The Instigator
DrAlexander
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
Draphoenix
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points

On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,137 times Debate No: 3507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (21)

 

DrAlexander

Pro

As written in Plato's Republic,

'Law is the king of all, mortals as well as immortals..'

Because of Plato's analysis, and the reasons that follow, I stand firmly in affirmation to today's topic, that

'On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.'

For overall clarity I'd like to offer the following definitions and say thanks to dictionary.com.

Better means morally superior.

Corrupt is defined as made inferior by errors or alteration.

While a Government is the governing body of persons in a state, community, ect.

I'd also like to define Anarchy as a state of society without government or law.

Topic Analysis:

What I first observed is that a Government is composed of rational
agents, therefore the only way a government can be corrupt is if those
agents that compose the government are corrupt themselves.

My second observation is that no known group of humans are completely
moral and pure. If so they have yet to create a government system in
today's society.(Status quo)

Lastly, I observe that government systems are created solely for
protecting natural born rights (i.e. Life, liberty and property). This
observation is quite evident within the context of the Social Contract theory
purposed by either Locke or Rousseau.(Political theory)

Furthermore, my observations led me to my thesis, that, since governments are composed by immoral beings then they are all inherently
corrupt.

Therefore, since ALL known government systems are inherently corrupt my
opponent MUST prove to you that universal anarchy is a better
solution. This is now the burden of the CON in order to have some
ground in today's debate.

Moving on..

Now I will point out the benefits offered by a government system, in
accordance to the status quo as well as political theory. Simultaneously
explaining the negative effects of anarchy.

First, A government is contractually obligated to protect your human
rights, meaning if I were to kill my neighbor I'd be punished accordingly. This punishment would never happen in an anarchy where everyone is for themselves and no protection is offered. Therefore a government, since it protects your rights, by enforcing laws, is better.

Second, A corrupt government can be improved if people undergo proper
routines to change it (i.e. Civil Disobedience & protesting.) BUT in an
anarchy there's no room for improvement because if they establish a way
to help/manage the citizens it would ultimately be considered a
government, which is simply going back to my primary stance that a
corrupt government is better than no government.

Last, a government offers their citizens education and schooling,
because schools are regulated and paid for by governments. YET an anarchy has no government funding to pay for educators. Therefore no, or
very weak, schooling will be available to the young individuals within an anarchy, which is bad because better education leads to more economic and political success, which is empirically proved as we can look to the United States, Canada, France, as well as the financial and literate success of the U.K.

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

Overall, governments are inherently corrupt. YET they still offer protection to our natural born rights. Unlike an anarchy were protection is NOT guaranteed.

And just for the fun of debate I'd also like to point out that as supported by (correct me if I'm wrong) Aristotle's view on Social Contract-- Anarchy can never exist. And never has. We are ALL born into a governing body, be it a tyrant, president, or even a mother and father. Therefore, making it impossible to evaluate the positive effects of something that never has, and never can exist. Meaning in no way can CON win. Because they are evaluating the non-existing. If necessary I'll give a more in-depth analysis...

GOOD LUCK, hopefully we have a good debate. I'm looking forward to your responses! =D
Draphoenix

Con

As stated by Henry David Thoreau, "Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify." As such, I oppose the resolution, "On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government."

I would like to define "On Balance" with www.thefreedictionary.com as "Taking everything into consideration; all in all."

I reserve the right to clarify any other terms later on in this debate.

Resolutional Analysis…
1)With on balance in the resolution, we must look towards a median for looking to see which stance of government is better. Simply, neither side should go to the extremes of saying "This government in history was almost a utopia but still corrupt," nor "This corrupt government enslaves its citizens and so on."

2)We see this debate has three different possible outcomes: corrupt is better, they are the same, no government is better. The PRO must show the first in order to win. If either of the other two are the conclusion after this debate, then the CON wins the round.

Contentions

Lack of Government Does Not Ensue Chaos

I recall the writings of Henry David Thoreau where he ventures out into the wilderness after being fed up with his contemporary government. Living at peace with nature, Henry David Thoreau proved that man does not need government to sustain a livable live. If more people were to have joined up with Thoreau in his ventures, we would have seen a community of fellow humans, in cohabitation with nature and no government.

