Round 1. Loki V Amorymeltzer: Global Government, page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 20-2-2004 @ 12:30 AM by Kano
The topic for this debate is "Global government (NWO) will actually be the best thing to happen to society."

Loki will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
Amorymeltzer will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours. However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.


reply posted on 22-2-2004 @ 06:41 AM by Loki
I'd like to congratulate you on a very itelligent sounding opening statement.

Today we live in a vast world that is growing smaller daily. As we come into closer contact with foreigners, we find just how different we are.


I couldn't agree more. This is why we must take this opportunity to share in the various cultures of the world. One long-standing barrier to the global harmony that is the One World Government, or World Community is the strained relations between not only separate countries, but separate races, and creeds. We are in the midst of what many consider to be a 'Jihad' or 'Holy War' on the US, with the entire islamic religion as agressors, or so we are told daily by the news media. The bald truth of it all is that people fear the unknown. A one-world government is an idea that has thus far only been touched upon in science fiction novels, and the like. These less than flattering representations of what may come to be have increased the fear of it among the common man. I reiterate; A World Community, as represented by an NWO is not something which should be feared. If our differences are shared and celebrated rather than used to persecute and segregate people, it would bring the world that much closer.

What you are suggesting is Communism, with an extra twist. Not only do we give the homeless man the paychecks, but we impose our will upon him, and deny him the ability to chose what to do with that money. We deny the richman-turned-debtor those same, fundamental rights.


I'm not sure you exactly understand what I was trying to say before. I am not advocating any sort of welfare system, although such an Idea is inherent in such a large-scale government, and escapes the necessity for mention. However, I'd like to know where you came up with the idea that this one-world government would be so oppressive as to deny a man the right to spend his money the way he wishes. This is just more of what I was speaking of above. It is an example of someone showing his/her fear of the unknown by trying, (poorly, I might add) to deconstruct an idea by putting words in my mouth. While we're on the topic...who ever said anything about turning the rich man into the debtor? Is it really in the best interest of the world if 75% of the wealth is held by 10% of the population? Why don't we just...even things out a bit for everyone. Maybe instead of every American having three full meals a day, and a Venezuelan orphan being pleased with three a week, both could enjoy two meals every day. I'm not advocating an overthrow of the upper class, just a policy of 'sharing'. What's wrong with that. After all, from a very young age, we are encouraged to share, our toys, our bag of potato chips, what have you...what's wrong with sharing the world's wealth with the world?

Is it really so much to ask that everyone in the world be given the same opportunity?

Number of people who died of hunger on 11th September 2001*: 24,000
Number of children killed by diarrhoea on 11th September 2001*: 6,020
Number of children killed by measles on 11th September 2001*: 2,700
Number of malnourished children in developing countries: 149 million
Number of people without access to safe drinking water: 1,100 million
Number of people without access to adequate sanitation: 2,400 million
Number of people living on less than a dollar a day: 1,200 million
Number of African children under 15 living with HIV: 1.1million
Number of children without access to basic education: 100 million
Number of illiterate adults: 875 million
Number of women who die each year in pregnancy and childbirth: 515,000
Annual average number of people killed by drought and famine 1972-96: 73,606
Annual average number of children killed in conflict 1990-2000: 200,000
Annual average number of children made homeless by conflict 1990-2000: 1.2 million

What percentage of these numbers came from America, Europe, or Canada?

A One-World government could solve all of these problems, and move us several steps closer to that nigh unattainable utopia.


reply posted on 22-2-2004 @ 09:53 PM by Amorymeltzer
Number of people living on less than a dollar a day: 1,200 million [1.2 billion]

Here's a related statistic I believe you may have overlooked. "Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less than two dollars a day." And you want to 'even things out a bit'? I underestimated you, I thought I was dealing with a human. Where does this money come from? The other three billion?

I'd like to take this time to explain a simple theory of economics. It goes something like this: You cannot give money away.

