Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

My first debate

PeaceRequiresAnarchy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:33:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would like to debate the pro/for side of the claim that "peace requires anarchy."

I just found this website, I do not have any formal debate experience, and I have only read a couple debates on this website meaning I have limited knowledge of the formal debate process, so I am not confident that I am prepared to start such a debate quite yet.

There is one way that I could be ready to start this debate now, however, but I am not sure if it is consistent with proper debate etiquette: Would it be okay debate etiquette for me to get outside help in the debate by first posting my arguments/responses in a thread such as this one to get feedback on whether the format of my posts are correct and to make sure that I have said everything I am expected to say as a part of a formal debate?

Also, do people ever have the same debate multiple times because they lose the first time and feeling that there is more that they could have offered?

Thanks.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:46:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 11:33:08 PM, PeaceRequiresAnarchy wrote:
I would like to debate the pro/for side of the claim that "peace requires anarchy."

I just found this website, I do not have any formal debate experience, and I have only read a couple debates on this website meaning I have limited knowledge of the formal debate process, so I am not confident that I am prepared to start such a debate quite yet.

There is one way that I could be ready to start this debate now, however, but I am not sure if it is consistent with proper debate etiquette: Would it be okay debate etiquette for me to get outside help in the debate by first posting my arguments/responses in a thread such as this one to get feedback on whether the format of my posts are correct and to make sure that I have said everything I am expected to say as a part of a formal debate?

Also, do people ever have the same debate multiple times because they lose the first time and feeling that there is more that they could have offered?

Thanks.

To answer the first bold part, people get pretty pissed about that. Debate other things you dont care about first or keep reading debates so you get the hang of it

To answer the second bold part, yes. People do that all the time and its perfectly normal
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
PeaceRequiresAnarchy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 11:26:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 11:46:30 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/8/2012 11:33:08 PM, PeaceRequiresAnarchy wrote:
Would it be okay debate etiquette for me to get outside help in the debate by first posting my arguments/responses in a thread such as this one to get feedback
To answer the first bold part, people get pretty pissed about that.
I thought that might be the case, but I am really not sure why. Perhaps some people take part in the debates as if they were a game that they are trying to win. If your goal is to get a good win/loss record, for example, then I can see why you wouldn't want your "opponent" to get help.

Others, I imagine, take part in debates for the purpose of increasing everyone's knowledge. Debates can be a cooperative effort to find the truth of an issue by finding the best arguments in support of each side of the disagreement. For people who debate for these reasons I can't imagine why they would object to their debate opponents getting help. After all, if you're trying to use debates to learn about an issue then why would you want to try to suppress arguments in support of a position by not allowing your debate opponent to seek help from others?

Just because someone wins a debate does not mean that the position that they were arguing for is correct. One would think that in order to have the debates best be used to determine the truth of an issue, it would be good if both sides put forth the best arguments. Anyways, since I don't care about losing a debate because of a failure I my part to make the best arguments, I think I'll just try the debate out and then re-debate it if I feel that my arguments and/or my opponents' arguments could be better.
PeaceRequiresAnarchy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 3:45:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have another question: What exactly must the Con/Against side of the debate do to win the debate?

For example, an example topic is "Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana." The Pro/For side must argue that this is true. Does the Con/Against side have to show that Steve Young is not a better quarterback than Joe Montana, or can it simply show that the Pro/For side failed to demonstrate that Steve Young is a better quarterback than Joe Montana?

The latter (showing that the Pro/For side failed to demonstrate the statement to be true) is weaker than showing that the statement is false. It leaves open the possibility that Steve Young really could be a better quarterback than Joe Montana.

So, demonstrating that the Pro/For side failed to show that Steve Young is a better quarterback does not necessarily show that Steve Young is not a better quarterback than Joe Montana.

Thus, must the Con/Against side only show that the Pro/For side failed to demonstrate that it is true that Steve Young is a better quarterback in order to win the debate or must the Con/Against side further show that Steve Young is indeed not a better quarterback?

Or does it depend on the specific debate and what the person who starts out the debate decides are the winning requirements for the debate?

Thanks.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 3:55:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@peace

The instigator sets the rules, and usually they have the BOP (burden of proof). The con's responsibility is to refute the assertions of the Pro, and if they are successful in doing so, will likely win the debate. Sometimes there is a shared BOP where both debaters have to refute their opponents assertions, while asserting their own arguments.

I think most of your questions are easily answered by just reading through a bunch of debates. There is a wide variety of them. But for the most part, they are structured very similarly. So just go through a whole bunch of debates and read them, to see how the debates work here.

Some are more formal, some less formal, but they generally follow the same methodology. After reading those, the best way to understand the debate process, is simply to debate. Look through the debates that are in the challenge period, (there is usually a few) and see if any of them catch your interest.

