Instigator / Pro
8
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2423

Government is Necessary for Several Basic Functions

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Ancap460
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
14
1517
rating
11
debates
59.09%
won
Description

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.

-->
@Ancap460

Yup yup 😊

-->
@Sum1hugme

Really good debate. I enjoyed every aspect of it. Thanks.

-->
@Ancap460

> 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.

-->
@Sum1hugme

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.

-->
@whiteflame
@SirAnonymous

thank you for your time, really. Even if the outcome is a little disappointing.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@Ancap460

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.

-->
@Barney

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?

-->
@MisterChris

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

-->
@SirAnonymous

Our knight in shining armor comes to our rescue! Hail SirAnonymous!

If no one gets there first, that is.

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
@Sum1hugme
@Ancap460

I'll vote on it tonight.

-->
@whiteflame

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.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06

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

-->
@Ancap460

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...

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@Ancap460

No, thank you.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Great debate. I really enjoyed it.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Np. I've felt the struggle

-->
@MisterChris

Thank you

-->
@Sum1hugme

And obviously, ditch the quote in the process

-->
@Sum1hugme

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