This leads me to my second point that

Government is Different from Society

The PRO incorrectly analyzes the role of government. Contradicting himself throughout the way, the PRO says that the sole purpose of government is to protect natural born rights but claims, in the second point, that if people work together that they would form a government. As a college student, I help other students with their studies and they do the same for me. Does that result in me governing them, telling them what they have to do? Though the taxes from them would help my tuition, the PRO's connection cannot be made. A key difference can be simplified down to the difference between helping and ruling other people.
Furthermore, the PRO claims that the government provides funds for education but were does that funding come from? The citizens. His point becomes mute by seeing that the government is nothing more than a middle man in education.

Corrupt Governments Break Original Purpose

The PRO has established that governments protect natural born rights, however, as by his definition of corrupt, they have "errors or alteration." Any time where a corrupt government acts immorally, some portion of someone's natural born rights have become compromised. By its very definition, a corrupt government is an immoral presence that does not protect natural rights. If you desire examples, I would be happy to provide some in my next argument.

Finally,

A Criterion of Moral Superiority.

The term of debate in the resolution is "better." Using the Pro's definition, it means morally superior. Hence, the PRO has indirectly set a criterion for debate. Then we must ask ourselves, which is more morally superior, no government in which people can live harmoniously or a necessarily corrupt government which violates human rights? The answer need not to be restated.

I will end with a quote from John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

"This is the plain difference between the state of nature (no government) and the state of war (with a Government). Some men have treated them as the same; but in fact they are as distant from one another as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation is distant from a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction. A state of nature, properly understood, involves men living together according to reason, with no-one on earth who stands above them both and has authority to judge between them. Whereas in a state of war a man uses or declares his intention to use force against another man, with no-one on earth to whom the other can appeal for relief. "

As for your just for fun point, I would like to cross apply Thoreau as well as add another quote from John Locke,

"For this purpose, I think it may be worthwhile to state what I think political power is; so that the power of a �government official over a subject can be distinguished from that of a �father over his children, a �master over his servant, a �husband over his wife, and a �lord over his slave."
Debate Round No. 1
DrAlexander

Pro

DrAlexander forfeited this round.
Draphoenix

Con

If my opponent feels that any of my responses did not contain as much detail as he wanted, it was solely out of my desire to be brief. Therefore, this reply will contain as much information as needed to convey that the CON must win this round by showing that no government is better than a corrupt one.

1)Thoreau

My opponent claims that no one has the power to enter or exit from the state of nature freely. I will contend that you can, but at the same time feel the immorality of governmental punishments. At what line can a government force one to enter under a social contract. The PRO has not accounted for this. I will also contend that it is human free will that should determine if one does or does not form a social contract. If one is forced to enter a society in which he or she deems morally corrupt, then this only demonstrates an increased sense of undesirability and immorality of the government. Walden and Thoreau, moreover, show more than just an allegory. In fact, they correctly portray the true grandness of nature and the corruption of government. Thoreau was sent to jail as a result of his unwillingness to accept the government as moral by not paying taxes. By doing this, Thoreau only proved the intolerance of an immoral and corrupt government but also how no government must be the superior option.

2)Laws of Government

PRO claims that anarchy has no laws in which to protect its citizens from harm; hence, I need to underscore the connection between laws and government. A corrupt government, by definition, is one that does not protect but takes away human rights. In order for a government to get away with this, the laws must be in their favor. Therefore, the laws must be corrupt to allow corrupt governmental actions from occurring.

I will cite the example of eminent domain for private use such as in Kelo V New London. Thanks to the corruption in this law, innocent people become deprived of their fruits of their labor and right to property. Under no government, no presence would do that. In the likely occurrence that the PRO will reply that they have no guarantee in the state of nature to that property, I will respond that a community, lacking government, can still protect this right and not need to take away from them.

3)Original Purpose

I am attacked by stating that I evade logic with pretty rhetoric, but the point of even a corrupt government protecting rights has yet to be fully proven by the PRO. Next, if logic is what the PRO wants, it's what I have given him. A government is meant to protect rights. Corrupt governments do not protect human rights, cross apply point 2. Therefore, a corrupt government does not do what it is meant to do.

Furthermore, we must see how the CON wins this argument at the point in which I can prove that governments cannot properly protect my rights. My opponent cites America in his last speech. The American judicial system seems nice at first, but when I have 50 dollars stolen from me, what is the government to do. They still have little to no ground in punishing this criminal. Even if he is sent to jail for a maximum of a night or two, where is my justice? Where is my right of being able to keep property? Moreover, the American Government prevents me from doing ANYTHING about it! As will be addressed in my fifth point, we must see that by entering a social contract with a corrupt government, we lose more than we gain.

