The Instigator
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
skinnerrr
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Anarchy wont' fail

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 3 votes the winner is...
skinnerrr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,239 times Debate No: 19939
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

lannan13

Con

I'll be debating that if the United States turned anarchist the U.S. wouldn't be able to function.
RD 1 aceptance
RD 2 the good part
RD 3 summery
I now await the Pro
skinnerrr

Pro

I will be arguing for Anarchy defined as

a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

I thank you for the opportunity to debate.

In response to the question left by the observer.

Would the Pro need to show that the geographical location formerly known as the U.S. would function better in the moral sense or that the services traditionally provided by the government would be more efficiently provided under anarchy?

I think we should consider both when examining the if Anarchy will fail. So an amendment may read anarchy won't fail on a moral or services basis.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Con

1. absence of government a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
No government means no laws. Hobbes describes humanity as terrible people that need to be controled. Also with no government means coos/ armys that will topal a countries regiem. We will be conquered by Canada.
http://www.youtube.com...
But lets get more serrious we won't get conquered by the Canadians. it would be Russia, China, Irsael, Pakistan, or India.
2. U.S. worldpower won't fall to anarchy. U.S. is currently a superpower and most likely not fall to anarchy.
why powerful military and laws that keep the people in check
skinnerrr

Pro

Key to Anarchy is the lack of governmental authority. It doesn't mean no laws only a lack of centralized laws. God (for those believing in the god of Abraham) originally designed his kingdom to be without a central government. Why?
1. Because the principles of law must be written on a man's heart.
2. Local power spread amongst people is harder to have abuse of power.
3. Centralized power is easier to corrupt.
4. Centralized government serves the interest of those in power.
God summed it up this way at 2 Kings 8:10
10 The king will draft your sons and assign them to his chariots and his charioteers, making them run before his chariots.
12 Some will be generals and captains in his army,[a] some will be forced to plow in his fields and harvest his crops, and some will make his weapons and chariot equipment."
14 He will take away the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his own officials
15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your grape harvest and distribute it among his officers and attendants."

Now you may say we don't have kings in today's governments. Centralized governments today although lacking a King, Lord over people with centralized ideas some good and some bad. The reason the bible used war to illustrate the power of centralized government is because nowhere else in government do you see a confluence of government interest, lives of its people, and resources of its people. Lets use the Iraq war and Somali Piracy to contrast Centralized government versus Anarchy.

Bush declared war and sent American men and women to die in Iraq why? While these troops were fighting a war with no clear connection to their personal safety most did it because they couldn't find jobs. So although not drafted they had few options to get ahead in life. While the presidents daughters of higher means were ducking the secret service for a drink. While these troops did the hard work No Bid Contract war profiteers and private contractors enjoyed
1. More money
2. More legal protections
3. Little oversight and accountability as to the benefits they provided
4. The privilege of putting our troops health at risk
5. The privilege of increasing tensions with local population and leaving our troops to police.
So no king same effect. He put your children in front of his chariots. He took your hard earned money pretended to be steward over it and gave it to a corporation who people of his organization owned in no bid contracts.

In contrast is the localized government of tribalism or clan based government. For this we'll use Somalia as land implementing this type of government. Here we have a contrast in warfare. Foreign boats, taking advantage of no centralized government began using the coast of Somalia for illegally fishing and dumping trash and other pollutants. This posed a risk to the fishing industry in Somalia. The local fisherman first asked the foreign boats to stop and the foreign boats didn't. The fisherman band together under the moniker the Somali Patriotic Movement. SPM began taking over the boats and holding the boat and its cargo ransom. The fisherman sent other fisherman to fight there war. They for the most part won. The conflict was small in scale. Didn't cost the country much in the way of lives or resources. Then the foreign countries who may have wanted to protect their vessels had no centralized figure to hold responsible thus their could be no retaliatory war. In fact the piracy didn't get out of hand until people noticed the profitability of piracy. Originally though only those to profit were the fisherman protecting their oceans and they only had enough resources to defend that interest. They didn't extend themselves into a protracted war.

