Weekly Competition #32
17 May 2019WINNERS ANNOUNCED:
incredible_seagull and busy_song
There was brilliant scepticism shown in this week's competition and we thought the reasons given were varied and well developed. It was especially good hearing from schools outside of the UK, as part of the Global Conversation! Well done to our winners this week: we liked how they had clearly read and taken into account the other entries before writing their own and this showed good open-mindedness. They also used their reasoning to come to a clear conclusion that was well explained. Good work!
WEEKLY COMPETITION #32
"The world would be better without borders."
We want you to be sceptical about this statement and say why you think it is untrue. If you personally agree with it, you'll have to be open-minded and think about it from the opposite point of view.
You might want to ask yourself the following questions when writing your answer:
- Would this be fair?
- Who would have a better life? Whose life would be worse?
- How would the economy change?
- How would resources be shared?
Winners will be announced next Friday. Good luck!
Comments (105)
I think that this comment is true because than our world will be a better place with no people creating borders
I don't agree because if the world didn't have borders there would be too many people in some countries but not enough in others.If you think about it, it is good to have boarders because of theifs and other people who do bad things.Although I don't agree with the idea of trips wall, I think that the other ones are a good idea .
I agree with this person as there won't be Anough places for everyone
If the world had no borders, surely there would be no countries?
I do not agree because if there was no borders then Isis or someone that we don't want could join our country.Another reason is to many people could come into our country and we could become short on food and the protein and the nutritional we need and on the other half isf less and less people are in a country then it could slowly disappear .
I believe the world wouldn't be good without borders: refugees would get into countries illegally and they won't understand what is right from wrong.In addition, countries would be filled with homeless or countries will not have any room for houses to give them all a place to live.
I have two different opinions about this because it would be fair to have borders because if people who has came to destroy or harm someone's home they have all the right to put up a border to stop trespassing into the country/home. However, it also wouldn't be fair because if someone is living there and they would like to move to a different country or wanted to see family or maybe get a new job, and would like to go there and do something then come back they wouldn't be able to because of the border. I couldn't choose which one to write about so I wrote about both.
I think it would be fair because we need borders to protect our country because it can keep all the intruders out.
A world without borders would either bring peace or absolute mayhem and a rise of drugs passed across borders
The world would not be better with borders, because it clogs up space in the world and people won't be able to see famiit member. Like trumps wall someone might live on the border of Mexico and the other half of the family might be on the border of America so it if trump puts up a wall they won't be able to see eachother anymore.
I thick that walls can help or not help if you have a wall to stop the military from come in but in Berlin it stop people from the este side to the whest side but this is still happening like in Sideryer so if this happens with trump I will not be happy so this is my points
The world would be atrocious without borders as they stop more people entering the country......
They would run out of water,food,space and homes.Which as you can tell would end out badly
The country would go crazy with more people coming in......It would be madness
No one would enjoy it
I agree the world would be better without borders, because once one border is made, the world never stops. It's like saying if you give one child a sweet, all the others would be wanting one too. So it wouldn't be fair. No, people won't have a better life. However, some borders are made for good reasons. For example, if too many people are coming too one country, they would end up being homeless, or not having any money. So yes, borders can be made for good and bad reasons. But is Trump really making a wall to protect people?
Walls and wars are good and bad
Can you explain why?
true because without it is unfair,because you are making a country independent and it is making the other country more easy to target and steal what i mean is that if they go to war they will have no support from the other separated country so they will be vulnerable.
I agree that there should not be borders. My reason for this is that if so e of a family is staying ( abroad ) at a hotel and they travel and stay there for a while, people could've built a wall to separate countries that stood as a border guarding their home country. In some countries NOONE is allowed to go IN or OUT of that country, so, when the residents return, their country will be off limits to them and they would possibly never see their family again!
So, just a simple wall can result in tragedy for many people.
walls and borders
They stop all the hoarders.
They keep intruders out
They make them want to pout.
Despite me thinking that walls are great
I think Trump's idea will separate mates.
Democracy is all we need
To make Trump's decision cleared.
Thank you so much for reading my poem.
-exhilarated_strawberry
The world wasn't made for war, It doesn't need borders to separate us from who we need. In addition, the world wouldn't have as much money and we need money to live, for clean water and food etc.
It could be fair because the wall might stop people breaking in and stealing thing in addition to this this will stop people walking on Donald Trumps lawn because he might not like it and he should tell us f he likes it other wise he will just continue shouting at us and he has not told us. People might not agree. So what we could do to make it fair is to have a vote but it is clearly fair because he lives there and that his his property but it is stopping other people all we need it democracy this is my opinion so they should might want boulders.
Also are life would be worse and his would be better.
"The world would be better without borders." I am skeptical of this statement because it would not be fair for the people who want to live their lives as normal and not move anywhere else. This would be better for war-torn nations because people who didn't like others could leave instead of becoming angry and start fighting with them. It would be worse for people who are in current search for a job as ,if more people enter the country, then lots of the jobs will be occupied. The economies would change because some countries would need more money and some countries would need less money. Resources would change because places with more people would need an astonishing amount more of food, drink and other essentials whereas places with less people would be wasting resources if they took to much. In addition, if the world had no borders, the governments would have a harder job. This is because they would have to make houses smaller and ration food drink and clothes for example.Hong Kong has a population density of 7075 people per square kilometer. As a direct result of this, there is a vast amount of skyscrapers and flats there. In addition, Hong Kong is very polluted as of two many fossil fuels being used from cars. Therefore, if we had no borders on the earth, this is what it would be like ( although Hong Kong is an amazing place to go to). This is why I am skeptical of that statement.
Information found at https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-hong-kong-sar-population/
I think it may be a good idea to have borders.