4)Once a Corrupt Government, Always a Corrupt Government

PRO claims that anarchy can have no improvement where governments can. So, there was some governmental corruption back in the day dealing with sex and race, despite what the PRO would like you to think, have these issue been resolved…no. Granted the problems are not as significant as back in the day, however, the government still cannot be improved completely on any single issue. PRO cites the Civil War in his rebuttal and how long did that take to resolve race issues. I would love to see the PRO answer this for no answer can be given. If governments can be improved upon like my opponent claims, why does it matter the racial background of Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election? Simply, governmental societies cannot be fully improved upon.

Next, under a government, as soon as one corruption "ends" then another one just arises. By correcting an issue, a government can abuse the changes in which to make the situation even worse than before.

Granted, I will agree with my opponent by saying some issues also cannot be resolved in the state of nature either, but for different reasons. The state of nature cannot be improved upon because it is the way it is, its part of the inherent nature of the state of nature.

5)Moral Superiority

Again, I am accused of using rhetoric above logic. Regardless, we must see that the resolution states better, not what is pragmatic under situations the PRO creates. Next, we must see how the PRO fails even to try to show how a government that is corrupt is morally superior to no government at all. At this point, the CON wins the round by showing that corrupt governments are not morally superior to no government at all. Finally, we must pull through that a corrupt government is an immoral entity that cannot guarantee rights, but also infringes upon the rights it is meant to protect. Yet, by entering a social contract, we sacrifice our guaranteed natural liberty that we are born with and do not receive civil liberty that is meant to be given to us by a government. My fifty dollars will be stolen no matter what, the difference remains in how to respond. The PRO hopes that the government will protect me, but at the end of the day, I can only rely on my natural liberty and taking matters into my own hands.

6)Locke and Just for Fun

We must see how the Locke quote still applies. In the state of nature, men are at peace where as in the state of war, we are fighting an uphill battle to become the strongest with governmental hierarchies.

Next, we must see how a government is different from superiors. One, to say that all superiors are governments gives CON no ground in debate. Two, the debate is about corrupt governments versus no governments. To say that a mother or a father, themselves, constitute a government goes beyond what the resolution implies. Even so, I would rather have no parents than one that abuses me. No matter which angle you look at this issue, the CON proves that no government is a morally superior option to that of a corrupt government.

Finally, within my last allotted character limit, I will briefly explain the difference between that of the state of nature and government. Before diving into that, however, I must reinforce that this will be an important issue in the debate.

First option, the one the PRO implies is a dog-eat-dog world in which every man fends for himself. It is true that this would fit under the concept of the state of nature yet it would be to everyone's best interest, while in the state of nature, to follow my next option.

Two, that of a community. We see that a community, like me teaching others calculus or chemistry, includes people working together. Under this type of system, there are no laws but a mutual understanding of what is mutually beneficial to all parties. The PRO will probably try to say that this is a government, but I cannot say this enough, A COMMUNITY IS NOT A GOVERNMENT. All protection of rights can be achieved, teaching and education can be done, and all other benefits that a government fails to provide can be provided under a community setting in which no body, no government can judge, tax, and punish others as a superior, but in which all parties recognize all others as equals, working together for mutual benefit.

I'm sorry that you had computer problems and I totally understand. I just wanted to see what the rules of the tournament had to say about the whole issue.
Debate Round No. 2
DrAlexander

Pro

Your responses contained a sufficient amount of detail.

As a road map I am going to make responses to CON's statements then give a big picture analysis for the ease of the judge and readers.

FIRST CON CONTENTION, "Thoreau"

COn states, "the CON must win this round by showing that no government is better than a corrupt one."

But if you review the round, no where has CON explicitly proven how an anarchy is BETTER than a corrupt government, all he focuses on is how bad a corrupt government is. In so far as he does not show how no government can do the things a corrupt government fails to do, then i win this round by default as CON's burden hasn't been upheld.

SECOND CON states, "My opponent claims that no one has the power to enter or exit from the state of nature freely. I will contend that you can, BUT at the same time feel the immorality of governmental punishments."

This argument is flawed because, at the point in which your being punished by a specific government, you are no longer in an anarchy. Therefore making my initial argument about a person not being able to enter and exit an anarchy still be upheld in todays debate.

THIRD CON states, "At what line can a government force one to enter under a social contract. The PRO has not accounted for this. I will also contend that it is human free will that should determine if one does or does not form a social contract."

One is not FORCED to enter a social contract. Instead their citizenship is a declaration of consent to uphold their contractual obligation.

