The Instigator
Corneliuss
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Should GOVERNMENT be abolished?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,009 times Debate No: 38020
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

Corneliuss

Pro

Should we abolish GOVERNMENT? An Earth-shattering question that most people don't hear in the course of their lifetime, and would grant a curious student a collective burst of laughter in the confines of a public school... luckily, anarchists have come to be widespread because of the internet. We are the group whose answer is YES.

First, a definition. A government is a group of people holding the legal right to use force within a geographical area.

By definition, it spits in the face of the non-aggression principle. The taxation that feeds government is done with the use of implicit death threats against citizens: If you don't pay us, we're going to come to your house and put the cuffs on you. If you resist and attempt to escape, we're going to immobilize you. If you resist being immobilized, we're going to shoot you, a crime that must be outlawed when the common citizen is concerned. It is moral to request due payment for a service that was provided, as long as the service was voluntarily asked for. However, the so-called social contract of Statism HAS NEVER BEEN SIGNED BY ANYBODY. Statism condems all individuals unlucky enough to be born inside one of its countries to risk being constrained to stay, endure the inflation of the money supply which has nothing to do with them, comply to invasive policies, and see their chance of creating an independent community dramatically reduced, especially if the entire world is a tax farm.

The involuntary nature of the relationship removes from the State the right to order anything from us. But it does and affects every part of your life in the process, reducing your happiness and life expectancy. And it's been a violent, highly manipulative gang of sociopaths for quite a while by now.

The government comes from a past of slavery, a past of intelligence used for primitive ends of power and control. Uga buga. Is money a reason to stay with Statism? Or survival, order? Is anarchy chaos? To me, it seems counter-intuitive that coerced human beings fare better in any sense whatsoever.

I don't think that Statism is a matter of survival or order.
bsh1

Con

I accept and eagerly await your first arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Corneliuss

Pro

So, you eagerly await my first arguments? That's a nice trick to devalue someone's points. It's the second time I try to start this debate with someone and both opponents act nastily.

I've laid down my arguments, time for you to lay down your objections, if you please. Then I'll bring some more to the debate.
bsh1

Con

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I had no intention of acting "nastily," nor do I understand why my acceptance was construed as devaluing your points. I had assumed that your opening post was simply an introduction, albeit a lengthy one, and that you were simply laying the basic framework for your arguments, which you would expound on in this round. I apologize if my statement caused offense--that was certainly not my intention. Now that my misunderstanding has been pointed out, I will present my own thoughts, and will conclude with a preliminary rebuttal of Pro's round one arguments (a more in depth rebuttal will be offered by myself in round three.)

CON's CASE

Definitions from Merriam Webster:

Government - a particular system used for controlling/governing a country, state, territory, etc.
Should - expresses obligation, desirability, propriety, and/or expediency
Abolish - to annul; to render inoperative; to void

These definitions are concise, generally accepted, and straightforward ways to define these key terms, and so I recommend we use them to assess the debate. I disagree with Pro's definition of government for two key reasons: (1) A government is far more than simple the "group of people holding the legal right to use force." There are laws and mechanisms that inhere to the system as well. For example, the Governor of Vermont might have the right to muster the militia, but he must do so by certain decrees, the protocols for which are specified and predetermined. In other words, yes, people can exercise power, but they must do so through codified channels and mechanisms. (2) Just because one is in government, that does not imply you have the right to use force without restraint. The President has the right to implement policy, but the Congress, if it does not like the way in which policies are being transacted, can pass laws to force the President to transact policies in a different way. Thus, there are certain institutional checks within a governmental system that must be factored in. In light of these two concerns, I would submit that government is not "a group of people," but rather a system through which power is exercised. People are a part of that system, but so are laws and customs that impact if, when, and how government officials can exercise their power. Lastly, communal rule is government as people still govern.

