azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

This sounds good, but it sounds good in the way that Socialism sounds good. When actually put into action, the idea wouldn't turn out as well as it was supposed to. Just because an area on the other side of the world is having economic trouble, I really wouldn't like to share in their problems. Sure, people should help them, but the way to get people to help isn't to throw them into the trouble as well. On the other hand, I am not selfish enough to think that just because my area is having trouble, the rest of the world should suffer, too.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

Like I said, globalization means problems in one part of the world affect everybody. We've already been "thrown into their trouble" and they've been thrown into ours. The question is do we try and manage this entanglement intelligently or do we just turn a blind eye?
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

Of course, the obvious answer is to manage the current problems with rationality and intelligence, but creating a global government is not the only answer. The purpose of this debate is not whether we should consciously manage current global problems or not, but whether a global government would be beneficial to the population of Earth. In these times, cooperation is needed and if separate governments can cooperate, the problems can be solved, while each government maintains its independence. If the countries are unwilling to cooperate, the answer is not to force them to cooperate by including them in a global government.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

If we "consciously manage current global problems" then we have by definition created a global world government, albeit a very weak one. Organizations like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the International Monetary Fund already exert a certain amount of force on the world stage. Together you could say they constitute a weak world government.Counting on nothing but cooperation is insufficient because it ignores human nature. For the foreseeable future, countries will continue to compete for power and resources, as they always have. They will behave selfishly if no one can prevent them from doing so. This selfish behavior hasn't been such a big deal thus far, but with globalization it is becoming a very big deal.Maybe a supremely powerful, Parliament of the World is not a good idea, but that's why I added the word toward in the debate title. I'm saying we should move the dial on the world government spectrum a few notches in the more powerful direction.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

Well, if that's what you mean by moving toward a world government, cooperation and working together in a managed way, then I'm all for it! As long as there are safeguards against it becoming an all-encompassing government that has unlimited power. :)
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

Your right frenchieak(1121) but the only reason Socialism fails (or any other government for that matter) is corruption and corruption cant be entirely avoided because people are power hungry and we are flawed so every government for every hypothetical situation will have flaws and the bigger the scale the more loopholes and problems. every theoretical government sounds perfect but none are and none ever will be.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

If we had one world government, we would put the breaks on conflicts and wars, since the government doesn't have other nations getting in the way. The government would also control all nuclear warheads, and I'm guessing it doesn't want to blow itself up, so that would eliminate the chance of a nuclear holocaust. I would rather be alive and angry than dead and covered in radiation.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: It needs careful planning

A one world government does sound like a good idea. However, it needs to be scrutinized carefully, so there is no corruption, no greed, no coup d'etat and no misuse of power.It would need hundreds of different people to help run it. There must not be one leader. I reiterate, nobody should be the "President of the World". It is a meaningless job and that one leader would have too much power. This government must also be democratically elected, and there should also be a system of universal suffrage (where everyone has the right to vote). To govern the world, I think the best way would be to have regional leaders (one leader governing a cluster of countries). This ensures a balance of power among different people. These regional leaders would have their own vice leaders. There will be a global parliament, where these regional leaders attend meeting or send representatives. The laws passed in that parliament maybe either be region specific or a worldwide law. All the leaders should also choose regional representatives to be part of: The Global Treasury and Global Energy Initiatives. In the event of a nationwide conflict, ambassadors from each region should discuss the conflict, greatly reducing the chance of civil war. The poverty and hungry would have more aid sent to them, because if we live in a one world government, this poverty and hunger would be addressed as a national problem that needs to be dealt with.If there is a structured, solid plan like this, a global government can be a positive change, because it nearly eliminates the possibility of war, there is more democracy, Racism should be greatly reduced (as we would live in one country) and there would be more aid to the needy.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

Sounds like what the UN is attempting to do. Such things as the codex alimentarius are examples of what one world power can do. They look great at first but then you begin to dig and realize that corruption will always exist.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

