The Instigator
Fabian_CH
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Sieben
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Anarchism is incompatible with the principle of individual rights

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Sieben
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,346 times Debate No: 16528
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

Fabian_CH

Pro

The rules for this debate

  • As Pro, I will argue that Anarchism – Anarcho-Capitalism in particular – implies a negation of the legitimacy of individual rights.

  • Con will defend the Anarchist position that, on the contrary, individual rights are possible only in Anarchy.

  • This is a debate on principles, not “real-world” applicability. I will attempt to show that the principle of individual rights is incompatible with Anarchism, and logically necessitates a government. Likewise, Con will attempt to show that the principle of individual rights in incompatible with a government, and logically necessitates Anarchism.

  • No outside evidence. All arguments must be developed by the contestants themselves.

  • Definitions are part of the argument. Consequently, they may be contested, if this is central to an argument. Nitpicking on semantics is in bad style.

  • The debate will focus entirely on the issue of individual rights. No note is taken of any other merits or failings of either system.

  • Burden of proof is equal. Both contestants will have to show that their respective proposed systems are compatible with individual rights; as well as that the opposing system is not.

  • Both contestants must argue for what they actually believe. Specifically, Con must him- or herself be convinced of the correctness of some sort of Anarcho-Capitalist ideology.

  • Round 2 is reserved for rebuttal. No new points may be introduced.



I define individual rights and government below as part of my argument. Anarchism is defined as the opposition to any government. (Con may suggest some other definition based on his or her own argument, within reason.)



My argument



I Individual rights:

First will have to come a definition of individual rights. Individual rights encompass the right of any individual to take any course of action that does not deny another individual that same right.

I.a) Property Rights: Homesteading and Trading

I expect to be in agreement with CON that individual rights are specifically to be applied through property rights. Since we both argue in the Libertarian tradition, we are likely to share the view that property can be attained through homesteading, or trading.

I define homesteading in the following way: that any man who has first made any particular resource or land useful to humanity (“mixed his labor with it“, so as to convert it from an idle and unused state to “wealth”, to be used by men in pursuit of some goal) is its rightful owner; that is, he alone has the right to control, use, or dispose of the wealth he has thus created.

Any wealth attained in this way, may be traded with another rightful owner of property in any mutually agreeable exchange (or given as a gift).

I except further, that we are in agreement that each man has a property in his own person, that is, that he has the right to control and use his mind and his body to create such wealth (“labor”) or to pursue any other goal. He may contract the use of his body or his mind.

I.b) Violations of Rights

Having defined individual, and property rights, we can define violations thereof. A violation occurs whenever a man is injured by another, or forcefully denied by another the right of using his mind or his body, or forcefully deprived of his rightful property.



II The Rights of Third Parties

I expect that there will be no major disagreement on the above. However, I have so far only specified rights as they apply to one individual. This ignores the basic nature of rights. If rights mean anything at all, beyond a pure moralistic assertion, it is that I as a third party am entitled (or even obligated) to intervene wherever rights are violated. I am entitled to enforce the rights of third parties.

It is this important part of the definition of rights which Anarchism, implicitly or explicitly, denies.



III The Monopoly

It is impossible to assume the responsibility of enforcing the individual rights of third parties, without also assuming a monopoly on the definition of rights.

When I intervene in what I define as a violation of rights, I must do so according to my own definition of rights. If now someone else, however, disagrees, and does not define what I am defending as a right, I must therefore, according to his definition of rights, be violating rights myself. Thus, either he intervenes in turn, or he refrains from enforcing the rights of third parties.

It is because of this that differing concepts, or definitions, of rights cannot coexist in the same society, if they are to be enforced.



IV The Government

We have seen how any concept of rights of third parties can only be enforced by assuming a monopoly on the definition of rights.

An entity which successfully assumes and enforces this monopoly within a society, is its government. In other words: Government is that entity which enforces the rights of third parties and successfully assumes a monopoly on the definition of those rights.



V Anarchism

Since we have seen that any defense of the rights of third parties necessarily assumes the above monopoly, and thus a government, we can only conclude that (consistent) Anarchism opposes the enforcement of the rights of third parties; by implication, any meaningful concept of individual rights.



VI The Fundamental Question of Politics

To close, let me illustrate the difference between proper Libertarian principles, and Anarchist principles.

