Instigator / Pro
8
1542
rating
6
debates
83.33%
won
Topic

Government is Necessary for Several Basic Functions

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ancap460
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Con
14
1501
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 274 / 5,000

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.

Round 1
Pro
  Thank you Ancap460 for accepting my challenge. I used to be an anarchist, testing the ideas from anarcho-syndicalism to anarcho-capitalism and all the stuff in between (save anarcho-primitivism *shudder*). Jokes aside, it seems abundantly clear that Government must exist to serve some basic functionality, that cannot be realistically privatized. These functions I will be arguing are that government is necessary for:

1. Protection of its citizens from foreign armies.
2. Protection of its citizens from domestic threats.
3. Serving as a mechanism for settling disputes among its citizens.

----------

Definitions

  • Government - The governing body of a nation, state, or community [3].
  • State - A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government [4].
  • Necessary - Required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential [5].
  • Functions - An activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing [6].

----------

1. Protection from Foreign Armies.

  There are several reasons why government is necessary to protect its citizens from foreign armies. Here I will give two specifically. The first is that a united State will necessarily be able to raise funds for defense more efficiently as a collective people, ceding this power to a single institution, than as an amalgam of seperate, competing entities, with different interests. To quote John Jay in Federalist Paper #4 :

  "But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.[1]"

  The second reason is that privatised national defense would lead to undesirable outcomes, such as the recreational buying and selling of hellfire missiles between private consumers. This would dramatically amplify the threat of Domestic Terrorism, which is a perfect segway into my second main point.

2. Protection from Domestic Threats

  The government is a necessary mechanism for protection of its citizens from domestic threats, such as terrorists. The use of government agencies to police communities under unified law codes, and stop domestic terrorism is not a job that can be handled by the private sector. This is because private companies will have different rules in a stateless system, and their private security forces will enforce their individual rules. A government to serve this function of policing under a unified law code is necessary for the protection of private property rights and establishing the exact rules to be guiding disputes about who owns what. In a stateless society, property owners will dictate these rules individually in whatever zone they consider their private property. This lack of unification would undoubtedly increase disputes. This is a perfect segway into my next major point but first, this addition: without a government, policing would be unaffordable to the lowest income communities, which unfortunately experience the most crime [2].

3. A Mechanism for Settling Disputes

  It would be near-impossible to argue that a private judicial system would benefit society more than a standardized one. Without a singular institution to serve as an arbiter of justice against a standardized rule system, there would be little, probably no hope for individuals in disputes to settle their disputes in a manner that is consistent, within agreed upon rules, and enforces the settlement. In the American Judicial System, every individual has a right to a fair trial, and an attorney to be appointed to them in the event they cannot afford one. This would be impossible for the poor and dejected members of society that would get steamrolled in privatised courtrooms.

----------

Conclusion

  In conclusion, it is very clear that Government must exist to at least serve these basic functions. There is no realistic way to privatise these functions that wouldn't infringe upon, or outright trample the natural human rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. I look forward to my opponents response.



Reason compels me to lick the boot.
Over to Con!
Con
Thank you for challenging me to this debate Sum1hugme. I know that it's a gimmick at me being an ancap, so I hope you know I'm not going to go in on Ancapistan, and I'm going in for the win in general. To set up my speech order, I'm going to run a preemptive theory (it's preemptive because I want to ensure that Pro doesn't get shifty on me) on the fairness of the rules, give a critical understanding of my opponent and then give one generic solvency argument while also answering all of the points individually.

My points
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.

2. 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, 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. There are multiple examples of independent nations that are protected by other nations. 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 (5). I could list more examples, but I think this sufficiently shows the point. As a final note, my opponent in the rules said he would defend all the functions, so I just need to win one. This is important because even if you buy that both the Cook and Faroe islands have seperate police and court systems, at least see they have no military, meaning they are not necessary for protecting their own citizens. This no military example expands to a list of nations, some of the most important and sovereign examples being Andorra (protected by Spain and France), Costa Rica (protected by the United States), Iceland (protected by NATO), and Panama (with no military commitments, only border patrol and police). This is all under the first source, and proves that a government isn't necessary to protect ITS citizens, with the focus on its.

3. To finally take the critical approach of my opponent, I would say my opponent uses threat construction to prop up sovereign power. 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 kingdoms of Europe conquered/genocided early Native inhabitants of the New World under the justification that they were protecting them from the "other", which at the time was paganism. 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). I would say that it is necessary for the judge to vote down any team that uses threat construction to prop up sovereign power.
A. The justifications I already brought up, so I won't repeat it. Just understand that this colonial/genocidal justification needs to be voted down for the justifications that come from Pro.
B. Because the only real impact that comes out of debate is the education we get, so we should utilize understanding sovereign power and the chains it uses to control us rather than continuing it's chain of threat construction and justification of atrocities. Every second we waste discussing the flawed conception of sovereign power is a second we lose the chance to truly be able to dissect it and see how far the issues go.
C. 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. The threat portrayed by domestic threats, specifically "terrorists", is a way to portray political ideals that might seem foreign or strange to Pro as inherently dangerous, even though there was no warranted threat. Without warranting or showing examples of either of these threats, he's trying to fear monger off of deep seated xenophobia, and this should be cast out as inherently dangerous to discourse, if we can just label the "other" as dangerous, and this is acceptable, even if there is no other. 

