Government is Necessary for Several Basic Functions
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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 [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. 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.
- 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"
"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 ("
- R2
"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"
- 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). "
- 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"
- Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries [3].
- 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."
- R6
" Ukraine doesn't get mad at Russia if there is no Russia to try and steal Crimea"
- 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."
" 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."
- R8
"If there is no government, there is no terrorism to try and change that government"
- R9
" 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."
- 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). "
". 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"
- 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. "
"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."
- 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."
- 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."
- 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].
- CR5
"However, I'm keeping the private army point for one reason, he never disproves it and just says it doesn't apply."
- CR6
" 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."
- 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."
- 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"
- FR2
"It's possible for their to be a nation that simply allows another government to do all the work for them."
- FR3
" 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."
- 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?"
- FR5
" Firstly, my opponent says it baseless, but I think all my points stand"
- FR6
" Firstly, my opponent continuously is debating the definition of xenophobic, but not the warrant for his inherently unethical and wrong answer. "
- 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,"
"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"
- FR8
" So, my opponent's arguments to political genocide and the Uyghur genocide is 'it's better than being conquered by another nation.'"
- 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."
I'll keep this short.
This is one of those cases where one side presents a substantial amount of analysis regarding BoP and what's most important in the debate up front where that actually matters. Con talks a lot about how he only has to disprove one of Pro's points, which Pro drops. Con also discusses the importance of education to this debate, which sets him up nicely for his Kritik and which, once again, Pro drops. The BoP analysis may be the most glaring of these drops, but both of them are key to the outcome.
The easy vote for me is just to point out that Pro drops much of the analysis regarding how countries do more harm to their people than other elements. I think this could have been outweighed and I thought that was where Pro was going, but Con's analysis goes through without being directly addressed. Instead, Pro continuously argues that there are threats that government protects us from, which would be fine if Pro spent the time comparing the damage caused by governments to those caused by entities governments counteract. Pro doesn't engage in that weighing analysis, and thus lets Con walk away with this point.
The only slightly harder vote would be to focus on the Kritik. As Pro doesn't challenge the importance of education to this debate, everything else pretty much vanishes behind this argument, as it's the only one to push an impact of education as its chief outcome. There's also not a lot to do here because Pro isn't really engaging with the violation: his case inherently pushes the mindset that government is necessary to stop or contain some "other" that's coming to get us. The logical extension of this (and Pro buys into this with some of his arguments) is to expand that protection to other countries, justifying imperialist tendencies. Con's responses largely dismiss these outcomes, but he's not attacking the warrants, so much of this comes off as weak. Attacking a Kritik requires doing more than just saying that something won't happen and focusing on a single example, but even that one only works against xenophobia, which isn't the only impact on this Kritik. Colonialism still looms large at the end, and the kinds of proxy wars discussed throughout the debate stand as problematic as well. I think Pro actually had the right idea when he mentioned Con's lack of viable alternatives, as a Kritik is only as good as the alternatives that the debater suggests. Con doesn't really offer an alternative, but Pro has to take direct advantage of that. He has to point out how Con's arguments bite the Kritik, which I see them doing several times. Without doing that, though it is tenuous, I would have to buy the Kritik and vote there before I looked at any of the rest of the debate because education is all that matters and this point deals in the mindsets of the debaters rather than the specific arguments proposed.
So, either way, I'm voting Con. Pro just doesn't get enough engagement on these points, and the responses to his case at least keep the rest of his points in limbo.
RFD in comments.
Yup yup 😊
Really good debate. I enjoyed every aspect of it. Thanks.
> On the issue of the double standard, since it wasn't brought up by Pro, would that be held against me?
Good question! For this type of thing, to me it would generally decrease but not wholly mitigate your impacts as related to this problem. There are times when something is such a large problem that it self renders its own case as not having a leg to stand on... An example of a time when a case doesn't need it pointed out, is extreme Gish Gallops or Word Salad (often followed by complaints of not every single bit being responded to).
Of course, voting is subjective. Other voters, will treat it differently. I know some even favor a Tabula Rasa standard, which I see benefits to, but something like pointing out that something is a Gish Gallop, shouldn't necessitate a Gish Gallop about the entire Gistory of Gish Gallops (pun intended) for why they are a problem.
You're welcome. I probably would have voted in your favor if you had contested Con's interpretation of the BoP. You came close to winning.
thank you for your time, really. Even if the outcome is a little disappointing.
That was a lot of work, but it was worth it. Well done.
My RFD is in the two comments below.
Firstly, thank you to the participants for this highly interesting debate. After reading Pro's first round, I wasn't sure how Con would be able to compete, but he fought back gamely. Well done to both of you.
Pro organizes the debate into three main points, so I will judge based on those points.
Burden of Proof
Before I can start evaluating the arguments, I need to find out how the burden of proof is allocated. In R1, Con proposed that Pro had the burden to prove all three of his points and that Con only has to undermine one of those points to win. While Pro never agrees to this, he never contests it either, and I am compelled to agree with Con that "if a point is dropped, that means it is uncontested and therefore ceded."
The other relevant point here is that Con takes advantage of Pro's use of the phrase "its citizens." This cleverly avoids the need to argue for a stateless society.
Point 1: Protection from foreign armies.
Pro allows the eloquent John Jay to argue that a unified country is better able to resist foreign invasions than individuals or divided organizations or states. Because Con was able to avoid arguing for a stateless society, he is free to point to several examples of states that don't provide protection from foreign armies to their citizens. Pro argues forcefully against this, and, incredibly, Con cedes every single one of these examples by the end of the debate. This is such a massive blow to Con's argument that it almost loses this point by itself. However, while Con is down here, he's not out. He argues that, while Pro may have defeated his practical examples, the theoretical possibility of a state that doesn't protect its citizens from foreign invasion still stands. Con lays out three points arguing for the theoretical possibility of such a state...and ends up dropping all three of them. I'm guessing he forgot that when he ceded his examples to Pro.
