The Instigator
Eitan_Zohar
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
sdavio
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

A functioning society can be maintained along the Non-aggression principle.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Eitan_Zohar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,354 times Debate No: 35944
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

Eitan_Zohar

Con

"The Non-aggression principle is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership." -[https://en.wikipedia.org...]

This idea has become the groundwork of libertarian philosophy and of the political system known as "anarcho-capitalism." I will be arguing that the NAP (as it henceforth will be known) cannot create or maintain a society that respects it, and that coercion will always occur. My opponent intends to show that in a society where aggression is forbidden by law, the balance of power can remain stable and result in a free market based off of mutually agreed transactions rather than coercion and monopolies.

Rules:

1. The purpose of this debate is to decide if a society can be maintained along the parameters set forth by the definition, and that coercion would be unnecessary.

2. Semantic games and trolling are forbidden. Pro may provide clearer definitions if he thinks mine is insufficient.

3. The BOP belongs to Pro, since he must demonstrate that this radical new form of political organization is workable.

Other than this, I am willing to negotiate any other rules in the comments section.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to hearing his opinions on the issue.
sdavio

Pro

I accept this debate.

A note about the phrase 'maintained along,' though: The NAP is a moral principle, not a political system, and as such I do not necessarily believe (or cannot prove,) that a system could exist and be practiced in which nobody would ever initiate force. I accept the premise in the sense that I believe that the NAP is a valid moral code and that society moving toward it in any way (ie, reducing or getting rid of Government,) is an improvement. I believe that a society could maintain itself and function in a way very close to the NAP, compared to the current system, and compared to any system we have known before.
Debate Round No. 1
Eitan_Zohar

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting and wish him luck as we move forward.

I may have phrased a few things poorly; I agree with his clarification of the BOP.

Now how exactly would the Non-Aggression principle work or fail? To find out, let's follow a large tribe, led by their chief through the desert. After weeks of searching, our bone-weary travelers at last spot a cluster of trees on the horizon. They begin traveling in that direction and within hours they come to a large oasis; replenished by a spring and more than prosperous to support all of them. The travelers are so happy they throw off their belongings and begin dancing in the sand. But lo! The chief immediately demands that sole ownership of the oasis be given to him, to dispense as he pleases, and that the rest of the tribe become his slaves. The people reluctantly agree because the chief has a group of strong, fanatical supporters willing to enforce his rule, but rage simmers. The chief demands the largest share fruit for himself and his followers, and the slaves are barely able to eat at all. He forces them build him a huge dwelling, but the slaves themselves suffer in the heat all day. Even the goods from other tribes and trade routes is confiscated and monopolized. At last the people of the tribe have had enough. In the middle of the night they ambush the strongmen and exile their greedy chief.

To prevent a monopoly from ever being taken again, they decide to adopt a principle of non-aggression and abandon the tribal structure. The newly-freed people divide up ownership of the trees, livestock, oasis, and resources, and agree that no one should have power to coerce others. Rather, everyone will have to work through a series of voluntary exchanges in order the get what they want. The salt-miners will have to give some of his salt to the fisherman is he wants fish. The produce-grower will have to enter into a voluntary exchange with a craftsman if he wants tools. Those who wish to be protected will need to buy spears or daggers in order to chase thieves away, and the thieves that are caught are forced to recompensate their victims. Everyone who is willing to work is able to have their place in a truly free society, and charity is given willingly to those who are too old or sick to work.

This blissful era lasts for a few months. But slowly, a shift takes place. Fish, even when cured, cannot be transported through the desert, and no other tribes have a body of water large enough to support them. The fishermen are the only source of fish the group has, and thus their skills are more valuable than anyone else's. They have the biggest dwellings, they are the most well-fed, and they all have the highest quality weapons. When they realize just how much everybody depends on them, they make contact with each other and agree to set their prices much higher than the value of their product. However, two fishermen refuse to cooperate with the rest and continue setting their prices according the market value. The other fishermen are flummoxed. Could they not see how much they stand to gain? Either way, the plan cannot succeed if even one fisherman destroys their monopoly.

Fustrated, the conspirators hatch a devious plan. Temporarily, they all set their prices lower than the honest fishermen, driving one of them out of business. But the the second one is still able to sell his fish at a profit, and they cannot move forward with the plan if he is allowed to do so. So they pool their influence and frame him, tarnishing his name and causing him to go out of business as well. Finally they own the entire fishing ground, and being the only producers of fish accessable to the tribe, sell it at a hugely inflated rate.