If you want to 'even things out,' I suggest you wake up. As you may have noticed, our own country has recently found itself in the midst of an economic crisis. We are currently $7 trillion in debt, a rate that is growing by over $2 billion a day, and we're the richest nation in the world. Bridges cost money. Roads cost money. Cars cost money. Schools, hospitals, and utilities cost money. Police, prison, and rehab centers cost money. Doctors, lawyers, businessmen, workingmen cost money. College costs money. Housing costs money. Can we afford, both fiscally and humanely, to undertake these projects and more, in areas where the latest development is the introduction of a well?

I'd like to know where you came up with the idea that this one-world government would be so oppressive as to deny a man the right to spend his money the way he wishes. This is just more of what I was speaking of above. It is an example of someone showing his/her fear of the unknown...

Here's where. That money, that we're using to 'even things out' has to come from somewhere. Now, if we incorrectly assume you are in fact right, we would take the money from the rich, lawyer making six or seven figures, evening things out. When you see a homeless man on the street, do you give him money? A quarter, a dollar maybe, but $200,000 a year? Odds are the lawyer doesn't, but, funny, that's exactly what you're proposing we do to him.

I'm liking this idea of one, global body ruling everyone. One government, controlling everyone, but allowing for other cultures. It worked with the Romans. As we all know, European languages have not been affected in any way by the Latin language, nor was culture altered. Jews and Christians weren't persecuted. Christians didn't, in the end, come to control the empire, and use it to spread their culture across Europe. The remnants of the Roman Empire weren’t used to form the Byzantine Empire, which lingered around for years, facilitating new scientific, mathematical, and cultural inventions.

Don't forget the Roman Empire had much fewer subjects, over a much smaller area. Given our current global state, we have around 100 times more people and roughly 25 times the land mass.

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe, in fact, we don't have to pay for everyone. After all, why would we?
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people... The name New World Order is the term most frequently used today when referring to this group...

The New World Order, an Overview
Sounds good, eh? Would certainly lower the cost of improvements. And, what, for a few billion lives? Way to go, moral scruples.


reply posted on 23-2-2004 @ 06:43 AM by Loki
I'd like to once again congratulate you on a well-formed argument. Regrettably, I'm going to have to tear it asunder.

Here's a related statistic I believe you may have overlooked. "Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less than two dollars a day." And you want to 'even things out a bit'? I underestimated you, I thought I was dealing with a human. Where does this money come from? The other three billion?

For shame. I had thought you above resorting to insulting my person with poorly-aimed ad-hominem attacks. My mistake.

More on the topic, Yes. The money can easily come from the other 3 billion. It is as you say that you can't give money away. However, it doesn't take a financial genius to see which areas of the world are making more money than others, and adjust income, sales, and property taxes accordingly. Also, one could use this knowledge to properly distribute surplus among those who need it more. Ergo, we end up with not 50% of the population living in opulence, and the other 50% wallowing in squalor, but somewhere between 90 and 100 percent of people living in comfort.

Here's where. That money, that we're using to 'even things out' has to come from somewhere. Now, if we incorrectly assume you are in fact right, we would take the money from the rich, lawyer making six or seven figures, evening things out. When you see a homeless man on the street, do you give him money? A quarter, a dollar maybe, but $200,000 a year? Odds are the lawyer doesn't, but, funny, that's exactly what you're proposing we do to him.


My friend, you make it sound as if I'm proposing some sort of radical 'Robin Hood' welfare policy. The overall improvement that this world will undergo if the Global Community idea takes hold will most certainly affect the economy as well. Stimulating it into creating more jobs. This homeless man you continually refer to will most likely not be homeless anymore. In fact, he may have a job at a small resturant near his home. So, instead of a lawyer who makes 600,000 USD a year will be making 150,000 or so. A huge paycut, but still more than enough to get by. And the person cooking your hamburger at McDonalds will be making instead of 7.00 an hour, somewhere closer to 13.00, a number much more suited to his ability to make it in the financial world. Both have the money to meet their costs of living, while the class separation inherent in the positions of Trial Lawyer and Short-Order cook are maintained. It is really the most humanitarian thing that could happen.

There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today when referring to this group, it's more useful to identify the principal organizations, institutions, and individuals who make up this vast interlocking spiderweb of elite conspirators.