Opponent's points

1. The threat of foreign armies is flawed for three reasons.
A. 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. Without the existence of a government, there is nothing to get mad at geopolitically. For example, the United States doesn't get mad about a lack of Chinese copyright law if there is no China to uphold copyright law. Pakistan doesn't get mad at India if there is no India to oppress the Islamic minority. Ukraine doesn't get mad at Russia if there is no Russia to try and steal Crimea. The existence of violent foreign armies comes at the prerequisite of existing governments to be violent against. 
B. 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. Every house has to sign to join the government to be in the government database to pay taxes and be in the system to be held accountable to the state. For example, if the US was to be conquered by China today, they would just hand over all of the social security data and China would now collect our taxes and know where to track you down if you don't pay. A stateless society has no weakness and it would be next to impossible to ever achieve control of an area like that.
C. 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.

2. The threat of domestic threats is flawed for two reasons.
A. The threat of terror is much like the threat of foreign governments. A terrorist organization is mad that a government doesn't utilize their ideology or is mad at a foreign government for existing in the way it does. If there is no government, there is no terrorism to try and change that government. I'm going to keep this short because it's the same idea as before.
B. The belief that the government is protecting us from domestic threats doesn't take into account the threat the government itself plays. From the political genocide and silencing of opposition parties in Russia, to the political silencing and Uyghur genocide in China, to the forced hysterectomies at the US border and shootings of unarmed African Americans, governments themselves are inherently a much larger threats for large sections of people compared to the crime and terrorists that hate the state. This is ignoring the threat of jail if you don't pay taxes in all nations, which inherently is like protection money for a gang. 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.

3. The ability to settle disputes fails for two reasons.
A. 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). This backlog is simply the definition that a state has failed to settle 1.3 million disputes in a timely manner. Cross apply this argument that the state is inherently a domestic threat itself and how 1.3 million people have been locked up just for existing without the states approval, and then haven't even had a fair shake to describe their story. A prerequisite to being necessary to do something is the ability to do it.
B. 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. The fact that private models are chosen over public models shows that the public model is not necessary.

4. Since my opponent has to defend all of the points, if even one of these arguments win, I win the debate because that's the rules he set up for himself. Don't let him shift the goal post.

Sources


Round 2
Pro
  Thank you Ancap460 for your response. Haha, of course this resolution is because you're an ancap. It's a bit humorous though that you prefer to go for the win rather than argue for ancap ideas, as if those were separate concepts. Now, I'll jump into my rebuttals:

--------------------

REBUTTALS

----------

  • R1
" 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"
  It'd be a lot cooler if you did. Unfortunately instead, my opponent has chosen to attack a verbal technicality in the word "its." While not necessarily wrong as far as I can tell, it just sucks the hope of having fun in this debate right out of me.

"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."
  Governments under the protective umbrellas of other governments are still utilizing a government to protect its citizens and thus, do not refute my arguments.

"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."
  The Cook Island's Government is responsible for employing the New Zealand government for protection; and employing the UK government for a Judicial system.  Therefore, the Cook Island's government is responsible for the protection of it's citizens, because It's responsible for the employment of the protection. Furthermore, this only helps to demonstrate my case that governments are necessary for handling national defense and judicial responsibility.

" 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 ("
  The reasoning above holds: The Faroe island's government employs the government of Denmark to handle the three things listed. Faroe's government is responsible for the employment of functional courts, military, and defense for it's citizens.

----------

  • R2
"My opponent gives a list of dangerous, unnamed "others" that we need the state to protect us from, without labeling any specific examples."
  In the case of America in the 1960's, the threat was the Soviet Union. In the case of Rome in 476 A.D, it was Germanic invaders [1]. As the quote in my opening stated, "But whatever may be our situation... foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly." This necessitates national defense. If national defense is not being handled by a single united State, this is effectively the same as being split into confederacies. A nation with imperialist interests is much more prone to attack a broken nation than a united one [2].

"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"."

  This is clearly not my argument, that we should cede the power of unified national defense to protect us from some mysterious boogeyman as my opponent seems to imply in this argument.

" I would say this logic of thinking is inherently dangerous because it leads to the justification of violent conquest and imperialism"
  Strength and unity are a nation's greatest assets for its protection from foreign armies. I have made no attempt to justify conquest nor imperialism, but instead that a unified national defense is necessary for protection from foreign armies.

----------

  • R3
"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). "
  My opponent misunderstands my argument. My argument is not that unified national defense should be to protect its citizens from ideologies, or ideologues. I argue that a government is necessary to protect it's citizens from said governmental and ideological forces' armies.

----------

  • R4
"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"
  Xenophobic is defined as :

  • Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries [3].

  In no sense do my arguments require a dislike or prejudice towards other countries. Simply an understanding that men are ambitious, seeking fame and power. in the same way a sickly beast is a much more inviting prey to a hungry lion; insatiable are the appetites of men's ambitions, and imperialist nations will prey on weaker nations. Russia invaded Ukraine just a couple of years ago [4] and Alexander the Great annexed the Persians in 331 B.C. [6]. Ill will is dependent on the context of the nation being discussed. I'm generalizing with "foreign armies" because it applies across the board.

