JT Round 1. Spikey vs jennybee35: Take me to your leader(s)., page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 15-11-2010 @ 03:10 AM by The Vagabond
The topic for this debate is "One World Government would be necessary to appropriately respond to human-alien contact.”

Spikey will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
jennybee35 will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater 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.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.


reply posted on 16-11-2010 @ 12:36 PM by spikey
Good morning to all, and thanks to all the staff involved in preparing and setting up the debate forum for us to use.

This is the very first time I have entered into an organized debate, here on ATS or anywhere else and i have to say that i'm feeling a little nervous, and a bit like a fish out of water, but I hope that whatever transpires in our debate, that it will be entertaining and enjoyable for all concerned, writers and readers alike.

I will be arguing the Pro position, while my honourable opponent Jennybee35 will be arguing the Con position.

***Best wishes and buckets of luck to Jennybee35.***

The topic of our debate is;

"One World Government would be necessary to appropriately respond to human-alien contact.”

First, some background information regarding exactly what is meant by 'a one world government'.

Historically, the basic idea and conceptualisation of a globally united political and social humanity or a one world government can be traced back, in one form or another into antiquity.

Although the world has never experienced a single world governance, at specific periods in history, empires have come reasonably close to it. One of the worlds largest empires, in terms of direct governmental control over the most territory was the Mongol Empire of the 13th and 14th centuries. The Mongols, under Genghis Khan, had an empire which spanned an area of the Earth's landmass of almost thirteen million square miles, and governed a population equivalent to 22% of the then world's population, almost 100 million people at the time.

Other empires have also held control over vast swathes of territories and peoples, notably the Roman Empire, and the British Empire.

The British Empire is arguably the largest Empire the world has ever seen to date, eclipsing even the mighty Mongol empire.

At it's height, Great Britain held dominion and control over almost a quarter of the world's landmass, and up to one third of the world's population. It was said that the British Empire was so vast, that the sun never completely set upon the empire, and that at all times a part of it was in daylight.

So by this token, the British Empire has come the closest yet to realising a one world government. The empire was initially founded in much the same manner as most other empires that preceded it, through strength of arms and military might, which of course led to inevitable bloodshed and war. However once established, Britain generally maintained it's empire through fairness and egalitarianism towards it's subjects, whom mostly enjoyed essentially self rule and determination.

The concept of a single world government is partly based on examples demonstrated to us by various old empires, of the ability to effectively govern large territories and peoples, and the dividend of extended periods of peace, once initial hostilities had ceased..

The definition for a one (or single) world government is;
en.wikipedia.org...


World Government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. Its modern conception is rooted in European history, particularly in the philosophy of ancient Greece, in the political formation of the Roman Empire, and in the subsequent struggle between secular authority, represented by the Holy Roman Emperor, and ecclesiastical authority, represented by the Pope. The seminal work on the subject was written by Dante Alighieri, titled in Latin, De Monarchia, which in English translates literally as "On Monarchy". Dante's work was published in 1329.


In my personal view, the one world government in debate would ideally be set up along constitutional Monarchy lines, incorporating a proportional representation democracy for the world electorate. There would be no dystopian, crushing, evil new world order, ruling the world with an iron fist often popularly spoken of and envisioned among people.

It is my intention to show during this debate, that a one world government is not only necessary as an appropriate response to a full on, disclosure style human-alien contact, but rather that it would actually be an essential requirement of that contact.

I'll finish my opening statement there, and pass the floor to Jennybee35.

Hopefully, I have set my stall out correctly, and stirred the interest of some of you.

Thanks again everyone, over to you Jennybee35.


reply posted on 17-11-2010 @ 08:41 AM by jennybee35
reply to post by spikey


Thanks, Vagabond, I appreciate the time put forth. And yes, it's my first debate, also. I expect it to be nerve-racking and a LOAD of fun!

Now, let me thank my opponent, Spikey, for doing so much of my work for me! You really covered the one-world government definition and history. Saves me a lot of trouble digging for examples to demonstrate exactly why such a all-encompassing rule would never be the answer.

“One World Government would be necessary to appropriately respond to human-alien contact”

As my opponent so deftly illustrated, there have been times in history when one ruler united a large proportion of the “known” world and it's people. History also shows that these one-world governments could not be sustained, mainly because they proved that a single ruler, or even a single rule of government for everyone, is great in theory: a disaster in practice over the long run. All great empires fell. When one ruler or government has the ability to regulate every aspect of life for every subject, disparities will always result.

In this debate, I intend to prove the point that one world government would be a terrible answer to human-alien contact. Never over the course of recorded history has one rule for all the people ever resulted in a utopia. In fact, once one rule was established, the people became subject to terrorist tactics and harsh rules. That would be more true than ever in our age of technology. How much more clear could history make it that a government ruled by the people, for the people is the only answer. If you throw aliens, or extra-terrestrials in the mix, you have only added a new dimension to the possibilities for governmental abuse.

