The Instigator
Noumena
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Anarchist vs democratic theories of proper governance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Noumena
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,147 times Debate No: 34401
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Noumena

Pro

This is for Airmax's Jury Voting Tournament.


This debate will cover two opposing viewpoints regarding what is, if any, the proper role of the State. The BoP will be shared between Pro and Con. Pro will defend an anarchist theory of proper governance whereas Con will defend political democracy and its accompanying principles.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening arguments
R3: Rebuttals/Defense
R4: Conclusion


===Definitions===


State: an institution with a geographical monopoly on the provision of law/defense which can coerce payment in the form of taxation.


Anarchism: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished."[1] Anarchist theories of governance hold that all relationships should be voluntary (read: contractual) and that initiatory violence is inherently illegitimate.


Political democracy: "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."[2] I'm not sure exactly what form of political democracy Con plans on defending so I'll let him expand on this in his opening round.


===Rules===


1. Drops will count as concessions.

2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.

3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.


===Sources===


[1] http://ahdictionary.com...
[2] http://ahdictionary.com...
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank Noumena for instigating this debate. I agree with all definitions provided.

The form of political democracy that I will play on defending will be representative democracy, or a democracy where the people elect representatives to make decisions for the country. Similar to all democracies, representative democracies can focus upon justice, fairness, elections, human rights, and equality, among other things.

I look forward to Noumena's opening arguments!
Debate Round No. 1
Noumena

Pro

I'd first like to begin by mentioning one thing which might serve to curb possible future confusion. That is that denying the legitimacy of politico-democratic institutions does not necessitate the invalidation of democratic institutions per se. The emphasis of my own refutation (coming later in the rebuttal period) will focus more on the political (read: violent) nature of democratic State institutions than any self-proclaimed democratic decision making mechanism present therein. If Con is to justify a democratic State over an anarchist society than he must use recourse to the political apparatus present in his model; not just the democratic nature of its internal function (seeing as how several anarchist schools affirm certain internal democratic decision making models[1][2]).

Now with that cleared up we can move on.


Introduction: Anarchic Visions


Before delving into the arguments for or against this or that political institution or social philosophy, it would seem prudent to get a grasp of what it is that anarchists are actually advocating for. Being a broadly negative movement (that is, one primarily organized around opposition to the State), many seem to have less than a clue as to what it is that anarchists actually envision to replace the State apparatus once their revolution (or whatever such methods are to win out) has removed it. The sketch I intend to place here is by no means universal, but is situated strongly enough within the anarchist tradition to allow for me to use it as a baseline from which to (a) compare to Con's politico-democratic model and (b) to defend independently as a coherent and legitimate social philosophy.


A social/political philosophy is tasked with constructing an institution (or set of institutions) tasked with delegating the tasks necessary for the functioning of society. If that (or those) institution(s) is to be in line with the ethical philosophy of anarchism, it should more or less adhere to the following principles/characteristics.

(1) Decision making power is delegated as much as possible to those directly affected by the effects of a given political action (contra the indirect representational model employed by political democracies).
(2) If a representational model is to be used it is to be carried out via temporary delegates whether in the community or industrial models outlined in sources [3] and [4] (contra career politicians/bureaucrats under the State model).
(3) Social institutions as well as private individuals/groups are not to employ initiatory aggression against others (contra the institutional use of such means under the State model).

Such a list is bound to be in some sense incomplete. My purpose here is simply to outline a model which Con may attack while limiting the possibility of confusion or misunderstanding.


Delegation of Power: Direct vs. Indirect.


One difference between anarchic and political philosophies lies in the structure upon which the public decision-making apparatus in society should be based. More simply, it has to do with how our social institutions (particularly those dealing with purely public [non-private] problems) are to be set up and run. Political [read: State] institutions are constructed upon a separation between those who are affected by policy (citizens) and those who construct policy (politicians, bureaucrats, etc.). Political institutions essentially set up a class antagonism in their internal framework, one in which one class is entrusted with power over the other while being vulnerable to a drastically lowered level of accountability.