That could never happen. If you have candidates then have an election the world would go into chaos because there is no way that all 7 billion people would vote for the same person, there will be trouble when a certain region doesn't get the candidate they chose for and the world like I say would go into chaos or they would become independent and the whole geopolitical issue starts over again and we'd back in the same place we were in years ago.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

every sane person has to agree,humans can only live in comfort while being apart of societies /communities we are not going to live for very long if we live separated over stupid issues such as land possession of a country.and with the rising threat of world wars? we don't stand a chance. come on people get your act together its time to wake up.we need a unitary government without it our safety is always at constant risk.and the chance of human genocide is always present but more greatly present with multiple governments and ideologies.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

Exactly what I am saying! I could be the Monarch of the world... http://www.kingdomofasgard.org/
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

That would probably be inconvenient, given the size of the world, but would definitely mean less war and decisions we all agree on
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

yes we should. the world is full of inequalties. is it fair that people are born into abject poverty in parts of africa while other enjoy wealt and prosperity in the western world, and there is very little people can do themselves to improve their situation. a world government should be set up redistrubute wealth and resources, reduce the riduclous differnece betwenn rich and poor it should be put in place to protect the everyone's basic rights for life, food, health, shelter, education to stop governments like zimbabwe basically killing many of its citizens.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

So what you're saying is that one world government will suddenly have the power to redistribute wealth and resources... I highly doubt that one world government would solve this issue just as easily as many governments would.You sound very passionate about this subject and because you do, I'm providing you with 2 sources to bring to your local library and that should start you on your journey to find the truth to this argument. http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ces/journal/v49/n2/full/8100197a.html something else to look into: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118648421/abstract And if not, well at least I tried!Cheers
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

Yes we should. We should adopt the Ancient Roman way. Put borders aside. Each country can still be called a country but instead of prime-ministers, or presidents, we can have a group of world leaders that can represent each country under one democratic government. Any leader who displays unruly or oppressive behaviours will be kicked out, by the other leaders and a new leader will be elected in place. This will work out with everyone. The capital(s) will be located in a neutral zone...(undecided)
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

WE need ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT inorder to create peaceful world.1,All the countries should arrest all the waepons and the money spend for arms should be spend to eradicate poverty.2,Children should be brought up together and right from the childhood we should teach them VALUE BASED EDUCATION along with YOGA and MEDITATION inorder to have healthy mind and body.3,Paper money should be dissoulted and all the transcation should be done via electronic devices inorder to avoid corruption.4,People should be allowed to move aroung the world freely and it is easliy possible when the population is reduced to 3 billion.5,Science will be allowed to use only in creative ways.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

I feel the ideals of this posting are good but unfeasible.#1 Firstly, try and take away everyone's weapons. I understand the concept of "No weapons, No war". Yet, I am sure, if you take eveyone's weapons away, they will still beat you with their fists if they want.#2 I like number 2. Yet, before a "value based" education could even be concieved, we need to atleast have A BASIC EDUCATION for everyone. Sounds to close to "every child held behind" for my tastes. #3 Eradicating paper money would not help reduce the corruption. Computer hacking is easier than counterfiting bills. Someone could just find a way. If someone wants to find a way to corrupt something, they will. #4 3 (three) billion? genocide anyone? I am against mass death for any reason. The only way to reduce the population to that level would be for people to plan for parenthood instead of just having litters. It's either that or the "one world government" would have to control the population growth forcefully. No one has the right to say who can and cannot become a parent.#5 Trying to limit scientific progress like that is just like a scientist saying "religion should only be allowed to be exercised quietly and in your own home" Which is inappropriate to begin with. Stopping scientific reseach into our world will only slow our growth as a species. We have to learn acceptance, not closed minded rejection. Plus when it comes down to it this isn't even a valuable arguement. Great ideals...but never goning to happen like that.I feel there should be one world government, but i feel the nature of humans' makes this impossiable. Until greed can be controlled there will always be war. And greed will never be controlled as long as education is not on the forefront of every humans minds when it comes to (Including science).
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