I believe that the answer to governing the long-term effects of human-alien contact would be the established separate governments that we currently labor under. Admittedly, they are no great shakes. We have to be constantly vigilant that our rights and freedoms are not over-run by those who would rule with the mind-set of “it's for your own good.” How much worse would the problem be if we were to add aliens and all the possibilities that entails, then give all of our personal decision-making and freedoms over to a cadre of one, or even a few men. I hope to show during this debate that even during a time that is unprecedented and unknown, the people, and their own separately elected governments, are the only possible way for alien contact to be governed. That way, the wishes of each country and it's people are fulfilled.

Okay, Spikey, I think I have done as much damage to my opening argument as I can! Have fun and good luck!




reply posted on 19-11-2010 @ 06:38 AM by spikey
Good afternoon and thank you to my gracious opponent Jennybee35 for her generous comments regarding my opening post.

In my opening statement, I had highlighted the fact that various powerful nations have at one time or another created vast and enduring economic, political and cultural unions, or empires.

While these unions were initially forged through force of arms, or other means such as sanctions, economic pressures and manoeuvring, ultimately the empire became a force for good, especially among the weaker members of the empire.

The empires of both the Romans and the British, brought many benefits and improvements to the lives of those that found themselves incorporated either as a dominion, colony, protectorate or mandated province of either of these two empires.

Both the Roman and British empires in their turn, brought very obvious and valuable benefits to their subjects, such as quantum leaps in civil technologies such as architecture and building methods, road building, clean water purification and delivery technologies such as aqueducts, and many other civil technologies that greatly enhanced the way of life for the average Roman or British subject.
Sanitation, hygiene and medical technologies were other areas where subjects benefited greatly by being a member of either above empire.

As well as the technological and medical leaps delivered into the laps of an empires subjects, there was also the very lucrative benefits of empire wide trade, social improvements and of course the all important protection of the colony or dominion from attack by other nations or groups. In other words, much greater collective security arose from having the entire combined army of almost a third of the world's population watching your back, instead of them or any other nation shooting arrows at it!

Another way of looking at it would be that it is very difficult to concentrate on looking ahead, when one is constantly looking backwards over one's shoulder.

And if this level of support, security and advancement could be the achieved way back then, thousands of years ago or in the British empires' case, almost five centuries ago up until the mid 20th century, then it bodes extremely well for the establishment of a single world governmental structure, representing and drawn from among all of our planets' inhabitants who would have an equal voice and input, whether they were rich or poor, strong or weak, by election of representatives from member states.

An ideal, would be for individual nations, to elect a president or prime/first minister and cabinet ministers who will then go on to represent their particular nation at home and also take an equal stake within the single, globally representative government. Individual nations may decide to retain or abolish royalty and hereditary heads of state as they see fit, presumably determined by that nation holding a referendum.

There would be no central, dominant 'comic book villain' solely leading the whole world, or even a cadre of sinister plotters, running the world at their own whim. The single world government would be a truly representative world government, made up of members of the world, properly elected by the people of their home nations in order to represent them fairly in the world government.

Just such a single, peacefully created government or 'world human empire', based on collaboration and co-operation, would bring immense benefit to the whole of humanity, moving forwards as a united and peaceful single species.

My opponent essentially argues, that humanity would be better off continuing to remain divided, and to keep the status quo as it currently is, such as it is. I would argue a brighter and more egalitarian future for us all is achievable by maturing and coming together as a single, united force for the betterment of us all and our children. To go forwards together as a supportive human species, and not as an embattled human race.

A direct consequence of maintaining humanity's direction as a divided and fiercely territorial and competitive race, is patently obvious. History, both ancient and modern has become littered with myriad examples of the consequences of being divided. Ideological based warfare and genocides, extreme economic and social disparity, resources plundered or fought over and so on.

A single, representative government could avoid and nullify many of the reasons for similar future conflicts and perhaps more importantly, demonstrate a cohesion and peaceful sense of purpose of humanity to any EBE species that may be contemplating full and direct contact with humanity. I'd imagine that a united and ostensibly peaceful and cooperating planetary population would be a requirement on most EBE's check-list of 'full contact' prerequisites.

If humanity has not progressed to even being able, at the very least, to get along with our own species, then EBE's are likely to view us with a very dubious eye, and contact may be inhibited or cancelled altogether. For if we cannot tolerate even our own kind, what does that say about future Human - EBE contact?

Therefore, i'd argue that a single, democratic and peaceful union served and administered by an elected world government and administration, would be an essential element within a human - EBE contact scenario, both in terms of qualitative aspects and of being best able to effectively organise, and manage an extremely important first and ongoing contact scenario with one or more benevolent and friendly EBE species.