FOURTH CON states, "If one is forced to enter a society in which he or she deems morally corrupt, then this only demonstrates an increased sense of undesirability and immorality of the government."

I fail to see how this mandates anarchism. In an anarchy NOT EVERYONE is going to see this as morally acceptable. This argument is NON-UNIQUE because this resentment is going to exist in both a corrupt government as well as in an anarchy.

FIFTH CON states, "Walden and Thoreau, moreover, show more than just an allegory. In fact, they correctly portray the true grandness of nature and the corruption of government."

Not only is CON bringing up new evidence (Walden) but he still doesn't directly point out WHERE they are portraying the grandness of nature. This argument cannot have ANY grounds in today's debate because I do not know where this information was found. CON doesn't even show how Walden and Thoreau prove an anarchy real and on top of that more morally justifiable. He simply states this as true.

SIXTH CON states, "Thoreau was sent to jail as a result of his unwillingness to accept the government as moral by not paying taxes. By doing this, Thoreau only proved the intolerance of an immoral and corrupt government but also how no government must be the superior option."

Thoreau doesn't prove ANYTHING by not paying taxes. Rather than his lack of upholding his contractual obligation of adhering to the law. In no way is paying taxes unjust or immoral. A government receives taxes for multiple reasons one of those reasons is for Thoreau's son, John's education. This doesn't prove as to how a government is corrupt. The crime Thoreau committed cannot be justified by him yelling, "THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT!" While at the same time his son is being educated at Harvard University.

SECOND CON CONTENTION, "Laws of government"

CON states "A corrupt government, by definition, is one that does not protect but takes away human rights"

This is in direct contradiction to CON's 1st resolutional analysis. This statement is extreme. My opponent is stating that a corrupt government, by definition, fails to PROTECT instead takes away human rights. The US government protects me because when i walk down the street at night i see cops that I know will arrest someone if they rob me. BAM! His analysis has been disproved. My opponent is talking about an EXTREMELY CORRUPT government like Nazi Germany, rather than a government on balance, like Present-day USA. Making this argument non-resolutional because we MUST focus on balance.

CON states " I will respond that a community, lacking government, can still protect this right and not need to take away from them."

My opponent once again doesn't prove as to HOW this wouldn't occur in an anarchy. In a community lacking government their is no such thing as true right to property because everything belongs to everyone. Ergo once again my argument about how an anarchy cannot protect citizens is still alive in today's debate.

THIRD CON contention, "Original purpose"

CON states,
"A government is meant to protect rights. Corrupt governments do not protect human rights, cross apply point 2. Therefore, a corrupt government does not do what it is meant to do."

But i have already disproven this fact. Because this is an extreme approach to what a corrupt government is.

CON states, "when I have 50 dollars stolen from me, what is the government to do. They still have little to no ground in punishing this criminal."

Once again this argument is non-unique because we can ask the same question about an anarchy. What is an anarchy to do? At least in a government we have a more structured way to serve justice. In an anarchy violence would occur when one individual thinks that they can "serve justice". Meaning a corrupt government is better because we have a structured system, though flawed at times, it doesn't lead to chaos.

CON states, "As will be addressed in my fifth point, we must see that by entering a social contract with a corrupt government, we lose more than we gain."

To explain what this contract gives you. You give up some freedoms, like the freedom of autonomy to murder, molest and steal. IN RETURN you receive protection from those murderers rapists and thieves. Not a bad deal, huh?
That's why we agreed to it instead of a state of nature millions of years ago.

CON's FOURTH CONTENTION, "Once a corrupt government, always a Corrupt Government."

Con states, "So, there was some governmental corruption back in the day dealing with sex and race, despite what the PRO would like you to think, have these issue been resolved…no."

Of course they haven't been resolved, but my point in this argument wasn't the complete deletion of racism and sexism BUT how RACE and SEX haven't been as oppressed as they were in the past. Not that long ago women couldn't vote, now we have Hilary Clinton. Not that long ago we had segregation and slavery, but now we have Barrack Obama. And to answer the Barack Obama question, the government doesn't have control over people's minds. they cannot fully erase racism, if some people are upset because they have a black man running for president that has nothing to do with the overall goodness of the government itself.

CON's FIFTH CONTENTION is once again about how a corrupt government denies ALL human rights and there's no point in reiterating myself.

LAST!! CON's SIXTH CONTENTION, "Locke and Just for FUn"

CON STATES, "We must see how the Locke quote still applies."