İt is pretty simple why we should because it will bring peace and opportunities to the world and it is kind of silly that the human race is so divided i mean i don't think anyone here thinks of himself as a bad person so why shouldn't we all help each other out.This wouldn't have been possible hundreds of years ago but now it is. Almost everyone in the world know English which can be used as a common language and thanks to the Internet and globalization people in the world have never been closer. To progress further as a quicker pace as the human race we must do this, İt would be our greatest achievement and i don't care if it requires a war because that would be the war to end all wars.İ think at first the leaders of various governments should come together and form a council and that council should pick a leader who governs the world but is monitored and limited by the council. Later on when everyone is mixed up and the loyalty of people to their own country is dispersed we can return to regular voting
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

For world government, people need to review their current belief system based on human slavery and killing. Cities won't be an option; wider population spread will be required. No, war doesn't bring peace-it brings just another war. We should be smarter than "lower" animals, but it seems we're dumber... Think about it, your life as human is the most important, as well as the lives of all others. We're interdependent, so slavery is not for the good of mankind.Someone said world government is the key to colonize other planets. This could be the world government's "religion".
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

We should, but first something will have to make people realize that there is more to life than money and petty interests. It would be incredibly dangerous to form a world government without fixing that problem. But it is needed, so we can unite our talents and focus on the issues at hand that really matter
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

I personally think that it would work in the long run once the people of the whole work together as one, but we'll never be moving toward progress until the day we lay down our egos and think of the countless others that we affect. I think a republic would be a marvelous idea, having elected two representatives of the majority ruling party of each respected current country to vote on whatever is needed. Think of every one working together think of everything improving such as; education, the sciences, lack of wars due to petty issues. I'm sure it will be a hassle to every one who has this idea stuck in their head that their the best, but we all need to work together towards a peaceful future.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

In my opinion a one world government is the way to go but it'll never happen or even be considered by a large enough majority of our Planets inhabitants until all else collapses.Before people can unite under one power such as a one world government the world would first have to destroy with the most likely scenario; Nuclear war.Perhaps once the worlds resources start to become scarce and even the most powerful nations can't afford fuel or simple resources the smaller nations will separate as fuel consumption becomes first come first serve, the smaller nations will rely on the more powerful nations to support them.Eventually the small nations will start to take the resources by force as the powerful nations start to ration it, eventually they'll get their hands on nuclear warheads and then bang nukes will be launched in retaliation all hell breaks loose, governments collapse and become armies, armies eventually lose control, the population crashes and then from such a reckage if the survivers are sensible logical people, only then will a one world government be accepted and formed.And that's alot to risk for such a outcome.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

Well i believe it would not resort to nuclear war right away,no i believe that the smaller nations well become a sort of vassal to that country..but you are right after that period passes a resources necessary to live in this era become more scarce war will happen what war...no one knows..but yes out of the ashes will possibly be a new world order that is if people become more knowledgeable.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

Well if we were in a "New World Order" as it may would that be one were there is a Democracy , and any ethic group could be elected , it would be a good thing. But how would this fair with currency ? Governments can easily be corrupt in this fashion, and whats stopping them ? They are in power and nobody can change that...no one can threaten him/her and his/her madness. Markets will and have to adapt in a extreme way. People also do not change their nationality or ethnicity easily. In this day and age i would say no we should not move toward one world government, not at-least we have figured a more reasonable way of government, but hopefully in the end we will overcome those obstacles and lead into a golden age of humanity.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

Americans already have taken the position of moving toward one world government in that it is a member of the G-8, and directions are made with respect to other governments and their policies. It just isn't done formally, or through the UN, nor should it be, since the UN is a research and mediator model, designed for cultural unity, not for international dictatorship.To confer such powers on the UN would undermine every nation and its electoral system to produce democratic elections and administrative functions; too many governments and too many different styles for the UN to become the government of the world. Collective chaos is no cure for clarity and cooperation.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