The people are shocked. It's perfectly obvious that the fishermen aren't being fair, but what can they do? Alas, the only avenue of fixing the problem is forbidden by the Non-Aggression principle! They cannot take preemptive action because it would be aggression. The fishermen have not aggressed against them and everything that they have done is perfectly within the bounds of the NAP.

One of two things happens:

1. The people break the NAP and force the fishermen to sell their produce at a more moderate rate, while anti-competitive practices are banned. They accomplish this either by creating an organization strong enough to enforce the rule of law, and is governed either by direct democracy or through electing lawmakers that promise to help them. While this does cause a distortion from a perfectly free market, it prevents it from becoming exploitative and causing much more harm otherwise. The lawmakers, however, cannot easily oppress the people because they rely on their support to remain in power.

2. The fishermen instantly gain a monopoly and live as a much richer class, transforming the free market into a plutocracy. Eventually the disparity becomes so large and the people so dependent on them that the fishermen abolish the NAP and take power for themselves and their families. They also form their own system of property rights, but one that applies among themselves rather than among everyone. To serve this end they elect a king to be their lawmaker, and a noble republic is born.

What went wrong?

The fundamental flaw in the NAP is that it is unenforceable. The employer might realize of his workers that all of their freedoms and prosperity will be maximised if he acts fairly and gives them wages based on the value of their work. But he also realizes that he himself stands more to gain if he doesn't. Without a larger power representing the people, anti-competitive corporations and richer classes have no threat hanging over their heads if they decide to exploit their employees or blackmail smaller businesses that could harm their monopoly. What is needed is preemptive action against those who wish to sieze monopolies "fair and square", and that by definition requires coercion. It seems, therefore, that a society could never really maintain itself and function without open and often large-scale aggression
.

I am finished and await Pro's response.
sdavio

Pro

I'll start by defending my position, then respond to Con's arguments.

When discussing whether a moral principle could or should be integrated into society, there is an 'order of logic' I propose, in which I believe the order is important:

1. Define the principle - Is it coherent? Does it require contradictions in it's own logic to be practiced?
2. Decide if the principle is moral. There are differring standards for this: a utilitarian view might be that a moral system will bring maximum 'life' or happiness to maximum amount of people possible. Others argue from 'rights,' that a moral system respects each individual's rights.
3. (I'm including this even though I do not believe it is integral to the validity of a moral principle,) Decide how to put it into action. This is the step that most people who argue against the NAP focus on, but in my opinion it is the least important. I will argue this further below. Also, notice how rare arguments from the first two steps are, from people who argue against the NAP.

First, I'll explain why I believe these steps are important, and why skipping one (of the first two) makes an argument unproductive:

Imagine a principle which was defined as: "People should use violence toward others, but without hurting them, and only in ways that help them."

Why should we reject this argument? Would it be productive to present statistics about how many people who've had violence used against them and then went on to lead happy lives, as an argument against this principle? This would be a valid argument, in a sense, but it's not productive, because it skips the first step. The most productive way to argue against this principle would be in terms of definitions: it is not coherent.

A similar idea applies to a principle which skips the second step: "You should kill as many people as possible." This principle is coherent (it might not be, if it defined it's standard of morality, since it would probably contradict it,) and possible to put into action. However, it skips the second step, and therefore that is how it should be argued against.

Now, let's look at the third step: is it as important as the others? Let's take a principle which ticks the first two boxes, but skips the third, something like: "It would be good if everyone had wings and could fly."

Someone might argue against this by saying "Humans cannot grow wings." The defender of this principle responds: "Maybe we could build robotic wings," to which the person against it says, "But that technology doesn't exist!"

This argument does not disprove the principle. If a principle is moral and valid, any move toward it would be an improvement, and any improvement would be a move toward it.

Now apply this to the NAP; I believe that it ticks the first two boxes (and is the only political philosophy which does so.)

This also means that, in a similar way to the principle about people having wings, as technology improves and humans' power expands, the possiblity increases for society to become more in line with the principle.

For example, in pre-civilisation, it would have been almost impossible to integrate the NAP at all: in absense of 'society,' each person acts of their own volition, and uses force whenever they want to. As technology increased, this was a move toward the NAP. The improvement of society reduced the amount of initiation of force. This is not by coincidence, or because the NAP is a 'magic wand,' but because 'improving' implies 'becoming more in line with coherent moral principles.'