This disconnect (both from direct accountability and situational affectedness) leads to policies not in line with the interests of directly affected community members. Anarchist social philosophy seeks a solution to this problem via unification of the two classes. It is essentially to entrust only those directly affected by policy to take part in the decision making process (there are various perspectives on where this mechanism be placed, whether in industry[3], local communities[4], or both). This would be opposed to implanting an artificial barrier wherein citizens may only affect (political) change through lobbying political actors or groups.


Methods of Action: Coercion vs. Voluntaryism.


The primary difference between anarchism and Statism which I will draw upon here is the latter's reliance on coercion as a mechanism to put its edicts into effect and the former's rejection of such means. But before I move on, coercion should be defined. Coercion does not include actions which are taken out of personal defense, defense of an innocent, or actions taken against someone as a result of their using coercive means against someone (i.e., punishment, retribution, or restitution). Coercion is the initiation of aggressive violence against a non-aggressor.


A basic moral axiom would be that coercion is never (or almost never) justified. Justification of this axiom may be drawn from Hans Hoppe's argument that force is inherently contradictory and thus argumentatively indefensible[5]. The reasoning goes that since one relies on the free exercise of one's own volition to justify claims/axioms of action/etc. any philosophy which denies the right to free volition contradicts the presuppositions of their own argument. (Hoppe termed such an instance, a performative contradiction because the content of the proposition is out of line with the necessary actions taken in order to forward it's truth.) Such an ethical system would allow for the defense of individuals against coercion while strictly forbidding initiatory violence.


The State conceptually violates this axiom both in its existence as well as via actions taken out in performing its duties. Regarding the existential violation problem, we need only look at the territorial monopoly which a State must hold in order to exist. This territorial monopoly precludes dissenters from being able to opt out of a given political unit in a meaningful way (I preclude relocating to another State [read: nation/country] entirely as being a meaningful or reasonable way to deal with disagreement) while simultaneously disallowing any other non-aggressive political unit to come into competition. Furthermore, through taxation, the State habitually coerces (in the form of theft) the citizenry. Given the compelling reasons outlined above in favor of disallowing initiatory violence, one should err to the side of a social philosophy which doesn't take coercion as a central administrative mechanism.


The primary difference between political institutions and anarchic ones lies in the fact that decisions (precluding those which have to do with defense of innocents from force or proportional action taken in response to such) are only binding insomuch as one has some existentially meaningful way to opt out. This would mean trusting public decision making to industrial (that is, economic institutions with no hold on those not belonging to or associating with them) or communal (local communities in which dissenting parties have a greater set of existential options in terms of opting out than they do in a system regulated by an overarching federal structure) institutions as opposed to political ones.


========================================
Seeing as this round is intended only for affirmative arguments (negation of the debaters' cases will start in R2 as per R1 stipulations), I'll leave things here as they are and pass the debate over to my opponent.


===Sources===


[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
[2] http://www.princeton.edu...
[3] http://libcom.org...
[4] http://www.social-ecology.org...
[5] http://libertarianpapers.org...
ishallannoyyo

Con


I thank Noumena for his constructive. I will now present my own arguments in favour of a representative democracy.



The proper role of the state is to make decisions for the country that will protect the citizens. That is essentially why the state even exists. I will show how a representative democracy fills this role, making it the best form of government. Obviously, not a lot of sources will be required to back my arguments as they are commonly known.



C1: REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IS EFFECTIVE IN SELECTING LEADERSHIP AND MAKING DECISIONS


Clearly, if the democratic process was delegated to individuals, decisions would take much longer to be made. For example, a potential nation-wide law that needed to be made with each individual voting would be very inefficient. Rather, a representative democracy would allow the politicians elected to make the decisions for the country. This does not mean that individuals cannot get involved, lobby groups and writing letters to your governor requesting that a bill be passed or stopped etc. This system of representative democracy creates a group of people devoted to making decisions and running the country.