If there were no boarders the world would be on big country. This would mean no competitions like the world cup because we would all be one. It would possibly mean lots of civil wars because of the different regions. It could also result to no sea, the sea is the boarder to many different country therefore, in an alternative world there would be no sea left which result in drought.
1) It is both fair and unfair for where it is fair for some, it is unfair for others and where it is unfair for some, it is fair for others so whoever believes it just one then they are not being open-minded.
2) Many people put up emotional borders which can lead to depression and depression can often lead to suicide which is a current global issue. Did you know that suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of forty. So people who put up emotional borders would have a better life. However borders can be put up for safety and borders for safety don't just keep people safe, they give people peace of mind.
3) The economy would change because this would unbalance the scales of population. What I mean by this is that some countries will have too much people and some countries won't have enough and the countries that have too much people won't be able to supply them and the countries without enough will not make enough money.
4) Resources would have to be shared to give the countries with more people more stuff and the countries with less people less stuff.
To conclude, I believe some borders are unnecessary and we (as a world) would be better off without them and some borders are hugely necessary.
I believe that without walls or borders, the world would be chaos. For example, there is (technically) a war between North Korea and South Korea. If there is no border between the two, then there will be tension as well as North Koreans going to South Korea.
I think that if we had borders, then the world will be more controlled and their will be security. On the other hand, my opinion is that more drug dealers would make more money and make mayhem. Lots of people would be affected because criminals would escape and maybe commit more crime. Borders help the knowledge of knowing where something came from and also places would be more stable .
I think that the walls are a usless and a waste of money so I agree that the world would be a better place with out walls because everyone will get along and won't judge each other. It will make people happier if the wall was torn done because if people were split away from there family they will get to see each other again but on the other hand people will be upset because they used there money on the wall and there just crushing it and that means there will be less money in the country. Resorses would be shared because if they share it they would have more items and they would be happier with more people 😉😊😉😊
A world with out borders is a world without any restrictions. Without restrictions our world would fall into anarchy and destruction. With nothing separating good and evil how would we ever distinguish between what we should and shouldn't do.
I would question that a world without borders would be a better place, as it could make people feel very insecure because nothing belongs to them. This could make them feel they have lost their country,s identity. The poorer country's would benefit from having no borders because richer country's would have to share there wealth and belongings. This could be seen as a good thing by many who gain or a bad thing by the people losing out. The economy may change as the wealth could be shared, this would obviously make the poor people/county's happy and the rich people/ country's potentially very angry having to share there wealth. The resources could be spilt in half and shared between all country's /people and could cause argument or even worse wars. The big question is who would decide who has what?.
I my opinion this would be fair to some people but on the other hand some people would disagree with this opinion.
I think that a world would not be good with borders as somebody that you don't want or like could enter your city. This person may be carrying drugs.
I think this is untrue because you have borders to keep your property private. There is also borders that keep your house up (known as walls) that give you shelter. However borders between countries (like Scotland and England known as St Hadriens wall) are unneeded because people have their own freedom to do whatever and go wherever they want.
"The world would be better without borders." I am skeptical of this statement because it would not be fair for the people who want to live their lives as normal and not move anywhere else. This would be better for war-torn nations because people who didn't like others could leave instead of becoming angry and start fighting with them. It would be worse for people who are in current search for a job as ,if more people enter the country, then lots of the jobs will be occupied. The economies would change because some countries would need more money and some countries would need less money. Resources would change because places with more people would need an astonishing amount more of food, drink and other essentials whereas places with less people would be wasting resources if they took to much. In addition, if the world had no borders, the governments would have a harder job. This is because they would have to make houses smaller and ration food drink and clothes for example.Hong Kong has a population density of 7075 people per square kilometer. As a direct result of this, there is a vast amount of skyscrapers and flats there. In addition, Hong Kong is very polluted as of two many fossil fuels being used from cars. Therefore, if we had no borders on the earth, this is what it would be like ( although Hong Kong is an amazing place to go to). This is why I am skeptical of that statement.
Some borders should not be where they are right now but some walls are built for a reason for example to keep the following country safe from something bad happening at the other side, or some illness to help people stop getting ill helping that country and other people around them getting ill.But they might have it for privacy maybe its not all for a bad reason but i do agree the borders should not exist.
"The world would be better with borders!" I disagree with this because the world needs freedom. For example, when The Great Wall Of China was built, thousands of people died trying to get out of the country because they were separated from their family and friends. It is also bad because people cannot get into the country which can affect the economy of that country.
I think borders are good because it means keeping people that they don't want out. Also it can also stop people from fleeing from a country. For example, the Berlin Wall. The wall was built for stopping people from fleeing from East Germany before the economy collapses. In order for it to happen, it needed to build a wall. So sometimes it is a good thing.
The world would be better without borders because countries need to bring in tourists if they want to get revenue. If they don't get enough revenue there economies will collapse or be very poor. Another bad thing about this are people will not be able to trade because they won't be able to get out of the country because of the border.
I disagree that "The world will be better without borders" because leaders of different countries will want to protect their citizens. If countries don't have a wall protecting them, there is a bigger chance of being invaded. However, no one can enter the countries with walls so the specific countries may become poor.
The world would be chaos if there are no walls or borders. Our houses are held up with a sort of border (walls). We would have no where to live.
The world is better with borders. This is because it keeps illegal immigrants from trespassing from different countries. It can also stop wars from occurring and allow peace in the world. If the other country dose not agree this could be because they are not as wealthy and there economies might collapse like south and north Korea.