----------

  • R5
"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."
  This is blatantly false. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without provocation from the United States [7][8].

----------

  • R6
" Ukraine doesn't get mad at Russia if there is no Russia to try and steal Crimea"
  In thought, this is true. Unfortunately for my opponents argument, both of these states exist. If one did and the other didn't, the empty territory would simply be occupied by a neighboring state. But both nations exist, and I argue that Ukraine's best chance of defending Crimea is through the government, rather than the private sector. In fact, that the Ukrainian government is necessary to defend the people of Crimea from Russian Imperialism. Without the Ukrainian Government, it would be an easy conquest for Putin.

----------

  • R7
" 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."
  The difficulty is not the same, as a government is far more capable, as shown by history, than the regular public at both raising and training professional armies. The number of civilian casualties is the issue. When an invading force is forced to fight house to house, civilian casualties skyrocket [9]. Whereas if a state formally declares defeat, it spares the lives of its citizens and the remainder of its infrastructure, thus mitigating civilian casualties. 

" 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."

   The employment of mercenaries for America's conquests in no way debunks any argument so far presented. 

----------

  • R8
"If there is no government, there is no terrorism to try and change that government"
  This is true, but fails to take into account other forms of terrorism besides political terrorism. Serial murderers and kidnappers aren't always acting against the government. But they need to be stopped by the government and held up to an agreed-upon standard of punishment for their crimes.

----------

  • R9
" The belief that the government is protecting us from domestic threats doesn't take into account the threat the government itself plays"
  Even if government is perpetrating some level of threat, this does not negate the need for policing and standardized rule systems.

"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."
  Yes, if a government has become tyrannical, then they are being a domestic threat. Under which circumstances, governments are typically overthrown and replaced. This does not refute the necessity of having a domestic police force.

----------

  • R10
"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). "
  This is a lag caused by immigration law, which I am not trying to defend. However, in 2019 the United States Judicial System did have filed approx. 1,352,213 (I may have missed a few adding them together) cases [10].

". 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 would ask my opponent to please define the term private adjudication as it's used here. I will respond in my counter-rebuttals.

--------------------

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, My opponent has failed to effectively refute my initial arguments, and has offered no viable alternative solutions to any of the functions I argue government is necessary for. Government is clearly necessary for the functions listed. My arguments stand and I look forward to my opponents response.



Con
I'm going to cover my points and then my opponent's points in the same order as before.

My points
1. On the theory, he didn't violate it, but agreed to it, I'm simply extending it to keep it on the flow so he doesn't shift later. Just to ensure that his jab at the "fun" of the debate doesn't constitute an actual attack, I'll take the time to answer it. Very simply, he ceded that the only impacts outside the round is education, and since he never said we aren't producing education throughout this round, the "fun" of the round doesn't matter compared to the education.

2. I would say that on the case of the Cook Islands, Faroe Islands, Andorra, Costa Rica, Iceland, and Panama, Pro has the job of proving how these nations are responsible for protecting themselves from other nations, and in the case of the former two, how they specifically ask for help, proving they are necessary for their own citizens protection. Also, as a little sidenote, saying that since being under a protective umbrella puts you under some government, meaning it doesn't disprove you, completely ignores the entire theory my opponent ceded, so force him to prove how these nations are essential to protecting their own citizens. Also, I would argue that a lot of nations aren't essential because they don't do anything. I would argue Costa Rica doesn't ask for help from the United States, it just takes benefit from being under the United States' guarantee to protect the entire Western Hemisphere. I would also show that Panama has no protection from foreign adversaries yet is doing fine, so unless they can prove that Panama is in a unique position where it's going to be conquered anytime soon, then there is obviously alternatives to the state protecting someone. Lastly, Andorra simply exists between two much larger nations that promise to protect it since they are much larger. Same with Iceland invested in NATO. It's not that Iceland specifically asks to be protected, it's the fact that they exist in an organization that wants to protect them. Unless my opponent can prove that all of these examples specifically ask for the help of other nations, then he doesn't have any proof that they're essential, needed, or necessary for their own citizens protection. Even his points on Cook and Faroe Islands aren't actually proven, just spitballed theories, so force him to prove that they are necessary by proving they ask for help, not just gain a passive benefit of being under a nation's umbrella. These are keyly different.