Whatever the next stage of human improvement, it will bring us closer to being in line with the NAP. With the advent of the internet, regulation is becoming more difficult to enforce. Things like taxation could become increasingly difficult as digital currencies become more popular. Copyright laws become irrelevant as illegal downloading increases. As technology expands and civilisation progresses, as does adherence to moral principles. Therefore, if society becomes 'more civilised,' we will become more in line with the NAP.

Is the NAP coherent and moral?

The NAP is unique in that it is a political philosophy in which the same rule applies to everyone. It defines all initiation of force to be wrong, giving the same standard to every human. It is impossible for a principle which allows initiation of force to respect everybody's rights as equal: it assumes that some humans should have authority over others.

How do they morally gain this authority? No coherent way has ever been proposed. The most common explanation is the social contract theory. This proposes that there is some sort of contract between the state and the people, where the people agree to the state's terms because they want the benefits that it gives. The problems with this theory are quite immediately apparent: For it to be a contract, there must be some way of not agreeing to it, and there must also be some sort of consequence for the state not upholding it's end of the agreement.

----

Responses

I'll skip to the important part of Con's story, where it critisizes the NAP:

"Temporarily, they all set their prices lower than the honest fishermen, driving one of them out of business."

This ignores the free will of the 'honest fisherman,' to simply set the price a little lower again.

"But the the second one is still able to sell his fish at a profit, and they cannot move forward with the plan if he is allowed to do so. So they pool their influence and frame him, tarnishing his name and causing him to go out of business as well."

But will this work? Remember, the 'honest fisherman' is now selling his product at a lower price. The conspirators must convince the others of their totally invented story about the 'honest fishermen,' while they themselves must have quite a bad reputation by this point.

Because of how valuable fish has become, other entities have probably also started learning to fish, and there is more competition.

"Finally they own the entire fishing ground, and being the only producers of fish accessable to the tribe, sell it at a hugely inflated rate."

How did they keep away new competition? Their only tactics are framing the other fishermen who do not agree to their price, which seems a quite flimsy tactic, or constantly lowering the price, which defeats the purpose of their conpiracy anyway.

"The people are shocked. It's perfectly obvious that the fishermen aren't being fair, but what can they do?"

So at this point, the people are totally aware of the conspiring fishermen's unfair tactics. It's 'perfectly obvious,' that their defamation of the honest fisherman's character is just a devious tactic, and that their claims are not true.

The people are offended by the bad fishermen's activities, so they refuse to buy from them. There are also many more fishermen entering the market because of the increased demand for fish, so the conspirators must constantly lower their price.

"The fishermen have not aggressed against them and everything that they have done is perfectly within the bounds of the NAP."

This does not necessitate force as the only solution, nor does it disprove a society being able to follow it.

The only unfair tactic they've used is framing the other fishermen. Just because this society is based on the NAP does not mean they believe any claim that is made, and put an end to any methods of avoiding or dealing with unfair actions such as this.

"The fundamental flaw in the NAP is that it is unenforceable."

This is not a 'fundamental flaw' so much as a description. If 'enforcable' implies initiation of force, then of course a moral principle stating initiation of force is wrong is 'unenforcable.'
Debate Round No. 2
Eitan_Zohar

Con

I am not able to post a round currently. Please award the conduct point to my opponent.
sdavio

Pro

Alright.. guess I'll just leave this empty then..
Debate Round No. 3
Eitan_Zohar

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for his participation in this debate. I will now present my final arguments.

After looking over his arguments I think that Pro misunderstood the purpose of the debate. The resolution is not about whether or not the Non-Aggression principle is morally valid but rather if a society could function by it. The question of whether such a society would be immoral or just is irrelevent.

I'm also having trouble comprehending his point about humanity becoming a moral civilization. If I am not mistaken, Pro is arguing that as humans progress, we become more and more moral. Therefore, (assuming that the NAP is indeed moral), he concludes that human society will draw closer and closer to the ideal of the NAP.

There are two basic objections to be made here:

1. Pro appears to commit the association fallacy when he assumes that the desirability of the NAP is inherently synonymous with human progress. It could easily be argued that human progress is good, but not all "good" ends are necessarily conterminous. For instance, if it was found that a nanotech grey goo or an ultra-stable vacuum could be created easily with home materials, it would certainly be desirable that the government put society under an Orwellian leash and monitor every person as thoroughly as possible. It's an extreme example, but it serves to disprove my opponent's point.

