The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
The Contender
bfkennedy
Con (against)

An anarchist society should at least be given a try

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Capitalistslave has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 102196
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

I'm arguing for that an anarchist society should be given a try. My opponent will argue they should never be attempted

Rules of Debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, insults
2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus one since I am not using argument for debate.
3) The last round used for argument should only be rebuttals/defense and/or conclusions. No new arguments in this last round. New facts and information can be given, but only in response to your opponent's claims
bfkennedy

Con

To begin, I would ask that my opponent define what they think an anarchist society entails. Just for the sake of clarity.

But nonetheless, I will argue against basic anarchism.
The idea that power in a society is to be given to a group of people is way too risky. I don't deny the possibility that under the right circumstances it could work, but under the circumstances we face today, the current state of our country, it would be impossible and completely detrimental to the US.

Our constitution was set into place to limit our government, but never to rid of it. The constitution was meant to ensure that power is distributed among the people and much as possible. Anarchism is a pandoras box which could very well lead to much loss of life and simple basic rights. We would lose the ability to control those who rule our country. What if an anarchist gained power and decided to kill every family that didn't vaccinate their children? A simple disagreement could lead to drastic consequences that I, nor would anyone want to risk.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LuciferWept 9 months ago
LuciferWept
Return to the State of Nature!!
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 9 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
See free Territory and the Spanish Civil war of 1936, Anarchism has been given a try and it failed miserably
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
I'm sorry about this to BFKEnnedy, but I shouldn't have started this debate to begin with. I thought I was going to be able to get back into debate.org after I took time away from it, but I seem to be completely bored with it now, and will probably leave this time for good. I apologize that I'm forfeiting the debate. I just don't think I can get back into this anymore.
Posted by MAD3 9 months ago
MAD3
I agree with my friend bfkennedy on his first argument. Any one conflict would end in disaster.
Posted by MAD3 9 months ago
MAD3
We are actually an anarchy but we could be and if we were there would be world and country wars going on. Everyone would be trying to kill each other and protect themselves. It would be kayos.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
The US is an anarchist society..There are just not many anarchist..
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
And by waive, I don't mean you post nothing, but that you just post something that isn't an argument such as "I waive this round as agreed upon" or whatever.
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
bfkennedy: That is fine. It looks like you did make arguments in round 1, so all you'd need to do is waive the last round then.
Posted by bfkennedy 9 months ago
bfkennedy
I already posted but sure.
Posted by Capitalistslave 9 months ago
Capitalistslave
Rule 2 should read: "The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus one since I am not using round 1 for debate."
I have no idea how it got to read what it does read, I swear I wasn't drunk lol.

I hope that doesn't change anything with my opponent, you still agree to that, right?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.