Jumat, 14 Desember 2012

Debate Material (theme : future war and piece)

di 14.24


sorry, i lost a lot of my data about this materisl, so, i'll just share, some that i can still found and i searches. it's not complete yet. i know there'll be so many arguments beside of this one. so i just share what can i share.!

THBT Peace is out of reach

Peace : the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. 
Out of reach : inaccessibly located or situated

Affirmative

It has been said that all nations are either preparing for war, at war or recovering
from war. It has also been noted that history has recorded over 14,600 wars.
And this figure was derived in the mid-1960s. Men seem to invariably go to war
in search of peace. But, the outcome of war usually involves a truce, but always
fails to yield permanent peace. This is because men cannot, and never will, find
the way to peace on their own without outside help. In reality, they have no
chance to achieve world peace. Here is why.

The sheer number of wars down through history suggests there have been precious few years of peace. In a 1935 speech Gen. MacArthur stated: "In the last 3,400 years only 268—less than 1 in 13—have been free from wars. No wonder that Plato, the wisest of all men, once exclaimed, 'Only the dead have seen the end of war'! Where are Babylon, Persia, Carthage, Rome, and Byzantium? They all fell, never to rise again, annihilated at the hands of a more warlike and aggressive people: their cultures memories, their cities ruins."

Pshycology
Because basically one of human’s nature charachteristic is greedy, and never feel satisfied for something
People always want to improve the quality of theirselfs and theirlifes too, so that theycan deserve better.

Based on the development of science, selfishness is from there that we were toddlers egocentrism. Egocentrism is the behavior of children who can not put himself in the position of others. For example: Want to be kept in mind, his opinion should be accepted, expect others to understand him when he did not ever want to understand others.

   Based on the science of anthropology, every human being is to be anthropocentric, which is doing something that is based on self-interest. For example: People do things because they want to meet their needs and satisfy yourself with what is preferred. He was in touch with other people to realize what is wanted. Humans are social creatures called because the same can not meet its own needs, but the needs of others.

     According to Sigmund Freud human personality structure is divided into three (3), the id, ego, and superego.
         Id is the wildest desires of every person (eating, drinking, sex).
         The superego is the norms outside ourselves.
         The ego is our self that is decided, whether we prefer the id or the ego and how id be satisfied with considering the superego.
     When a person is too concerned with his id, then that person is a person who justifies any means to fulfill their needs. Freud called such people as idish (emphasis his id), and we used to call it selfish.

Because of the human’s selfishness, so that, it imapacted to the others, because  the human never satisfied with everythingthat they have, so that they disturb the others, and it’s the start of a conflict, and conflict means it’s not in a peace condition,

And because a that’s a natural characteristic, so that it’ll not dissapear, and it will always be like that., so that’s why we can’t reach the peace.

Negative

Rules Needed for World Peace:
1. Nonviolence - No one has the right to kill anyone else.  Groups of people have no more right to kill than individuals have.  Governments have no right to kill anyone.
2. No Aggression - Lives and land are sacred.  Nations have no right to invade another, kill the people or take their land.
3. Defense - A nation that has a non-repressive government has a right to defend itself from an invasion or revolution.
4. Guilt - The nation that initiates or supports an invasion, revolution or terrorism is the guilty party.  If their army is on another nation's land they are the guilty party.
  The best system for defense is collective defense.
  ... the United Nations ...

In order for the United Nations to be effective, it must give a permanent warning to all nations that the U.N. will come to the aid of any victim of an invasion. ... As of now, the U.N. is not structured to do this.
  Peace Defense basic tenets:
1. No one has the right to kill for any reason except as immediately and unavoidably required to protect human life or national borders.
2 & 3. Adequate defensive forces, in combination with rule number 3, are necessary to prevent aggression and repel the invaders.  A world mutual defense pact (as expressed in the U.N. Charter) and a firm resolve by all members to join together to repel aggression (against any nation that complies with rule number 1) are essential.
4. Citizens must withdraw support for any leader that violates rule number 1.
5. Capital punishment is to be replaced with permanent life imprisonments.
  These are five fundamental moral rules from which other rules can be derived in order to implement them.  Not only do we need the right rules, but we need enough people who understand them and who are concerned enough that they will speak up and demand that the government implement them.