2. Again, Pro is guilty of the post hoc fallacy with his comparisons of modern life to prehistoric life. Merely because humans appear to have more ability to function along the principles of the NAP than in the past does not suggest that this is an inherent trend to human advancement. Pro has the full burden to prove that his seemingly teleological framework is valid, and this he has not done. His examples (the absence of boundaries in prehistory, the modern upsurge in digital pirating, etc) do not establish his argument any more than the success of the British empire proves the invariable historical superiority of Anglo-Saxons. A few arbitrary confirmations do not prove the rule, and it's easy to come up with perfectly realistic scenarios in which the opposite occurs, as I did for the previous point.

___

Pro's response.

"This ignores the free will of the 'honest fisherman,' to simply set the price a little lower again."

Indeed, although remember that the vast majority of the fishermen are in on the scheme. They collectively can absorb far more losses than the honest fishermen and will drive them out of business long before they would be forced out as well. This is known as 'predatory pricing.' In practice large corporations can use this to prevent new competition from ever getting off the ground.

"But will this work? Remember, the 'honest fisherman' is now selling his product at a lower price. The conspirators must convince the others of their totally invented story about the 'honest fishermen,' while they themselves must have quite a bad reputation by this point."

The analogy is not perfect; it's an example of how corporations target small businesses, which occurs behind the scenes in real life.

"So at this point, the people are totally aware of the conspiring fishermen's unfair tactics. It's 'perfectly obvious,' that their defamation of the honest fisherman's character is just a devious tactic, and that their claims are not true. The people are offended by the bad fishermen's activities, so they refuse to buy from them. There are also many more fishermen entering the market because of the increased demand for fish, so the conspirators must constantly lower their price."

Nope! Recall that the fishing grounds at the oasis was the only source of fish the tribe had, and that the corrupt fishermen own all of it. This is meant to emulate a real-life monopoly.

"Just because this society is based on the NAP does not mean they believe any claim that is made,"

I didn't say that such a thing would be the case. How did you get the impression?

"This is not a 'fundamental flaw' so much as a description. If 'enforcable' implies initiation of force, then of course a moral principle stating initiation of force is wrong is 'unenforcable.'"

My argument is that it would require enforcement in order to maintain a functioning society. Since the NAP obviously couldn't involve any kind of initiation of force, but cannot survive through voluntary action, it would never be sustainable in society and the resolution is thereby negated.

I'll conclude here and I look forward for my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks to Pro for this entertaining, if rather odd, debate and thanks to the audience for voting!
sdavio

Pro

Con brings up some good points, but unfortunately fails to address the bulk of my point, instead only mentioning the few examples which I provided near the end, which were mainly only meant to illustrate my main point.

His dismissal of the bulk of my argument seems to hinge on this statement:

"The resolution is not about whether or not the Non-Aggression principle is morally valid but rather if a society could function by it. The question of whether such a society would be immoral or just is irrelevent.The resolution is not about whether or not the Non-Aggression principle is morally valid but rather if a society could function by it. The question of whether such a society would be immoral or just is irrelevent."

Keep in mind what the NAP is. It is a moral principle. The only statement it makes is one of morality. The relevance, as I argued in my previous post, of the moral principle to practice in reality, depends entirely on it's moral accuracy. This was the purpose of the order of logic; it attempted to prove this.

What it comes down to is this; Is the moral validity of a moral statement important? If it is important, then it can be put into practice. If putting it into practice would deteriorate society, it is immoral. If putting it into practice would improve society, then it is moral. The reverse is also true: If it is moral, then putting it into practice would improve society.

Any time force is executed from one person to another, it is always undesirable for the person it is being executed toward. The important factor with the NAP is that is only disallows initial force, meaning that this force is probably not necessary for the continuing life of the aggressor. Another away to explain why the NAP is moral is in the form of a math-like equation, looking at 'value.' Person A has a certain amount of value. Person B takes some of that value by force. Person A now has less value, and person B has gained value. However, the amount of value B has gained is less than the amount person A has lost, because of the energy necessary for the process of actually taking that value. An example of this is Government: it takes money from some people, giving to others, however, money is also used in the actual upholding of Government. In a voluntary exchange, no such value is lost, because it is all exchanged between parties. On top of that, in an involuntary exchange, we can count the free will of each person as being a value, which is being reduced, while in a voluntary exchange it is being maximised.