It would not be a better place because, some countries such as South and North Korea need boarders so their economy does not collapse.If they have walls to keep people from leaving, there is no way for people to enter. Instead of losing money, they could be earning money from visitors and tourists. It is not very fair because you can not keep somebody i the same place forever you have to let go.Citizens might want to start a new life somewhere else and have a better future.This could cause argument or even worse war. North Korea's economy is collapsing while South Korea's economy is rising lots.The main reason why citizens want to leave North Korea is because they have a low supply of money and other resources. South Korea has a more money then North Korea so that is one reason why they want to leave,
This is my opinion so it is okay to agree and disagree with this opinion.
Finally thank you for reading my comment i hope you like it I appreciate it :).
It would be better if we didn’t have boarders.
I chose this because, in my opinion, it will increase the numbers of population in the world as people from dangerous countries will be able to flee to a more convenient place that provides better education and medicine etc.
But why should we make other people’s lives harder?
I agree that we will make residents lives harder as more people will make food scarce but if it means saving other other people it’s worth it. If I put my shoes in the less fortunate lives I will really suffer so this is why I think that having boarders is a bad idea.
Personally I think it would be better without borders and I’m here to say why: if there were no borders there would be no Brexit, this may sound like a good thing but it is not. Without democracy others will have no job, without a job they will not have a roof over there heads nor food in there stomach. Also, without a job they will not get income. How many more people are going to be on the streets? Of course there is government benefits but, how long is that going to last? Actually not very long, without parliament there will not be any money for the people who need(or want) benefits because they will have no money.
"The world would be better without borders."
This could be true because it's a human right to be able to work and live where you want. However, you can't just walk into Buckingham Palace and say that you're going to live there. This refers back to simpler borders like house walls: without them people could come into other people's houses and cause a lot of harm. This may not be fair because people could easily invade other people's privacy. But if you consider bigger border walls, that divide countries, it would be as fair because the government sometimes do it for their own well being e.g to keep terrorists out of the country. The great wall of China is an example of this, it was made to keep invaders out. Yet, some make walls to keep people in. The Berlin wall is an example of this. Some border walls aren't fair because some people haven't seen their family for a very long time because of some walls: the one that separates Korea in two. Furthermore, some people have to cross a border to get to everyday places. For example I don't live where my school is and if there was a border separating Leeds from other cities, I would find it harder and longer to get to school ( this isn't a real example ).
People living in the country could have a worse life. This is because, as I mentioned before, many harmful people could enter. However, it could also be good for immigrants because they would be free to move to wherever they want. For example if Korea decided to knock down their border ( which is highly unlikely ) lot's of people could take advantage of the situation and decide to leave Korea and go to other countries.
The economy would be better because without the expenses of maintaining the wall, they would be able to focus widely on more important things such as hospitals, the police and funding for schools. However, things may also become more expensive. This is because more people equals more expenses. Getting a new pet for instance. You need to pay for insurance, medication, food, toys and a lot of other things. And the more pets you get, the more money you have to spend.
So there are two sides of the argument. I can consider both sides of the argument because there are many rules regulations and lots of different types of information to support both sides.
Well done for considering both sides!
personally I believe they should be no borders because with no borders you can bring people from other countries together.
A world without borders would be chaos as therecould be more terroristattacks, the economies would collapse, and countries wouldn[t be able to supply everyone with resources. Cultures would be lost and law itself wouldbe in danger. Itwould be extremely hard to find a job in overcrowded countries and there wouldbe too little employees in countries with very low population. Therewould be problemswith communication and TV programmes.
A good example of this is in migration, more specifically in religion, a Muslim would want to go to an Islamic church, and there may not be Islamic churches in a specific place of the earth. This could represent a great problem for each religion.
I am skeptical of this statement because it would not be fair for the people who want to live their lives as normal and not move anywhere else. This would be better for war-torn nations because people who didn't like others could leave instead of becoming angry and start fighting with them. It would be worse for people who are in current search for a job as ,if more people enter the country, then lots of the jobs will be occupied. The economies would change because some countries would need more money and some countries would need less money. Resources would change because places with more people would need an astonishing amount more of food, drink and other essentials whereas places with less people would be wasting resources if they took to much. In addition, if the world had no borders, the governments would have a harder job. This is because they would have to make houses smaller and ration food drink and clothes for example.Hong Kong has a population density of 7075 people per square kilometer. As a direct result of this, there is a vast amount of skyscrapers and flats there. In addition, Hong Kong is very polluted as of two many fossil fuels being used from cars. Therefore, if we had no borders on the earth, this is what it would be like .
I think that if we had borders, then the world will be more controlled and their will be security. On the other hand, my opinion is that more drug dealers would make more money and make mayhem. Lots of people would be affected because criminals would escape and maybe commit more crime. Borders help the knowledge of knowing where something came from and also places would be more stable .
this statement isn´t true because we need people from all around the world for knowing cultures, different languagues... it would also be a lot of lack of comunication in the world .
I think that borders are necessary for this modern time economy, this is because people who want to live their countries could do it: This might seem nice but this means that some economy's will collapse because people will immediately leave their country, and the other economy's will also collapse because too many people will migrate to their country. We would just see chaos every where in the world. Other problems would be that the unemployment rate would go dangerously up, security would be damaged because no one would control who is at your country each time...
No, we need borders because of many reasons like: security, overcrowding of some countries, democracy could be threatened, destruction of economics where lots of people go, will not cope and sometimes it could collapse. Also there will be lots of different languages so there will be lack of communication therefore there will be lots of arguments. It would be very difficult to find a job.
this is fair because if not any person could go to your country and that person could be a terrorist or something like that. If some resources like water are needed, any people could go and take the water from you. This also can afect the enconomy and resources could not be shared. This need to be independent.
