The Instigator
Mak-zie
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Anarchism will lead to our eventual demise

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 5 votes the winner is...
Mak-zie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,525 times Debate No: 21555
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

Mak-zie

Pro

I would like to start this debate under these definitions:

Anarchism: A political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Demise: The end of existence or activity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

I will be arguing that anarchism is "bad" and will lead to the world's demise. Con will be arguing that it is "good," and will benefit the world.
Zaradi

Con

Accepted. State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Mak-zie

Pro

Before I begin my arguments, I would like to clarify that this is not a debate whether or not anarchism will be universally adopted, but rather if it was universally adopted whether it would be "bad" or "good" for our society. I will put a reason below dealing with it being accepted, but I do not want the debate to be focused on this. I will be debating on the premise that if it was more widely accepted, what it would do to society, and like I said in round one, whether or not it would benefit society.

Anarchism seems to labor under the fact that we will all get along and trust each other.

This works against human nature. Since the beginning of time, we having cheated and stolen. Biblically, since Adam and Eve took the fruit from the tree and Cain killed Abel from jealousy. But humans were first built to acknowledge the "concept of property and rightful control," unlike bacteria, per say would. Humans have never got along in history, ever, so this is the first sign that anarchism is "bad."

It tries to put everyone on the same level.

This would mean only one middle-class, upper-class, or lower-class. Some of them say it is unfair that people are born with disabilities and want to change that. There are many problems with this. Say anarchists should find a way to make everyone equal. If no one had any diseases or disabilities, people would have no appreciation for what they have. Most people strive for the best. But if everyone were on the same level, then they would have nothing to strive for, not the highest job, nothing. People would not work as hard and our society would become indefinitely lazier. There would be no "good" if everyone were good. There would be no "beauty" if everyone were beautiful. We need changes. And there must be different classes, because there will always be people who overachieve and underachieve, and if that is taken away, this would mean that the government would completely level out the money, and again, there wouldn't be anything to work towards.

Complete chaos

The situations above would be the best-case scenarios of the results of anarchism. This (below) would be more realistic, according to human nature. If there was no government, and no money made and distributed, no one would work. Then they wouldn't be able to get necessities, such as food or water. The people who did have large amounts aren't going to give it to them, obviously. So what happens? Fighting would ensue. And being that there are no laws and punishments for murder, violence would be horrendous. We would most likely end up killing ourselves, realistically. Government is needed, and has been for centuries.

Illusions

Here I will give a reason on why anarchism could be more widely accepted in the years to come. The youth of today have most likely heard their parents talking badly about the government at one time or another. So they come to the conclusion that the government is wrong and it is "cool" to be against it and have no government. I'm in no way saying that government is perfect, or that they haven't done things that they shouldn't have, but we should just have less government, not have no government at all. And older kids, teens, just want something to rebel about. Again, the "cool" factor. "Rebelling against tyranny is usually noble. Rebelling against consensus democracy is usually juvenile."

Sources:
http://mwillett.org...
http://critical-thinker.net...
http://www.dinimizislam.com...
http://josephbales.com...
Zaradi

Con

So my opponent reads the comments. Totally fair. No matter. My position shall not change.

My opponent's lack of clarity when stating the resolution will inevitably be her downfall.

The resolution is "Anarchism will lead to our eventual demise". While, admittedly, my opponent obviously wants to debate the pro's and con's of anarchism. However, this is highly abusive toward the con debater because, obviously, there are no real benefits to anarchism. This makes things highly abusive for me, and an incredibly one-sided debate toward the pro. However, the vagueness of the resolution allows me to make a successfull argument in the fact that, if the aff case is true, then we as humans would inevitably not want to adopt anarchism.

The resolution, as the pro wishes she put it, is "Provided anarchism is universally accepted, would lead to our eventual demise". However, that is not what the given resolution states. Don't let her suddenly change the resolution in the middle of the round because that's highly abusive for me as the debater. I can't predict what she will change the argument to, and she could just change the resolution as to invalidate all of my arguments, which prevents actual educational debate. My current resolution accepts education because I'm teaching my opponet that when making a resolution, make sure that the wording of the resolution is absolutely crystal clear as to avoid ranging topical arguments.

My opponent's case rests on the premise that if anarchy was accepted, then we would all die or something like that. This position only begs the question of why we would accept anarchism in the first place. Because, if my opponent's case is true, would we then not want to accept it in the first place? This simple observation functions in a few ways in terms of the debate:

1) It functions as a case turn to my opponents case because if it is true, then we would negate because we wouldn't accept something that would inevitably lead to our doom.

