people on this website are listed as being CON on the "Big Issue" of the United Nations: http://www.debate.org... How many more of this community would be against the resolution-hypothesised enlarged UN, and how much rebellion would there continue to be across the world? Enough for an army to be required, surely. [3] This is partially in response to my opponent's concerns about the carrying capacity of humans. Overpopulation is bad, but that doesn't mean that we have to kill a vast proportion of the world population, as per my opponent's policy. [4] See here http://www.telegraph.co.uk... for a brief detail on some of this.