You know, one thing that we both failed to acknowledge when underaking this debate is the fact that we are debating abstracts. While I quickly came to realize this, you apparently did not. I am not debating in favor of the classic conspiracy theorist version of the NWO as seen above. In fact, I'd have to commit myself if I were to be found spouting this off from any street corner, or even putting it in a place where others could read it. The bottom line here is that the NWO, or Global Community, a more friendly and _Accurate_ name, does not have to be such a scary thing for people. Websites like these only reveal partial truths, and cause widespread fear of something that could bring order to an otherwise chaotic world.
One assumption that you're making here which I'd like to put to rest right away before you let it corrupt you further is the idea that the overturn of the world government as we know it will happen very suddenly and abruptly. This simply would not work, and all established infrastructure would collapse if it were to do so. If this Global Community is to succeed, it must be established gradually, and allow

EDIT: Word count.

[Edited on 29-2-2004 by Kano]


reply posted on 23-2-2004 @ 09:53 PM by Amorymeltzer
Well, I'd like to congratulate you Loki for your use of the English language. It seems you finally developed a taste for it.

poorly-aimed ad-hominem attacks.

Good to see we're not above a little personal attacks ourselves, eh?
Read it again. All I said was 'It isn't possible,' nothing more.

Now, if I read you right, you are "not advocating any sort of welfare system, although such an Idea [sic] is inherent in such a large-scale government", yet "The overall improvement that this world will undergo... will most certainly affect the economy as well."
Of course, this makes sense. You are not supporting a system to take care of the poor, yet there must be one in the government you are espousing. The government you would like wouldn't need a system for the poor, because it would create it on its own. Especially since the welfare system is inherently in place.

I must inform you Loki that I do not like being spoken for. When you say such things as "we both failed to acknowledge" and "One assumption that you're making here" I get offended. I hope you realize that any assumptions made were on your part. As the affirmative speaker, it was your duty to define the issue before us. You failed to do so, and, as you pointed out, we are stuck with an abstract. But, no matter, I was more than willing to argue the issue as presented, as I'm sure you have now seen. It is too late to go back now that you realized your mistake.

As to the other 'assumption' I made, the one about the change being rapid, I have yet to notice anything I said about that. It seems you are doing the assumptions here. If my arguments do not agree with your current plan, well, maybe there's something to that, such as yet another failure on your part.

A few dollars here and there kept in taxes. A few crates here and there of food delivered to needing families in poor areas. Over the span of two decades or so...

Shifty my friend, very shifty. You have thus far shied away from any real issues, other than a failed (see above) attempt at quasi-welfare. You have, in your attempt to clear the image of the N.W.O., made the issue even fuzzier, using phrases like "a few" and "here and there." You have continued to argue within the "abstract" that you so "quickly came to realize."

Thus, I challenge you to create a comprehensive plan, one that outlines how this N.W.O. of yours will work. One that shows how we can do this, economically. How we can do this culturally. How we can unify everyone under one body, and how that body will conduct affairs. Let's put an end to this 'Fuzzy Government' and set things straight.

Oh, and I count more than 800 words there Loki, 867 to be exact


reply posted on 24-2-2004 @ 03:03 AM by Loki
Once again, masterful use of your limited capabilities.

Well, I'd like to congratulate you Loki for your use of the English language. It seems you finally developed a taste for it.


Finally? that smacks of contempt, my misguided friend. But, I suppose that it's all in good fun. But observe whilst I perform a veritable de-pantsing of you with my mastery of said language.

Oh, and I count more than 800 words there Loki, 867 to be exact


I guess that it falls to me to apologize for the long-windedness of your ripostes, as I needed to quote them in their entirety for all observing to understand what exactly you were saying.

Now, if I read you right, you are "not advocating any sort of welfare system, although such an Idea [sic] is inherent in such a large-scale government", yet "The overall improvement that this world will undergo... will most certainly affect the economy as well."
Of course, this makes sense. You are not supporting a system to take care of the poor, yet there must be one in the government you are espousing. The government you would like wouldn't need a system for the poor, because it would create it on its own. Especially since the welfare system is inherently in place.