C2: A GOVERNMENT EASILY MAINTAINS PEACE AND ORDER


The government is responsible for the army, national guard, police etc. [1 – 2] and the government is what gives these groups of people the power to maintain peace and order within a state. As I will show later in my rebuttal, a country without a permanently standing government (anarchy) will ultimately be incapable of protecting itself, both from domestic and foreign threats. A representative democracy (alike to almost any other form of government) will be capable of physically protecting its own citizens by stopping crime and ensuring that everybody conforms to a certain societal expectation. For example, it is typically not morally permissible to break into somebody’s house, nor is it morally permissible to kill that person. The police maintain the law as expected by the people.



C3: A GOVERNMENT CAN EASILY ADMINISTERS JUSTICE AND OTHER KEY SERVICES


The government and its various branches are responsible for administering justice and deciding the appropriate punishments for crimes. An anarchist viewpoint on justice would not allow for this, as an eye-for-an-eye leaves everybody with only one eye, and a permanent body must exist to handle justice because of potential biases. Furthermore, the state (through tax-payer dollars) allows for the creation of schools, roads, and public services that we all benefit from.



Essentially, a representative government streamlines the entire process of decision making, allowing the country to be more efficient. Furthermore, government administers key services to the country that would not be possible in an anarchist state.



I look forward to Noumena’s rebuttals.




SOURCES



  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  2. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Noumena

Pro

C1: Representative Democracy and the Nation-State.


Con argues that representative democracy is optimal because it provides a mechanism for making large-scale decisions i.e., decisions which would be used to administer laws and regulations across a nation-state. I use the term nation-state here to describe a large geographical boundary superior in size and scope to neighborhoods, towns, cities, or regions. The problem in this argument is that Con unduly presupposes that public deliberation should be made on such a large scale to begin with. Small scale community deliberation allows both for an efficient method of taking the public interest into account as well as a way of allowing for greater individual influence upon decision making given that there is no separation (or rather, very little if recallable delegation is put into effect) between those who make decisions and those who are affected by them. Given that anarchism makes it a point of contention that the size of public decision making institutions should be as decentralized as possible, Con has left out a crucial point of justification for his case by merely presuming that public decisions should be made on the scale of a nation-state.


C2: Peace and Order in Representative Democracy.


Con's next argument is that a representative democracy would be better suited to maintain peace and order than an anarchist society. However, the argument he presents is rather scarce. Given that his negation won't be up until the next round (i.e., his argument showing why his method is superior to the anarchic one), I'll content myself with pointing out some problems in his argument. First, it's unclear why an anarchic society would be incapable of carrying out the same service (defense). While anarchists present issues with certain forms of State violence, protecting citizens is not one of them. As laid out in R2, anarchists see problems with initiatory aggression, not with defensive force. (Of course since negations as to why Con sees anarchism as unable to carry out such functions isn't up until R3 this is only a tentative refutation.) Furthermore Con's defense isn't unique even to representative democracy. Defense of citizens is a normative principle of nearly every political setup. Con is tasked therefore to show why representative democracy would carry out it's function in the best and most moral way. Con hasn't attempted to do this; therefore it's a moot point.


C3: Justice, Eye-for-Eye, Key Services.


This point mainly just draws on (a) a large ambiguity regarding the basis and justification for whatever viewpoint on justice it is that Con is forwarding and (b) several strawmenn of anarchist theory.


(A) First, Con is wildly ambiguous in his point on justice within a representative democracy. While I presented an argument for the view on justice defended by anarchists, Con says simply that the State in a representative democracy is "responsible for administering justice and deciding the appropriate punishments for crimes" and that the State can lend to "the creation of schools, roads, and public services" which "we all benefit from". Con never attempts to show why taxation (force) is justifiable simply because he perceives good to come out of it (while there might be prima facie reason to presume such, my own negation of this presents Con with a burden of refutation) or why a representative democracy would be an optimal method of appropriating punishments for "crimes" (or even to define what is and isn't such). Lastly, Con forwards no reason why public services could not be funded without recourse to aggression.


