The Instigator
Jzmn282
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dylanm123
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Anarchy is better than communism

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 2 votes the winner is...
dylanm123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 878 times Debate No: 44263
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Jzmn282

Pro

Anarchy is better than communism, it leads room for freedom and self expression. It doesn't keep you from relaying your thoughts or opinions. It lets you live the life you want to live exactly how you want to live it without anything to tell yo otherwise.
dylanm123

Con

i accept this debate, proceed with your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Jzmn282

Pro

Well technically I already posted my opening argument and you wasted your round 1 argument with your acceptance, however I'll go on. Communism is the kind of government which controls everything in a country. In a society where everything is controlled there's no room for individuality, and everyone becomes like a clone of every other person. It's like the whole communist nation is full of a bunch of robots pretending to be humans.
dylanm123

Con

ok, so your opening argument was two sentences long? a few misleading assertions? you did not state the rounds of the debate? (i.e. first round: opening arguments, second round: rebuttal) you did not include any definitions for anarchy or communism? you did not set any rules for the debate? and most importantly, you spelt 'you' wrong! but that's ok, i'll disregard these factors because 'technically' i didn't post my argument... and i'll try to have a say now.

Anarchism is a political movement which encourages stateless societies, societies with no government. Government is extremely necessary for co-operation. Human and social cooperation requires some sort of structure of law in the background. The only reason we can trust each other to cooperate is because we know there are legal forces that will punish us if we violate each other's rights. One simply knows they will be punished if they violate the rights of someone else. This legal framework is crucial to our existence. If it were not there, societies would turn to chaos (the most common word associated with the political movement of anarchism). Hobbes states that 'the absence of a common power is a war of all against all', if men live without a common power they will 'act according to their desires and aversions' and if there is no structure of law to stop them from doing so, they will indeed act on these natural passions.

Government is crucial for human existence, anarchism is only crucial for the downfall of the human race. In a communist Government, there is a ruler, and there are rules. Rules which are enforced (sometimes harshly so but that is besides the point). This is why Anarchism is always used in a negative sense and implies lack of order and chaos.

I did some research and, strikingly, i found that virtually every person on the planet falls under the authority of some state! I also found that absolutely every single historical instance of a stateless society has evolved into a state-governed one! Coincidence? I think not, clearly anarchist societies are unstable. There have only been 4 'mass' societies who have attempted anarchism.... obviously all evolved into different forms of Government eventually.

The opposition stated... "Communism is the kind of government which controls everything in a country."
and Anarchy is when there is no Government... and i have already stressed the absolute detrimental impact this could have on a country. We simply require law to live. Conservation of law is crucial to our existence. There is a degree of control in a communist society, yet people are still bound by the law, preventing the country from degrading into absolute chaos. A 'controlled' society. There are several negatives to a communist society, but it is no doubt better then anarchism.

She also stated... "Communism is the kind of government which controls everything in a country. In a society where everything is controlled there's no room for individuality, and everyone becomes like a clone of every other person". This statement I do not agree with, in principal. There is room for individuality in a communist society, albeit individuality which goes unrewarded. People can chose their career path and who they want to marry, just because everyone receives a similar wage/similiar plots of land does not mean individuality is non-existent.

The opposition is asking for individuality to do what exactly? Without a government, the possibilities are endless? You could steal a car perhaps? get drunk in public at the age of 14? murder your neighbour? There will be no law to prevent you from any of these cruel actions. But i guess if they provide the opposition with a little more 'individuality' then that would benefit the whole of society greatly! And yes, the oppositions last sentence where she mentioned the robots, is a complete exaggeration (english teaches take note of the use of hyperbole to enhance ones argument, although this is a poor example). Just because a group of people are controlled by the law does not mean they are robots, they are still entitled to certain rights enabling freedom, and individuality.

Now to tackle the opponents first argument.... (sorry had to make up for accepting the debate in round 1) The opposition has made a correct statement by saying anarchy, 'lets you live the life you want to live exactly how you want to live it without anything to tell yo otherwise'. Yes, thats true, so whats stopping you, in an anarchist society, of murdering your next door neighbour? This is a harsh example but the opposition needs to come to terms with the detrimental impact of having an anarchist society.