3. 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. The United States was lobbied by corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups that simply would not profit/benefit from a communist movement in the United States. To help enforce their sovereign power as definite, they otherized the Soviet Union, despite the Soviet Union trying to establish peaceful relations with the capitalist West. The USSR tried to join NATO to create defense cooperation, but was turned down. (1) He's proven that governments create fake threats to justify their power and system of governance, even if there is no threat. Since I and my opponent have proven he uses the otherization rhetoric, we have to look at the impacts of such issues. Also, his argument that states are necessary to be united to protect the population is completely ignoring the argument behind this critical point. This point is negating Pro, not because of the topic itself, but how Pro approaches the topic and utilizes sovereign power.
A. 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. That's exactly what he's doing and don't let him get away with proving that's what he's doing and then saying he isn't doing that. Also, saying that you don't justify imperialism and conquest while you actively support sovereign power is the ultimate hypocrisy. The USA-USSR example is another great example of why sovereign power justifies colonial, imperial, and authoritarian colonialism and genocide. Both nations led political genocides where they arrested and killed political dissidents to their economic systems. (2)(3) This was all done in protecting from the "other". On top of that, both of these nations held a proxy war in Vietnam to protect Vietnamese citizens from the "other". To say that how my opponent characterizes sovereign doesn't justify these actions just as they were justified in the Cold War is simply ignoring history and my opponent. Also, don't let him claim that since the other has an army, they're inherently dangerous. Firstly, the threat itself is faked, such as WMD's in Iraq. Secondly, even if the USSR had an army, they wanted to cooperate with the United States, and any other that is created to justify sovereign power is going to be just as nuanced. To simply describe any "other" as the enemy directly feeds into this violent logic.
B. 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. Since he ceded all these points, he loses this argument on this impact alone, and this needs to be understood very importantly. He agrees that education is the only real thing in the debate and most important, and he's simply bad for it. He agrees that he doesn't evaluate the chains of sovereign power and uses their threat construction and justification of atrocities as his rhetoric style, and that we should be using this debate to dissect sovereign power. Since, by not answering this point, he agrees that this debate should dissect sovereign power, but he isn't doing that, he agrees that he isn't providing good education for the debate. Vote him down to preserve the educational value of the debate space, 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.
C. 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. (4) We need to be interpreting this to being afraid of the out group because it fits the critical nature of this argument much better. Words have to fit their context more than arbitrary definitions, and this definition definitely fits the context of the argument much better. Also, even if you think I used the term xenophobic wrong, at best, see the impact still stands, and at worst, shoot down the impact, not the entire argument.
II. 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). The war on terror has created this xenophobic way of viewing threats, and using the term terrorist to describe every domestic threat is my opponent simply trying to achieve your vote by using fear mongering, and this is inherently bad to discourse because we as a debate community then try to simply describe the scariest "other" without any justification, which justifies xenophobic sentiment. Pretty much, the logic of Pro is that everything that isn't me is a domestic threat that I label terrorist. This is inherently dangerous to discourse because it justifies racism, homophobia, islamophobia, sexism, and a multitude of other issues.

Opponent's points
1. On the threat of foreign armies, I'm going to drop my first two points. I would say my second argument about multiple countries not having armies does the work needed to disprove this. However, I'm keeping the private army point for one reason, he never disproves it and just says it doesn't apply. The reason it applies is because his argument that private armies are inherently dangerous has now been disproved. If they do the bulk of the work with no issue currently, there's no reason to say it would be any different without a state. The private army doesn't necessarily disprove his point, but it definitely mitigates his harms, so at the end of the round, when I list all my bad stuff I say he causes and he lists all his bad stuff that he says he prevents, I stop him from getting access to his private army point.

2. I'm dropping the terror point, but extending the point about a state being more dangerous than the "domestic threats". He said the government then gets overthrown, but I listed the three most stable nations, one of which is seen as a human rights leader globally, and the threat they create. 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. I would say general lawlessness, while bad, is a lot less bad than a government that can forcibly remove your uterus (5), poison you for being against the current system (6), or force you into an internment camp for your ethnicity (7). Very simply, this form of state violence is much worse, and creates a larger threat than it solves. 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.

3. Lastly, on the disputes issue, I'm going to drop the private adjudication issue and go for the immigration point, since my opponent said he simply didn't have to defend it. 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.

4. He agreed that if I win one point, any point, I win the debate. Hold him to that since he didn't disagree.

Sources
Round 3
Pro
  I apologize to my opponent and the judges for cutting it short in my last argument and not hitting on one or two points, I ran out of character space. I have not agreed that my opponent will win this debate, let me be very clear on that. While I don't believe I should actually have to go through the tedium of proving every single point in my opponent's barrage of examples wrong, I want to demonstrate the emptiness of my opponents arguments thus far.

Cook Islands - "Since 1965, the Cook Islands have been essentially independent (self-governing in free association with New Zealand), but remained officially placed under New Zealand sovereignty [5]" Since the Cook islands are under New Zealand sovereignty, then citizens of the cook islands are citizens of New Zealand [1]." 
Faroe Islands - "Faroese citizenship does not exist, so it is the Danish rules that apply in the area. [2]" The government of Denmark, protects its citizens.
Andorra - -"Andorra has no standing army but signed treaties with Spain and France for its protection [3]." The government of Andorra was responsible for signing the treaties that employed the governments of spain and france to protect its citizens.
Costa Rica - "Costa Rica maintains Police Guard forces [4]." 
Iceland - has a coast guard [5].
Panama - "Panama maintains armed police and internal security forces, and small air and maritime forces [6]."

  Every single government or state listed by my opponent has some form of national defense, is still under the sovereignty of its master, or has directly propositioned protection from a government. In this way, the examples my opponent has given in an attempt to attack an interpretational technicality in the debate description, rather than my actual opening arguments, all support my position.