Thank you, my friend. You have been most generous in supporting that which I have argued for. Why, if I didn't know any better, you sound as if you want me to win this debate...I must add...very well put. I'm glad you are able to grasp this concept, as it is one of those that commonly not understood by some. I'm glad I was able to put it so succinctly that you could understand.

However, I regret to inform you that you have slid down the ever-slippery slope by not making any new statements of fact/shows of evidence that would support your ideas in this post. You have merely tried (poorly, once again) to destroy that which I have worked so hard to relate to you, and in the process, you have actually helped me more than you know.

I also must disagree with you as to your statement that I have shied away from any issues whatsoever. I have in fact the most important of issues. Observe:
-I have addressed, and evaluated the public fear of an NWO
-I have also outlined a public 'Welfare' system which has become basically the center of this debate, as you saw fit to try to destroy that. I might add that I explained, and argued the point of this system well enough that you were able to restate it for me (which was so very kind of you) in condensed terms. (this also destroys any chance of you trying to deconstruct the Idea again, by the way.)

So, you're challenging me, one man, to outline the form of government for over 6 billion? You ask much, my friend, but I'm afraid I can't. I have more respect for the world than that. I don't pretend to assume that I hold ALL the answers for the world, rather, this Global community that will prove so beneficial to the world as we know it will include several types of specialists...Economists, Sociologists, Psychologists, and Political Scientists to name but a few. For you to ask one man only reveals further your ignorance of the scope of this idea. The Global Community represents the future of an ever-growing world. If there were one thing that couldn't be done, it would be the outline of this new, and nearly utopic society by just one man. I can merely speculate as to what this could be for mankind. You have pointed out what mankind stands to forfeit, while I have pointed out what mankind stands to gain. Which is more important in the long run?


reply posted on 24-2-2004 @ 08:56 PM by Amorymeltzer
the long-windedness of your ripostes

Riposte: To retort quickly
Good One.

As to my "most generous" gesture, well, I believe you misread. I was simply, and clearly, stating your beautifully executed paradox. There is to be NO welfare system, yet a welfare system is inherent i.e. THERE IS to be a welfare system. If mistakes are your kind of favors, well, I'd like to visit your world.

Now! On to the meat!

So. You have addressed the two most important (2) issues, have you? As I have restated above, your so called 'outline' is in fact little more than a jumbled list of related words, juxtaposed to appear intelligent. If words like "here and there" and "a few" and "maybe" sound like an outline, then I fear for your English career as much as I do for your luck in this debate.
A welfare system requires a constant, steady stream of capital that can be used to directly benefit the masses it is trying to help. The reason it is so hard, on simply a national level, is because it is expensive. Here is a short list of what welfare must undertake: Poverty, Domestic Violence, Education, Training, Benefits, Child Care, Health Care, Reform, and the move off of welfare.
Our own nation's welfare program is not exactly successful and you are suggesting a pan-national global-level program? Where the number changes from around 30 million on welfare to billions? Once again, I underestimated you. I have, despite all my attempts, failed to grow money on trees, without causing inflation.
Your other 'important' issue was that people are scared of the idea of a global government. They have every right to be. A government that takes the money that they earned, whether as taxes or as pay cuts, and gives it away. A government that brings bitter enemies closer, to confront each other. A government that must, to succeed, in every way mimic communism, a likewise failed system of rule.

