Let it be resolved that the state is evil
Debate Rounds (3)
The state is evil. Unlike other organizations in society it obtains revenue through the use of coercion. This is extortion. It is immoral for me to point a gun at you and demand your wallet; it is evil for the state to threaten me with being locked in a cage if I do not give them my money (pay taxes).
If you are speaking of a secular state without any set morals then indefinitely there no baseline from which to look up and point out evil in any set action.
It is thus not evil to gain people's money by coercion as it would only be doing this if its set of morals allowed it to.
The government uses aggression against all of us. It is quite simply the largest and most successful criminal organization in any given society. The government makes laws, but they do not follow the laws that they make. Governments use violence. Violence is evil. Look at war! Waging a war of aggression is quite simply the most evil, the most immoral thing that anyone can ever do (aside, perhaps, from genocide). Every single war has been waged by a government. This institution is evil, rotten to the core.
Without governments, we would be free to produce what we wanted, to spend our money as we pleased. There would be no one spying on us, no one repressing us. No one to convince us to go to war to kill each other. As the great philosophers 'The Offspring' once said 'In a world without leaders, who'd start start all the wars?'.
Governments create economic crises by printing money in order to finance all of their preposterous and criminal activities. They impose burdensome conditions on all of us, regulate every aspect of our behaviour, makes laws which make criminal virtually all actions an individual can take and profit off the misery of others.
The state is evil.
Pro has undoubtedly twisted the logical fallacy of assumption to benefit their own needs and falsely assert their apparent views.
This incredulous vessel shall now do the exact same via using the framework of logic set out in the round two of pro's debate but replacing specific word within the frame of logic to display that using pro's logic one could equally refute their claim.
"Morality exists objectively. It does not matter how many people think it is moral to claim the state to be evil; claiming the state to be evil is wrong. Even if everyone in a society thought it was okay to claim the state to be evil that would not mean that it is okay to affirm in a formal debate resolution.
The government uses aggression against all of us. It is quite simply the largest and most successful anti-criminal organization in any given society. The government makes laws for others to obey, but they do not follow the laws that they make. Governments use violence. Not being violent is evil. Look at war! Waging a war of aggression is quite simply the least evil, the most moral thing that anyone can ever do (aside, perhaps, from genocide). Every single war has been waged by a government. This institution is good, beautiful to the core.
Without governments, we would never be free to produce what we wanted including child pornography, genuine rape videos for entertainment and killing sports arenas or to spend our money as we pleased. There would be no one spying on us apart from those who fancied to do it and now had no state/government to stop them, no one preventing the insane from repressing us. No one to convince us to go to war to kill each other apart from anyone who happens to be persuasive at any given time. As the not so great philosophers 'The Offspring' once said 'In a world without leaders, who'd start all the wars?'. The answer being anyone who wanted to fight for bringing leadership of states back.
Governments actively prevent and seek to cure any and all economic crises by altering taxes, forcing the poor to not have too low income to starve and helping people help each other sufficiently in order to finance all of our preposterous and criminal activities. They impose practical conditions on all of us, regulate every aspect of our economy, makes laws which make criminal virtually all actions an individual can take and profit off the misery of others... Even though profiting from the misery of others is actually what criminals do.
The state is not evil."
Herein lies pro's flaw:
If pro chooses to complain that con has supplied no evidence for my claims, they accept that their claim is equally deserving of this complaint since they supplied no evidence.
If pro chooses to attack con's line of logic, they inherently attack their own as all con has done is use the exactly identical framework that pro used in round two but merely changed the specifics to fit their case.
If pro chooses to take back all they said and rephrase this will be adding new points in the last round of a debate which is very bad conduct.
There is, unfortunately, no way for pro to win.
The notion that without a state child pornographers, rapists et. all would run rampant is ridiculous. At least though you have now taken the trouble of formulating an argument, so you deserve some very partial credit. In fact a stateless society, one which fundamentally outlaws aggression, one which completely criminalizes the initiation of violence, would be far better off when it comes to moral crimes like this. A stateless society would have ways to deal with these people, far more effective means than the present government monopoly on justice. And how exactly are the insane going to repress anyone? They're insane. You have to have significant power to repress someone; such as the power of the state.
You cannot cure an economic crises by altering taxes - although lowering them would help, not that any government is ever going to start stealing LESS of our money. Instead you must allow the market to recover - something which governments seem incapable of doing. Instead of curing economic crises they worsen them.
The state is evil. It is evil because it uses violence and the threat of violence (coercion) to bend others to it's will. These are the evil actions of an evil organization.
It seems pro chose to fulfil all three flaws stated. This incredulous vessel shall now explain why.