I think borders are necessary because it would affect the resources that each country has.As food shortages,water,space,hospitals and employment.This would affect all the countries that have very good living resources and the ones who have a strong democracy a country were you fill secure. All the countries would be overcrowding were the law would have to make a strong change,this could destruct some economies.Also a big problem would be the difficulties of understanding other languages
No, we need borders because we could waste resources like food storage and water. People can't live without these resources and countries can't afford giving food for 50000 more people because there is no space.
Furthermore, there wouldn't be employment for everyone and there would be a lot of families becoming poor as they don't have money.
To finish, people speak different languages and if a lot of people form different countries live in the same one, we would only speak English as is the most common language and nearly everyone speaks English.
the world without borders would be chaotic and over populated. there woudent be enough food for the whole population for example the us has a great economy and every one would whant to be there and the planet would turn bad
In my personal opinion borders are very important in society because several reasons:
Overcrowding of some countries.
Security will decrease.
Democracy could be threatened
Destruction of economies.
Languages differences.
Law will change hugely.
Resources: food shortages and water(for example).
Employments will be fulled and businesses as well.
Erosion of individual cultures.
As more structures made(Hospitalsschools,etc...), less space for wild world and animals would die rapidly.
No, we need borders because erosion of individual cultures, employments.
In first place, we should have borders in the world principally because of the erosion of individual countries. It is important for country not to lose its individual culture, language and identity because it feels a sense of purpose and community.
In second place, employment would be very hard to find because everyone would be looking for jobs. Therefore no one will have a job and they would not afford any money to buy things and food to survive and mantain their families.
In conclusion, we should have borders because of the country's good.
I disagree with this because just because a lot of the people are good in this world doesn't mean everyone is, so some people may think borders divide us but they are there to protect us.
nice point but what if the world turns good and it brings us together?
I think that borders should only be map-bound and that physical borders are unnecessary and discriminating.
a world without borders would be a disastrous vicious circle of everyone moving to the richest country then it getting overpopulated and abandoned. terrorism would be alot easier and more affective and other people would be coming and destroying the citizens home
Surely if there were no borders there would be no countries?
A world with no borders isn't for the best. I'll play the devil's advocate and say the positives and negatives.
Negatives:
Low if not no security
Crime will shoot up
People who live on borders will be endangers. Then they will move inland and the centre would get over-populated.
It would be harder for the Law Enforcement and Police to catch criminals
Positives:
It'd bring the world together
It would be easier for refugees to escape war
I personally agree with the statement, but here are the reasons I could think of that are against the statement.
1) It would be considerably harder to monitor illnesses, population, gpa and other statistics.
2) It would allow people who pose a danger to society free passage anywhere while they are unapprehended.
3) It would put more personal responsibility on people for gaining resources and they may not be shared as evenly
4) There would be massive disputes on which languages to use.
I am one for saying that having borders wouldn't be unfair but at the same time having borders would cause arguments within other counties. By saying that I agree with having borders means that I believe that countries should have their own country to keep themself to themself. I also think that if a country is in a complete struggle with their country then if we can't help them in their own country then we should help them by letting them into our country and after sometime of living in the country when they have settled in then they should pay taxes and other things like those who live in their and pay for things like those who aren't refugees.
At the moment i disagree with this.My reasons are below:
Firstly,an example if there were no borders people would be able to get anywhere they wanted to which could be a good thing. but leading on from this, would that be a good thing? Reasons it might not be include there would be no countries as such, therefore cultures would be eliminated. THere would be less diversity which is NOT good. Terrorism and war could increase as people would be able to spread to any where which could be extremely bad and could endanger the lives of many people.
Another bad thing ABOUT this is there would be little or no security, yet again endangering the lives of many people.
But what about if there were no borders on a smaller scale? No garden fences or locks on doors? THEN there would be little of absolutely no privacy. It would make it easier to commit a crime as you coulkd walk right in and peoples lives would yet again be in danger. Property would often be damaged and people would be scared.
So i have come to a conclusion: no mattter if it was on a big or small scale, it would ALMOST CERTAINLY be a bad thing. This is my opinion, but what is yours? I would really like to see ideas from the other side of the argument, as i am currently struggling to see that way.
' The world would be better without borders '
personally, i have mixed views for this statement; but here is my view. Borders are there, and were put there for a reason, to either keep things out or keep them in. if you started to constantly let people in, the borders would have been a waste of money and time. also, the more jobless people, the more taxes to be paid by people working; the less resources and the national health services would have more people to help. And worst of all, say if there was a raging war going on in a neighboring country, the refugees would flee to the countries with more resources - resulting in a higher chance or the attacks being brought over. If this was to happen it would end in a vicious cycle.
thank you for taking the time to read my comment! :-)
"The world would be better without borders."
I don't think it would be better because more wars could break out and people could go traveling to different countries without any approval or privilege.
Would this be fair?
No i don't think this is fair because anyone can travel into any country.
I think 💭 that we should not build a wall
Borders are very important. This is because the world would not be varied. Everyone would follow the same beliefs, speak the same language, and have the same culture. Everybody would be the same and no-one would have many differences. This would be because, if anyone could move to a different country, eventually the country's cultures and beliefs would mix and the world would be rather boring. It would also overcrowd and overpopulate the most fortunate countries if migrants moved to them. This would mean the economy would fail and so would the economies of the countries the migrants left. This is why we should have borders.
I feel sceptical with this statement because I believe that there would be many arguments with people if there were no borders.
Firstly, if the world was a world full of kind, thoughtful people (as it is today), then a world without borders could be a free space with everyone to roam around and to go to different places. However, there might be greedy people who want a large piece of land for themselves with lots of resources such as gold, rare metals and fertile soil for growing crops. There might not be able to be an equality of land for everyone meaning that some people may live luxury lives and some may have hard lives and have to work extremely hard.