--------------------

  COUNTER-REBUTTALS

----------

  • CR1
"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. "
  The united states and the soviet union posed a threat to one another by virtue of possessing nuclear weapons, and to a lesser degree, by virtue of possessing armies. My opponent simply requested an example of a government posing a threat to a nation that would require a national defense to exist as a potential response to aggression, and I listed the US and USSR, and Rome and Germanic Tribes, the latter my opponent failed to address. Potential aggression is a threat. It's the same justification for concealed-carrying a gun. Not all immediate threats are immediately recognizable, and it is naive to be ill-prepared.

"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."
  As stated earlier, the existence of nuclear capabilities poses a potential threat to the United States. Russian leaders respected American military might [7]. This leads to diplomacy that is geared towards a formidable opponent, as opposed to imperialistic diplomacy against a weak nation. My argument is that we should cede power to a singular institution that can efficiently raise funds for professional armies, rather than allowing for many individual, competing confederacies with private armies. 

-----------

  • CR2
"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."
  This paragraph is just a series of baseless assertions by my opponent, as he is not attacking any argument I have made. I have ceded no relevant points, nor did I explicitly agree that education is the most important part of debate. But this is a clear divergence from the topic.

----------

  • CR3
"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 appears to be a kritik of the term my opponent is trying to paint onto me. My opponent's redefining of the word is unnecessary, and too broad to be useful in the context of this debate. The definition I provided is the one applicable to the debate and is the one I will be referring to from here forward.

----------

  • CR4
" 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 [8].
  I will admit that perhaps serial killers with no ideology will not fit into these categories. But in spite of me arguing the point poorly earlier, there were 42 extremist driven killings in the US in 2019 alone [9]. These are not "boogeymen" as my opponent is claiming I am arguing. I argue these individuals constitute a real threat to the safety of me, my family, and my fellow citizens, and that there should be an efficient mechanism for shielding society from these individuals.

----------

  • CR5
"However, I'm keeping the private army point for one reason, he never disproves it and just says it doesn't apply."
  I addressed this is my opening statement: " ...a united state will necessarily be able to raise funds for defense more efficiently as a collective people, ceding this power to a single institution, than as an amalgam of seperate, competing entities, with different interests."

----------

  • CR6
" The United States has unarmed African Americans shot by police as well as immigrants getting forced hysterectomies at the border"
  While there are instances of police in America getting off on what should be punishable crimes, on balance, the police are doing more good than they are causing harm, as long as their tactics are up to par [10]. The article cited by my opponent about the forced hysterectomies is based on the unproven allegations of a singular nurse. My opponent treats this case, which is under investigation at this time, as a proven fact.

" Russia has a political genocide, and China has the Uygur genocide."
  I don't agree with political genocide of course, and in some cases, the threat of government overreach is greater than the threat of foreign armies. But even if there are governments that are posing threats to their society, this does not diminish the need for national security from foreign armies. I would argue it increases the need for military capabilities in the nations surrounding the tyrannical ones. My opponent has offered no viable alternatives to national security than government. In this way, my arguments stand.

" 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."
  I didn't address this point because I don't find the ethics of taxation to be particularly relevant to this discussion. My argument was that taxation is efficient for raising money for armies, not that it is ethical. 

----------

  • CR7
"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."
  My opponent perhaps failed to check my source, or he would see that my count of cases was filed cases in the us in one year. My opponent claims that there are 1.3 million unsettled cases as evidence the judicial system doesn't work. I counter with 1.3 million cases settled by the judicial system in one year as evidence it does work.

--------------------

  CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, the government has been shown in every case so far to be necessary for all the functions described in my opening. My arguments have stood unabated and my opponent's examples only strengthen them. I eagerly await your response, Ancap460.




Over to Con!
Con
My points

1. Extend the theory. My opponent isn't violating, but I want it to prevent shifts.

2. On the country arguments, I'm going to drop all the countries except for Costa Rica. I cede that all the others do the jobs Pro outlines, but Costa Rica is still not really meeting the burden for three reasons.
A. The source my opponent brought up just links back to the Andorra source. This was probably an accident, and my opponent is right to say they have a police force, so I'm not going to push it as a winning point, but if this argument was a tie, vote Con.
B. The argument that they have a police force that would double as a military is flawed for two main reasons.
I. The nation explicitly says they don't want a military in their constitution. (1) They've specifically gotten rid of the group that handles a foreign defense. The argument that they have domestic peacekeepers doesn't really answer this, especially lacking in depth warrants. The country simply doesn't have means to defend against foreign invaders and it isn't necessary. Since 1949, there hasn't been any military and they haven't needed it.
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. Inherently, my opponent's saying that since there are government workers that could be put on a battlefield, there's a military, but a cop who busts drug dealers is differently trained than a soldier who fights other trained combatants. 
C. Even if there is no empirical example, this doesn't negate the theory of the point. Very simply, even if it's never happened, my opponent hasn't proved why the idea is inherently possible. It's possible for their to be a nation that simply allows another government to do all the work for them. Unless my opponent can prove why this is inherently an impossible idea, then the idea stands as a possibility outside of the Pro's assertion.

