The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Anarchy is the only way to true freedom

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,862 times Debate No: 30607
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




As you should already know I as pro will try to prove that anarchy is the only way to true freedom. My opponent as con will try to prove how anarchy is not the only way to true freedom.

Here are some rules
1. no cursing or spamming
2. Must have a decent knowing of the term anarchy
3. You must prove anarchy is not the only way to true freedom as well as I must prove the opposite. If neither side as able to prove anything then it is a draw.

Round1: acceptance only
Round2: Opening arguments, sources, definitions
Round3: Rebuttal
Round4: Secondary arguments
Round5:Rebuttal, sources, definitions, summary, Burden of proof [explain how if you or I have proof or not]


Greetings in Peace,

I accept this debate. Rules understood.

Let's start. ;)
Debate Round No. 1


First of all i would like to thank the walking drums for accepting this debate. I am looking forward to a interesting debate.
I believe the first step to prove something is to determine the question being asked. The definition of anarchy according to is: 1. Absence of any form of political authority 2. political disorder and confusion 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as common standard or purpose. This debate is based on number 1 and its principles. The definition of freedom according to is: 1. the condition of being free of restraints. I could continue but the definition used in this debate will be on number 1. So in basic terms the question is: "wether or not government restricts the condition of being free".

Government does restrict freedoms in the sense you are not completely "free". The government restricts freedom in many ways. For example anything that is possible can be considered freedom, so if i were to try and assassinate the president the government would restrict or stop me from doing that action. With anarchy that action would be much easier and simpler. My argument is as simple as that the only possible way to true freedoms is through anarchy. Governments job in society is to defend, bring justice, and in most cases even more. All three of those restrict freedoms but of course bring justice violates the most. If my opponent can prove that there is another way to true freedoms or there is not way then he wins.




True Freedom does not mean "you can do anything you want in favor of your will". You have to choose which side would you want, either side A or side B.

A>B or A
Limitations on the other hand does not suppress us from Freedom. To give a clear example, I will tour you in my house, then, my house has an area of 150km2 (That includes the open lot). But, I told that you are allowed only up to 75km2. I LIMIT you, but, it does not mean, I remove your freedom. You have the freedom to do what you want to do in the said limit. In that 75km2, you can do what you want to do, but going beyond, by rules, is a trespass or violation.

Going back to side A and B, to avoid confusion. It represents "territories", if you are with side A, its up to you what you will do there, as long as you don't go over the fence.

Another analogy is we our neighbors. You can do what you want to do in your house, you all have the freewill, but, if you go to my fence and do your stuffs, me, as the owner, would be mad at you. The same thing, I go to your house without permission and do my noisy stuffs and all the like, of course, you would be bothered.

In case of Government, the Government here is to protect by promoting Justice and Order. Let Justice and Order be A while Disorder and Chaos be B.

The government is promoting side A (Justice and Order), so, the government's position is A>B

As long as you abide, you have the freedom. Dictatorship and strict laws is another topic to be discussed which I won't dwell in, for, we are talking about the usual government types like Democracy and other things that promotes Freedom.

Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


wolfman4711 forfeited this round.


Ok bro.

We can do it next time. Lo, I suggest, you put your summary and I will put mine. :)

Just call me if you are ready, we can start over. God bless.
Debate Round No. 3


Alright. I will be sure to when I have more time. But umm.. summary of my argument? I dont think I should considering I conceded. I did enjoy debating you. see you later


TheWalkingDrums forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I will ask the audience to keep it a tie since we both have conceded.


TheWalkingDrums forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
sorry for conceding I have had a lot of work. maybe we can debate again sometime.
Posted by omari.sarjeant 3 years ago
1) Natural & Social restraints will continue to exist
2) Anarchy has never been observed in modern times so no one can speak to the restraints a lack of political authority might impose (such as being self reliant for everything)
3) All choice stems from restraint and limitation - freedom would be a choice-less world free of such burdens as who, what ,when, where, or why.

It could be argued that governments provide more opportunities (freedoms) through shared resources, division of work, and the establishment of stability.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 3 years ago
Define "true freedom", reduce to four rounds, and I will debate this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.