Observation One: Burdens

As no BOP was explicitly stated, I will assume that it is joint. Therefore, the Pro should illustrate that government should, indeed, be entirely abolished, whereas the Con should show that government should not be wholly abolished.

Observation Two: Resolutional Analysis

The topic is "should government be abolished." This topic is not specific to any type of government or to any particular geopolitical location. Therefore, we are not specifically talking about any individual nation, group of nations, or type of government; rather, we are debating the goodness or badness of government in principle/on a generic level. This also means that I do not have to support the existence of totalitarian regimes because (1) we are referring to government as a generic principle and (2) I would advocate that totalitarian regimes should be reformed, but that some form of government should remain in place.

Contention One: Government is beneficial.

Government serves a purpose. That is the most basic understanding of why a government should exist. In fact, it does just serve a purpose, it serves several purposes. They include: (1) defense against foreign attack, (2) promoting societal cooperation and advancement, (3) protecting human rights, (4) cracking down on crime, and many more. Let's start with point two. Having a government means that there are common rules by which all members of society can interact peaceably. Should someone violate those rules, there is a basic assurance that this person will be reprimanded or penalized. This means that people will be more willing to trust one another because (a) they understand the rules of the game, and (b) they feel that people will obey those rules to avoid the negative consequences of violating them. Trust, in turn, promotes cooperation, the likes of which has greatly improved the lot of humanity. This goes in line with point 3 and 4, that people who violate rights will be punished, thus strengthening the right. Point one is fairly obvious, and so I won't elaborate on it too much.

Contention Two: The absence of government is detrimental.

According to Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, without governance "there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation;"no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." "Justice," in the words of the Greek sophist Thrasymachus will have become, "nothing more than the advantage of the stronger." This theoretical knowledge can be supported with empirical knowledge as well. There is really only one case study that shows what would happen if there truly where no government: Somalia. And Somalia is a wreck. According to the 2011 edition of the Harvard International Law Review, "Somalia has"in effect"no functioning government. It is split between many warring factions that are each so caught up in fighting that none have taken time to truly govern. It seems, then, that in this bleak absence of governance, the law has become a matter of individual choice." The U.S. Department of State reports than only 23% of Somalis have access to any type of sanitation facility, that the life expectancy is 49 years of age, it has one of the highest risks of disease in the world, and it is tied for the poorest nation in the world, and its mortality rate is the highest in the world. This real-life example bolsters the theoretical arguments made by Hobbes.

REFUTING THE PRO

(1) The Social Contract

Pro contends that the social contract was (a) not entered into voluntarily, and (b) uses unjustified means of coercion. Beginning with the first point, the presence of government can be justified without the social contract. For example, a utilitarian view might say that it is better to have government than a deadly state of nature. A deontological view might suggest that government is needed to protect our rights as rational agents, because without government, no other actor would be present to fulfill this role. A capabilities approach might posit that government is necessary in promoting our essential capabilities. Regardless of the theoretical analysis, my point is that simply claiming that social contract theory fails is not enough to prove your point. As to your second point, I don't think the coercion is necessarily unjustified. I'll give you three reasons as to why: (1) their are more benefits to having a government that to living out in the wild where you could fall victim to any number of things, from predation to disease, and you would lack the resources and infrastructure to deal with them (basically, your more likely to die if government was abolished, than you are under government), (2) not all governments necessarily tax income directly (and most won't kill you for not paying if they did), and (3) a mechanism for coercion must exist in order to have order--without some coercive force there would be no rules, and therefore, not checks against violations of rights.

(2) Volition

Pro continues to press the need for volition. Certainly, many people would rather be without government, but most people, I would contend, like the luxuries of order and security provided by governments. Additionally, there is a great variety of governmental forms from which to choose, and if you truly wish to escape government, it is not inconceivable that you could join an anarchist colony or go live in the wild.
Debate Round No. 2
Corneliuss

Pro

Addressing definitions

The Merriam-Webster definition of government, which is "a particular system used for controlling/governing a country, state, territory, etc.", is valid. However, I hold my cynical definition as equally valid (a group of people holding the legal right to use force within a given geographical area) and consider it part of my case against government. It is important to note that the opposing definitions mirror Pro and Con's opposing stances. I consider the former definition euphemistic from the use of the obfuscating words controlling and governing.