(B) Con's second mistake is a blatant strawmann of both the moral basis of anarchist justice and the conclusions predicated on such. Anarchists don't forward an "eye-for-an-eye" theory of justice and Con's description is confusing given that in R2 I explicitly provided for what that view actually was. The anarchist view of justice argues that initiatory aggression is never ethically justified and that the proper use of force lies in defending innocents, applying restitution (in civil cases of aggression), or applying retribution or punishment (in cases of more serious aggression). Next, Con argues for the need of "a permanent body" to carry out such functions which is confusing given that anarchism doesn't argue that these institutions ought necessarily be only temporary. Con is attempting to describe a false difference between his setup and those forwarded by his opponent.
ishallannoyyo

Con


I thank Noumena for his rebuttal. I will now present my own (the underlined rebuttal is more specific). I would request that my opponent not post his final round until Saturday evening as I am busy.


DELEGATION OF POWER REBUTTAL


This will largely be covered in my small-scale vs. large-scale rebuttal. While small-scale decisions are important, representatives in a representative democracy are tasked with making decisions that the people that elected them want them to make. For example, if the community wants a gun-ban, then the representative is supposed to argue for a gun ban. This allows for the people to still have a voice, plus streamlines the decisions for large-scale and small-scale decisions.


COERCION VS VOLUNTARYIANSM


I cover this in my rebuttal too, but the greater good is being served and the people are voluntarily electing to be part of that state.


C1: REBUTTAL: SMALL SCALE VS LARGE SCALE


Pro also presupposes that small-scale decisions cannot be made in a representative democracy. Clearly, the United States is a representative democracy, yet there are many levels of government, ranging from federal, to state level, to municipalities. All three of these are still representative democracies. I have not denied the benefits of small-scale decisions, merely shown that should large-scale decisions be made (which they obviously will be), a representative democracy will be far more effective than anarchy. This rebuttal falls.


C2: PEACE AND ORDER


As laid out in R2, anarchists see problems with initiatory aggression, not with defensive force.


Of course, this is all hypothetically wonderful. However, there will always be those more powerful than others. The primary reason why the State is more capable in providing order is because they possess a force dedicated to stopping crime (the police). On the other hand, in an anarchist state your safety is your own concern. If 10 people come knocked down your door and stole all of your material possessions, you have no ability to fight back (10 v 1 gg). The entire society would eventually degenerate into a society full of violence, as there would be no impartial, third party force that would be powerful enough to stop people from committing crimes.


Con’s defence isn’t even unique to representative democracy


That is true, almost every form of government will be capable of maintaining order, however an anarchist government cannot. A representative democracy is just as good at maintaining order as every other form of government, so the point stands.


C3: JUSTICE


Con never attempts to show why taxation (force) is justifiable simply because he perceives good to come out of it.


Firstly, the people have elected to be a part of the state, essentially consenting to this coercion. There is nothing stopping a person from leaving the state. Secondly, I find that the justification for the fact that coercion is almost never acceptable rather lacking, it is merely based off of Hoppe’s argument. Furthermore, in the argument that Pro provided was “ALMOST” never. I would feel that serving the greater good and voluntarily consenting to this coercion would fall in the category of being acceptable. Regarding services, without this form of coercion it seems unlikely that people would be willing to donate money to create education, roads, and provide healthcare. If people do not want to be coerced, they do not need to be part of that particular government.


Eye for an eye


I apologize for posting this in the R2, it appears that I was severely mistaken about the anarchist theory of justice until this round.


The anarchist view of justice argues that initiatory aggression is never ethically justified and that the proper use of force lies in defending innocents, apply restitution (in civil cases of aggression), or apply retribution or punishment (in cases of more serious aggression).


Pro has failed to show how a police force cannot fulfill all of these duties. Furthermore, as I have already shown, the anarchist theory that initiatory aggression is never justified is simply a theory, it cannot be assumed that everybody will follow this theory simply because it is immoral, and it cannot be assumed that people will simply be willing to protect the innocent without the presence of a police force, which as I have shown is characteristic of government.


Over to Pro.