Con also objects to Pro's argument here because Pro is allegedly using violent, xenophobic rhetoric. According to Con, Pro's characterization of foreign nations as potential threats is "otherizing" them. Pro objects to this by arguing that that doesn't match the definition of xenophobia, which is prejudice towards people of other countries. He brings up two examples to prove his point. Con argues fervently against one (USA vs USSR) but drops the other (Alexander vs Persia). The surviving example and the definition of xenophobia are easily enough to dismiss Con's accusation.
Pro wins this point rather decisively.
Point 2: Protection against domestic threats.
Pro argues here that governments are needed for protection from terrorism and for a unified law code. Con never addresses the point about a unified law code (although it's discussed somewhat in the next point). He also cedes the point about protection from terrorism, but launches a powerful counterpoint. He argues that the government itself is a more significant threat of domestic terrorism, and points to cases like the Uyghur genocide in China to prove his point. Pro concedes that a government taking such actions is a domestic threat. However, he points out that this does not refute the need for protection against domestic threats. At this point, Con argues against a strawman, claiming that Pro is justifying genocide because its better than being invaded. This is very clearly not what Pro was saying. While Pro did say that government-sourced terrorism doesn't negate the need for protection from foreign armies, he did say that "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." This clearly shows that he believes genocide does outweigh the threat of foreign armies. Casting aside the strawman, this argument boils down to whose point is stronger: Pro's point that protection from domestic terrorism is necessary, or Con's point that the government itself is a domestic terror threat. In this case, Con's point is stronger. He brings up concrete cases such as the Uyghurs and the Holocaust. Pro restricts himself to arguing that they are separate issues. While they are separate to a degree, I think it is fair to say that the government posing a domestic threat is a valid counterpoint to the government protecting against domestic threats. Thus, Con wins this point.
Point 3: Providing a method for settling disputes.
Pro argues that governments are needed, with their unified code of laws and judicial systems, to settle disputes. Con argues that governments simply fail to settle disputes, pointing to 1.3 million backlogged immigration cases. He also argues that private adjudication removes the need for public adjudication. However, he drops this point, which I think was a mistake. Regardless, Pro counters that governments can settle disputes, pointing out that the government settled 1.3 million immigration cases in one year. Con rebuts this by saying that settling some of the disputes is not the same as settling all of them. The government has still failed. Pro argues that the government has still managed to settle a large number of disputes. I think Con does manage to show that the government's system here is inefficient, but Pro does demonstrate that it still settles a large number of disputes. This is where dropping private adjudication comes back to bite Con. Without an alternative to the government, none of these cases would have been settled. Some is better than none. This point goes to Pro.
In the final analysis, Con has won one of the main points. Due to Pro's incredible failure to challenge Con on the burden of proof, this is sufficient to win the argument points. Arguments to Con.
Sources and S&G were fine.
As for conduct, I was troubled by Con's allegations that Pro was using violent, xenophobic rhetoric. However, he wasn't rude about it, and he did attempt to justify his allegations, although I think they were ultimately basis. I won't detract points for conduct here.
Overall, Pro probably would have won this debate but for an astounding failure to challenge Con's interpretation of the burden of proof. Con, on the other hand, escaped by the skin of his teeth on the BoP. He dropped point after point in the debate. Whether this was due to a failure to do sufficient research before making arguments, a failure to anticipate his opponent's arguments, or both, is unclear to me. However, I advise Con to rectify whatever issues caused this in the future in order to avoid this problem in the future.
Once again, I want to thank both debaters for their efforts. It was well-contested on both sides. You were both able to turn points against the other in ways that I didn't have time to go into here. You both showed a talent for debating. It was a pleasure to analyze it and vote on it.
I saw your comment on my point and I had a question about it. On the issue of the double standard, since it wasn't brought up by Pro, would that be held against me?
Hail to the knight, he's the one we all give hail to,
We give him hail cause he keeps his armor clean!
He's got the power cause he gives his sword a scour,
Hail to the knight!
Thanks guys
Our knight in shining armor comes to our rescue! Hail SirAnonymous!
If no one gets there first, that is.
I'll vote on it tonight.
yeah... sorry for that. This one kinda snuck up on me too. Lately I've tried to vote on debates that seem about to be no-vote tie, but this one comes at a bad time for me
I can try, not a lot of notice, though.
If one of you could vote on this one that would be great.. I was planning on it today, but I'm afraid I won't get to it...my brain is fried from finishing my last debate round lol
Bump
Bump. Please vote. We worked hard on this one
Skimmed this a little...
Con, very nice job catching the "its citizens." The one problem here, is with the immigration point you've risked extending the umbrella of said citizens to non-citizens. It creates an inconsistent double standard within your points, in which people don't depend on their government to protect them since they can sit back and depend on someone else's; but at the same time those other governments have failed to provide basic functions to their citizens if not swiftly settling disputes for non-citizens and/or mistreating them...
I appreciate it really. I hope someone votes aswell
3.5 days remain for voting.
The earliest I expect to have time to read such a good in depth debate is Monday, so I'm hoping someone else gets around to it first.
I hope this gets a vote or two soon. I'm impatient
No, thank you.
Great debate. I really enjoyed it.
Np. I've felt the struggle
Thank you
And obviously, ditch the quote in the process
A good way to avoid running out of characters like that, is if possible, summarize your opponent's argument in a short amount of space before refuting it.
ran out of character space on my last response, will address more in the next