The requirement for our unison before any contact would evaporate from our EBE's perspective however, if our EBE visitors did not have such a 'check-list' of prerequisites..although it would then become essential to unite for our shared survival, because we would have to organise ourselves, in order to not just defend our individual nations, but to defend our entire world effectively against potential marauding EBE's, should they turn out to be less than friendly.

In such a scenario, where the Human – EBE contact is of a negative nature, where the entire world is at risk of outside attack, a single, unified world government would be needed to coordinate the strategy and planning of our mutual defence and distribution of resources and services to our affected people.

Divided and fragmented, disorganised and at odds with ourselves, we probably wouldn't stand a chance if push came to shove against our immoral EBE's in such a scenario..united together as a single species, under a single government, we would stand a chance..a much better chance, especially if the single government is in existence before an invasion began, having had time to organise and prepare for such an eventuality.

In either scenario, positive or negative it remains clear that humanity would need to organise under a single representative government, to fashion ourselves into a united species in a peaceful and productive spirit in order to properly deal or cope with either of the two EBE contact scenarios..if we're not united and squabble and oppose each other, as we do now, we would neither reap the benefits of a positive Human – EBE contact and the peaceful acceptance of humanity into a larger and fascinating cosmos by beings that inhabit and travel within it, nor would we have a coordinated, effective planetary response to or means of resisting a hostile or otherwise negative EBE contact situation.

So you see, idealism aside, the only way to benefit from either a positive or negative contact situation is under the umbrella of a fair, just and progressive one world government.

Thank you for your kind attention.

I will now pass to my opponent Jennybee35.


reply posted on 20-11-2010 @ 01:31 AM by jennybee35
My opponent gives a very persuasive argument for the formation of a one-world government. In his utopian version, everyone on earth would be of one accord, working together for the good of the collective.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that is the reality we live in. Oh, perhaps if we were given several thousand more years to learn tolerance and equality, it would come to pass. As it stands now in this day and age, we are a people more divided than ever. I use the word “people” loosely, as I believe the average citizen of earth wants what is best for everyone. But for some perverse reason, we can't seem to put those average well-meaning people into positions of power. What's the saying: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”? That has never been more true than in our political arena today, I think. There are endless examples of corruption, deceit and outright oppression from governments around the world. All you need to do to see how world leaders are abusing power over their people is to spend 30 minutes on the internet.

How much more a fiasco would it be if all of those corrupt politicians were able to join forces and wield one mighty hammer of oppression over the masses? Were it to be revealed tomorrow that aliens were about to truly make contact with the population, the current administrations around the world would surely crack down hard on the people.What the illustrious Dr. Stephen Hawking has had to say about aliens :


He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach."


SOURCE
Given that the only information we have available “scientifically” is the speculation of men in the physics and paranormal field, there is really no way to plan ahead for every eventuality. The contact could be benign, causing only minor panic at the strangeness of it. It could be aggressive and world-shattering. Unless our governments have already secretly made contact and are aware of impending disclosure, it would also be very sudden. How long do you suppose it would take to form the perfect governmental system that Spikey has envisioned? A month? A year? Imagine the logistics of it. It boggles the mind! I cannot imagine a scenario where the plans could be implemented quickly enough.

As far as real plans that world governments have for dealing with the issue of alien contact:



"No government has plans" for what to do in the event of the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life, says astrophysicist Martin Dominik of the University of St Andrews, UK
.
SOURCE

There are many blogs and conspiracy sites that speak of governmental plans for dealing with aliens should they make contact, but all of that is just speculation. Our own governments have not stated at any time what the plans would be were contact to occur, so everything that you find on the subject is pure speculation.

I am certainly not arguing that we are better off as a divided people. I realize that life would be grand if the world came together in peace and harmony! It's just never happened before in human history. I cannot imagine that it would be the instantaneous reaction of the leaders that are currently in power. I am basing my point of the debate on the here and now, if alien contact were to occur, not as I would imagine life to be in a perfect world.

What I am saying is that a one-world government as it would be formed in this age would certainly not be the answer. I believe that it would be a tragedy for earth's citizens. If benign contact were to occur tomorrow, I believe that the majority of earth would behave in a civilized manner. If the contact were aggressive, I cannot think what we could do to defend ourselves in any meaningful way. One-world government would probably be a moot point.

Now, I'll turn this back to Spikey with a few questions:

SQ#1: How long do you imagine it would take to implement the kind of one-world government you envision?

SQ#2: Do you believe that the world governments are already aware of and have planned for alien contact with earth?

SQ#3: If contact were aggressive, do you think that each nation of the world, at least those with real military capabilities, would have any real defense against what would likely be a much advanced enemy?


reply posted on 22-11-2010 @ 09:54 AM by jennybee35
reply to post by spikey


I am sorry that it worked out this way, too. I was enjoying the process! But I can certainly understand Spikey's dilemma.

Now I am ready to move onwards and upwards!! ( I'll probably get my butt kicked now!)
Pages:     ^^TOP^^