"Con can claim that the state is not evil but there is nothing to substantiate this claim."
This is merely reflective of the fact that pro had nothing to substantiate their claim.
"I have outlined exactly why the state is evil; con has simply asserted this is not so."
This is a contradiction. Con used pro's identical system of logic in round two to reach the conclusion that the state is not evil (as pro reached the conclusion that it is evil). Thus, it is either true that pro failed to outline why the state is evil or it is the truth that pro has simply asserted this to be so. It is impossible, since con used identical system of reasoning to pro, that simultaneously pro has outlined exactly why the state is evil yet con failed to do so.
"This is because the state uses aggression."
There is nothing evil about aggression. This claim is unwarranted, unjustified and false. Merely blind assertion.
"The state threatens us with coercion in order to obtain revenue. You cannot assert this is good without also asserting that it is more broadly right in general to use violence to obtain revenue - something which only a criminally insane person might do."
If a criminally insane person is the comparatively evil individual then clearly the state (who run the police and hence oppose criminals) are definitely the opposition of evil. Con asserts the goodness of coercion just as much as pro does the evil of it because neither claim has any evidence to back it up thus making both equally reliable.
"Your argument is frankly contradictory and lazy."
This incredulous vessel is finding amusement in the fact that the self contradictive and lazy nature of its argument was Identical in structure and form to pro's round 2 argument. It is thus the truth that pro has insulted their own argument.
"You claim that government is good because it wages war. This is an absurdity. Who can claim that war is good?"
This incredulous vessel can as can anyone.
"At most you can claim it is a necessary evil. But to claim it is good?"
Baseless, unwarranted false assertion followed by a malformed attempt at a question. Bad move pro.
"But of course this is what happens when instead of trying to formulate an argument you simply try to change a few words and subvert another's argument."
Yes, especially when you mimic the logical structure and form of an ill-formed argument. Get the hint please.
"The notion that without a state child pornographers, rapists et. All would run rampant is ridiculous."
This incredulous vessel never made such an assumption, it merely asserted that without the state the freedom to produce anything, as pro asserted would occur, would mean these people had the freedom to produce anything they wanted.
"At least though you have now taken the trouble of formulating an argument, so you deserve some very partial credit."
This incredulous vessel thanks pro.
"a stateless society, one which fundamentally outlaws aggression, one which completely criminalizes the initiation of violence, would be far better off when it comes to moral crimes like this."
A stateless society cannot outlaw, criminalize nor sustain a morality of any kind whatsoever.
"A stateless society would have ways to deal with these people, far more effective means than the present government monopoly on justice."
Baseless, false and unwarranted assertion with no justification given.
"And how exactly are the insane going to repress anyone? They're insane."
Threatening them with a knife to their baby's neck saying that if they do not do exactly as they are told the baby will be first stabbed in the eye, then sliced the tongue off and only after this will they have the mercy to slit the baby's throat.
Pro even agrees with me, since pro state the truth that the people would do such an act of insanity for "they're insane."
"You have to have significant power to repress someone; such as the power of the state."
There is nothing evil about repressing, the proof has not been given and thus it is an irrelevant point that one needs power to repress. After all, insane people have the power of no conscience.
"You cannot cure an economic crises by altering taxes - although lowering them would help"
Self contradiction. Nothing more needs to be said on this.
"not that any government is ever going to start stealing LESS of our money."
The government cannot steal, stealing is getting what isn't rightfully yours. The government have the right to all money in their country.
"Instead you must allow the market to recover - something which governments seem incapable of doing."
Clearly allowing them to recover is allowing them to enter further recession. There is no sense in not speeding up the recovery process.
"Instead of curing economic crises they worsen them."
This is an unjustified, baseless and false assertion.
"The state is evil."
"It is evil because it uses violence and the threat of violence (coercion) to bend others to its will."
No evidence to back up claim. We can render it false. Additionally no correlation drawn between violence and evil and failure to do so leaves this as a baseless and unwarranted assertion.
"These are the evil actions of an evil organization."
They are actually the good actions of an angelic organization.
In conclusion, this incredulous vessel has sailed to its victory with truth as its fuel and logic as its captain.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: It was a creative move to turn Pro's own illogical argument structure back on him. Pro did not establish the state is evil, or even that theft is evil--"It does not matter how many people think it is moral to steal; stealing is wrong." Based on what? You're explicitly not appealing to our intuition. Many would argue that taking another's money by force is justified in some circumstances--e.g., from an enemy you're at war with, as restitution for a crime, in the case of Robin Hood, etc. You need to provide a basis for why we should call every taking-of-money-by-force event evil, especially when it disagrees with what the majority thinks. Where do these objective morals come from?
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.