Another reason is that if the land had no borders, anyone would be free to travel, work and settle anywhere they want, which is fine. However if one country’s economy is going really high and they are a little bit wealthier than other people, all the other people in the world would come to that country and overuse all of the facilities, resources and all the money. The country’s economy would suddenly decrease in order to spread the resources with the new comers and the other people would go back to their country wealthy and leave the country, which has a bad economy, in a bad state meaning that they would have to work extremely hard. If anyone could travel anywhere, then a group of people could also raid the other people’s country and then keep all of the wealth and resources for themselves however, we need to spread the wealth amongst all the citizens. On this point, if everyone was able to go where ever they want without any borders, then if everyone crowds in one country, the consequences is that in some countries, there will be lots of people doing jobs however, in other countries, there might not be any people doing jobs meaning that lots of they are put to waste.
Considering the opposite sides opinions, then they could say that (as Donald Trump has done), make huge walls and divide the country but we want everyone to move freely and to have a rich ethnicity and multicultural diversity of people. However, as I have mentioned before, if everyone crowds in the same country, then the country’s economy will go down. Even though there is not any that we can do about this, we can still bring a little bit of skilful people to develop the country so it would not make a substantial difference to the country’s economy. If we want to move a massive amount of people to another country, then we would have to move a number of people from that country back to the other country. This cannot be possible and made to a negotiation since the people who have to be put to another country might not be that happy since the economy and jobs for people might become extremely low.
Considering another one of the opposite sides opinions, they could say that building walls and border forces will cost a lot of money since Donald Trump’s wall is already costing roughly 21.6 billion dollars (16.72758 billion pounds) and he’s using the emergency services to build it. They could say that it could be of better use. Even though I partly agree that it could be of better use such as imports, exports, hospital funding, the cities’ security and for education in schools, Trump has made quite a difference to America and the wall has a few advantages, which is why I feel sceptical with this statement that "The world would be better without borders". The advantages of Trump’s wall is that:
1) lots of jobs have been created by building the wall
Building what he calls his “big, beautiful wall” will take many workers to build and for the people who are poor and do not have jobs can have the opportunity to work and earn money so it is an advantage of building the wall.
2) Less immigrants will enter USA and worsen their economy
I have also mentioned that if there were no borders at all, then many people could come inside the country and worsen the economy meaning that the USA people would have to work very hard to earn a living. Making a wall will give an equal amount of money to everyone and illegal immigrants will not overuse the facilities and resources.
3) It has stopped the majority of drugs being taken from Mexico to USA
If it was not for the wall, the drugs could be easily accessed from Mexico to USA and even though the drugs come from importing custom goods areas, it decreases the percentage of the drugs being brought to America by a vast amount.
If there were borders, there could be advantages like this and even more advantages as well. This is why I am sceptical about this statement.
I think it would be better. Because without borders it would be easier to people that is coming from another country to get in another country so they could easily come in to it and they maybe won't get the same problem.
No i don't think this is fair because anyone can travel into any country. and nobody should be hurt.
I think the world would be better if you had no boundaries because then everyone can be where they want and be but who you want and when you want. but I also think it would be a bit bad because you can't have any private area and I wouldn't think so much fun! because then who can completely enter my farm and do what they want. Then they can, break something and to my place too a mess. Or they could be the like a war or a big trouble! 😂😄
I don't think the world would be great without borders. Because some countries would have discussions and wars. They would fight about it and maybe mace a world war three.
I think it is good with borders
i think its good with border because if someone just walks in a country she or he might carrying drugs
a world with no borders would be great i think people
would happier without borders.
I agree because if there were no walls and boarders people would feel free. I also think that would be great because people like presidents, kings etc shouldn´t have the power to keep people in their country against their will. It´s also good because then people would learn very much about different cultures and how other people live. And that is good because it´s very important for people to understand eachother. But I also think it would be a bit chaotic with people traveling anywhere at any time. Some countries would become overpopulated and in some it would be almost empty.
I believe the world would be better with borders as we need borders to survive. Without anything standing in our way, we would be able to access anything at any time. This would include drinking, driving and voting. With no effort required to pass over or through these borders we would not need to work or strive to achieve our goal making life almost meaningless. These are the reasons we require borders and restrictions to survive.
“The world would be better without borders.”
I disagree highly with this statement. What type of border is being stated here anyways? A border can be anything that is in contact with another, like countries. The definition of a border is “a line separating two countries, administrative divisions, or other areas”. If a border didn’t exist between countries, the whole world would be a country. This would cause quite a lot of controversy as who would lead this country. The world’s leaders are a mix of democratically picked presidents/prime ministers and dictatorships.
Another point is that a border can be anything to do with other people’s property touching. Like two neighbouring houses, there is a border between them. If these did not exist then no-one would have right to privacy. Some may argue this helps people’s curiosity but I believe people’s curiosity should be limited. Not to the point of not travelling countries but entering people’s space and property.
"The world would be better without borders" Personally I believe that there are certain restrictions to borders. This statement is controversial as many people would agree. I, for one, don't agree with this.
1) It would stop illegal entry to certain countries. This is a good thing because it could potentially stop terrorism and crime like murder and stealing. Although they are good things, there are downsides such as lower income and less tourism.
2) 'The freedom of movement is a human right' I don't agree with this statement to an extent. If you infringe on someone's human rights, it is questionable whether you deserve your own human rights. The human right of movement can be used illegally such as breaking and entering or theft. Criminals with a history of abuse, murder or theft don't deserve freedom in my opinion.
3) On the other hand, not only would people be able to move freely in a borderless world, so would money. Free flow of capital across borders would allow extra financing because bigger global funds would flow towards businesses, anywhere in the world, that are well run and thus have a better chance of long term success, and hence profit.