The fact that initiation of force is inherently undesirable, which I have argued, and which Con has dismissed as irrelevant, then relates to the fact that as society progresses, it will, if actually progressing, move toward the more desirable. For example: why did society move from monarchy to democracy, even though it was undesirable for the people in charge, who also happened to have a monopoly on violence? Because as society progressed, it realised that Democracy was more in line with moral principles, meaning it allowed the maximum amount of happiness to the largest amount of people.

Another example which I have used before: Why did society go from using slavery, to banning it, even though it was much less practical to do so? It could even have been argued, that slavery was a 'necessary evil,' because the labour the slaves provided was more valuable than the pain it caused them. It's because the decision wasn't based on practicality; it was based on morality. The machines and methods which came about to replace slavery came about afterwards, and were much more efficient at getting the job done.

It could also be argued that we are already maintaining society in line with the NAP, since it is all a matter of degrees. Today's society is far more in line with NAP than almost any before, especially comparing to pre-civilisation.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
soz, just unlocked my google docs link. =)

All in all, there were some flashes of brilliance on both sides, but not enough to sway or convince.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
When this debate first came out, I thought about reading it, but the last time I scored one of CON's debates he pitched a fit for weeks, ranted about all manners of misconceptions and perceived offenses, and on top of that was extremely rude.

Since CON is now no longer active on this website, I decided to give this debate a read.

RFD

https://docs.google.com...

Conclusion

This was a somewhat substantive debate. Both sides were somewhat hard to follow. CON"s fisherman example had some flaws in it - IMHO there was no need to segway into cheating the honest fishermen (which would already be a violation of NAP)...CON could have gone straight into the establishment of natural monopoly.

PRO"s round #2 was very difficult to follow...I could not pull out any real significant meaning out of it.

CON also suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of NAP, in that he equates prohibition of initiatory force to prohibition of any and all force. PRO somewhat points this out in his final round, but does not elaborate on it at all.

I could not really ascertain cogent or convincing points from either side that would have led to a decisive victory, so had I scored this debate, I would have left arguments, sources, and S&G neutral, and scored conduct to PRO for the forfeit.
Posted by sdavio 3 years ago
sdavio
The same rule to everyone means the most equal distribution of happiness, in a 'math' way. This is a hard thing to explain. Basically, if you believe in democracy, you must accept that idea. I might bother to put together a complete proof of that one day, but it seems difficult haha. This is why I would prefer a debate on why NAP is moral: As all the votes against me admit, it comes down to, 'why is NAP moral'? Whether I win or lose for this reason, if it is for this reason, I'm happy, because it disproves the people against NAP's focus on integrability rather than morality. If you voted against me on the basis of morality, accepting my points about it being possible to integrate, please go tell that to Stephen, Wrich, etc. haha.
Posted by sdavio 3 years ago
sdavio
These comments are awesome. The main point of me engaging in any of this stuff is that I figure out new takes on these ideas. I'd just like to clear up a few things about my argument:

- I did not choose the resolution, and although close, is not my favorite one I'd like to debate. I'll admit, my last round was dreadful. My ideal resolution would be one relating to how moral the NAP is, rather than about how possible it is to integrate. For some reason, anti-NAPers seem obsessed with integrate-ability and unwilling to discuss the fundamental morality of this principle.

- My point was NOT that society will necessarily progress toward moral principles, but that, IF it progresses, since the NAP is a valid moral principle, it will progress toward NAP. My point at the end, which I think is a good point, is that we are already a functioning society in line with NAP, compared to every society which has come before. This is where the problem with the resolution comes in, because it is too much to prove in such a small space: That NAP is moral, that it is integrable, that it should be integrated. Please keep in mind: While I did have the burden of proof, I also had a lot more on my plate, haha. All these things are very important, and missing any single one can be easily pointed out and described as a flaw in my argument.

- The 'grey goo' is breaking the NAP and therefore falls within my explanation, hence my not directly responding to this point. If a society progresses to where it can be in coherence with NAP, parenting, for one thing, will be very good, so people will not want to wipe out humanity. Okay, I admit it, lol. I cannot answer the grey goo problem. It is really complicated. It could be a whole debate in itself.

- Why does NAP applying the same rule to every person mean that it is the most moral? This is very complicated as well, haha. Well, for one, it means the most happiness to the most amount of people, by definition, (to be continued)
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Never mind, I was so interested in the topic that I couldn't help but read and vote. This was an astonishing topic, and great battle between two very intellectual people. Great job to both of you!!

https://docs.google.com...
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
I Was really wanting to vote on this but the time will expire by the time I have the chance to. Sorry!
Posted by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
Pro needed to prove that the NAP could be maintained, presumably in the long-term. He makes an interesting argument in R2 that explains why he doesn't have to argue for the NAP's practical implementation, but the problem is that the example he uses in support of this ("It would be good if everyone had wings and could fly") is a statement of morality, not a statement of fact like the resolution is, and therefore doesn't really apply to the topic. Con's argument that the NAP being moral =/= the NAP can be implemented shows this pretty well.