Anarchy is chaos. Communism is OK.
Debate Round No. 2
Jzmn282

Pro

Just to start this off, I apologize for having misspelled the word "you", sometimes I type faster than I should and things get misspelled and my eyes pass over them in re-reading. Now, onto the point.
I would have to disagree first of all with your statement, "Government is necessary for co-operation" in fact government isn't necessary for cooperation at all. Does it take government to come to an agreement with someone about something? I think not, and that is the essence of cooperation. Another point I feel is necessary to make here is that a government isn't required for there to be "laws", laws in essence are just rules which we as a society see fit to not break. If people can make rules for themselves and keep them, whether those rules are based on morals or opinions or whatnot, then it is completely possible that people can uphold rules as a whole if there is a sense of camaraderie and understanding amongst those in a society. If there are rules in a society without a government it doesn't mean they won't be upheld, in fact I'm sure there are plenty of people who would give punishment to anyone who goes and "kills their neighbor" in a society where anarchy is present. Do you think everyone is just going to give up their morals and ethics because there's no government to withhold them?
The next statement made: "Government is crucial for human existence, anarchism is only crucial for the downfall of the human race" is completely based on opinion. I also happened to do some research on places which in history have not had government. You'd never guess what I found, a list on UN's (United Nations) website of 16 countries which are non-self-governing. Meaning they don't have their own government. It's no wonder the places making the list are part of deserts or are in the middle of no where, but the point is they do exist. And in fact, there is life there. Which definitely proves you wrong that human existence requires government, because the people which are alive there don't have government. And about that whole, "Anarchism is only crucial for the downfall of the human race" thing... If no society has existed without government how do we know it's going to be the downfall of everyone without it?
Just to clarify against the next major point made: We don't need government to live. We need water, air, and food to live.
Now, to clarify my previous point that in a communist society there is no room for individuality. The definition of individuality is something which distinguishes someone from someone else. Don't get me wrong here, there's definitely individuality required in choosing who you marry or what career you have, but you can't tell the difference between two people based just on that. Individuality is based on much more than two simple decisions. It's based on a lot of things, like what music you like, what shows you watch or books you read, what religion you are, etc. Without those things we're all pretty much the same person.
Now I realize how much of an exaggeration calling people in a communist government robots is, but it proves a point. Without individuality, without characteristics which differentiate us from one another, we are all just like one another. Isn't that the same as being a robot? Not being able to think for yourself, or to make your own decisions, or to come up with your own opinions? I hate to bring up fiction here but haven't you ever read the book 1984? Or Fahrenheit 451? Where they live in a communist government so controlling they all act the same. Would you really rather live in a world like that than in a world where it takes trust and friendship understanding to live? Is it really that hard for people to get along with each other?
There's no real evidence that every single society which takes on anarchy is going to be chaotic. I'm not saying anarchy has a good history by any means, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible for there to be anarchy without chaos. Referencing the only book I know which has history from "the beginning of time", The Bible, I would like to point out that in the beginning Adam and Eve had no government. They didn't kill each other did they? I realize this reference makes it seem kind of religious, but it's not about religion at all. It's about the simple fact that people don't need someone telling them what they can and can't do every single second of every day just to live.
The argument here isn't whether the world needs government to survive. The argument is whether anarchy is better than communism. And many of the points made by my opponent are simply referencing that we need government. The simple fact is, that's not the real argument. As you can see, the only real point made which said anything close to being good about communism specifically is "There are several negatives to a communist society, but it is no doubt better then anarchism."
The question I would like to ask is, Can you really come up with an argument, not based on any other form of government than communism which proves that communism specifically is better than anarchy?
Communism as it turns out is one of those things that sounds good in theory and is bad in practice. Has anything good ever come out of it? Have you heard of any government which withholds communism for longer than a century? I haven't. You know why? Because as it turns out people don't like being controlled all the time. Every fiber of our beings longs for complete freedom.
Now to come to a conclusion:
First: Communism isn't necessary for life (That also is a bad use of exaggeration)
Second: Government isn't required for cooperation
Third: Individuality isn't just picking who you get to marry, it consists of much more. Individuality is nearly non-existent in a communist society, while in a society of anarchy there is room for any kind of individuality
Fourth: Just because there is no government doesn't mean there would be now law. You don't need government for people to hold to rules as long as there is common-ground (Like the moral that killing your neighbor is a terrible thing to do)
Lastly: A quote, "Are laws not dangerous which inhibit the passions? Compare the centuries of anarchy with those of the strongest legalism in any country you like and you will see that it is only when the laws are silent that the greatest actions appear." -Marquis de Sade
dylanm123

