Government is Necessary for Several Basic Functions
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
In this debate I (Pro) will be arguing that Government is Necessary to perform the following functions:
1. Protection of its citizens from foreign armies.
2. Protection of its citizens from domestic threats.
3. Serve as a mechanism for settling disputes among its citizens.
- Government - The governing body of a nation, state, or community .
- State - A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government .
- Necessary - Required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential .
- Functions - An activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing .
1. Starting on the theory, the rules set up in the description need to be steadfast and absolute. The description is part of a binding contract that is agreed to by the challenged party. Don't let Pro skirt any part of it, because this is both unfair and non educational.
A. It's unfair because my entire strategy for going into this round is hinged on the rules set up by Pro. If they get to dip out of their own rules whenever it benefits them, then I have literally no ground to stand on for this debate, and I don't have a fair shot at winning. No debater has a shot at winning a debate where the rules are pulled out from under them.
B. It's non educational because there is no inherent strategy building for either side. Pro doesn't have to strategize because they can shift the rules in their favor at any time, and Con doesn't have to strategize because it doesn't matter what I do, I will always lose if the rules get shifted, so I would never take the time to strategize a lost debate.
" Based on the rules set up by Pro, I only have to defend the idea that a government is necessary to protect "its citizens" from the laundry list of things Pro has decided to utilize. Very simply, this doesn't mean I have to defend a stateless society"
"Very simply, this doesn't mean I have to defend a stateless society, but just a society where a state isn't protecting its own citizens, so states that are under the protective umbrellas of other governments would 100% be a defendable position for me to take as Con."
"One example is the Cook Islands. They have no military (1) and their courts directly appeal to the Privy Council, which is a UK court, making them not necessary for settling disputes (2), and lastly, their police receive reviews from New Zealand police (3), meaning they aren't necessary for the protection of their citizens from domestic threats. While a government is necessary, the Cook Islands government isn't necessary for the protection of "its citizens."
" Another example is the Faroe Islands, which has no military and is protected by Denmark, there police is considered a separate district of the Danish Police Force (4), and their courts appeal into the Danish Supreme Court ("
"My opponent gives a list of dangerous, unnamed "others" that we need the state to protect us from, without labeling any specific examples."
"All of this construction is utilized to create a system where the state is on an untouchable pedestal, because without it, we become sitting ducks for the "other"."
" I would say this logic of thinking is inherently dangerous because it leads to the justification of violent conquest and imperialism"
"The only difference between the logic utilized by my opponent and utilized by those kingdoms is that the "other" is no longer some scary spirit, but other governmental and ideological groups that don't fit into the current neoliberal system with which the United States is under (since that is the example he used). "
"The threatening portrayal of the "other" is inherently a xenophobic grasp at a way to understand the world through a lenses of superiority of self (whereas self is a placeholder to say one's own race, ethnicity, politics, country of origin, religion, etc.). The threat portrayed by foreign armies is a way to portray other nations as inherently dangerous, even where no warranted ill will was shown by Pro"
- Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries .
"Firstly, the threat of foreign armies only comes from the existence of our own government. Any individual nation that would ever seriously go to war against the another nation is angry at actions that our state has committed or some sort of hegemony held."
" Ukraine doesn't get mad at Russia if there is no Russia to try and steal Crimea"
" I would argue it's harder for a government to conquer a stateless area than a government, because to conquer a government, you just have to get the government to surrender, but to conquer stateless area, you have to conquer every individual."
" There are 3 to 1 private soldiers versus US soldiers in war zones. (6) This empirically shows that the US has handed the majority of control to private countries, and it hasn't lead to any of the unwarranted issues Pro argues about, so I would say this is debunked."
"If there is no government, there is no terrorism to try and change that government"
" The belief that the government is protecting us from domestic threats doesn't take into account the threat the government itself plays"
"The question then becomes, is the state more dangerous than the threats they've constructed, and the answer is almost always yes, in which case they aren't protecting you from domestic threats, but are just being one."
