The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Anarchy would be beneficial to a Western civilized nation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 39216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I think that anarchy could be beneficial to Western civilized nations, *I am referring to Australia as the base of the topic however feel free to use other Western civilized nations to support your argument*, as the ruling Government has been deteriorating in recent times. This involves the unnecessary spending (most of the time) of our compulsory taxation which could be used for better use and the constant issues with humanitarian progression and principles (harsh asylum seeking policies and restricting rights to diverse groups in society). I am referring to a 'social anarchy' meaning that we reject all forms of Government peacefully as I do not believe that violence is a necessary answer to this issue. Social anarchy will restore rights and give us an extended freedom to decide how we run our lives, not the lives of those who consider their lives more important than yours. Although I acknowledge the cons of the absence of the Government, I believe that the pros of social anarchy will out-weigh the cons.


To start my argument against, I must accept that the Western civilized nations had governments with broad strokes of corruption, which in many cases cause the detriment of the tax money received in their own welfare, on the other hand , consider that without a existing government the tax collection would be affected, this tax collection is one of the bases of our economic system and it's development , so if we fall in a system in which social anarchism (in which we don't pay taxes because we fell they are being bad use). if this happened we would suffer a major economic downturn in our way of life and also would increase the level of poverty of the nation it self, poverty that we could not stop because of the lack of money.

Secondly I am a firm believer that we have to take a tough stance and be criticism against the government we choose and the representatives we bring to power, in my opinion we must know how to use democracy with the purpose for which it was created , to represent the will of the people , so, we must not only reject the incompetence of the leaders which we chose, we must also need to take action against them, not in a silence and civil disobedience actuated, but in a position of demanding our rights.

Finally in relation to the claim that you state about the benefits of social anarchy goods, I believe that this is an issue in which we must be the principal actors of change and also the head and voice of our right, we can't just lose a fight we hadn't fight , it is our responsibility to force our representatives to established justice in favor of what we want and the people in generally want, we must use the power of the people, the power of the democracy not the rebellion of the anarchism to restore our rights, this process may take years , even centuries , so it is our responsibility to give a "push" , and decide what we want, but decide with our voice and actions, not only with social disobedience.

To conclude my first argument, I believe that social anarchism is not the solution to the problems that beset society , being the solution I propose to demand our votes and rights to the ones we chose . Changing things by the correct use of our voices.
We had the right to modify and create the rules we must use this to achieve major development and social equality , plus of course , great economic prosperity, being the democracy the system in which I believe, this may look like the difficult, sometimes the impossible one, but if the people will wanted we as a society will became great.

I'm not a native speaker, sorry for my grammar.
Debate Round No. 1


MattsDebate forfeited this round.


Jcamp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opponent for taking up this challenge, also I would like to apologise for the late reply, I have been absent for quite a while, and am replying just in time, also there is nothing THAT wrong with your grammar and spelling, it's the point that counts. Quality>quantity

Wow I have no idea what democratic nation you are referring to which actually implements these rights to its people but I sure do like this place. It's a joke to assume that our voice will be heard be heard in a nation which sets its economy and personal bank accounts over the needs of its people. For example; in Australia we have asylum seekers escaping persecution to our 'free nation'. Our government has sent these forgotten people to PNG (Papa New Guniea) which is a 3rd world nation where there is a 70% likely chance for a woman to be sexually assaulted or raped in any given form. There has been cries from people and the UN and the government still isn't listening so your statement is invalid when you said that using our voices will achieve results. History suggests that only PRESSURE has FORCED these people to make changes as they have been threatened from a potential force, it has never been about the voice. Take African American rights for example, they spoke out for years and were persecuted for it, it was the pressure and support from people that got them out of a massive state of oppression, the leaders did not give two shits about what they had to say before hand.

Also you talked about welfare. Imagine a nation where businesses weren't allowed to rip you off for their own money hungry agenda (mass profit), a nation where equality is excepted and people have accessibility to jobs. This nation requires no welfare. Australia is a country NOT a company, we can not bring the 'economy' into the equation when it is STILL not benefiting people when it is going well and it treats them worse when it is down. Also I am talking about overthrowing the current government, every nation needs a leader and we can impose one which does not have the same power which the previous government had, and it only operates in the interests of its people. Also the economy would not be necessary if we used old school methods of currency, independent to Australia considering that it doesn't need external forces to help provide for it. We can use the method of trade, even overseas instead of the method of 'OH NO I NEED MORE MONEY TO PAY FOR SOMETHING WHICH IS TAXED AND I CURRENTLY CAN'T AFFORD IT BECAUSE MY MONEY WAS TAXED and oh what are they going to do with that money for me or people in need? FERKING NOTHING!' I am considering a new system, not the abolishment of trade and the economy, not forgetting about minorities. Silence is a Government's bestfriend and social anarchism will give us our rights.

These countries treat us like a company. You say that we have the right to vote but we are limited as to our choice of leadership because of our limitations and the propaganda of media to tell us that this much freedom is as good as it gets and we should accept it and feel greatful for it. SCREW THAT! we should reach for FREEDOM, lets not settle for less.

And I would like to apologise for sloppy answering, I had 9 minutes lol


Jcamp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MattsDebate 5 years ago
I definitely agree with your economical terms and I do think there are alternatives but it would require a reformation of the current economic system because the current system and social anarchism couldn't co-exist. Yeah this debate is sloppy and I will put the biggest time limit on it next time. It would have been better if I didn't spend 10 minutes on my points and we were both battling it out using logical reasoning. I also wish you the best of luck for your next debates, I am starting to like the concept of this website but am still getting used to it. Farewell my friend :)
Posted by Jcamp 5 years ago
i wnat to apology for forfeit round 3, i read your argumente and i believe that you're more close to communism that for anarchy, this debate could be a lot more interesting, sorry for that i would like to accept the mayor part of your arguments, but the economy is the principal layer of aou world, and no country had archive autarchy, so we depend of the other, the globalization is what rules the world, without it and the economy, we will life in poberty and our "own" goverment could be taken down by the first nation that saw it, the people will select the system in which they live the best, for something capitalism had triumph between other systems, the society is ruled by economy and in the modern world an "alone" system is condem to failure.

I would like to keep a debate, but sometimes the time is not enough, excuse my and good luck in your next debate!
Posted by MattsDebate 5 years ago
My arguments were sloppy and didn't really reflect on my strongest points so I will likely be re-opening this topic where I will make time to actually answer and debate properly rather than leaving myself 10ish minutes. I hope I got some sort of point out but I think this one was a hit and a miss. A re-debate would be necessary. Also thank-you to my opponent who took the time to make a good answer despite it being for only 1 round. I look forward to properly conducting another debate.
Posted by MattsDebate 5 years ago
I would like to apologize by not posting my argument for round 2, I had 5 minutes to write it, I did write it and I went to post it at 5 seconds left and it MADE me fricking review it first so I ran out of time LOL. I then Tried to comment it but it was far too long so I gave up for that round, looking forward to round 3.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 5 years ago
I'd accept but im on your side. Cant wait to see what the contender has in store for you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 5 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.