Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Worldwide hegemony

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Should there be worldwide hegemony with a strong, centralized government?

Background and context

There has been endless attempts at worldwide hegemony in history. Sargon, Alexander, Napoleon, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Genghis Khan, to name a few. Also, there's existing hegemony groups such as the UN and NATO. Yet, these attempts have partially or completely failed. There's surely, many people attempting to unify the world (justly, or unjustly). At the present, chiefly the USA. It's the worldwide police and the most influential nation now. For regional hegemony, China, India, Russia, Japan, France, England, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Australia, all hungry to unite their regions or the world. The question is: Is it justified?

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Is it justified to have worldwide hegemony with a strong, centralized government, forceful armed forces, and for all countries to retain local power and culture?

[Add New]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Add New]

Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Should there be several regional, peaceful hegemony organizations to unify warring nations?

[Add New]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Add New]

Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





See also

External links and resources:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.