Pro argues in R4 that if the NAP is moral, then society could implement it. Ok. So all I have to see now is a reason to think that the NAP is moral. Except...I don't. Pro seemingly makes some points in favor of the NAP, but as Thett points out, he doesn't explain why these points prove that the theory is moral. For instance, in R2, he argues that the NAP prohibits all initiative force and applies the same rules to everyone. But he doesn't explain why these points are objectively good. In contrast, Eitan actually argued that the initiation of force is sometimes a good thing because its necessary to combat small businesses being unfairly targeted.

I am not given a positive reason to think the NAP is moral until R4, when Con can't respond. He therefore does not meet his own self-imposed burden to prove the NAP's morality, and therefore that society would benefit from implementing it.

I would have liked to see more arguments from Con. As it is, he had just one: we have to break the NAP to combat monopolies. Fortunently for him, Pro completely dropped it in R4, which is another reason Con wins, but it wouldn't have hurt to throw a couple other points in there. And for Pro, you put the burden on yourself to prove the NAP's morality, so you needed to make your arguments for why thats the case in your very first round and to make them as clearly warranted as possible, which they weren't, as me and Thett both noticed.

Decent d
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Both sides need some work on their offensive cases.

Con wastes much of his opening rounds giving an extremely overly extensive story about fishermen. I think Con could've improved his case by giving a variety of common societal problems or needs where the NAP fails, or showing an inherent flaw. Con argues that we need something other than the NAP to defend against predatory corporations and monopolies. This had potential to be a great argument, but he doesn't really impact it too much--why is monopoly that bad? How much would this effect people? Why does this make society unsustainable? ect. ect.

Pros case on the other hand didn't really address the resolution very well. Pro's basic arguments are: 1. The NAP is a valid principle, and 2. The whig theory of history (man moves forever forward progressively) and since the NAP is valid, eventually society will implement it. I think this would be a better argument if he had shown me more evidence of society moving in a general positive direction and if he had explained why the NAP is inherently moral. Pro basically argues that we can tell if a system is moral if it...meets the standard of another moral principle? (util). I wasn't presented with an argument for why the NAP is good other than it applies the same rules to everyone, but I wasn't told why *this* was good. I know moral debates are tricky, but Pro needed to show some kind of objective grounding for his arguments, or provide some kind of shared values that the NAP best serves in. I don't find much Pro offense at all.

When Con argues that future technology could warrant situations where the NAP can justifiably be violated ("For instance, if it was found that a nanotech grey goo or an ultra-stable vacuum could be created easily with home materials, it would certainly be desirable that the government put society under an Orwellian leash and monitor every person as thoroughly as possible") my vote was pretty much decided.
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
I would like to remind potential voters that Pro, not Con, has the burden of proof (that is, to demonstrate that the NAP is viable). Since I actually made an argument first and attempted to refute the NAP before he made his own case it might be a bit confusing in that respect.
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
wow I just wrote out a huge RFD and accidentally refreshed the page, so here is the TLDR version:

both sides strayed from the Rez, Con stayed closer. Pro had no offense, some of his arguments seemed beside the point (e.g. that statists cant justify use of force). I thought fisherman argument was biggest point in round. Both sides had decent answers but Con ignored the argument in final round. Not an easy decision but I think the debate flow to Pro.

Also I think both sides could have done a better job.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Eitan_ZoharsdavioTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an absolutely fantastic debate, and I loved reading it! It's too bad this didn't get more votes. I learned a lot from reading this debate, and actually had a lot of fun with the RFD on this, and being objective and considering both sides. This was an amazing debate, and actually changed my mind on the subject. Again, Freaking fantastic Job. RFD link is in the comments.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
Eitan_ZoharsdavioTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Commentz
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Eitan_ZoharsdavioTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments, conduct for the missed round
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
Eitan_ZoharsdavioTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Naysayer 3 years ago
Naysayer
Eitan_ZoharsdavioTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Con's annecdotal story ingnored the consequences of the aggressors. They appeared to act with all impudence while the rest of society stared on in amazement. I didn't think that was very realistic and Pro answered those points.