3. His argument is that we otherized the Soviet Union because they were a legitimate threat because they had nuclear weapons and an army. The USSR fell December 25th, 1991. 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. Also, all of those nations as well as a majority of nations around the world had militaries, yet we didn't otherize the entire world. Extend my original reasons that we otherized the USSR is because they were inherently not profitable to the neoliberal/capitalist machinations of the West at the time and it had no real threat. 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? Extend my original point, the state needed to construct them as a threat to justify purging all communist elements in the United States that threatened the sovereign power of the United States government. Also, from my previous point, I'm negating Pro, not for the topic itself, but for his specific rhetoric of threat construction. If my opponent had ran framing that my opponent only needed to prove one point and focused only on the court system, then this argument wouldn't apply, but my opponent didn't. My opponent tries to create threats that are historically peaceful, and this threat construction justifies sovereign power, which leads directly into our impacts.
A. My opponent drops this entire impact. While my opponent answered the first statement, the first statement was an extension of how my opponent utilizes sovereign rhetoric and threat construction, not really the effect of such rhetoric. Extend that this rhetoric justifies colonialism, authoritarianism, conflict, and genocide. I showed how both the United States and the USSR killed/imprisoned political dissidents that supported the "others" economic system and brought this conflict to third world nations like Vietnam to protect these citizens from the constructed "other". My opponent never answered why his rhetoric doesn't justify these impacts or why these impacts are good, so extend this as dropped.
B. My opponent gave a list of one sentence answers, so I'll answer them separately on my education point, as well as extend my original impact.
I. Firstly, my opponent says it baseless, but I think all my points stand. I said that this debate doesn't change any real policy but just has all participants, if they be judges or debaters, gain education. I think that's a fact. If my opponent thought government policy was going to change as a result of this debate, I'm sorry for bursting their bubble. Also, extend all my previous reasons for saying he uses sovereign rhetoric in point 3, and all the reasons why in point 3A and 3C this rhetoric is violent. Those are all warrants, usually only lightly contended.
II. Saying I'm not attacking any point you made when I specifically talk about how your rhetoric as a whole in your first speech is inherently bad doesn't make sense. Just because I'm not engaging with your points individually and have decided to holistically critique your use of rhetoric doesn't mean that it isn't me attacking your affirmation of the topic.
III. Simply saying you didn't explicitly agree doesn't mean you didn't drop the point. Also, if a point is dropped, that means it is uncontested and therefore ceded. This is basic debate structure, and unless you want to justify why the judge should assume you answer a point by saying nothing, then you had ceded the point.
IV. Diverging from the topic doesn't mean I'm not providing a reason to not vote for Pro. If the topic was global warming and Pro started saying racist things, and Con said "don't vote for racism", that stands as a good reason to not vote Pro. This logic applies here. I'm saying your rhetoric is inherently dangerous, uneducational, and xenophobic. You refusal to justify why it isn't, and instead deciding to make technicality arguments on every impact really cements the idea you're hiding dangerous ideas in your rhetoric.
V. Finally, to extend the original impact that was again ceded, if you buy that the sovereign power and the rhetoric is inherently dangerous through any of the arguments made in this general point and that my opponent uses this threat construction and violent rhetoric, you should vote him down for spreading that rhetoric. The only thing that truly comes out of this debate is education, and spreading violent and colonial rhetoric idea is inherently bad education. If somebody used racist rhetoric for an entire speech, they should be voted down, and if my opponent can't prove they aren't inherently violent, colonial, or xenophobic through their sovereign rhetoric and threat construction, vote Con.
C. My opponent has two answers to these points, which I will address separately.
I. Firstly, my opponent continuously is debating the definition of xenophobic, but not the warrant for his inherently unethical and wrong answer. If I said Pro's affirmation was sexist because he doesn't treat racial minorities right, and that's unethical, and Pro's answer was "that's not sexism but racism", this doesn't address the idea that Pro's affirmation of the topic is bad, one way or another. As I specifically said at the end of the definition point, at best ignore the word xenophobic and at worst, shoot down this impact and not the entire argument about sovereign power. There's still good arguments about colonial violence, authoritarian violence, and bad education, so don't let all that get shut down because of this definition technicality.
II. 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 foreign threat, he gave an example which lead to a real discussion of how that example is a perfect example of threat construction to just justify sovereign power and violence. On the domestic threat point, he doesn't give anything but "bad guys" practically. He hasn't given a single example because he just wants to feed on your fear of the outsider. He wants to use any implicit sexism, racism, homophobia, political divides, and any other societal conflict within your mind and use that to justify his point. His refusal to say anything besides "there's bad guys so we need a militarized police state that can imprison political dissidents" is him trying to create a threat, and whatever you don't agree with personally fills the spot of "bad guys". He uses the term terrorist, but it does the same fear mongering job for Pro.

Opponent's Points
1. I'm dropping private armies. The work done by the Costa Rica example is enough.

2. So, my opponent's arguments to political genocide and the Uyghur genocide is "it's better than being conquered by another nation." That's the equivalent of saying that Holocaust victims should have hoped Germany did not lose to the Allies, because though they are being enslaved and tortured, it would be much worse to be liberated by foreigners. There's two really big issues wrong with this.
A. Extend this as further proof that my opponent is more concerned with being afraid of the outsider than he is actually justifying his point. My whole critique is about how he makes outsiders seem like boogeymen to prop up the status quo state, and his argument that genocides are better than foreign liberators is direct and obvious proof.
B. If I'm being genocided, I want literally anybody to stop it. To say that China is necessary to protect the Uyghurs from being liberated from their genocide and slave camps is not a good look. This directly proves the point that the government can pose more of a threat than my opponents unnamed others. He's trying to say that it's necessary for China to protect it's genocide and Russia to protect it's genocide. Why? Very simply, if China had no military and was conquered by literally any nation not running a genocide, I would think that that would result in a better world. Also, this obviously disproves the point that China is necessary to protect it's citizens, especially the Uyghur Muslims. There genociding.

