Instigator / Pro
1
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Topic
#2963

Any topic, I pick the side. Written rap battle debate. Not troll/unmoderated.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
22,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Description

Pick the topic, I pick the side, then we spit bars so hot Antarctica would evaporate.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

I do not plan on mentioning every aspect of this battle. I will only mention the relevant parts that led me to make the decision. If the participants want to know how I evaluated X aspect of the debate they can ask me in the comments.

Rapping was roughly equal and both sides did an excellent job. I will admit I did not focus on the beats much but mostly just looked at the lyrics. Doesn't matter anyways because it's nearly impossible to determine how the person who rapped it would have wanted it to flow unless I heard them rap it themselves; there's a million ways you could rap these verses. Athias' bars were something I imagine you would hear on an actual antigovernmental album. Rhyme schemes and the mood (which was very dark; I felt I had experienced the full magnitude of government abuses after I read it) were great. If I heard some of his verses on an actual song by a top-tier rapper I would not have been surprised. RM, by contrast, was more unconventional. The thing I noticed throughout was his cleverness and his ability to incorporate his points into his complex rhyme schemes seamlessly (and if you've ever rapped about anything besides how awesome you are, you know that that is very, very difficult). Athias' stuff is more my style, but RM was consistently creative. It was a toss-up, but the aforementioned ability to rap and debate simultaneously (whereas Athias was rapping more than he was arguing) was what gave RM the win for a different reason.

RM wins the burdens debate because when Athias brings up that the debate is about government and not anarchy, RM gives the reason why this is not necessarily true: Namely, that the resolution does not specify whether we're talking about government weighed based on whether it has done more good or bad or government weighed based on something else i.e. whether it ought to continue to exist. So I weigh RM's comparisons of government to anarchy because Athias would have the burden to prove a topicality argument and he did not do so. His R3 contained a repetition of what he had already said ("the matter discussed at the present"). This was already argued against by RM.

RM ends up winning for this reason. He establishes that without government the same unethical actors are going to exist, just without rules to hold them back. This is a point that is hammered home again and again throughout the course of the debate. I buy that violence and oppression aren't problems with the government itself, just society (which is another thing that contributes to his victory in the burdens debate) because Athias is not fighting back enough on this point. He argued against the "same unethical actors operating without rules to hold them back" point, if you will, once in the final round by saying that laws don't prevent violence and that there were no statistical assessments of how good anarchy would actually be. However, the former argument is not fleshed out enough, and the latter argument is bypassed by the theoretical nature of RM's argument (and the fact that data on anarchism (much less AnCapistan) is very limited). Athias could've argued better here by explaining how AnCapistan is not necessarily lawless (what with Rights Enforcement Agencies and all; he talks about how anarchy constitutes a call for privatized rules but this isn't formulated as a rebuttal, it was not extended into R3, and it definitely was not enough) or by arguing that any organization that violates rights is unethical regardless of whether people are harmed in the alternative by applying deontological ethics or something similar to that. I don't see either of those things, and that makes sense given his commitment to the back-and-forth concerning burdens and thus his continued condemnations of various government actions. However, that's what does him in in the end, and I'm left with the impression that violence is caused by the nature of interaction itself, and a society without state-imposed rules would only result in more of it.