Therefore, I will revert to Con's definition and translate the contents of my hastened definition as a further premise to defend which is essential to my stance on the abolishment of government. Perhaps I didn't suspect that I would have to defend that first principle at all. But there. Now, moving on.

1. Contending: the true nature of government

a) A group of people

Con fruitlessly claims that government is not a group of people for the reason that the people in government may need to respect protocols, and is instead a system. I will no more attempt to connect the dots of that assertion. The fact is that government is a collection of individuals exerting power over a population and that no social system can work on its own.

b) The legal right to use force

Con also argues against my claim that governments aren't institutions holding the legal right to use force, by claiming that restraint can be applied to people in government in their application of force. It is a straw man. I never said that government's forceful measures are unrestrained. My claim is that forceful measures, that violence, define government. I will elaborate.

Law makes the state. Since its mandate is enforcement, any individual within its borders who avoids a sentence will be charged with a heavier charge every time, until death needs to be administered, so as to ensure that the enforcement process is consistent, meaning that citizens won't assume that at some point the state just gives up trying to subdue said suspect or offender. Therefore, wherever there is a government, there is a system of law which implies that those who break it be threatened with death, be it implicitly. That supports my definition that government is a group of people holding the legal right to use force; in other words, a hypocritical monopoly of violence. A downside for all of humanity.

2. Rebutting

a) Government is beneficial

Con starts by enumerating four purposes supposedly served by government: defense against foreign attack, promoting societal cooperation and advancement, protecting human rights, and cracking down on crime. It can be claimed that said government serves such purposes; however, actions speak louder than words. The mandate of an institution does nothing to justify its existence. It is not true that government is necessary for the existence of common rules to live by. It is in fact the contrary. Firstly, the process of law goes against the very idea behind common rules. By forcing compliance through threats, it is assumed that people would rather not respect those rules on their own. Secondly, law violates a very basic common rule: the non-aggression principle, which ensures that the common rules will forever be broken. The strive for mutual trust and all its subsequent benefits as achieved through a monopoly of force creating artificial consequences is an immoral game with a ruling class exercising nothing less than a tyranny. Regardless of all its upsides, it is the illusion of peace.

b) The absence of government is detrimental

Thomas Hobbes' quote could just as well be introduced as follows: without a small group of people holding the legal right to murder you for disagreeing with its policies […]. In any case, the two subjective quotes that Con put up to condemn the feasibility of anarchy are fragile in the face of empirical proof. He used the real-world example of Somalia to demonstrate the pitiable condition of a near-anarchic country. What is lacking in his empirical finding is a consideration for an all-important philosophical question, compared to what? He presents Somalia as the relative wreck that it is and on that piece of evidence falsely correlates the country's shortcomings to anarchy. It is also worth noting that he omitted to mention the short period of time that separates present day from the disintegration of the Somali state back in 1990. What's more, the standards of living have dramatically increased since the beginning of near-Anarchy in 1990 in Somalia. I consulted a publishing written by Peter T. Leeson titled "Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse" (1) where I found a chart of reliable sources identifying 18 key development indicator findings between 1985-1990 and 2000-2005. It happens that 14 of the 18 indicators showed marked improvement over time. Notable examples include a 21/2 year increase in life expectancy. The data comparing Somalia's progression under the same indicator to neighboring countries does not support the hypothesis that Statism would have made for greater development for Somalia. Those comparisons were essential to assess the true situation. Moreover, the situation disproves Hobbes' theoretical statement condemning anarchy.

c) The social contract

Con's rebuttal on the social contract argument is an example of subjectivist philosophy. Yes, the presence of government might be justified outside of a person's decision. But the fact that such arguments can exist does not make it pointless to lend someone the right to choose whether they want government to be there in their lives. It's still a matter of personal preference. If I'm not an Utilitarian, or a Deontologist, or a "Capabilitist", but an Individualist, and I make a valid argument against the application of the state on me, then you are obligated to let me be free of the state. There lies a transgression on self-ownership perpetrated by every state on Earth.