In a world without borders, bad people would roam free and possibly commit crimes. Despite this, there are several reasons a borderless world would be good.
There is more information on https://www.redpepper.org.uk/dare-to-dream-of-a-world-without-borders/
I disagree with this statement because a world without borders would not be freedom. People that have bad intentions would be roaming the world and chaos will spread. People will be scared to leave their homes, scared to go out into the world. This is not freedom, this is not living. Borders are the law. The law keeps us safer.
I disagree because every human deserves freedom and a second chance. However, I believe this to an extent though because because freedom can be taken away as a result of doing something wrong. But, I think the world would be better without borders, not only because of freedom but because borders in the world have caused conflict. On the whole, I think Trump's Wall will cause a lot of conflict and it will only divide the USA and not unite them.
I believe that the world cannot function with the absence of borders. They are necessary and fundamental for all life on earth; even in nature, certain animals claim territories for their own and kill those who trespass against it. However it could well be argued that international borders create only division and poverty. For example if one area of land is more rich in more materials than the other, is it right for those of the latte territory to suffer poverty and starvation while their neighbours thrive in bounty. Even in history, how many needless wars have occurred for one nation to attain more territory. They cause so much destruction and atrocity for the satisfaction of man's greed. However they also serve an ethical purpose, for example the Antarctic treaty prevents mass scale global warming by inhibiting nations to claim it as territory. If international borders where eradicated then what would eventually happen is the world will reach an equilibrium and hence there will be another unfair distribution of world citizens. I maintain that borders are establishments of nature and cannot be torn down (not permanently anyway) and hence they are neither good or bad in themselves...their ethical standards are determined by the way we revolve around them.
Safety and human rights could not exist without borders and limits! This statement completely ignores the consequences of what could happen without them. From a physical point of view trespassing couldn't be inforced and human rights would be broken with no punishments. How could we feel safe when with no boundaries criminals and terrorist could drift through countries with ease. Never mind the safety risks of countries in war! Why this would be a good idea is completely unknown to me and when this comes to my mind all that I see is disaster and catastrophe. Therefore I completely disagree with this statement and in my opinion nothing good could ever come out of it.
I am sceptical about this statement, because borders have been put somewhere for a reason. They could be there to stop people from getting in, or to stop people from getting out; this could be for security and protection reasons, or it could be for emotional reasons. Without borders, there would be more arguments between war-torn nations, and countries that have been avoiding each other, mainly through the use of borders. These countries and nations would then be open to each other, and it could lead to more arguments and more wars between neighbouring nations and countries. It could also lead to arguments within a country.
Moreover, some people have emotional borders. These borders could have blocked out sad, disastrous memories that have been buried down below and hidden away from people. With them coming out, it could also lead to more arguments and people feeling differently about themselves.
Protectional borders can be there to stop terrorism acts and trespassing attempts; they keep people safe, and give them a reassurance about how safe they are. If these were removed, less people would feel as safe and they may be constantly be checking behind their backs.
However, some people can argue that with borders getting removed, people would be able to feel free and not so restricted.
As a result, people may just want to live their lives as it is now, instead of making a massive change from how they are used to live by.
This statement is not fully clear, but I will assume that it means the world would be unified under one nation meaning there is no border. This would destroy and destabilize economy world wide. The first issue is the law that would be set in place. Nations have many laws on many things and those laws are based of the nations people best interests, culture and governments for example in some nations homosexuality is illegal. Another issue are the border disputes like the dispute over the Crimean peninsula or the wars in South Sudan. In addition to other other major problems there is the economy. Questions that would arise during such an event regarding the economy would be: what currency would be used? What value would the global currency have? and other issues lesser issues would occur.It is clear that a global unification would be devastating.
Good original ideas!
I think there should be borders, as without borders there would be uncertainty on the amount of land owned by different nations. This could potentially result in serious altercations that may even lead to wars or terrorist attacks. Not only would the lack of borders cause issues around land ownership, it could also cause problems with the exchange of goods and even illegal substances between contrasting nations due to the absence of border control complicating the lives of police officers and politicians. However, "without borders," international travel would be an easier and quicker process enabling more people to travel and more often which could definitely make people happier and "The world would be better".
"The world would be better without borders."
One of the most important things for this statement to be true would in my opinion be some sort of government or organization that would helps things function on earth fairly. Without this we wouldn't have laws or courts and people could do whatever they wanted to others, even if it is cruel, or inhumane or unfair, without any consequence. We would need a government to hold people accountable for their bad actions and to ensure that people get their basic needs, human rights and to organise the movement and separation of resources and riches. For a fair kind of government we would then need some kind of democracy, even if it is different to a scaled up version of what we have now. That is what I think the one big reason is against this statement, I can’t see a way that a world without borders could have a fair democratic system that would work in practice or in theory.
Because I believe we would need a government for this statement to be anywhere near true, I also believe that this would have to be a fair government, a government where people vote for someone to represent them so they get their opinions heard, a democracy. The question then goes to who the person they are voting for is, and how many of them we would have. Electing one person alone wouldn’t work as you could have billions of people’s viewpoints unheard if the person they voted for didn’t win leadership. Also, controlling the whole world would be way too much power for one person to hold, it would be a dangerous amount of power and would surely end in greed and corruption. This means the only other way would be to elect multiple officials to show different people's opinions, and how would we do that? We would have to split people into groups, constituencies of a sort, and that in itself is creating borders. Maybe it isn’t creating physical borders between us but it will create mental ones, when we are separated into different groups, even if at random, to elect officials who can stand for our views.