Con

thats ok :) i'm just going to rebut, dont have enough time for more arguments.....

Maybe i should have rephrased my first statement to read the following 'Government is necessary for ultimate co-operation'. It is true that cooperation does emerge without law, as the opposition has stated, people could (maybe) grasp certain basic principles of the law of nature. But their applications and precise detail are always going to be controversial. People can maybe agree on a few general things, but overall they will be arguing about the various points of detail, and even some of the major points. I am not one to suggest taking the risk of a society without Government, would any of the readers? unless they felt in the rebellious mood?

The opposition stated the following... 'Another point I feel is necessary to make here is that a government isn't required for there to be "laws"'
This is simply a false statement. Without a government you don't have enough sufficiently unified power to enforce. It is simply a few individuals enforcing things on their own. And they will be weak, a Government is strong. They will not be organised either, a Government will be.

Quote: " If there are rules in a society without a government it doesn't mean they won't be upheld"

People may be able to make laws for themselves, but it is another issue enforcing these laws. Anarchism means no societal structure, because there is such an over-hanging doubt that these newly created laws (which people supposedly agree on) will not be enforced, there will never be enough unified power, power which comes from a Government. Furthermore, people can"t be trusted to be judges in their own case. If two people have a disagreement, and one of them says, "Well, I know what the law of nature is and I"m going to enforce it on you," well, people tend to be biased, and they"re going to find most plausible the interpretation of the law of nature that favors their own case. You can"t trust people to be judges in their own case; therefore, they should be morally required to submit their disputes to an arbitrator.

Quote: "You'd never guess what I found, a list on UN's (United Nations) website of 16 countries which are non-self-governing"

Really? What does NON-SELF-GOVERNING mean? it means countries that are COLONISED.
Not meaning 'they don't have their own government'. Did you really believe that countries such as New Caledonia and Bermuda had no forms of government?

Here is the list for readers discretion (and your discretion). http://www.un.org...

So, we have no established that the opposition has made a false claim. Trying to dress up their argument perhaps. The truth is their are no countries who are anarchists, or who use anarchism. Bermuda, does in fact have a government (much to the oppositions disbelief). There are certain groups of people in society who believe in anarchism, radicalists who simply want to oppose the state. They do not appreciate the strength of Government, the strength of law, and the detrimental impact on their race if they choose to have no government.

"Just to clarify against the next major point made: We don't need government to live. We need water, air, and food to live."

The second sentence here does not justify the first? where is the argument going? just because we need water does not mean we do not need some form of societal structure? but lets try it, lets make Australia an anarchist country, and give them food and water, i hope for my sake we do not descend into civil war.

Individuality!
Quote: "Don't get me wrong here, there's definitely individuality required in choosing who you marry or what career you have, but you can't tell the difference between two people based just on that. Individuality is based on much more than two simple decisions. It's based on a lot of things, like what music you like, what shows you watch or books you read, what religion you are, etc. Without those things we're all pretty much the same person."

Yes individuality is based on many things, thank-you for continuing my list. I WAS NOT implying that individuality is purely based on those two things, i was simply arguing that you can be an individual and live in a communist society, and you have helped me to prove my point. Because in a Communist society you can chose what music you like, and what shows to watch, you can be an individual. And although this is irrelevant there are many things which distinguish people from one another not purely the factors listed by the opposition (quote: without those things we're all pretty much the same person).