This house would give special treatment to their workers working in conflict area

Treatment : The act, manner, or method of handling or dealing with someone or something
Worker :  One who works at a particular occupation or activity
Conflict :  a struggle or clash between opposing forces or battle
Area : a geographical region; tract

Affirmative

The state must take the responsibility of it’s civil

Negative

it’s expensive

that’s their choice to studied there, to worked there, so that they have to take the responsibility of theirself by theirself s\too

the one that have conflict is the local’s civil in that conflict zone, and the conflict that happen is directed to their government, not us.
So that our civil will not fighted by them. And it’s make them ( the locals) will feel treated like someone that will kidnap or kill us.
They’re not in a good emprament and it can make a new conflict between us and the local’s.


THBT One world government will create world peace

World : the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period
Government  :  The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
Create : The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
Peace :  the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.

Affirmative

As far as I believe, this divide and conquer method through multiple superpowers is the most effective way for world control. Because this way, the people of the world willingly support the control systems. It’s Us against Them, Democracy vs. Communism, Freedom vs. Terrorism or Christianity vs. Islam. But if you had a One World Government, there could be no longstanding abuse of authority as we see today, because a One World Government could provide no enemy for the people other than the One World Government. If a One World Government tried to operate as a dictatorship, it couldn’t last long. So I ask myself, who has the most to lose if a One World Government came into existence? And I answer myself, the very ones who control our current system of multiple superpowers. I personally have no fear over the creation of a One World Government, for these reasons.
I don’t mind if you disagree with any or all of this. But I will ask you, regarding the Faction 2 Templar charter that you spoke of… how could they possibly put this charter into place, for everyone, without a One World Government?


Negative

Therefore, world peace remains as elusive as ever. Seemingly everyone
yearns for it, but no one knows how to obtain it. Why? Why cannot the experienced
leaders and intelligent thinkers of our time find the way to peace? Why
do people understand that the only solution that could bring peace is one world
government yet, at the same time, acknowledge that this is utterly impossible
if left in the hands of men? If men are not capable of governing their own individual
lives, how could they govern the entire world?