Moving towards one world government is the only way the human race can survive as a species, we will most likely kill ourselves otherwise. Doing so is going to be a difficult task, we will have to switch all forms of currency over to one form, which would prove very difficult and could take a great deal of years. Setting up the form of government would be difficult, I say we just give complete power to one trustworthy person who we vote for to set it up, so we won't waste a good many years arguing over what to do. Religion will also prove difficult, i myself say it should be free religion, or no religion at all, all religion does is create war. to get this whole process started though, we would need to get the people to agree on it first, since the governments will just throw the idea aside.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

It's the only way the world can move forward! Together as one onwards and upwards! Unity :)
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

I agree that the world needs to move to a world government. Think about it what the US the sole super-power in the world at the moment has gone through: Civil War, 2 World Wars, Great Depression, Cold War, the current recession and we've only been around 270 years! So much instability and think about it with one world government there would be no wars (unless we are invaded by aliens), no debt issues (no other countries to have debt to) and if something needs to be done it will be done by the world (global warming could be fixed in no time).It only seems logical for us as a species to unite instead of divide, divide, divide. Look at the crisis in Syria every time the UN tries to intervene China and Russia block it while innocent people die, its sicking. Also the Democrat and Republican war is nothing short of destructive, politics have become so much about power that Republicans will block anything good that a Democratic President tries to do and then there is the fear about Iran and how everyone in political America wants war.I truly believe that world gov would work. Sure there are the different cultures and religions and nationalism but it can still work. What we need in a global Congress that is unicameral (one house not 2) to discourage any power grabs like in the House of Representatives and Senate. This Congress would have to have representatives for every group that wants to be represented. Also the world should be divided into Districts with district governments to address regional issues so the central gov can focus on bigger issues. Furthermore I believe there should be a world president, chief executive, chancellor etc... While some may say that that person would have way too much power I think a leader would give the world someone to rally behind. The leader would be have elected by the population of earth of course. Also there should be a system of checks and balances as well as a World Court to try criminals and act like a supreme court.The world gov would have to also put laws and legislation in place that would protect human rights and would apply to everyone. The world government would also have to put in place a Capitalist economy (Communism and Socialism are shown to not work) that also tries to protect the environment.Finally the World Government must have a symbolic capital city that everyone could see. There are only a few possibilities such as New York, London and Tokyo.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

The world today is new the time we live in is special for the human race because we have tech we have never had before and there are three foreseeable endings by me anyway that can come of this 1 the best outcome someone teaches us or we realize the responsibility over tech that we need and we glide happily into the future. 2 we begin to rely too heavily on tech and this creates a great weakness which soon sends us spiraling into death and anarchy. And 3 we destroy each other in a bath of nuclear fire along with most other life on the planet. We need come together now more than ever people need to see that all petty squabbles are meaningless because we are about too be tested by God or gods or fate or life or death it doesn't matter anymore our time is almost up we need to flip the hour glass before time runs out and history repeats. Now more than ever we need each other
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

No we should not form a world Government. As Americans, we love our freedom of speech, religion and the press. We will not have those freedoms under a socialist/capitalist United nation or world government. We would simply be slaves of the state.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

Someone does not have to be the only leader of a world government. There can be many government bodies that can check, and balance all of the powers, while including such radical views as Democracy, and communism, democracy, and Absolute monarchies all together. Yes, we should move to a one world government
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

The only way mankind will ever see the kind of advancements we all want to see is through cooperating as a species. The setting up of a world government would be very difficult though. I believe it would take centuries. First there would need to be a move toward the unification of the continents and then after a few decades of solid continental government a handful of elected leaders would meet to iron out plans for a world government. However there would need to be an oligarchy at the head of the executive branch not just one man and the system would have to be a Republic. There would be a surge of scientific developments, war would be minimal, the world's economy would be fantastic, poverty would be nearly non-existent, and mankind would thrive. Eventually there will be an attempt at world government but it needs to be thoroughly planned out taking every possible problem into consideration.