I was not challenging you to design an inherently flawed system of government. I had already guessed, correctly I see, that you would not be up to the task. All I asked was for a plan of Government, so that we could see, for once, what it was you were trying to support.
I didn't expect you to crunch numbers, or devise a system based on actuality. I just wanted a simple outline, how this perfect society would operate, something beyond a muddled Welfare idea.
I wanted to know how the Government would be structured. Democratic? Dictatorially? Anarchical? I'm hoping you have the insight to see that Anarchy would fail right from the start. A Dictatorship would only fulfill my 'no rights' belief of the NWO. "Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Remember that. As to a Democracy, well how would the members be elected? More importantly, how would this not simply reverse the power in the world? Impoverished nations like China and India, who between them have nearly half the global population, would only suck the life out of the once powerful nations, quickly and greedily at that.
I wanted to know how the Government would stay in touch with all parts of the Earth. Would it have a number of subcommittees, which could delegate responsibilities? This would only serve as more red tape (as if there isn't already enough) and slow the process to our current civil court system. Would the Government have 'feelers' which would report to single body, and only that body? A perfect hole for perfect corruption. Would the Government simply be an omniscient body, knowing what is right for each area? Dream on.
I wanted to know how the welfare system would be carried out. Taxes? Pay cuts? Printing new money, a.k.a. inflation? The first two will get you white-collar riots. The last will get you riots of all sorts.
I wanted to know how trade would work, an issue we didn't touch on at all. Would tariffs be held in place? Would they be changed? Eliminated? Who would regulate them? If we keep the tariffs in place, then we are back to individual nations. Maybe North America might be more communal, and Europe would be as well, but we'd still be left with the same nations, making a profit off others. This itself would collapse the NWO. Change them? Well, to what? Anything and you risk the first problem. Eliminate them and countries that rely on foreign trade, like Japan and China, will sink even further, creating even more of a need for economic aid.

Finally, you mentioned the NWO as a Utopia. You know another word for Utopia? "Erehwon." Know why? It's "Nowhere" backwards - it cant exist.

647 words. I commend you.


reply posted on 27-2-2004 @ 06:04 AM by Loki
Well, it's time to bring it to a close, and I'd like to thank and commend my opponent Amorymeltzer, Kano, and all those who have followed this debate for their patience, and scrutiny.

The NWO, as it is regarded in our current situation could be considered a huge and scary sort of arrangement that threatens to take away much freedom and happiness from the peoples of the world.

However, it does not actually have to be this. For such a long time, the Idea of a New World Order, or Global Community, as I like to call it, has been pondered by few others than pessimists. It is in this folly that we have assumed the oppressive and fearful view of the NWO as we know it.

However, it is possible through a merging of ideas to bring the world closer together, and unite them under one government. This must start with the erasure of traditional differences among people, and a collective embrace of what we all have in common: Humanity.

After this initial and crucial step, we should begin to erase long-lived lines that we ourselves have imprinted on the earth, and divide the world into a handful of very large single countries. Eventually, even these will be merged.

All it really takes is effort. It doesn't take much extra to combine the established infrastructures of already-existing countries. It is much like the expansion of a great and powerful empire, with the exception that we have the ability to maintian it in this day and age.

The entire key to this idea is small steps. If we take it one step at a time, almost nothing is outside our reach. Truthfully, our most dangerous enemy to making a peaceful and gainful union from the entire world is the paradigm that we continue to perpetuate, that of separation.

To close, I'd like to say that this has been a very intellectually stimulating debate, and I've enjoyed it immensely. Hopefully I have soothed what fears you may have had of this not-so-scary idea of a New World Order.


reply posted on 27-2-2004 @ 11:29 PM by Amorymeltzer
First and foremost, I'd like to thank everyone. Kano, for letting me in on such short notice, and Loki for such a good time. May the best debater win.

The issue, ladies and gentlemen, is not whether the N.W.O. is scary or not, but rather that of practicality. Can this in fact work out? The answer is a resounding no.
There is no way for a realistic government to be put into place, not without the forfeiture of civil freedoms. There is no way for a realistic welfare system to be put into play, allowing for the benefit of both the poor and the benefactor. There is no way to form a system that can successfully take care of the entire population. There is no way to successfully control trade without war or moving back to individual nations. There is no way to run a perfect order, as evidenced by the nature of man.
When you look for a government, do you want one that is impossible?

Now is neither the time nor place for the muddled numbers of Global Government. It is neither the time nor place for utopian ideals. It is neither the time nor place to throw away the once successful half of the world. It is neither the time nor place to institute a government that is merely Communism under another name. Do not allow this. A vote for the N.W.O. is a step backwards.

References - For Entire Debate
The New World Order, An Overview -
To Rule The Earth... -
Discomfort Of Strangers -

EDIT: No links in closing statements.

[Edited on 29-2-2004 by Kano]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^