Debate Round No. 3
Noumena

Pro

C1. Delegation of Power: Small vs. Large Scale Delegation


Con 's points from both "Small vs. Large-Scale" and "Delegation of Power" will be summarized and refuted here since they're largely the same. First, in "Small vs. Large-Scale", Con doesn't actually argue for the optimality of large-scale decision making over small-scale (in whatever area he thinks pertinent). Instead he merely chooses to describe how small-scale public decisions are made and "alludes" to this being streamlined in large scale, Federal decision making. Of course, Con never justifies why this streamlining to upper level, centralized institutions is necessary in the first place and never shows how it is actually accomplished in any efficient or optimal way. Con then goes on to argue that he's shown that "should large-scale decisions be made (which they obviously will be), a representative democracy will be far more effective than anarchy." The whole point of my decentralization argument however has been that such decisions need not be made in the first place. Con has thus completely missed the point of my contention and failed to defend the necessity of centralized, large scale institutions entrusted with public decision making.


C2: Peace and Order


Anarchists do not oppose the existence of defensive institutions. They merely argue against the delegation of such services to the State (since it is founded on initiatory aggression). Anarchist legal theory absolutely does not posit defense as being situated in people's personal defense of themselves. Community watch groups, polycentric defense agencies, locally delegated defense institutions, etc. would all be justified under anarchist ethics. I'm at a loss as to why Con thinks that opposition to aggressive actions and institutions necessitates opposition to institutions entrusted with performing defensive functions (functions which anarchists explicitly support). Of course since this is simply a concluding round I can't go into too much detail. I should simply say that anarchism doesn't preclude official defensive institutions and Con hasn't shown why it would.


C3: Justice


(1) Con hasn't shown consent of the State. While a large percentage of people don't detect explicit injustice in taxation (or the State itself), the fact remains that the State as an institution is something that is essentially forced (in that there's no contractual basis where one explicitly consents to be under its rule). To make the point a bit clearer, I'll take an actual contractual relationship as an example. Take one's choice of a cell phone company. One isn't born into a "contract" with it. One chooses which company to go with based off of perceived benefit. Being born into rule by the State doesn't match the account of a contract which is accepted in every other case. Furthermore, Con's imploring of dissenters to simply leave is an implicit admission that consent of the State is not universal. While this point was only shortly argued on, it can at least be shown that Con has failed in defending (or even initially arguing for) the idea that Statism is voluntary.


(2) Second, not leaving the geographical boundary which the State assumes control over doesn't necessitate consent unless we presuppose that the State has some right to exert control over that territory. Con has yet to attempt to show why the granting of a special right to a coerced geographical monopoly is justified. Furthermore since new arguments aren't allowed in R4, Con won't be able to; thus his point fails.


(3) Moreover, Con does not responded AT ALL to Hoppe's argumentation ethics argument. He doesn't point to a problem in the logical flow in the argument or why any of it's premises are unsupported. He literally ONLY says that "it is merely based off of Hoppe’s argument." Con has lost the debate already if we are to assume that this "refutation" doesn't follow since Hoppe's AE shows essentially that any State (or institution predicated on force) is necessarily predicated on large-scale injustice. The argument can be seen here: "since one relies on the free exercise of one's own volition to justify claims/axioms of action/etc. any philosophy which denies the right to free volition contradicts the presuppositions of their own argument. (Hoppe termed such an instance, a performative contradiction because the content of the proposition is out of line with the necessary actions taken in order to forward it's truth.)". Con hasn't seriously attempted to refute the argumentation ethics argument, thus it is essentially conceded.


(4) Lastly, Con merely reiterates the "good" things the State does (roads, etc.) without responding to my R3 where I implored him to show why these kinds of services could not be funded in a non-coercive manner. There's no reason why roads, hospitals, etc. cannot be funded voluntarily through the efforts of voluntary, decentralized institutions (in any event, Con hasn't attempted to argue why not). Also, in arguing that the injustice perpetuated by the State has beneficial consequences, Con is (a) presupposing consequentialism as the standard for justice (undefended-- and in conflict with the standard of justice I forwarded which Con never seriously argued against) and (b) implicitly admitting that coercion is in some way unjust (if it wasn't than "special exemptions" wouldn't be necessary in the first place-- of course the exemption argument doesn't follow since Con never showed why the services needed to be funded in a 'coercive' manner in the first place).