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.

Conclusion
Pro uses violent rhetoric, ignores other possibilities, and justifies genocides as needing to be protected. Vote Con.

Sources
Round 4
Pro
  Thank you Ancap460 for this debate. My opponent's lack of direct quotation makes it difficult to determine exactly which arguments he is responding to in every case, and in many cases, my opponent has simply failed to do his research. I will be ignoring my opponent's mudslinging and accusations of empty or violent rhetoric in my rebuttals, because as the judges can plainly read, these do not apply to the arguments put forth. My opponent accuses me of rhetoric many times, but fails to refute my arguments. 

----------

Missing Source

  I apologize for that accident with my source regarding Costa Rica, so here is the proper source [1], and a quotation,"The Public Force of Costa Rica is the country's law enforcement force, which performs policing and border patrol functions."

--------------------

FINAL REBUTTALS

----------

  • FR1
"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"
  My opponent fails to realize that if the battlefield is the homefront, first responders are just that, the first to respond. Additionally, Costa Rica has a special operations unit that trains for war [2], and the government has allegedly stated, "... the force (Civil Guard) must be prepared to defend the country [3]."

  The analogy about the judges is inherently flawed, as the two share the quality of being government workers, but not the quality of being trained to apprehend individuals and handle firearms. A cop and a soldier share all of these qualities.

----------

  • FR2
"It's possible for their to be a nation that simply allows another government to do all the work for them."
  This falls under the "Directly propositioning protection from a government" category that my opponent ceded earlier.

----------

  • FR3
" His argument is that we otherized the Soviet Union because they were a legitimate threat because they had nuclear weapons and an army."
  This is a subtle straw man. My argument is that the Soviet Union posed a potential threat to America, because they possess these armaments. My opponent has consistently thrown this word "otherized" around, only vaguely defining it when he stated that I gave no specific examples of the potential threats of foreign armies in my opening. To this request I provided two, one of which my opponent dropped. Then my opponent shifts the apparent meaning of the word to mean threat construction for no good reason.

"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."

  This doesn't negate the need for a capable defence arm to the government.

----------

  • FR4
" 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?"
  My point about the USSR respecting US military capabilities was in response to my opponent's assertion that the USSR was a boogeyman, constructed to prop up the state. They of course were not, as they possessed nuclear weapons, professional armies, and additionally, they greatly aided American enemies in Korea [4]. NATO did not accept Moscow's proposals for the reason of being propagandistic, according to the article my opponent cited.

----------

  • FR5

" Firstly, my opponent says it baseless, but I think all my points stand"
  In the paragraph I was responding to, no point was made. Just baseless assertions with no grounding.

----------

  • FR6
" Firstly, my opponent continuously is debating the definition of xenophobic, but not the warrant for his inherently unethical and wrong answer. "
  My opponent accuses me of unethical answers, but provides nothing to substantiate that, except more baseless assertions about violent rhetoric. My opponent literally tried to redefine the word xenophobic in an attempt to paint that term onto me to justify his straw man position that I am using xenophobic rhetoric.

----------

  • FR7
"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,"
  My opponent apparently ignored the definitions of terrorist I provided or else he would know I am not labelling everything i disagree with as a terrorist; and then attacks a blatant straw man. I misused the term terrorist originally to apply to all serial killers. However, the term does apply to ideologically driven 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"
   Apparently my opponent failed to check my sources again, as I linked to a list of deadly events of domestic terrorism and other educational data. 

-----------

  • FR8
" So, my opponent's arguments to political genocide and the Uyghur genocide is 'it's better than being conquered by another nation.'"
  Again, my opponent is attacking a straw man. I argued that the issue of tyranny by a government and the necessity of protection from foreign armies are separate issues.

----------

  • FR9
"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."
  My argument on the court issue was that they did a lot of work, roughly equivalent to the backlog my opponent alleged in the beginning, in a single year (2019). I did not include the millions of solved cases over the years. Here is a whole nother year of federal caseload statistics to cement my point [5].

--------------------

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, my opponent has dropped many points, and those he has contested, have been shown to be fundamentally flawed or baseless. My arguments that government most efficiently raises the capital for defense, that privatised defence leads to undesirable outcomes, that government is a necessary mechanism for protecting its citizens from domestic threats, and that governments are a necessary mechanism for settling disputes, and enforcing settlements between citizens, stand unabated. My arguments have not been effectively refuted, or they have been dropped completely. Assuredly, government is necessary for several basic functions.







Vote Pro!
Con
I'm going to list the reasons Con deserves the vote from best to worst.