"They simply fail to do so. In immigration courts in the United States, there is such a large backlog, approximately 1.3 million cases (7). "
". I would say private adjudication is doing fine based on the idea it exists. Very simply, there are people who see a free legal system and still choose to work within private models of mediation and arbitration because the court system is so flawed and failed"
"I think the Soviet Union "threat" to the United States is the greatest example of threat construction justifying sovereign power for no reason other than to prop up the state. "
"He says he's not ceding the state power to protect from some unidentified boogeyman, but his most recent example is the people of the United States ceding power to the state (through McCarthyism) to protect from the constructed boogieman of the USSR, a nation that was wanting to actually join military alliances."
"This impact is the most important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, my opponent ceded it, meaning that he not only agrees that the education we gain from this debate round is the only real effect of this debate as well as the most important, but that he creates bad education... especially since he agrees that he isn't providing good education, but specifically bad education since he is only justifying the violent rhetoric of sovereign power."
"My opponent's definition of xenophobia is too narrow to truly show the point I'm talking about, so I'm going to talk about the definition, then the point itself.I. Xenophobia should be defined as a fear of strangers, which would make xenophobic defined as someone who is afraid of strangers."
" This entire point wasn't about foreign army, but the danger of the labeling any group that you disagree with as a terrorist without any justification (the greatest example is the fact that my opponent used the term terrorist as a blanket statement to even include serial killers)."
- International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
- Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature .
"However, I'm keeping the private army point for one reason, he never disproves it and just says it doesn't apply."
" The United States has unarmed African Americans shot by police as well as immigrants getting forced hysterectomies at the border"
" Russia has a political genocide, and China has the Uygur genocide."
" My opponent also dropped the point that the government being able to arrest you for simply not paying their protection money is inherently just as violent as any criminal racket, meaning the government is, at best, just as dangerous as any domestic threat."
"The claim is the state is necessary to settle disputes, but I would say the only way he can claim this is if the state succeeds at settling disputes, and based on the fact there is 1.3 million unresolved disputes in an ever growing backlog, he can't prove he solves. Very simply, the state isn't necessary to solve disputes because they can't do it, and he agrees with that."
"II. If there is three seperate jobs Pro is trying to justify, then there should be three different agencies to do these jobs. Simply saying that a nation could throw their cops on a battlefield doesn't really warrant out if that is a sound strategy. My opponent could also make the argument all the judges of the nation could be thrown on a battlefield with their gavels and that's the government being necessary to protect its citizens from foreign threats, but that doesn't prove anything, and throwing cops into a soldiers position is the same idea"
"It's possible for their to be a nation that simply allows another government to do all the work for them."
" His argument is that we otherized the Soviet Union because they were a legitimate threat because they had nuclear weapons and an army."
"The nations of the UK, France, India, and Israel all developed nuclear weapons during that time and we didn't otherize and arms race them like we did the USSR."
" His only answer to the Soviet Union attempting to join NATO is that they were deferring to the United States military might. If this is true, then why didn't we accept their deference?"
" Firstly, my opponent says it baseless, but I think all my points stand"
" Firstly, my opponent continuously is debating the definition of xenophobic, but not the warrant for his inherently unethical and wrong answer. "
"My opponent's only answer to the idea that justifying everything you disagree with as a terrorist is, first, "yeah, I used threat construction on serial killers,"
"and, second, "terrorists exist"... On the domestic threat point, he doesn't give anything but "bad guys" practically. He hasn't given a single example"
" So, my opponent's arguments to political genocide and the Uyghur genocide is 'it's better than being conquered by another nation.'"
"3. Lastly, his only argument on the court issue is they did part of their job. This is the equivalent if someone owed you $10, they gave you $5, and when you go "Hey, where's the rest?" their answer was "I owe you $5 left, but I paid $5, so I paid my debt." They are not successfully doing their job. Don't give Pro the benefit of saying some cases are done, so it's ok. There's 1.3 million immigrants with there issues not being settled, so obviously the state is not necessary because they can't do it."