===Conclusion===


The most disappointing point of this debate was with the amount of time and energy put into defending anarchism from strawmenn (eye-for-an-eye, lack of defensive institutions). After these clarifications though, Con's arguments were still ultimately refuted. For instance, Con never provides an argument as to why streamlining decision making power upwards is necessary or efficient and moreover never responded to my R2 argument in showing why the political nature of such institutions is detrimental to the interests of communities and lower-level groups (R2- "Delegation of Power: Direct vs. Indirect"). Then with my ethical argument against the foundation of the State, Con never attempts to refute it; choosing instead to argue that it is after all "just an argument". Con also failed to defend the existence of a special right to geographical monopoly, simply presumed consequentialism without any reason as to why, and ignored my imploring of him to present an argument for why certain goods that the State funds could not be funded alternatively by voluntary community institutions. Con's arguments were largely predicated on a lack of understanding regarding anarchist philosophy (a point I genuinely tried to pre-emptively stop in the beginning of my R2) and a host of simple presuppositions. Conversely, I showed why anarchist ethics were justifiable, provided arguments for why public decision making should be entrusted in the hands of communities, and showed why Statism is incompatible with these arguments.
ishallannoyyo

Con

ishallannoyyo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RocketEngineer 3 years ago
RocketEngineer
Not only were Pro's arguments structured better, more formal and ettique, they overall had more burden behind them. If I could vote, I would vote pro on this one. I have other comments on this debate as well.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD:

1) Direct vs Indirect delegation of power. Pro argues that there is a class divide. Con counters that that representatives argue for what the people want them to argue for and that it also streamlines decisions. However he assumes that Pro says that representative democracies can't make small scale decisions which Pro did not claim. He also assumes that large scale decisions ought to be made in the first place which Pro rebuts multiple times questioning why they are necessary at all.

2 ) Con argues that representative democracies select leadership to make decisions on a large scale efficiently. Pro counters that decisions shouldn't be made on a large scale at all.

3) Peace and Order (no reasons given why Anarchy fails). Pro correctly attacks this point. Also points out that Con's points are non-unique to representative democracies. Con argues that a lack of an impartial, powerful third party force to stop crime will increase violence. Pro essentially argues for private armies. With Con's assumption a misrepresentation of the anarchist position, it is fairly obvious Pro wins this point.

4) Government administers justice and public services. Pro counters that taxation isn't justifiable just because good comes out of it. I don't really understand why Con chose to say that an Anarchist's viewpoint on justice is an eye-for-an-eye. Con argues consent and says that people can leave the state. Also, that anarchist theory may not be followed in practice. Pro argues that the state has no right to exert control over a boundary at all.

Conduct for the forfeit.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
The debate could have used more historical analysis, rather than abstract theoretical considerations. Theory is nice, but it's theory precisely because we don't actually know what the truth is. I think Con could've made a serious impact by pushing his military argument coupled with some history (IE the long and ignoble history of nations taking advantage of one another). Unfortunately this was not the focus of the argument and Con doesn't particularly do a good job of explaining how national defense is impossible in anarchic systems. I feel almost as if Con played right into the hands of Pro--the arguments Con needed to make, the infeasibility of anarchy, the need for "public goods" ect were minor issues in the debate. The voters in the debate all end up falling solidly onto Pro's case. I'm left with the most significant argument in the debate being the argument of coercion being inherently unjustifiable which is a clear win for Pro, Con barely touches it other than the strawman that society would degenerate into violence which was well taken out by Pro in R4. Pretty clear Pro ballot but a good debate nonetheless.

Conduct due to the R4 forfeit.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
***Beginning of RFD. 1/2. Read from Top to Bottom.***
A spirited and fun debate.

Unfortunately, Con seemed a skosh out of his depth on this one, but still, an interesting exploration of hte concepts!

As to points (Arguments RFD last, because it's the longest):

Conduct: to Pro for Con's forfeit, unfortunately. Though I applaud Con for admitting he'd made a mistake in his R3 and wholly copping to it. Don't get to see that kind of honesty often enough.