1. The turn I got on his point about why the government is necessary to protect against domestic threats. On that answer, I said that governments themselves were inherently the most dangerous domestic threat and cited political genocides and ethnic genocides in Russia and China. His answer to this was not an actual answer to the warrant that a government is the largest domestic threat, but to say that these governments have to protect their genocides. His only answer is that it's a strawman and he doesn't have to answer why governments protecting genocides inherently is protecting their citizens is more than harming them. I've pointed out that the government is more dangerous than not and this has never been answered, just this argument that foreign governments are scary. Extend the idea that people who are being genocided want to be liberated, meaning the state is no longer protecting its citizens from foreign armies, but withholding international aid. A country that is leading an active genocide is in no way protecting from domestic threats because they are the domestic threat. They also aren't protecting from foreign adversaries because they are stopping other countries from liberating these people, this isn't protection but holding hostage. Don't view this as a reason his point is wrong, but view this as a unique reason to vote Con. If you think that governments can pose more of a threat than anything else to their own people, then you vote Con, especially since he never challenged it and tried to skirt the issue by calling it a strawman and ignoring the actual warrant.

2. The entire kritikal/critical approach to Pro is another great reason to vote Con. First, we get into this argument about if he otherizes other groups. Cross apply the fact that foreign liberators are worse for those being genocided than the government genociding them as the first reason he uses rhetoric that justifies threat construction. Secondly, I know this whole debate seemed to be hinged on the US/Soviet Union, but his is just the example we really boiled down to. The basic idea is that governments create fake threats to justify their actions, in this case, the US otherized the Soviet Union so they could purge Communist elements from their nation. Threat construction used to prop up sovereign power is inherently bad. All I'm trying to prove is he uses this rhetoric and that it's bad. I'll answer the US/USSR example so there is an easy example to follow, but even if I lose the example, if you feel his original call for unnamed threats or the cross apply from the first point is warrant enough that he uses threat construction to justify sovereign power, then just make me prove it's bad after this, not that the US otherized the Soviet Union. On the example itself, the Soviet Union wasn't a threat and made diplomatic moves to alleviate tensions and join NATO to defer to US hegemony. All the threats they posed came after the United States refused to work with them. As a small aside, I dropped his other example because I just have to prove that it happens and that he's doing it. He's never said why the other example is a reason to not vote against his rhetoric. He then says that NATO rejected the Soviet Union because the USSR was propagandistic, but so was the US. This is my point, it wasn't anything about the legitimate threat, it was that they needed to otherize the USSR, and as a result, communism, so the US could purge communists from the US. The story still stands, as well as the fact that he brings up foreign governments as an inherent threat to justify the state. This why a genocide is preferable to foreign liberators.
A. Extend the first argument that this leads to colonialism, authoritarianism, conflict, and genocide. To go to the example, the US and the USSR purged each others ideals from their government, fought proxy wars in other countries, and passed laws limiting freedoms in their nations to suppress competing ideals. My opponent never challenged this point, so if I win that he utilizes this rhetoric, then I deserve the vote on this laundry list of impacts alone, not even including the rest of the points.
B. His only answer to this is that it's baseless. I've given the warrants for each independent point, and since all of this is meta-debate points about the debate space about this website and the education created, there isn't any direct evidence, but that doesn't mean that my analytical evidence doesn't stand. Don't let the claim "it's baseless" be a standing reason to not vote Con. To go through all of the untouched subpoints, education is the only real thing that comes out of education. The education of me, my opponent, you as a judge, and anyone who reads it. Also extend the idea that if the question was that he was spouting racism, I would get to challenge it as bad, and since I've proven his sovereign rhetoric is inherently violent, it also stands as a reason to vote Con, so that a judge doesn't have to endorse that rhetoric. He never contested that. Vote him down so we don't create bad education. He's never said his education wasn't bad or based on sovereign power, so he agrees with the foundation of the point, do the rest of the work and vote him down.
C. I'm going to drop the xenophobic impact. The other two are inherent reasons to on the critical question of Pro, as well as this isn't an independent reason to vote Pro since it's just critical analysis of his Pro argument. If he happened to drop the entire of his original reasons to vote Pro, that isn't my fault.

3. I'm going to drop Costa Rica, but that doesn't mean that he answered the final point that, just because there isn't an empirical example doesn't mean my idea is dead, and his only answer to that was that is a government procuring protection. The simple answer is no, it isn't. As an analogy, I make my brother breakfast every morning. He doesn't ask and he never has, but I do it. What if there was a government that worked in the same way. Why he has shot down every example fairly well, he did drop the idea that it still is an alternative theoretically to the resolution. If you think it's a possibility, then vote Con.

4. His argument against the cases was that they did a lot of cases, but this never answered the direct warrant that they aren't doing the complete job. There are still 1.3 million people with unresolved disputes. I think that's evidence that governments aren't necessary to settle disputes because they simply can't. The argument that they do part of the job is not an answer to them doing the whole job.

Conclusion
My opponent consistently skirts answering real issues by claiming they're strawman arguments and simply ignoring them. This should not win him the round. He justified the countries are necessary to defend genocides from liberators, this is an obvious extension of his sovereign rhetoric that justifies atrocities and provides bad education, and there's still a couple small arguments that give weight to Con's arguments. With all of this in mind, you must vote Con for I have successfully negated the resolution.