Countries are not needed, boundaries are not needed

Round 1

1 of 3

Ketaki@2010

Con #1

Imagining a world without boundaries, without fences, without any wars for borders sounds appealing, right? But the reality is much bitter.

If there are no boundaries, it will be very hard for people to get represented in a government. Because at present state, if we look at the majority of the countries, they are democratic. Which means that in majority of cases, inside a boundary there is a government which represents the opinion of the people and rules that particular area according to the opinion of the people. Hence, people are getting represented. The decisions that are affecting them are getting influenced by their own opinions. But this will be so, so difficult at a massive scale-- as massive as the whole world. Because even if we take examples of countries that are much smaller than the whole world like the USA, it's already quite difficult to conduct elections. It's actually impressive that we've managed despite obstacles. But these obstacles still exist. It's not like they have completely been overcome. Now imagine how chaotic will it be at an even bigger scale with different languages, remote locations and time zones. Because at this point we are not just talking about 9 million square kilometer area. We are talking about the area of the whole world and the population of 8 billion people coming together to give their opinions.

Then I think we all have read about the history and nationalism and how that nationalism led to the making of the countries. Almost each country's basis was led by the people that live within them. The people who shared a common identity, be it a common enemy, a common culture, common language, common ethnicity, or common race. Those people had decided to live together and still do based on that common identity, on the basis of that shared identity. In such case, even if we somehow manage to let everyone express their opinions, those opinions would be so different. Around the world, there are so many races, so much diversity and so many communities. If we try to respect one community, others will feel left out. All these groups will have their own demands, and one single government (because that’s what no borders means, one government for everyone) would find it almost impossible to fulfil them all. This actually will lead to so much hate, so much more hatred and anger around the world, that it won't lead to any stability. It's just illogical to even think about that.

Then even in small countries, it’s hard for governments to keep track of where money comes from and where it goes. And that’s the exact reason why states and provinces exist, so they can divide the work, and maintain order. Now again imagine trying to handle the records of the entire world without any divisions. It would be a mess. Even a country like the US has to be divided into constituencies and boundaries in order to be governed properly. That alone proves how necessary boundaries are.

Ig that's enough of arguments to support my side, I'd love to hear you present yours.

Tucgar-crew

Pro #2

Yes, indeed, simply imagining a world without borders seems, at first glance, completely utopian. But if we look a little closer, it seems that its realisation is not impossible. Indeed, the world is constantly evolving. Who could have predicted the birth of the United States in the 19th century, a federal state constituting half of one of the five continents? Who could have predicted the birth of the League of Nations, the predecessor of the UN, the first successful international organisation? It is always difficult to believe that today's models will still be relevant tomorrow, because history proves the opposite.

Let us delve a little deeper into the subject. The desire for a world without borders has existed for several decades. Kant evoked it in the 18th century with perpetual peace. And today, if we look at the world organisation, we realise that centralisation experiments are underway and are proving rather successful. The example of the United States has been mentioned before, so I won't go back over it. Look at Europe! This continent conquered the world through colonisation, waged war for millennia, was the source of the World Wars, and yet it is the most developed, united and effective regional organisation. The European Union has been bringing together more and more countries since its creation in 1992, reconciling the interests of all to help everyone. Why, faced with such an emblematic example, refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a world without countries?

You replied that it was not possible to have common governance given the diversity of interests on a global scale. On the one hand, this is factually incorrect, as evidenced by the number of international treaties signed by almost all countries (just because the United States does not adhere to them does not mean that they do not work), and on the other hand, there is one area where individuals react in a similar way, namely economics. Libertarianism promotes a world without countries, entirely regulated by the market. Current neoliberalism, with its successful experiments in free trade that make countries interdependent, shows that this is not a utopia but a reality that simply needs to be globalised. Just think, even a communist country (China) is now fully integrated into globalisation. You see, the industrial revolution creates ever greater individualism, as Emile Durkheim shows, and today more and more countries are entering their industrial phase; we now talk about developing countries. And individualism destroys the nationalism you mentioned earlier; just look at Europe. In this way, when all countries are industrialised, when all countries are globally interdependent, individuals will react in the same way and there will no longer be any differences.And individualism destroys the nationalism you mentioned earlier; just look at Europe. In this way, when all countries are industrialised, when all countries are globally interdependent, individuals will react in the same way and there will no longer be any difference in interests between countries. There will be no need to try to create a borderless world; states will disappear of their own accord because they will have become useless.

So, ultimately, is a borderless world really so unrealistic? Or is it rather our blindness that prevents us from seeing the inevitable decline of nation states?

Round 2

2 of 3

Ketaki@2010

Con #3

FORFEITED

Tucgar-crew

Pro #4

FORFEITED

Round 3

3 of 3

Ketaki@2010

Con #5

FORFEITED

Tucgar-crew

Pro #6

FORFEITED

melcharaz

Im making vote ruling on the following premise.

1: there are 3 rounds

2: it is reasonable for people to assume opponents will utilize 3 rounds, especially if they see a forfeit.

3: with 1&2 considered, it is reasonable to expect instigator to defend against contendors arguement.

4: if 3 and neither side did so, it is logical to weigh the debate on the superior arguementation.

5: if forfeits are equal, it is reasonable to weigh arguements as if to expect a counter arguement considering 2&3

If 5,2,3 are true, then 4 is true.

I put this in premise method for kohai. But also so others understand why i voted contendor.

SomeDebatePerson

no one wants this

SomeDebatePerson

hahahahahahahahahha

melcharaz

Criterion	Con	Tie	Pro
Winner

Reason:

There is something here worth weighing!

No description. Title says "Countries are not needed, boundaries are not needed "
It is assumed contendor disagrees with title.

Instigator gives the following reasons.
1:"very hard for people to get represented in a government"
2:"it’s hard for governments to keep track of where money comes from and where it goes."

Contendor replies
1:"if we look at the world organisation, we realise that centralisation experiments are underway and are proving rather successful. The example of the United States"
2:"The European Union"
3:"the number of international treaties signed by almost all countries"
4:"one area where individuals react in a similar way, namely economics. Libertarianism promotes a world without countries, entirely regulated by the market. "
5:"individualism destroys the nationalism you mentioned earlier"

So while there has to be the weighing of individual freedoms and tracking of transactions. It is possible to develop government without necessarly having a country, its also possible to track money regardless of governments. IMF has been doing a pretty good job in europe. And the eu, though to be fair has had mixed results, they do in theory attempt to represent people's intrests.

Its possible this debate could have been intresting and note worthy. Due to forfeits i can rule tie.
Or i can rule contendors/pro favor since he did have a slightly better arguement and instigator did have chance to refute....

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

New comment