S&G: Thankfully, gloriously neutral. It's a pleasure to read a debate with nice formatting, coherent sentences, and fewer typos than there probably are in this RFD!

Sources: I have no problem with Wikipedia as a source, necessarily. Particularly not for broad concepts. Neither side sourced extensively or used arguments which really screamed for sourcing beyond what they did.

Arguments:

Con never successfully defended Coercion over Voluntaryism. At one point, Con actually seemed to try to indicate that Representative Democracy was on the same footing, with remaining in a geographic location being equated to consent without sufficient justification why the State should exert that geographic control. If this were true, then he'd be arguing that RD was a form of Anarchism within Pro's definition, rather than defending it as an entity in its own right, which would still give Pro the win.

A problem with both sides' arguments was that they defended what their sytems <em>could</em> do, rather than dealing with overmuch with their own systems' negatives, or their philosophical underpinnings. Pro pointed this out in his conclusion, and I agree. However, Pro gave more philosophical justification for wholly voluntary participation, while Con's best actually presented arguments seemed to be that the coercion of the state was volunteered for.

I feel that Con had some arguments that might have been given Pro at least a run for his money, provided he had expanded on them.

***End RFD 1/2***
***Read fr
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
****RFD 2/2****
***Read from Top to Bottom***
Con did not rebut some arguments, simply calling them "lacking". While sometimes that's okay, in this debate I found it insufficient, as I thought the arguments had merit worth rebutting. That's a danger with out-of-hand dismissal, one that can be completely avoidid simply by explaining the reasons for that "lack". Con's point regarding services could have used considerably more expanding; as written, it wasn't strong. "It seems to me that folks won't" is not often a strong case when no real reasons for WHY it "seems" that way. I feel that Con had some arguments that might have been given Pro at least a run for his money, provided he had expanded on them.

This debate should have come down to each theory's ability to perform the necessary tasks of a successful government, and the question of the moral justification for forcing a minority to conform to the majority's will against that minority's will.

The first prong got bogged down a bit in Con's misunderstandings, and never got into the meat of "But we have reason to think X is what will happen..."; after all, when perfectly conceived, EVERY political system COULD work. It's just that when we get into the real world, sometimes they simply don't. With apologies to dylancatlow, even communism works "in theory". I will say, that this first prong might have been dealt with differently if it had been clear from the beginning whether we were dealing with philosophical hypotheticals, or actual practical applications.

The second prong was never dealt with, really, at all. Not to harp on a point, but it was almost a drop from Con when he tried to argue the consent issue based on geographic location. From a philosophical standpoint, this prong was possibly the most important, and nowhere near enough time was spent on it for my taste.

A fine job overall from both debaters! In the end, Pro made his case here, and won his BoP.
***End RFD 2/2***
***Read from Top to
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Welp, this'll have to be a two-part RFD. Stand by. I'll post it bottom to top for easier reading.
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
Noumena
The prima facie problem was he didn't prima facie really have a prima facie angle to begin with. Like with most debates I do on this it ended up being more about me explaining specifically what anarchism is than someone hitting it head on.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
I have to say if I was con I would have argued this at a completed different angle. Though its not like nouema hasn't heard all my arguments before. Prima facie.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
NoumenaishallannoyyoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that because the state necessarily unjustifiably exercises coercion and does not allow others to opt out, anarchist theories of proper governance are superior to democratic ones. Con responds that government -of a presumably democratic structure- is necessary to establish law and to order society but is ambiguous about the justice of that structure and does not respond to many of CON's points. Ultimately, PRO demonstrated that anarchist theories (1) were "justifiable, [2] provided arguments for why public decision making should be entrusted in the hands of communities, and [3] showed why Statism is incompatible with these arguments" which is what won him this debate. CON also forfeited his last round, ergo, conduct to PRO. Interesting, well argued debate, nevertheless.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
NoumenaishallannoyyoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Juror vote. RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
NoumenaishallannoyyoTied
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: Comments--juror vote
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
NoumenaishallannoyyoTied
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: Juror Vote. RFD in comments.