The fundamental question of politics is: What should be enforced (and by what means?)

The proper Libertarian answer to the first is: individual, and property rights.

The answer which Anarchism implies reduces this to the ability of anyone to enforce anything, by any means. Rather than any principle, it is simply power which Anarchism designates as ultimate authority. It means defining “right” as “might”.

This is fundamentally incompatible with the principle of individual rights, upon which proper Libertarianism must be founded.

Sieben

Con

Rules of the Debate

Pro claims to be attacking anarchism, particularly anarcho capitalism.

The wikipedia article writes that anarcho capitalism "advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market."

Anarcho Capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard continues: "The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body."

I) Individual Rights

His definition of individual rights is totally incoherent. If I have a right to my own body, I deny others the right to my body. Therefore, according to his definition of individual rights, self ownership is not a right.

This is probably not what Pro meant, but his grammar is really bad. His formulation implicitly denies the right to anything mutually exclusive. This is not how anarchist theorists, or anyone else with a brain, defines rights.

To make this debate really clear, simply consider the non-aggression axiom put forward by anarcho-capitalists. It is the individual right not to be attacked. I ONLY have to focus on this right because it is the fundamental axiom of anarcho capitalist rights theory (see Rothbard quote).

a) Homesteading and Trading

Well, Pro is actually wrong about homesteading. He's subscribing to the mystical transformation theory of ownership. But again, it doesn't matter. It is sufficient to only consider self ownership.

b) Violations

Again, it doesn't matter. As long as it is possible to violate self ownership, we don't have to figure out when exactly that happens.

II) The Rights of Third Parties

Pro says a lot more really dumb stuff... His justification for a "right to intervene" is on the basis that rights wouldn't mean anything without it. First, this is circular because he's saying that rights require rights. Second, he's making an argument from convenience, which only establishes practicality, not the existence of a right.

Pro's derp doesn't matter though because just intervention is an extension of self ownership. It is not a right in itself. Pro's reasoning is just mind numbingly stupid.


III) The Monopoly

Pro introduces a hypothetical where there is a dispute about rights. This is a VIOLATION of what Pro wrote in the OP: "This is a debate on principles, not “real-world” applicability."

So he's basically saying: "In real life, there might be a problem". But he does not engage the principle of individual rights or anarchism anywhere. He's just failed the debate.

I also challenge his monopoly claim. He thinks that because one interpretation must prevail in each isolated case it means that a judge has a society-wide monopoly on rights. This is really obviously false. A conflict between Ann and Bob can be resolved by Craig today, and Danny tomorrow. Earl and Frank can be judged by George while Harry arbitrates a different dispute next door, etc...

Reebok does not have a monopoly just because only one pair of shoes can be worn at once. Similarly, just because one judge's interpretation must prevail in an individual conflict does not mean it has to be the same judge every time or that everyone in society must use that judge.

*breath*

Since this is Pro's lynchpin, I'm going to point out that there was no society-wide monopolist in icelandic polycentric law [1]. Pro said there aren't supposed to be any outside sources, but he's making a claim about real life. You can ignore it if you want. It proves that polycentric law is possible.

But so what if people try to enforce different concepts of rights?

a) There can still be an underlying objective theory of rights. It doesn't matter if no one follows them because the PRINCIPLE of individual rights remains intact.

b) Disagreements in rights are no more *intrinsically* problematic than disagreements in science or grammar. We don't need rights-monopoly any more than we need a science or grammar monopoly.

c) Establishing a monopolist on rights does not guarantee that the correct version of rights will be enforced. In fact, the people heading the monopoly have no incentive to implement the correct version of rights.

d) Forcing everyone to submit to the interpretation a central authority is itself a violation of individual rights.

e) If the government is made up of more than 1 person, disputes among government agents can arise. Because government agents are in a state of anarchy with respect to each other, they face the same "problems".

IV) The Government

His definition of government is needlessly vague because it relies on unspecified boundaries contained in the word "society". Where does "society" begin and end? It also does not allow him to distinguish ONLY states, since Blizzard has a monopoly on arbitration in World of Warcraft disputes, Juggle has a monopoly on arbitrating DDO disputes, the Captain has a right to judge disputes on his ship, etc. So like most statists, he chooses a definition of states that also applies to private voluntary organizations.