2) It outweighs and functions on a higher level than my opponent's case because it questions the assumptions that my opponent's case relies on to work in the first place.

So, because of the vague wording of the resolution, the vote becomes an easy win for the con debater.

To prove my observation true, all I have to do is a) Prove that we CURRENTLY do not endorse anarchism and b) disprove the last point she provides that over time we would accept anarchism. If I can do that, then you vote con.

P1:

We currently don't endorse anarchy. Look to the forms of government that are accepted around the world. Not one of them LACK a government. Thus, we don't endorse anarchy in our world today.

P2:

To refute my opponent's point that teenagers dream of one day overthrowing the government and revelling in the lack of the hierarchy of the higher class, of 'stickin' it to the man!'. There's one problem with my opponent's point: there's absolutely no evidence as for why this is true. Even if she proves that teenagers are ALL rebellious little pricks who hate their parents and teachers and people who try to free themselves from the control of those above them, there's no corrolation to this causing us to devolve into anarchy. Just because teenagers are rebellious, why does this make adults and elderly people and toddlers rebellious and wanting to go to anarchy? Teenagers alone would not be enough cause us to go to anarchy. There's no corrolation between the two.

Thusly, you vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
Mak-zie

Pro

Sadly, I see that my opponent is refusing to debate me on the topic that I have laid out. My opponent says "there are no real benefits to anarchism." This is false, there are many anarchists out there that I'm sure know many pros of anarchism, and I had intended for an anarchist to take this and make it an interesting debate and possibly show me the error of my ways. My opponent was more interested in winning this debate than actually having a debate with me. My opponent has just taken this debate because of reading the comments, as shown:
http://www.debate.org...
I'm assuming that my opponent is not even an anarchist, or else would be taking this debate more seriously.

1. My opponent has misspelled "successfull."
2. My opponent has said "Just because teenagers are rebellious, why does this make adults and elderly people and toddlers rebellious and wanting to go to anarchy? Teenagers alone would not be enough cause us to go to anarchy." Okay, fair enough. But isn't everyone at some point a teenager? The adults and elderly have experienced teenage years, and toddlers will soon. Granted, not every teenager is going to be rebellious, but most are, especially today. So if society's teenagers become more and more rebellious, it would make anarchy more popular.
3. My opponent has no sources; granted, it is because he didn't really make an argument, but my opponent says "we currently don't endorse anarchy." How would the readers know if this were true or not if there was not a source? I have listed seven, eight if you count the one above.
4. "So, because of the vague wording of the resolution, the vote becomes an easy win for the con debater." My opponent has clearly taken this debate because of this, but obviously did not read my opening argument. I stated that my premise was that I would debate anarchy was "bad," and Con would argue it is "good." My opponent has accepted this, but not done it, so contrary to what he might think, will lead me to win.

Other than that, I see no reason to continue on with this debate, since my contender is obviously not go to argue this case. I thank Con for the debate nevertheless. Vote Pro!
Zaradi

Con

Sadly, my opponent refuses to see the error in her ways, and thusly is going to be the one losing this round. She's really refused to give much of a rebuttal in her last round at all, instead resorting to a form of complaining that went along the lines of "well I wanted to do this, and he didn't do what I wanted him to, so vote for me! :)". Sadly, if debates worked like this, there would be no actual point for debating. I took this debate in order to teach my opponent how to correctly word a resolution to convey the message she wanted it to. This resolution doesn't say what she is wanting it to say. Thusly, she's going to be losing this round because of it. But first, I'd like to go through her list of four points she gave during her rebuttal as to why she's going to win.

R1:

My opponent thinks because I misspelt a word, she is going to win. Sadly, if this is the number one reason why she should win, it's going to be a clear win for the con.

R2:

In response to the points I raised as to why her "teenagers are going to rebel and cause us to all go into anarchy! Viva la revelucion!" point, she says a few things that undermine her own argument.
1. She says that just because people have or will experience teenagerhood that they will want to be rebellious. However, if this line of logic were true, wouldn't it also be true that since we all have or will experience toddlerhood that we will be forever innocent and not wanting to rebel?
2. My opponent concedes her point that "not every teenager is going to be rebellious". Because of this, her impact is not going to be as big as she's trying to fabricate it to be. So on this scale, I'm going to be outweighing on scope of impact because while EVERYONE in the con world would reject anarchy, only an unknown amount of teenagers would accept it in the aff world.
3. She still has no warrant as for why rebellious teenagers lead to anarchy. She never responded to this argument that I made in round two. So we have no way to weigh her point here unless it's to say that it's an unwarranted assertion.
4. There's still no corrolation between rebellious teenagers and anarchy. If her point is true that ALL teenagers are rebellious, or that most teenagers are rebellious, then wouldn't we have devolved into anarchy by now? She didn't respond to this point at all, and this will be sufficient to take out her argument here.