No, this quote no longer applies as it has been disproven by the fact that Locke was simply evaluating the PRE EDENIC society of the state of nature before people knew about Money and before people were introduced to sin. This Pre-edenic lifestyle no longer exists. We as human being are to selfish, to irrational, and to sinful to attempt to live in peace without a government. This is true despite ANYTHING anyone says, ever since we've been introduced to a government it has been IMPOSSIBLE to enter a place of no government and magically become PEACEFUL and HARMONIOUS.

CON then goes on about the difference between a goverment and community but I will just say ultimately I'd rather live in a place where my rights are for the most part protected, rather than in an anarchy where people's right's are at risk.FOR this i AFFIRM.Thanks Drapheonix. =D
Draphoenix

Con

I think the best way to refute my opponent's last response is to simply state the main points in the debate and how the CON wins them.

But before entering my main points, I would like to identify some non-voting issues and show why the debate over them is insignificant.

First, with Thoreau, this issue has become muddled from its original purpose to prove that one) man can live at peace in the state of nature, and two) sometimes it is better to be in nature instead of an unjust government.

Second, on corrupt government, sure corrupt governments can be advanced to become a little less corrupt. But every government, at some level, still is corrupt. This issue cannot be changed. The fact that the state of nature does not also needs to be pulled through for it is as inherent as a corrupt government always being corrupt.

The first issue in voting is the issue that I supposedly take a corrupt government to an extreme. I must disagree. In his rebuttal of my second, third, and fifth contention, he claims I take away all human rights when looking at a corrupt government. I never say this. What I do claim, however, is that logically a corrupt government is necessarily corrupt. The PRO agrees with this in his first post about how governments are made of immoral humans so all governments, regardless of advance, will possess a degree of corruption. But, what the PRO did not claim is what makes a government corrupt. I, the CON, prove what a corrupt government is two fold. One, a government is meant to protect human rights, but if it is corrupt, then it does not uphold its duty to some level or another. Two, the government must have corrupt laws in order to let the government get away with its corrupt nature. If a corrupt government does not uphold my rights, then all it can do is take away my rights, such as natural liberty and my right to take matters into my own hands, without guaranteeing my rights that I supposedly get upon entering a social contract with a government.

Taking this point back to the resolution, we see that a corrupt government cannot be better than no government at all for in both cases, nothing protects your civil liberties, rights when entering a governmental social contract. At this point alone, the CON wins, however, to put the final nail in the coffin, the CON proves on multiple occasions how a community can be BETTER than a corrupt government.

The second main issue I would like to bring up relates to what I just said, how the state of nature can be better than a corrupt government. I would also like to pull through all mentions of community, which the PRO virtually drops. I have been ridiculously repetitive on this point, yet I feel it is the point that ensures my victory.

"We see that a community, like me teaching others calculus or chemistry, includes people working together. Under this type of system, there are no laws but a mutual understanding of what is mutually beneficial to all parties… All protection of rights can be achieved, teaching and education can be done, and all other benefits that a government fails to provide can be provided under a community setting in which no body, no government can judge, tax, or punish others as a superior, but in which all parties recognize all others as equals, working together for mutual benefit."

Not only does this point prove the existence of a governmentless society, but it also shows the benefit of the state of nature over a corrupt government. A community, such as the one described, can provide all benefits the PRO claims I cannot achieve as well as form a union in which my 50 dollars will be taken care of, in contrast to a scenario of the American Government. For further details, pull through my previous points on this issue, which were unattacked.

Take that back, the PRO does provide a small response to this point in which he claims the corrupt government has a structured system of justice. I guess I can agree with this point, the American system of Justice does of a structure of sorts. However, what does structure do? This structure, in fact, keeps me away from my 50 dollars! To have 50 dollars stolen is "no big deal" to the corrupt system of Justice in America. THIS PROVES THE CORRUPTION OF GOVERNMENT! In fact, I have had 50 dollars stolen from me, my right to property has been compromised and what did the government do…nothing! I could not take action into my own hands for I am part of the "American Social Contract." At least if I were under a community within the state of nature that would protect my rights, I would at least have a chance to get my 50 dollars back. In essence, it is that chance of getting back my 50 dollars which upholds my right to property, not some governmental law.

I will end this debate with the third and final issue on which the CON wins this debate round. This issue is that of moral superiority. Look back to my opponent's first post, "Better means morally superior." From this, I created a criterion for debate in which I GAVE my opponent an easy route to victory. To uphold his position, ALL he had to do was show how a government, corrupt or not, is morally superior to no government at all. He identified this path by stating…

"My opponent offers an acceptable resolutional analysis. So i agree. Yes, we must evaluate a median and yes I must prove a corrupt government is better, hence the resolutional phrase."