A better definition is "an aggressive monopoly on final dispute resolution". This definition successfully identifies all entities called states without also including private clubs. There are also good theoretical reasons why voluntary monopolists, like World of Warcraft, would behave differently from aggressive monopolists.

V) Anarchism

So he's really going to rely on his monopoly point. Fine. I reiterate: intervention in a conflict is isolated to that conflict alone. It is not a society-wide monopoly claim.

But Pro's whole argument has been to say "What if <this particular circumstance>?" Anarcho-capitalism isn't a specific system. Rights don't HAVE to be enforced by third parties. Individuals do not even have an obligation to assert their own rights.

Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy of what we MUST NOT DO. We must not attack innocent people. That is all. If we have different interpretations of what "innocent" means, then we have a problem. But just because we have a problem does not mean we get to set up an institution which systematically violates everyone's right to free association.

IV) The Fundamental Question of Politics

Pro thinks that anarchism is the right of anyone to enforce anything. This is true in a physical sense. People CAN do whatever. States CAN ALSO do whatever. Physical possibility is not relevant to political philosophy. Sorry.

Pro thinks the fundamental question of politics is "what should we enforce?". This is actually one of the questions MORALITY asks. To turn it on him, morality implies that "anyone" can do "anything". If it is moral for me to stop a mugger, it is moral for anyone else. That's what universal ethics means... This is totally uncontroversial.

Pro's whole hangup is a horribad argument that because one person must judge in one case, that same person must judge in all society's cases. This is not a disagreement with the principle of anarcho-capitalism, which is that you don't attack innocent people. It's pretty simple.

Debate Round No. 1
Fabian_CH

Pro

Before my actual argument, I would like to point out that Con repeatedly breaks the rules he agreed to. In citing Wikipedia and quoting Murray Rothbard – far from the only example – he introduces outside evidence, which was specifically agreed to be invalid. This last would not be so bad had he put this evidence in direct relation to my argument. Alas, he has not, so far as I can see.

In particular, so far as I can see, he has not contested my definition of Anarchism („the opposition to any government“). I will therefore assume it is valid. I do not mean to bully him into accepting my definitions over his; if he takes issue with it, and meant to object, he may of course still point out the fundamental discrepancy that I am missing between his Wikipedia-quote and my definition.

One mistake I see Con making in his argument over and over again is the following: the burden of proof being equal, it does not suffice for him to contest my points. Rather, he must establish a logically coherent position of his own. Even if all my points were indeed invalid, Con has not even attempted to make an argument for his own position. On this alone, he must lose the debate.

I Individual Rights

I believe that Con misunderstood my purpose in this paragraph. I did not mean to conclusively define individual rights. Rather, I meant to state the general idea of individual rights. In the subsequent section, I elaborated on the principles which this idea implies (property rights).

I.a) Property Rights: Homesteading and Trading

Con asserts that I am wrong on property rights. He does not submit his own alternative.

If he intended to claim that property rights could be derived from self-ownership, he is still misunderstanding. The purpose of this argument is not simply to state principles, but to follow them logically up to that point where we can establish (or disprove) the legitimacy of a government. Since Con does not elaborate on his claims about self-ownership, he fails to establish any logical links in his argument. This point must therefore, for all relevant purposes, be viewed as dropped.

I.b) Violations of Rights

Con asserted (unfortunately not here, in the proper place) that the only violation of rights is to be “attacked”. This is self-evident. However, he does not realize that it is precisely the purpose here to define such an attack. I have done so; Con has not. Consequently, this is another dropped point.

II The Rights of Third Parties

Con mistakes logical necessity for “convenience”. However, he also asserts a right to intervene, flowing logically from the professed source of his theory of rights, though he does not call it a right. We therefore actually do agree on this point.

One specific point I'd like to refute: “this is circular because he's saying that rights require rights“

Not so. What I am actually saying is that any coherent concept of rights must include the right to uphold those rights. I cannot see how this is circular reasoning; it is strictly logical necessity.

III The Monopoly

Once more, Con tries to substitute semantics for argument. He asserts that what I am introducing is a “hypothetical”, and that this is somehow a departure from “principles”. This is a completely unfounded claim. I am not at all making a point about the “real world”. I am showing how the principle of individual rights logically necessitates a “monopolist” who enforces them.