R3:

1. My opponent claims I have no sources, thus I should lose. However, if no sources should lead to a loss of the round, then lying about how many sources she has should at least lead to a reduction of points. She has six sources, not including her quoting of the comments section, and tried to sell off that she had eight.
2. If all arguments need a source to be considered a real argument, then her teenagers being rebellious point wouldn't be considered a legitimate argument because there's no sources to back this up! Thusly, we can use this argument against her own case and disprove the only point brought up more than once by my opponent with her own argument.

R4:

My opponet, again, is, more or less, whining about how she didn't get her way and thus should win. However, she refuses to touch on the point that I brought up that:
1. The resolution never places this burden on me as the con, thus making my topic ground larger than she's trying to limit me to.
2. The burden to prove anarchy is good is nearly impossible to fulfill because it just isn't true. My opponent tries to state that it is by saying that "well anarchists are out there so there HAS to be some pro's to it! Right?". Wrong. So her trying to force me to debate a position that is impossible to prove true is highly abusive and highly unfair. Thus, it makes my position a) still refutable, yet she fails to do so, and b) more fair because it's possible for me to actually fulfil my current burden, thus being more fair.

Thus, because she has failed to adequetly refute my case in her rage that she didn't get what she wanted, my case still stands. You can vote con off of the pro case because it serves as a reason why we WOULDN'T accept anarchism, thus making the resolution automatically false. Anarchism cannot lead to our eventual demise if we do not accept and actively practice anarchism. Since I'm proving that we WOULDN'T accept anarchism, this is a legitimate position for the con debater. Hold my opponent's unwillingness to debate against her.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and I hope that I've taught her to word her resolutions more carefully to avoid confusion. Thus, because my case stands unrefuted, you can pretty clearly vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Except I kind of leveraged offense off of your case.... You just flat out didn't refute mine.
Posted by Mak-zie 4 years ago
Mak-zie
"She has six sources, not including her quoting of the comments section, and tried to sell off that she had eight." I said that I had seven, unless you counted the one from debate.org, which I didn't. Con obviously did not count my definitions sources. I was not lying.
"Thus, because she has failed to adequetly refute my case in her rage that she didn't get what she wanted, my case still stands." My rage. I find this funny.
"Thus, because my case stands unrefuted, you can pretty clearly vote con." I could say the same to you, Zaradi.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
ph wait you voted already..... my bad thett3
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
gaiz, thats lame.......I only like semantics on stupid debates

then do i have a treat for you :D

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
" Con will be arguing that it is "good," and will benefit the world."

This is why reading helps....
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Don't worry. I'll make it worth sticking around to see.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
gaiz, thats lame.......I only like semantics on stupid debates. Spending the whole thing arguing about the likelihood of anarchism being implemented isnt as cool :/
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
;) I have this debate in the fvcking bag.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Dam you Zard...
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
GAH. I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT.

Be arr be. I SO CALL THIS DEBATE. So gonna run semantics on this.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Mak-zieZaradiTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering that blatant votebomb
Vote Placed by iPwnuNOW 4 years ago
iPwnuNOW
Mak-zieZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: th einstigator of thsi debate,mak-zie, did not actually refute any of Zaradi's point. I am sorry to say that Mak-zie only complained in round 3
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
Mak-zieZaradiTied
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: In first round Pro said:"I will be arguing that anarchism is "bad" and will lead to the world's demise. Con will be arguing that it is "good," and will benefit the world.". Pro's indent was clear. 2:0 to Aff.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
Mak-zieZaradiTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was not very good. But Con completely disregarded Pro's resolution, in Round 1, which states: "Con will be arguing that it is 'good,' and will benefit the world." Con simply makes a circular argument, that because we currently don't accept anarchy, we never will. Con even admits that anarchy is not good! Con effectively concedes the debate in one breath, and in the next, thinks his concession means he wins the debate. Conduct and arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Mak-zieZaradiTied
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: I'd have liked to see Con refute Pro's argument, but Con did defeat the resolution.