Secondly a world without borders wouldn't stay the same for long. This is because I believe that we, at least generally speaking, enjoy the company of those who have similar opinions and are in similar situations to us. This would, over time, result in groups of like-minded people generally being in the same area, creating borders of opinions and, if people have incredibly different opinions, possibly encouraging them to build physical borders between each other too.
So in conclusion, this statement is untrue because if we want a fair global government we would have to separate ourselves into groups to elect the right officials to represent us. We would have to separate ourselves into groups to elect enough officials to create a parliament with as diverse amount of opinions that could reflect how diverse and different the world and it's people are. Even if we weren't separated by or in order to elect the people in charge, we would probably just separate ourselves anyway , separate whether physically or mentally from each other, we would want to be closer to those who don't challenge our opinions and move further away from those who do. Having said that, I think that although this statement isn't true, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to have fewer borders then we have currently. I think, although this statement isn't plausible, we should still strive for a world that isn't as separated and tense as it is now. We should keep our diversity of opinions and beliefs and all our beautiful and different cultures, we should keep our governments which help towards a fairer life, but we should be more accepting to those who are different to us. Borders that are built on differences, hate and prejudices fuel anger and violence. If we have to build walls or borders, they should not be out of hate for others but should be solely for the aim of a fairer and more harmonious world.
I am skeptical of this statement. A world without borders would be a utopian world if everybody had similar values that promote peace and stability, that all leaders treat its people fairly and everybody respected the environment and all the species that live within it. But, sadly, that’s not the case.
Unfortunately, the negatives far outweigh the positives, even though it will alleviate poverty and inequality around the world. However, it would bring chaos to all civilisations largely due to the imbalance of migration around the world. I think given the choice, people would prefer to go to a developed, western, secular society as it offers a freedom of speech; a freedom to practice any religion; a democratic government; a rule of law; a clean safe environment; and people are generally sold by a rosy picture of a western lifestyle. Whereas we see people are not so safe in Central America, Africa and the middle eastern countries such as Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq as terrorist activities are high and civil wars are battling all the time. If we look to the far east, overcrowding is an issue and if we look at China, an autocratic state, it offers none of the same benefits of the western world. Sure, they have a thriving economy, but criticise the government and you’ll be sent to prison. So if citizens from these nations had the choice, I believe that a large proportion of the 7.53 billion people around the world, would choose to uproot causing enormous pressure to the civilised western societies. Resources would be stretched to it’s limits, schools, hospitals, housing and overcrowding would be a health risk, and the overall standard of living would dramatically fall.
Open borders would allow people from similar ethnicities to migrate in much larger groups and this will only remove any need to integrate into the new society, increasing the risk of racial tension and civil unrest. The consequences of not having any cultural exchange reinforces racial prejudice and intolerance within a community. This was shockingly highlighted to me in a Channel 4 programme called ‘The Greatest School Swap’ which explores racial segregation by bringing two classes of teenagers from two different backgrounds to go to school together. One group was white and the other group was South Asian. Now, I go to a culturally and racially diverse school so it was a huge shock to me that communities like these still exist in the UK, where both sides have never ever mix. What the show revealed was that racism and prejudice can come from both sides when communities are cut off from one another and therefore awful opinions are allowed to form unchallenged, based on pure ignorance forged by an echo chamber effect. This is all because integration and exposure to other cultures are not required if one culture is large enough to build it’s own community. You can also imagine, in the worst case scenario, a free civilised society being swamped by a larger dominant, oppressive culture and then overturned the host country with a non democratic, draconian rule of law.
Unrestricted borders allow deadly diseases to spread faster. Think about the Ebola outbreak. Inability to have access to people’s medical records or check whether all vaccinations are up to date would also pose a health risk. And as we live in an age of terrorism, people may constantly feel fear or threatened if there was no way of monitoring who comes in or out, causing other crimes to soar.
People may choose to travel on the planes more frequently as it becomes a lot easier to move in and out of one country, thereby increasing carbon footprints, accelerating climate change and causing catastrophic impact to the environment and to the ecosystems. Consumerism would increase thereby depleting more of the world’s resources, more pollution and destruction of habitat (think of palm oil, the cause of orangutan’s habitat loss). Illegal wildlife trades still exist, so certain borders should be strengthened to protect wildlife from hunters killing elephants for ivory, tigers for their skins and bones and rhinos hunted for its horns due to a lucrative demand in Asia. These awful acts of human greed and barbaric practices should be stopped because this is one of the biggest threats to some of the world's most threatened species. Human activities and a lack of respect for the environment has led to a stark warning from the United Nation that one million species of plants and animals are now threatened with extinction within the next ten years. And yes, only 12 years to reverse global climate change or else life on earth will start to become a lot harsher. So a world without borders is a terrible, destructive idea.
"Without borders," there would be no separate countries, which could cause a wide variety of deltas with regards to modern life.
There are a series of good things that can be taken from this improbable idea. The first of which would be the ease to travel around the world, without the need of traipsing through border control, taking time and effort that slows you down considerably. It could also generate new income and hopes for businesses that currently operate around importing and exporting goods due to newly created ease and the eliminated costs of goods exchange. However, these are both consequences of an action that would inevitably take many years to complete, as the removal of borders worldwide would ultimately be the greatest political event in history.
It's during these years of change that I believe the most significant complications will happen. For a start, the world will be one country, inevitably meaning one leader and one set of rules. The first question that comes to mind is, who would be the leader? This may well be the most difficult part as there are countless numbers of power-hungry people who already stand for their own countries and surely won't be okay to just give them up, hence I believe this could result in a democracy. I know this may sound simple but the problem arrives when the current dictators and world leaders who haven't made it to the world leader position could be infuriated at their failure and launch terrorist attacks or start wars which is obviously a fatal dilemma. Then there is the question about laws. There are simply so many laws worldwide that it would be impossible to pick a set that will please everyone. This once again could result in wars or terrorist attacks.