The instigator of these debates will usually describe their intentions and the rules.
Debate.org Moderator
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 4:03:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The idea that peace requires anarchy is clearly absurd. It is perfectly possible to engage peaceful relationships with other people under a well-ordered government. Further, without social programs like welfare, or macroeconomic stabilization policies like stimulus spending in times of recession, nothing will prevent unfortunate persons from being cast into grinding poverty, which does not lead to a peaceful society, but rather to societal conflict. Look at Somalia for an example of the kind of peace anarchy brings.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
PeaceRequiresAnarchy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 5:46:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@airmax1227 Thanks, you answered my question.

At 4/9/2012 4:03:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
The idea that peace requires anarchy is clearly absurd. It is perfectly possible to engage peaceful relationships with other people under a well-ordered government. Further, without social programs like welfare, or macroeconomic stabilization policies like stimulus spending in times of recession, nothing will prevent unfortunate persons from being cast into grinding poverty, which does not lead to a peaceful society, but rather to societal conflict. Look at Somalia for an example of the kind of peace anarchy brings.

Clearly absurd, eh? Well hopefully my arguments will change your mind once I start the debate. Before then, if you are interested you might want to watch this great lecture on anarchism. I recommend all of it (Around 1:11:40 he makes a point applicable to your Somalia comment, but you might want to watch the beginning of the lecture first for background on what he is saying).

The lecturer, Peter Leeson, wrote the paper "Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse", which I also recommend to you: http://www.peterleeson.com...

Also, just to give you an idea: "Further, without social programs like welfare..." are the reasons why you can't have peace with government. These social programs are funded coercively, not through peaceful means (voluntary contributions). I am not going to get into an argument about this now. I will make the arguments once I start the "peace requires anarchy" debate. I'm just pointing this out so you have something to think about.

Further, even if you think that it's extremely unlikely that people would choose to respect each others rights and interact peacefully with others in anarchy, rather than resort to violence and commit crimes, that's irrelevant to the "peace requires anarchy" debate. I am just going to show that it's logically possible (even if it's very unlikely) to have peace in anarchy, but logically impossible to have complete peace in a society with a government. Anyways, enough spoilers. I will probably start this debate in a couple days if you're interested in following it (or maybe even be my debate opponent, if you would like).
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 8:33:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By the way PRA, reasoning was once an an-cap like you (I personally reckon he still is, but is trolling =P). Glad to have more an-caps here.
PeaceRequiresAnarchy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 9:55:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 8:33:03 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
By the way PRA, reasoning was once an an-cap like you (I personally reckon he still is, but is trolling =P). Glad to have more an-caps here.

I would sooner believe that "Further, without social programs like welfare, or macroeconomic stabilization policies like stimulus spending in times of recession, nothing will prevent unfortunate persons from being cast into grinding poverty..." is an an-cap trolling than a former an-cap who has since miraculously become a conservative.

I just looked up his profile and under "The Big Issues" it says "con" for "welfare." Reasoning, are you trolling me? :-)
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 7:31:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was young and foolish and believed in the NAP and all that crap. I do oppose welfare as it exists, but I do support a social safety net provided through forced savings accounts.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
PeaceRequiresAnarchy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:02:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 7:31:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I was young and foolish and believed in the NAP and all that crap. I do oppose welfare as it exists, but I do support a social safety net provided through forced savings accounts.
Okay, that has to be trolling.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:16:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We've had a number of An-caps over the years, though I think only 2 active ones are left.

Though you must be prepared to argue that peace is not possible without anarchy, and for such a debate, a definition of "peace" must be well defined. If you leave that open in your opening round, your opponent will define it themselves, and you'll be left trying to fight over the definition and never get to the arguments.

If you try to do something along the lines of "peace is the absolute absence of conflict" then technically, that is only possible under anarchy, as it is only possible under the absence of human existence (we would have to be extinct, would would classify as anarchy as there is no government).

Maybe you could argue that conflict is minimized under anarchy as opposed to any governmental structure (without using the human extinction semantic argument).

Just suggesting, by the way, welcome.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PeaceRequiresAnarchy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 11:34:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ore_Ele, thanks for the info and tips. I wrote an opening argument already and made sure to carefully define my terms. I would share it here except that I don't want want to get people mad by posting my arguments here before a debate (imabench says people would be mad if I did).

I intend to edit the wording of my argument at some point before starting a debate because my intention is not just to make the case that peace requires anarchy, but to make it so obvious that most logical people in the general public would accept it. Thus I won't assume any background understanding of anarchy or anything like that.

I want to be able to walk up to a random person on the state and say "Peace requires anarchy," be told "You're crazy!" and then be able to hand them my argument and watch them say, "Okay, fine, I guess you're right." (Note: Of course I wouldn't actually walk up to a person in the street and do this, but the point is that I want to write up a strong argument in defense of the truth of the statement.)