This is what the God of the three faiths knew about what centralized government would lack. In stark contrast to anarchy, centralized governments use potential risk to arbituarily use the people's resources and lives for their own gain. Under an anarchy system its more difficult to accomplish this unless the stakeholders lives are really in danger. Taxation, representation, and interest are harder to abuse because the decision making process would rely upon the cooperation of small city states opposed to a wave of propaganda from a centralized source. This is why Anarchy is better than a centralized government.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Con

2. so you're saying government authority wrong. well in the U.S. it's worked for 100s of years and hasn't failed yet
3. No, absolute power is easy to corrupt
4. God also says in the Bible that people must be organized and settle for roming can leed to ruin.
5. I never said anything on kings. Kings are a monarchy and like a said before absolute power corrupts absoultely. a Democracy isn't a monarchy
6. Bush agruement. War is part of everyday life. We went to Iraq to drive out Husan and Al-Quida.
7. somolia is a young country and can easily be toppled by some threat.
skinnerrr

Pro

2. Not necessarily wrong but its no more stable than anarchy. My argument shows that in the absence of government Somalia was able to solve is territorial concerns cheaper and with less loss of life than the centralized government. Making anarchy stable. Depending on where you place your success marker the US has failed.
A. the first nearly 100 years of slavery and decimating the indigenous population.
B. Then the next 100 years of not applying the constitution to all citizens.
C. By the time the Central Government freed everyone they started running massive debts that they cannot pay.
D. We lost a war to the Anarchist country not once under Bill Clinton but also under Bush and Obama.
E. We have a little law on the books called Marshall Law. Currently to make the US Safe some want to declare the US a war zone so that can waive your constitutional rights.
So centralized governments fail all the time. The US government was a general away from failure in 1933. If the general sided with the fascist, America might have been a different place. So the US is not to big to fail.

3. Even without absolute power such as congress where its spread across a body of people you have a centralized place to be corrupt. Without having to grease the hands of a lot more if these things were handled more granular like with Anarchy. Based on a Rasmussen poll 46% of Americans believe their government is corrupt. This shows how Anarchy will exist much longer than a centralized government because its harder to have corruption.

4. Anarchy is organized as in tribes. Anarchy doesn't mean chaos which is good for another debate. So you can organize in a granular manner opposed to a centralized government. A great example were the city states of Greece versus the World's largest empire at the time which was Babylon. Babylon with all its might eventually lost to Greece. Which Greece after defeating Babylon and becoming an Empire was subjugated under the City State of Rome. Anarchy will not fail. In most cases it transcends to larger governments and after that experiences its downfall.

5. Yes I was stating that even though the scriptures says king it was portable to any centralized government.

6. War may be apart of Everyday life but War is made more grandiose and protracted with large centralized governments leading to more deaths and higher cost. Before Europeans brought centralized governments to Africa it was mostly tribal. During that time there were minimal wars and they didn't involve large amounts of killing nor did they last long. That was because of the anarchy that existed. Anarchy didn't fail. It was when people went to centralized governments that Africa became the place it is today. War is just 1 manner in which Centralized governments fail before governments under anarchy. A great example was Rome. Unemployment caused by slave labor lead to the central government in Rome feeding hundreds of thousands of its subjects grain. Which is marked as a reason for Romes collapse.

7. Somalia does now have a centralized government directing its affairs. This is why Somalia is more prone to being toppled. That was due to the international community perceived threat of an Anarchist Somalia. They wanted a central government to hold accountable what they saw as threats. US right now is losing in Somalia trying to add a centralized government to it. Somalia lived for 15 years without a central government and they still had modern conveniences. They had telecom services and Police etc. All privatized. So Anarchy will not fail. It is more likely that centralized governments will be toppled and failed.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by skinnerrr 5 years ago
skinnerrr
Sorry I've been auditing our the cases in our case ticketing system and writing reports to give to development. I will post now.
Posted by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
dear debators tomorrow will be my last day for a possible post so therefore skinnerrr if you don't mind but to herry on that comment.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Function in what way? Would the Pro need to show that the geographical location formerly known as the U.S. would function better in the moral sense or that the services traditionally provided by the government would be more efficiently provided under anarchy?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
lannan13skinnerrrTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious really.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
lannan13skinnerrrTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: There are flaws with Pro's argument, however, Con utterly failed to point them out or do anything of relevence in this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
lannan13skinnerrrTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brings up claims and Con fails to effectively refute them. Also, S/G goes to Pro, because Con has blatant errors.