On from semantics to the substance of his claims. Con writes: A conflict between Ann and Bob can be resolved by Craig today, and Danny tomorrow.“

That might well be so, but it would merely mean that either 1) Craig agrees with Danny, and therefore does not intervene, or 2) Craig is physically unable to intervene, but would if he were (or 3) Craig is apathetic and refrains from intervening; this option is obviously irrelevant to the issue at hand.)

Before I move on, I would like to point out the irony in Con's introducing this hypothetical.

Con next introduces a piece of outside evidence. I would advise him, next time he decides to explicitly break the rules of a debate, to do it properly and at least to include the link in question. Since he does not explain at all how this Icelandic system worked, I can not respond to this point.

Another unfounded assertion: “There can still be an underlying objective theory of rights. It doesn't matter if no one follows them because the PRINCIPLE of individual rights remains intact. “

Blatantly wrong. Con is asserting that the “principle” of individual rights is untouched by any violation of them. This is not the question (see “The Fundamental Question of Politics”). If Con is apathetic to violations of individual rights, he cannot claim to be upholding them (and that is what this debate is about.)

Forcing everyone to submit to the interpretation a central authority is itself a violation of individual rights.”

And here, finally, is the crux of the matter. This is where Con finally shows his true colors. This is the idea which defines his Anarchist thinking. You will notice that Con asserts this as a fact, thinking that no proof is necessary. He has not proven, nor attempted to prove at all why any interpretation of rights must be wrong simply because some authority enforces it.

What matters is not who enforces any given interpretation of rights; but what that interpretation is. I will happily concede that a “central authority” can make mistakes in judging rights (to move into the “by what means” part of “the fundamental question of politics”, I would suggest a government rely as little as possible on such “central authorities”, and instead divide its power up among different branches and a federalist “county-state-federal” etc. system. This, however, is real world application and outside the scope of our debate.) But one's fallibility does not mean that it is illegitimate to uphold one's interpretation of rights of third parties to one's best ability, which is what consistent Anarchism denies.

IV) The Government

Con seizes upon the vague expression “society”. He fails to realize that my definition of government (“that entity which enforces the rights of third parties and successfully assumes a monopoly on the definition of those rights”) does not rely upon it. To define this society, once more, moves into the territory of real-world application. If a definition had to be given, it would be: a group of people whose physical interactions make it necessary for the same concept of rights to apply to all. How this is determined is difficult and real-world application.

Con however unduly expands “society” beyond this, once more relying upon semantics to misrepresent my case. It is obvious that neither Blizzard nor Juggle are governments, since neither of them enforce any individual rights whatsoever; they merely offer a service and enforce their rules applying to that service. Now, a ship on the high seas is a qualitatively very different issue, and in fact serves to illustrate how such a society can be reasonably delimited (to a point).

Needless to say, World of Warcraft does neither enforce, nor violate anyone's individual rights.

V) Anarchism

The question is not whether individuals have an obligation to enforce the rights of third parties (though a good argument could be made for that, I think), but whether they are entitled to do so. Con evades this, but we can only deduce from his opposition to any entity which takes it upon itself to do so, that he is opposed to it. This, then, shows that he is opposed to the principle of individual rights.

VI The Fundamental Question of Politics

I can only leave by restating that the fundamental question of politics is: (principle:) What should be enforced, and (application) by what means? Con's implicit answer is "nothing should be enforced". That is incompatible with individual rights.

I have refrained from any remark (except this one) on the conduct and tone of Con. I hope it will be taken into account by the judges.

Sieben

Con

Rules of the Debate:

I quoted Rothbard because Pro claims to be attacking anarcho capitalism without presenting any definitions. He just says its "no government" without a warrant. This is a total straw man of Ancap, so I quoted Mr. Ancap. You can also just take my word for it that anarcho capitalism = non-aggression.

I used the Iceland source because Pro's hypothetical is experiential. He is outside the realm of principles. So if you're going to allow him to say "What if X happens in real life?" you should allow me to just point at a real life example.

I) Individual Rights

Pro has dropped my argument that we should only consider the non-aggression axiom. Please just focus on this. It is the foundation of anarcho capitalism and really simple.

a) Homesteading

We don't have to follow rights to their logical conclusion in this debate. I don't have to figure out whether or not 2nd trimester semi-consensual-rape abortion is consistent with a rights theory. All that matters is that we can, in principle, violate rights.

b) Violation of Rights

We don't need a brightline for rights violations in THIS debate. It is enough that one could exist and that people could have different interpretations of it.