Con's greatest good for the greatest number utilitarian argument for the presence of government coercion fails. It is impossible to determine the greatest good for a people when it comes to how they're going to live their lives. To act upon such a guess would be immoral. His dichotomy between statism and deadly state of nature shows its fatal flaw when it is established that anarchy, as in the absence of rulers, is not inherently deadly. I have already disproven the contention that government can exist without the use of murder, and that only government, through enforcement, can provide rules.

d) *Abolition

My position is not one of political action, but merely a universal preference for the abolition of government. The individual is free to make its own choices, and that is why I reject Revolutionary action, which is always in the detriment of real freedom. I simply believe that every person on Earth would eventually be better off after government is abolished, and I am communicating my point of view to make sure that many people take notice. The same principle applies to Anarcho-Capitalism's free approach to letting people choose the system they please to live under. A statist community can exist inside an Anarcho-Capitalist society. The current world situation is the exact opposite of that vision of freedom. To be born under a government is to have a situation that is in any case predatory imposed on you for at least a few years. Now that the entire world lives under the state, any anarchist colony will amount to a life in the wild. Isn't that limitation as well as passports and citizenships a huge blow to freedom of choice?

"As soon as scepticism is applied to the State, the State falls, since it fails at everything except increasing its power, and so can only survive on propaganda, which relies on unquestioning faith.” -Stefan Molyneux


(1) http://www.peterleeson.com...
bsh1

Con

I will defend my case, and then rebut that of the Pro.

CON CASE

Definitions:

Firstly, I would like to point out,that Pro, in his own words " will revert to Con's definition ." Therefore, my definition should be preferred in this round. However, it seems that some clarification is in order--I never said that Pro's definition was flat out wrong, merely I said it was incomplete. Government is not SOLELY a group of people, but it is ALSO the institutional mechanisms through which power is exercised and check. This means that government is a system, and that people are an integral part of that system. That's being said, a person in power, like in my Governor of Vermont example, cannot simply decree that all gun be made illegal; he or she must propose a law and go through the legislative process. And even after this, if a court annuls the law, then the law goes off the books. That is to say, that people don't just wield arbitrary and unconstrained power in government, there are checks and balances and process that must be observed. So, the analogy of a "system" seems more apt in describing the term. Also, extend my other definitions; Pro does not contest them.

Just a last note before I move on, my argument about institutional restraint was part of my "government = a system" point, not an assertion in favor of the right to use force--that came later. Pro has yet to show that all forms of coercive force are necessarily immoral--if some coercion is permissible, then (I would believe) so too is government. Pro makes another huge flaw--I don't support the death penalty. A government can administer punishments without causing death or inflicting pain in a "cruel and unusual" way. Unless Pro is prepared to claim that all punishments for anything are wrong, then Pro must admit that some use of coercive force is morally allowable. This is a huge point for Con--punishment is necessary! (Side note: why would you not want an agent to monopolize violence. If everyone can do anything, then I could murder, rape, brutalize, terrorize, mug, etc. whomever I want. That's not exactly making the Pro's case...)

Observations:

Pro drops my observations; extend them. This has two key impacts: (1) burdens are shared and (2) I don't have to defend totalitarian or unjust regimes.