But, my opponent did not accept this challenge AT ALL. Both times in which I challenged him to let him meet his victory conditions, these are his responses…

"My opponent comes up with a witty rhetorical question..
"Then we must ask ourselves, which is more morally superior, no government in which people can live harmoniously or a necessarily corrupt government which violates human rights?"
The fallacy within this text is quite obvious. CON states, in anarchy people can live harmoniously. Not only does he fail to prove such a claim, but this harmony has been disproven multiple times in my above examples. Leading me to another rhetorical question.
"Is the deletion of rule and law pragmatic in a world that has FOREVER seen government?" The answer need not to be restated."

His response PAINED me for he did not even attempt to show how his position was morally superior. Hence, I challenged him AGAIN to receive this.

"CON's FIFTH CONTENTION is once again about how a corrupt government denies ALL human rights and there's no point in reiterating myself."

I digress. I have shown, throughout all my speeches, the moral superiority of no government.

Regardless of pragmatism or chaos, the state of nature guarantees your rights where a corrupt government cannot. In the argument of being moral superior, you only have one way to vote.

For the issues, I take the resolution on balance, corrupt governments are necessarily corrupt, and no governments are better socially and morally than corrupt ones, I can only see a CON decision.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Yeah, basically everything I learn is self taught.
(25 characters)
Posted by KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
Yea, that sounds about right. Then again, teachers are only challenged by those they teach, giving them the automatic informational authority. Also philosophers are scrutinized by philosophers, teacher arent at all.

Remember: those who cant do, teach.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
I figured out the solution when I was reading 'Sophie's World' during my eight hour sleep protest.lol.

The answer to our worries is simple...

They are clueless. You see, "the difference between schoolteachers and philosophers is that schoolteachers THINK they know a lot of stuff...philosophers try to figure things out (Gaarder, 71)."
:D!

Your example beat mine, I agree. That's very sad though.

shakes head*
Posted by KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
Well, that is world geography. I can top that, my AP Government teacher denied that pro-life libertarians existed, despite the existence of Ron Paul and myself(a pro-life libertarian/minarchist). Later she claimed she herself leaned libertarian but supported John McCain and said Ron Paul somehow wasnt a libertarian.

BTW, I live in Ohio, i was on kinda late last night too.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
You want to hear something interesting?

My world geography teacher has know clue what a minarchist is...

Isn't that something?

Well I'm off to catch some Z's.

-Alexander
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Yeah, this debate was for a facebook tournament, this was actually my first online debate. I think I'd look forward to having a debate with you over this topic again, if a challenge is needed I would willingly accept.

:D

Once again, thanks for being interested, I don't know where you live, but over here its 3:00am, so forgive me for my errors.

Thanks,

-Alexander
Posted by KommanderWill 8 years ago
KommanderWill
I only skimmed con's arguements and was disappointed. Thoreau is a poor source of anarchist reasoning. So much was missing from con's debate.

Personally, I thought pro all but torpedoed his own arguement by asserting a corrupt government is better than an anarchist soceity, laying down the bulk of ammunition (hope for good government)for a pro-government position.

A lot was missing from Con's arguement: no Rothbard, no privitazation arguements, no substantial moral arguements, etc.

DrAlexander, I wouldve loved to go one on one with you in this debate, even though I am not even an anarchist.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
drapheonix, while you did say that, you ever really showed conclusively how anarchy is better then a corrupt government, which was your undoing
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
That is of course unfortunate, Con. BUT insofar as neither one of us created a stance based upon morals the winner isn't quite clear. We both equally failed on that part, though I did bring up offering rights and protection, admittedly I never linked that to morality. So that left the debate fully in the hands of the judge to interpret. BUT Good Luck in your future debates.
Posted by Draphoenix 8 years ago
Draphoenix
CON's Round 2 point 5

and

Con)We see this debate has three different possible outcomes: corrupt is better, they are the same, no government is better. The PRO must show the first in order to win. If either of the other two are the conclusion after this debate, then the CON wins the round.

my little defense for my case
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pakipride 8 years ago
pakipride
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KirkPorter 8 years ago
KirkPorter
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 8 years ago
shaqdaddy34
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tim 8 years ago
tim
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by saas 8 years ago
saas
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bhao 8 years ago
bhao
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sheza 8 years ago
Sheza
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RHYME 8 years ago
RHYME
DrAlexanderDraphoenixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30