Overall, I believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages by a significant amount, hence I believe "The world would be better," with borders.
it is so untrue because we will/can have lodes of avalanches and to meany of then flee into our precious country.
I think borders are the way to control the countries because they can transmit diseases, over population and the country that gets left over gets ruined and there is going to be this territory that is vulnerable and is going to ask for more money then that could lead to war for that territory and then to communism.
I think that if there weren't any borders in the world it would be a problem because there would be overcrowding that would cause lack of medicine, food storage, water, housing.... Also, it would be harder to look for a job.
I personally think that borders are absolutely necessary in the world. If I was the president of a country, I would not like massive amount of people entering at once with no check at all. Diseases, drugs and overpopulation will set their foot upon it and once the country becomes unlivable, those same people will do the same with other countries. Food shortages, lack of education and medicine will become behemoths through the world and it will be an impossible world to live in. Borders provide protection and they control the amount of people entering.
They are absolutely necessary.
Some bad parts of no borders are that you would have less money more drugs and more crime basically there would be a world crisis!
The border make people sceptical. It´s unfair.
"Without borders," there would be no separate countries, which could cause a wide variety of deltas with regards to modern life.
we need borders to not have overpopulation
it is very bad because people dont have oportunities that need to have
I think the world will be better without borders because if your family is ill or dying and there is no one to look after them then you need go look after them BUT OH NO there is a border there like its saying "you can not enter this city" thanks to the border you let them down and nobody helped them. Also, you may be going on holiday and you payed for your hotel and OK its fine so far, until the next day. you go there and BAM a border saying "you wasted your money for this trip were you can not go to. wow, just wow" so yea i think the world will be better without walls
"The world would be better without borders." I am skeptical about this statement because i believe that borders are more than just physical. A border between two people could be invisible. A border between two countries sends a silent message that the other is not welcome. If the world was without borders then there would be alot more confrontation which could mean a lot more arguments. Borders a sign of division it can be a necessary division. One that would be alot worse without borders.
The world would not be better without borders, because the people who are at war will be oppressed and the economy would change because people would swarm into another country and civilians of rich countries, would be overwhelmed. Also, terrorists and extremists would attack more often, North Korea and South Korea will have the worst war!
The world would not be better without borders because without borders what is the meaning of protection. You can't let people coming in and out without being thoroughly checked. You can never know what people might bring that can harm the country. Dividing people may be wrong, but it is the right decision to help the environment be safer.
Happy_guava says having no borders might out people at risk. For example terrorists could move freely. Stellar_lion says people in poorer countries would benefit because they can start a better life somewhere else, but richer countries might be overwhelmed with people. Also, a poor country's economy might suffer if everyone left.
This is a controversial statement and I am skeptical about it as the results of this would affect people negatively more than positively.
For example, from the results of North Korea and South Korea divide, some people have not seen their families for over 60 years may be reunited allowing people to see each other in person.
However, without borders, historical tourist attractions such as the Great Wall of China would no longer exist affecting the economy of areas in China.
Moreover, in countries where war is a major issue, people would want to be away and a border would be an imperative way of protection.
I agree!
I think that people should feel more free if boarders don't exist.
You can travel wherever you want and visit people in your family who living somewhere else in the world.
I also think the presidents in the world can become "friends" if boarders don't exsit. And if the president are freinds their is a less chance that they mess with each other.
But I know that is going to be some small problems too if boardes don't exsit in the world. Maybe it harder to travel because many people travel at the same time.
'' The world would be better without borders ''
This would be fair for other people with their own opinion. Other countries might have lots of trouble in their area so they might get frightened if invaders would come and do something to them. Others might think that it is just fine that there will be no borders in their own reason.
I think that this is both because it isn't always fair to block others in. They might have liked the place or country but they could still go on holiday to there. Also, if there were no borders then others private properaty could get destroyed or police investigations could get interupted.
The world having no borders would be an extremely complicated matter and many difficulties would come from it. Many others have missed one thing about this statement though and that is 'trade' therefore I'm skeptical on this side of the debate and have thought about the great confusion between countries and humanity as a whole. How could countries deside how to import supplies to one and other if there is no boundary to import across? When is the supplies now in another country? How do they decide when the country has got the right to claim them? All of these questions come to mind over one simple issue that modern day society has already got covered! Why should we restart so many negotiations between countries when we could leave things as they are? All of these complicated situations contribute to the enormous set back that these confusing queries will create. Furthermore law enforcement would become impossible and crime will be even harder to prevent, with no borders who's responsibility would it be to catch criminals? Terrorism,war, imigration and illegal trafficking of all types would become incredibly difficult to stop and security of all countries would be useless towards such a difficult complicated crimes that used to be more simple. Although the list of problem is long there are some benifits to this statement such as: travel would become easy and simple along with less problems towards buisnesses expanding to different countries and moving house to different countries. Dencely populated areas would reduce as moving to other countries would be easier and people in overpopulated cities would spread out around the world. The world could be brought closer together after negotiations as wars could be harder because there is no physical country to fight. Although the benefits are useful there is none that will ever outweigh terrorism and the enormous set back the world would face because of the time to discuss the biggest political event in history! From bieng skeptical I have concluded that having no borders has a high possibility of devastating the Earth with complicated questions and very high risk therefore I strongly believe that this would not help the world in any way.
I disagree that people should walk freely as a human right because some people are not able get along around other people, because of the way they were before or how they are now. When some people walk freely then many people can get worried especially if they are dressed a different way which can create bad reviews towards a country meaning that people could leave. Some people would see this as a good thing because they are overpopulated. To conclude this wonderful piece I think that people should not walk freely as a human right.