Contention One: Gov. Good

Pro's argument essentially boils down into the notion that people will obey rules without coercive mechanism in place to punish them if they do not. This is fallacious for several reasons--Pro is assuming that humans are rational and trusting agents. Neither one of these assumptions is correct. If humans were rational, why do we commit crimes of passion. In fact, most crimes are not committed by people acting rationally--they're acting based on some primal need (like food, water, libido) or they are acting based on some emotional urge (rage, greed, jealousy). People who are angry and who are also not under the threat of punishment, are more likely to act of their anger than someone who is equally angry, but who is also afraid of punishment. Only purely rational agents are going to respect common rules for rules sake; everyone else will respect the rules because they don't want to be punished. And, how would we administer justice without government--personal vengeance or kangaroo courts? Pro also seems to be forgetting that even if conflict doesn't come to blows, people are going to have disputes, and there needs to be some sort of arbiter to moderate those disagreements and to enforce the outcome of those agreements. Pro also claims that government necessarily implies tyranny--but yet doesn't tyranny imply dissatisfaction? Many people give their governments high approval ratings, many governments are democratic, many governments respect human dignity and human rights. To paint the institution of government as necessarily tyrannical is inaccurate.

It is VITAL to note now, that all of Pro's objections to government have been rooted in government's domestic policy (his claims re: tyranny, unjustified coercion to enforce laws, etc.) This means that my first point, defense against foreign attack, goes entirely unrebutted. Extend it--this shows that without a government, a society could be victimized, oppressed, and otherwise maltreated at the hands of other societies.

Finally, government promotes organization by creating a system to exercise power that not only diffuses power, but also keeps things orderly. The benefits of having such an organized system of power, is that it allows a society to set priorities (like tech advancements) and to take highly precise measures to achieve them. Organization also promotes communication be creating methods through which to communicate and act.

Contention Two: No Gov. Bad

Pro does actually attack the Hobbes quote, he just reframes the intro and that says it's nothing without empirical evidence. Quite the contrary, Hobbes is, in his book "The Leviathan," is laying out a theoretical framework for why anarchy is bad. This theoretical argument is distinct from the empirical arguments I present later. Therefore, you should extend the theoretical arguments. Hobbes is saying that humans are greedy and that they naturally compete over resources. By subverting the rules, they can gain more, and so it seems logical to us to go ahead and subvert those rules to reap those gains. The only way to change this equation is to change the cost-benefit analysis by enforcing punishments. If you subvert the rules, you not only fail to reap the gains, but you also lose something of value to you (time, money, etc.) and so, you respect the rules all the more. Under this theoretical framework, no government is, in fact, bad. Now, let's look at Somalia. I have two arguments to use here: (1) alternate causalities, and (2) comparative analysis. Alternate Causalities--the information in the report cited by Pro is looking at national trends in Somalia; it fails to consider that one region could be skewing the results of this analysis. Puntland, a semiautonomous region in northern Somalia, has a functioning government and has substantial economic benefits from piracy. [1] Insofar as this one region could be pulling up Somalia's statistics as a whole, I don't think that Pro's analysis is accurate for those regions that do, in fact, lack government. Additionally, much of the analysis offered by Pro's source is economic; however, economic factors are poor indicators of tangible quality of life. [2] Finally, Pro argues that Somalia has been improving overtime--just as the TNG (Somalia's nominal government) has been retaking control. Ultimately, there are variety of factors that could explain away these statistics. Comparison--those parts of the world that have government do better. [3] Even Pro agrees with me here, saying that I " presents Somalia as the relative wreck that it is." So, when comparing anarchy with government, government still wins. Finally, my original evidence only supports Somalia's relative deprivation.

PRO'S CASE:

Social Contract:

Pro makes an important concession: " the presence of government might be justified outside of a person's decision." This has two crucial impacts: (1) your personal choice is not the only, or even necessarily the primary, factor in this debate, and (2) that disproving the social contract does not affirm the topic. Pro also claims that to act on a utilitarian guess is immoral, but he utterly fails to explain why; we can predict outcomes, and we should maximize good.