II) Rights of Third Parties

Pro writes: "any coherent concept of rights must include the right to uphold those rights".

This is circular because he's saying that his base-rights presuppose rights to enforcement, which makes them consequent to their own presupposition. Consider the infinite regression this implies: you have a right, so you have a right to enforce that right, and a right to enforce your right to enforce rights, etc.

His theory is also false because you can still have a PRINCIPLE OF RIGHTS without enforcement. Pacifists could walk around THINKING that people had rights but not actually move to enforce them.

III) The monopoly

I'm going to tag these into distinct arguments. They do not correspond to my previous tags, which Pro dropped.

a) Principles vs Hypotheticals

Pro says he is making an argument about principles. He is not. He is saying "what if people had different interpretations of rights". Opinions are not relevant to the principle of rights. Anarcho capitalists theorize about non-aggression independently of individual opinion.

b) Non-monopoly Can Exist

Pro concedes in the Ann/Bob/Craig/Danny example that you can have multiple arbiters of disputes in society. He makes an implicit power-argument, but power is not a sufficient condition for monopoly. So you can have multiple arbiters of dispute.

C) Non-monopoly does exist

Pro points out that I do not actually provide the link on iceland. I'm sorry I made this mistake. In the future, contact me with any questions/problems. http://www.daviddfriedman.com...

Pro says he couldn't address my argument on this topic. There is no argument. It happened. Polycentric non monopolist law happened. That is all.

D) Enforcement vs Legitimacy

Pro goes on to say that this is a debate about upholding rights. It is not. Pro wrote in the OP that: "Anarcho capitalism implies a negation of the legitimacy of individual rights.". Legitimacy is just an opinion. You can think that murder is illegitimate and still do nothing to stop it. Nothing in the OP implies that I have to construct a theory of rights enforcement... (which can't be done in principle anyway because rights enforcement is physical)

E) Monopolist Rights Enforcement

The claim of a monopolist is that everyone HAS to use their courts. This is a violation of self ownership. It is analogous to a monopolist barber claiming everyone had to get haircuts from them.

It doesn't matter if a court has the "correct opinion" on rights any more than it matters if a barber gives the best haircuts. It is still a violation of self ownership. This is self evident.

Pro also dropped my grammar comparison. We don't need a central authority to enforce grammar laws even though disagreements are possible.

F) Limitations of Central Authority

Pro concedes governments can get it wrong. This is enough to win me the debate because it shows that a monopoly does not solve the problem of "correct rights".

G) Irrelevance of Central Authority

Pro writes that "What matters is not who enforces any given interpretation of rights; but what that interpretation is.". This turns his ENTIRE CASE. He's saying that it doesn't matter if you have 1 person or 1000 people interpreting rights so long as their interpretations are correct. It is empirically unlikely that everyone will have the same interpretation of rights, but Pro has just conceded that monopolizing rights is unimportant to the PRINCIPLE of rights.

He pays brief lip service to checks and balances etc. You can throw this out as another hypothetical. I also claimed that a monopolist-arbiter would have no incentive to restrain itself just to uphold objective rights. Pro has no response.

H) Government is a type of Anarchy

Government cannot solve for the "problems" in anarchy because government agents are in a state of anarchy vis-a-vis each other. So even if you buy no other arguments, Pro can't win the debate because he wants anarchy too, even if it is anarchy confined within a political apparatus.

I) Pro Concession...

Lastly, Pro claims that "one's fallibility does not mean that it is illegitimate to uphold one's interpretation of rights of third parties to one's best ability,".

I don't know what debate Pro is reading. He's saying that it's okay to run around enforcing your individual interpretation of rights. That is anarchy. That is not a monopoly. I can't believe he just conceded the debate.

IV) The Government

Pro really did try to define government in terms of society. He blunders about, then gives a definition of society that makes his definition of government circular. Government = rights enforcement for society; Society = when people "need" homogeneous rights i.e. government. He concedes that this is difficult to apply in real life. In fact it is impossible because it's such a bad definition. Hint: No one else uses this definition... he's just trying to cover his mistake.

Blizzard and Juggle enforce individual rights WITHIN THEIR DOMAINS, just like all governments do. Pro's definition would include these non-government entities, so that's another reason why we know his definition is bad. Pro also concedes my ship/captain example, which unhinges his definition of a state.

