Debate: Worldwide hegemony

[]

[]

[]

[]

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

Background and Context of Debate:

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?

[]

[]

[]

[]

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?

[]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

[]

[]

[]

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

[]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

See also

• Debate: Commonwealth, Abolition of
• Debate: Self-determination

External links and resources:

• A wiki article for more background