Abolition/Volition:

Pro dropped my observations--key extrapolation: Pro must defend entirely abolishing the gov, Con must argue that gov should not be entirely abolished. Thus, Con can still have anarchist colonies in the Con world, and so if people choose not to be in gov, they have an alternative. Yet, the Pro world would ban gov altogether. So, Pro is wrong to say that "statist community can exist inside" the Pro world. Con has more freedom to choose.
Debate Round No. 3
Corneliuss

Pro

I just realized I'm wasting my time here. I'm arguing with a wall, and every time I read his words, I get very anxious, because I find it evil. Right now, I'm not strong or apt enough to expose the kind of fogging that goes on in a debate that has nothing to do with truth. I would just like it if people didn't generalize anarchists as avoiding.

Do all you want with this debate. Vote the wall up, vote the struggling anarchist down. This debate does not matter. People have seen the state "win" ever since they first saw a flag being waved as a baby.

Why the attitude? Why the abandonment the debating methodology? Because this stopped to be a debate when con willfully started being dishonest by trying to fog the debate in the face of clear evidence. That's what pains me when I read it. It could be said that con is not really debating with me. He's attempting to manage his anxiety by protecting the morally insane parents and teachers who put him in a traumatic situation of dominance and propagandized him for over 15 years. Most people do that stuff a lot of the time. But Con is an outright liar, invested into the political process, and by being an agent of government propaganda, an institution that lead to the slaughter of 203,000,000 people last century, imprisons millions, ruins the future of billions of children, indebts all the unborn through fiat currency, and inhibits opposition to its own cancer, he's being brutally aggressive. He's not the only one supporting slavery, but he's truly dangerous nonetheless.

He's propagandizing you, trying to extend the persisting hold of government, meanwhile delaying the multigenerational awakening of the information age. The current step in human evolution. It is a mere delayal, but by letting manking stagnate in the impulsive, deadly primitivism that he claims is our unescapable natural state, he is promoting death. But I just couldn't forfeit this round. Wake up.


(The Story of your Enslavement by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio, the largest and most successful philosophical conversation in the world)

To see the farm. Is to leave it.
bsh1

Con

I'm a bit nonplussed at Pro's tone in this last round. I thought this was a very close fought debate, and was epecting another truly well-done rebuttal. Instead, he accused me of acting nastily, yet does so himself, calling me "an outright liar," and then failing to show any instance in which I have lied. But, on to the substantive arguments:

Pro DROPS all of my points in this final speech, preferring to make personal attacks and pathos appeals rather than focus on the actual points raised. Extend all of my arguments; they go unrebutted.

Here are the main reasons why you should cast a Con ballot in today's debate:

(1) Government is a system with internal checks against gross abuses of power; furthermore, coming from my observation I don't have to support totalitarian regimes.

(2) Some coercive force is necessary because (a) of Hobbes's theoretical analysis, and (b) because humans are not solely rational agents.

(3) A monopoly on violence is beneficial in preventing criminal anarchy and a abhorrently violent state of chaos.

(4) Government is useful insofar as it can arbitrate disputes

(5) Government does not necessarily imply tyranny, because tyranny implies dissatisfaction and many people are not dissatisfied with their respective governments

(6) Governments are necessary to defend against foreign attacks

(7) Governments promote communication and cooperation leading to increased societal advancements

(8) Comparatively, regions with governments do better than those without

(9) Disproving the social contract or proving a need for volition are not sufficient to affirm the topic

(10) There are more choices under the Con world--under my uncontested observation I explained that the Pro needed to show that all government should be abolished, whereas Con needed to show that not all government needed to be abolished. This means that some anarchy can exist in the Con world along with government. Consequently, the Con gives people greater choice in determining in what type of state they would like to live.

Thus, from a technical standpoint, Con has all of the offense, and so I ask for your vote.