No where does Pro attack my definition, which should be used for its conceptual clarity and ease of applicability. Government = aggressive monopolist on final dispute resolution.


V) Anarchism

Con does not contest that anarcho capitalism only requires that we must not attack innocent people. We CAN enforce their rights if we want. There is no barrier to legitimate rights enforcement. Therefore, anarchism is consistent with both the APPLICATION and PRINCIPLE of individual rights.

Put even more simply, anarcho-capitalism is defined as non-aggression. I.e. it is defined as individual rights. I hate to win a round on semantics, but Pro chose the debate without understanding any of the relevant terms.

VI) Fundamental Question of Politics

Since government is aggressive by definition, it automatically violates rights and is therefore incompatible with them in principle. Combine this with all my unanswered analyses - particularly the observation that state agents are still in anarchy themselves - and there is no way for Pro to win the debate.

Anarchism is the only ideology consistent with 100% individual rights. This is because anarcho-capitalism is defined by the non-aggression axiom. So by definition, it never allows you to violate individual rights.

Pro's only challenge to this has been to deviate from a debate on principles and introduce a hypothetical monopoly scenario which he conceded in the very next round. He has no remaining attacks on real anarchism, (unwittingly) conceding the debate twice in IIIG/I.

Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
It isn't just a term. There is extensive debate over what it means and how far it goes. The exact boundaries of non-aggression don't matter in THIS debate, because all your arguments depend ONLY on the fact that we can have different interpretations of the right.
Posted by Fabian_CH 6 years ago
Fabian_CH
Excuse me? Don't have to define non-aggression? So it's just a term, without any defining principle behind it? Well, then that alone proves my point.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
You don't have to define non-aggression. All that matters is that you can, IN PRINCIPLE, violate rights, and that people can have different opinions of them.

You should only consider the NAP because that's the definition/foundation of anarcho captalism.

You have no answer to any of my challenges to your solution of government. You cannot win the debate, particularly because of your concessions in III) G/I
Posted by Fabian_CH 6 years ago
Fabian_CH
Lol. It seems you still did not understand why I'm not "simply considering the non-aggression" principle. That's because you first have to define aggression, and therefore you have to define rights that can be violated in the first place.

Cliff, I may come back to you on that, not too much spare time right now :)
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Even though I pointed out that the rule violation was made by Pro first, and then ran ALL of my rule violations under his? K.

And he EXPLICITLY stated in the first round that this is not a debate about "results". "No note is taken of any other merits or failings of either system."

But yeah. Thanks for your opinion moron!
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Fabian, I would like to take this if you are interested in debating it again.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I don't think two rounds are sufficient. =/
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Yeah, that is kind of pointless, it also isn't the case that can be said with conviction with anything worth meaning anyway. All sciences, political or otherwise, will have contending views - if they didn't what are all those people going to do, sit around telling each other they are right.
Posted by Fabian_CH 6 years ago
Fabian_CH
Yeah, I struggled how to phrase that when I wrote up the rules. I guess I just didn't want it to be "Anarchy works - no it doesn't - yes it does, Rothbard says so - no it doesn't, Rand says so" :)
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ok, I understand now, at first I thought you meant they had to develop their own political theory from the ground up, that would be a bit of a demand. But yeah, C&P is a bit pointless.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
Fabian_CHSiebenTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy decision. As Con pointed out the monopoly argument was the lynchpin of the Pro case. The argument Con made about multiple arbiters, which basically went conceded takes out the necessary link.
Vote Placed by bigpoppajustice 6 years ago
bigpoppajustice
Fabian_CHSiebenTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was rude, but Pro didn't understand debate.
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Fabian_CHSiebenTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Here's basically how I decided: Con was definitely right that Pro didn't understand AnCap rights/political theory, and grossly misdefined and misrepresented them (i.e. not focusing on nonaggression), so I give him arguments, because Pro's case wasn't proven. I give Pro conduct because Con was pretty dickish about the whole thing, and sources are tied because the whole "no outside sources" rule imploded before the end of Round 1.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Fabian_CHSiebenTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Clear rule violation and constant personal attacks by Con, the point made by Pro was clear and Con should have, as required, refuted that soundly and advocated how non-government (as defined) would achieve a superior result. 3:1 Pro.