Communism is not a form of Government whereby all of your individual characteristics are completely robbed of you, as the opposition has tried to argue. And no i would not like to live in a country without any law, can you actually imagine that?

Are you disillusioned due to your ideals? People can get along with each other sure, but there are some crazy people who live in this world: murderers, child molesters, rapists, pedophiles. These people act on INCENTIVE. How many people do you think refuse to steal from a shop, because they know they will be get a fine, or a sentence? How many people take their foot of the accelerator on the highway, because they don't want to get at ticket? There people are stopped from committing these crimes thanks to the Government, going to prison is a strong enough deterrent to stop people from committing these crimes. They make laws, and they enforce them! Something which an anarchist society can never achieve, as i have showed above!

Quote: There's no real evidence that every single society which takes on anarchy is going to be chaotic. I'm not saying anarchy has a good history by any means, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible for there to be anarchy without chaos.

So, anarchy doesn't have a good history? Yes that's right! Every country who have become anarchists, have somehow evolved back into some form of Government. It is a self-perpetuating cycle! We need Government to survive, like water, and like food (healthy food you should have added).

QUOTE: Referencing the only book I know which has history from "the beginning of time", The Bible, I would like to point out that in the beginning Adam and Eve had no government. They didn't kill each other did they?

Firstly, that was not the 'beginning of time', but anyway. TWO PEOPLE can maybe survive being anarchists because they might only have one or two disagreements. 314 million people live in the United States................

QUOTE: It's about the simple fact that people don't need someone telling them what they can and can't do every single second of every day just to live.

Thats is NOT THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN ESSENCE. This is complete nonsense, complete hyperbole. Anyone with sense would realise this is deceiving. Read above for further explanation opposition^

I have referenced the need for Government in this debate extensively. Because, from my position, that is the essence of this debate. Communism is a form of Government. ANARCHISM IS NOT. Therefore i am arguing the need for government. Is that simple enough for the opposition to understand?

In this debate (i wouldn't really call it that) the opposition has stressed the need for complete freedom.Complete freedom is not possible. I have stressed this throughout the debate. The opposition is living in an imaginary world where apparently everyone can walk around the streets without law and without people who enforce the law. How Great.

Anarchism is chaos, because we need Government to sustain ourselves. There is no question of individualism, no question of complete freedom, there are two simple equations.

Communism = Government = Tolerable
Anarchism = Chaos

thanks
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Your opponent had nothing to do with you sounding like an idiot.
Posted by Jzmn282 3 years ago
Jzmn282
I'd just like to comment and say that my opponent is definitely trying to make me sound like an idiot, and would therefore like to clarify that just because I win an impossible argument doesn't make me stupid. Also I don't need things to be "Simplified" I understand English just fine.
Posted by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
I would love to debate Jzmn on absolutely anything
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Bare assertions are not the same as an opening argument...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by amik10 3 years ago
amik10
Jzmn282dylanm123Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro came off as sassy when she said "Well technically I already posted my opening argument and you wasted your round 1 argument with your acceptance, however I'll go on." So Conduct to CON. S&G to Con b/c Pro admitted to spelling you wrong. Arguments to CON b/c Pro spent the entire time on the defense, she didn't prove why anarchy was better, she just attempted (and somewhat failed) to prove that communism is bad.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
Jzmn282dylanm123Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro admitted to spelling "you" wrong stating that she types to fast and does not reread well, yet there is a spell check button she could have utilized. I believe this is the first time I have ever given points for S&G. Go, Pro for forcing me to give S&G points to Con! Pro does not seem to know what she is talking about, as if she doesn't know how to debate. Nonetheless, both were cordial with eachother, yet Pro doesn't seem to know how to set perameters. Conduct goes to Con. Con seemed to be more educated that Pro and his arguments flowed nicely. Pros arguments were based on individuality only. Con was right in that Anarchy was chaos. Con gets argument points. No sources cited really. Con gets this easily