But just to briefly address the various new arguments offered by Pro in the last round--I do not support slavery. The government does not enslave people. If you look at the actual arguments offered in the round, you can find a clear benefit to affirming the topic, as well as realizing that governments can exists without unduly impinging upon your human dignity or your freedom. I am not propagandizing you--I though the debate topic was interesting, and so I accepted. I tried to give a solid technical performance to defend my arguments, and to win the round. That is it.

In conclusion: Please vote Con, as all arguments are dropped by Pro in the final round. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Proletariat 4 years ago
Proletariat
I think it's entirely possible that Corneliuss has some troubling psychological problems that needs to get sorted. Some help is needed.
Posted by Valar_Morghulis 4 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
@Corn you are an extremely rude debater. I understand passions can run high during debates but your discourse was unacceptable and cost you the debate.

I encourage you to display a modicum of civility and common sense in your future debates. Your rudeness cost you this one.
Posted by bsh1 4 years ago
bsh1
I realized I forgot to include my source--apologies...I was in a rush.

1 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...
2 - http://www.britannica.com...
3 - http://www.economist.com...
Posted by YellowPandaBear 4 years ago
YellowPandaBear
Absence of law leads to chaos which is worse than only a little law.
Posted by YellowPandaBear 4 years ago
YellowPandaBear
Corneliuss, I find your answer to bsh1's Somalia argument interesting and it does suggest that anarchy can be better than some forms of government. However, countries like Luxembourg rank higher than the anarchist state of Somalia in terms of GDP PPP per capita and have higher life expectancy than Somalia which ranks as one of the lowest. These countries have a government but it is a restricted government which leaves individuals to do almost entirely as they please. This is further indicated by their ranking in the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom. While too strong of a government can become despotic and dangerous, a government limited by protocol and the individuals which it governs is relatively harmless.
Posted by Corneliuss 4 years ago
Corneliuss
Oh my god, I just finished my second affirmative and it took me about seven hours of hard work. I became tired towards the end but now I'm really happy I did it.
Posted by Corneliuss 4 years ago
Corneliuss
I don't know man. I'm really paranoid sometimes.
Posted by Corneliuss 4 years ago
Corneliuss
I don't know man. I'm really paranoid sometimes.
Posted by bsh1 4 years ago
bsh1
No--it's fine. You still have 23 hours left.

Also, I am sorry if my round one comment was in any way offensive; it wasn't my intent.
Posted by Corneliuss 4 years ago
Corneliuss
I'm sorry about the delay. A way to explain it is that the debate brings me great anxiety. I guess you could say I find your rebuttal intimidating.

Working on it.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by blue_charles 4 years ago
blue_charles
Corneliussbsh1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more polite, and made better arguments. While Pro brings up interesting points, Con easily refutes him.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
Corneliussbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro melted down in the final round for no reason. Wild accusations and personal attacks are not welcome here; are bad debating; and throwing the debate in hysterics as Pro did deserves the sternest censure. All seven to Con, who remained impeccably civil to the last.
Vote Placed by Nordenkalt444 4 years ago
Nordenkalt444
Corneliussbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a somewhat hostile take on Con's acceptance statement that wasn't necessary, Pro provided a source while Con didn't but Con generally made a more convincing argument.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 4 years ago
johnnyvbassist
Corneliussbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark1 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 was incredibly rude. Con clearly articulated his arguments, while Pro more ranted and used less logic though. Nice debate though aside from the terrible conduct on Pro's part.
Vote Placed by Valar_Morghulis 4 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
Corneliussbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro was extremely rude in this debate. (Conduct goes to Con) Pro failed to address several point's the Con made during the debate. (Con gets after debate points) Spelling and grammatical errors abound. (S/G is a tie) Pro used one source. (Source goes to Pro) Con stayed on topic and didn't resort to childish name calling. (Con gets most convincing arguments)
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Corneliussbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark1 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's final round argument was pretty much a giant middle finger to the voters and his opponent. Even without that, his rebuttals were woefully inadequate.