 ‘World government’ refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority. Arguably, it has not existed so far in human history, yet proposals for a unified global political authority have existed since ancient times—in the ambition of kings, popes and emperors, and the dreams of poets and philosophers.
Proponents of world government offer distinct reasons for why it is an ideal of political organization. Some are motivated negatively and see world government as the definitive solution to old and new human problems such as war and the development of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, and environmental degradation. More positively, some have advocated world government as a proper reflection of the unity of the cosmos, under reason or God. Proponents have also differed historically in their views of the form that a world government should take. While medieval thinkers advocated world government under a single monarch or emperor who would possess supreme authority over all other lesser rulers, modern proponents generally do not advocate a wholesale dismantling of the sovereign states system but incremental innovations in global institutional design to move humanity toward world federalism or cosmopolitan democracy.
Critics of world government have offered three main kinds of objections—to do with the feasibility, desirability and necessity of establishing a common global political authority.
First, a realist argument, advanced by contemporary international ‘realist’ theorists, holds that world government is infeasible; ideas of world government constitute exercises in utopian thinking, and are utterly impractical as a goal for human political organization. Assuming that world government would lead to desirable outcomes such as perpetual peace, realists are skeptical that world government will ever materialize as an institutional reality, given the problems of egoistic or corrupted human nature, or the logic of international anarchy that characterizes a world of states, all jealously guarding their own sovereignty or claims to supreme authority. World government is thus infeasible as a solution to global problems because of the unsurpassable difficulties of establishing “authoritative hierarchies” at the global or international level (Krasner 1999, 42). A related consequentialist argument speculates that even if world government were desirable, the process of creating a world government may produce more harm than good; the necessary evils committed on the road to establishing a world government would outweigh whatever benefits might result from its achievement (Rousseau 1756/1917).
Second, even if world government were shown to be a feasible political project, it may be an undesirable one. One set of reasons for its undesirability emphasizes the potential power and oppressiveness of a global political authority. In one version of this objection—the tyranny argument—world government would descend into a global tyranny, hindering rather than enhancing the ideal of human autonomy (Kant 1991). Instead of delivering impartial global justice and peace, a world government may form an inescapable tyranny that would have the power to make humanity serve its own interests, and opposition against which might engender incessant and intractable civil wars (Waltz 1979). In another version of this objection—the homogeneity argument—world government may be so strong and pervasive as to create a homogenizing effect, obliterating distinct cultures and communities that are intrinsically valuable. The institution of a world government would thus destroy the rich social pluralism that animates human life (Walzer 2004). While the preceding two arguments stem from fear of the potential power of a world government, another set of concerns that make world government undesirable focuses on its potential weakness as a form of political organization. The objections on this account are that the inevitable remoteness of a global political authority would dilute the laws, making them ineffectual and meaningless. The posited weakness of world government thus leads to objections based on its potential inefficiency and soullessness (Kant 1991).
Third, contemporary liberal theorists argue mainly that world government, in the form of a global leviathan with supreme legislative, executive, adjudicative and enforcement powers, is largely unnecessary to solve problems such as war, global poverty, and environmental catastrophe. World government so conceived is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the aims of a liberal agenda. Even cosmopolitan liberals do not argue that moral cosmopolitanism necessarily entails political cosmopolitanism in the form of a world government. The liberal rejection of world government, however, does not amount to an endorsement of the conventional system of sovereign states or the contemporary international order, “with its extreme injustices, crippling poverty, and inequalities” (Rawls 1999, 117). Instead, most liberal theorists envision the need for authoritative international and global institutions that modify significantly the powers and prerogatives traditionally attributed to the sovereign state.
This entry will, first, discuss the positive and negative motivations underlying proposals for world government. In a selective discussion of the idea's history, the entry will focus on Dante's medieval treatise on the necessity of a world monarch or emperor, and then consider mainly arguments by Hobbes, Rousseau and Kant that reveal more skepticism about world government as a solution to the problem of war and peace among sovereign states. Most of the objections against the idea of world government outlined above are articulated in their writings. The historical background section will continue with the revival of ideas of world government in the twentieth century, prompted by technological progress, economic globalization, and the experience of two devastating world wars. Debates about world government during the Cold War, however, were pervaded by the ideological division of the world, and the section concludes with an exploration of socialist views on world government.
Second, the entry will explore debates in contemporary theory. One set of debates is located within international relations theory, between realist and neorealist, ‘international society’, liberal internationalist, republican, and constructivist schools. A second set of discussions about world government is located within contemporary liberal theory, involving the foremost liberal political philosopher of the twentieth century, John Rawls, and his cosmopolitan liberal critics. A third set of debates has emerged among contemporary republican, democratic and critical theorists. There is lively debate within and between these sets of discussions about the feasibility, desirability and necessity of the political project of establishing a world sovereign state with some measure of coercive, centralized global authority. While the idea of world government has experienced an intellectual resurgence in the past five years, it coexists with the concept of “global governance,” which highlights the increasing agency of global civil society and nonstate actors, and deliberately eschews the coercive and centralized components of domestic models of government for looser, decentralized modes of achieving similar functions of government. The conclusion to the entry questions whether global governance without world government in contemporary world conditions can really deliver the goods of global security, universal human rights, social justice, and environmental protection that have made the ideal of world government a persistent if elusive human aspiration.
This house believe that there should be a universal standard of military quality and quantity

Unversal : Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide
Standard : something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
Military : Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces
Quality : the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something:
Quantity : a particular or indefinite amount of anything

Affirmative

Sll of the country will be in a same class, the same power, and it can prevent war.

No war = peace of the world

Negative

Not all state will accepted it,and it is possible if there are some that did’nt do it.
Because not all of yhe country is discipline

The total of people in a country is different in the others.

China : 1.332.451.196 person
Greenland : 56.916 person

America has the strongest navy and air force the world (quantitative), which is as much as 1.559
169 Navy and air force war machine. America has 1.3 million active military personnel, other than that America is the greatest country in the world arms production.

And how can we make a universal standard in every country in that different total local’s there.
And it’s possible too if we fired millions people to follow the standard, because it’ll make a new problem.

0 komentar:

Poskan Komentar

 

It Girl Template by Ipietoon Blogger Template | Gift Idea