The military and the police are the most important agencies run the government
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Cambridge definitions:
-GOVERNMENT:= the system used for controlling a country, city, or group of people:
-AGENCY:= a government organization:
-IMPORTANT:= necessary or of great value:
BoP is shared.
Please ask for clarification before accepting.
- GOVERNMENT: the system used for controlling a country, city, or group of people:
- AGENCY: a government organization:
- IMPORTANT: necessary or of great value:
Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” [britannica]
State monopoly on violence, in political science and sociology, the concept that the state alone has the right to use or authorize the use of physical force. It is widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state. [britannica]
- The police and military are of extreme necessity
- They are the source and cause of economic trust, the pillar of civilisation
- Without them, society collapses
- The police and the military are of extreme value
- They are the top priority in terms of resource spending
- One cannot avoid these, because their lack leads to foreign invasion and re-institution of their presence
- No stable civilisation can exist without the police and the military.
- The alternative is tribalism, a severe degradation of society
- The very definition of a modern state includes the requirement of the monopoly of violence
- Any entity with a monopoly of violence is by definition a state (might be unrecognized)
- The police and the military are the very defining feature of a state -- thus only a state can run these agencies
Max Weber Definition: Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” [britannica]
1) A body of people that is politically organized, especially one that occupies a clearly defined territory and is sovereign.
State, political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty. The state consists, most broadly, of the agreement of the individuals on the means whereby disputes are settled in the form of laws [Britannica/state]
State monopoly on violence, in political science and sociology, the concept that the state alone has the right to use or authorize the use of physical force. It is widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state...The state can grant another actor the right to use violence without losing its monopoly, as long as it remains the only source of the right to use violence and that it maintains the capacity to enforce this monopoly. [Britannica/state-monopoly-on-violence]
Policemen were bad at catching criminals, BECAUSE they didn't have a decent education.
- CON dropped these arguments:
- The necessity of police and military
- The role of police and military in civilisation
- The value of police and military, as showcased by
- their priority
- a country's willingness to fund them
- the immense increase in stability, trust and security they provide
- The fact that police and military are inevitable going to exist, as their absence leads to invasions and their re-institution by another state
- The only alternative to violence-upheld civilisation is tribalism, a blatant degradation of society
- CON's two arguments were rebutted
- Education is not as important as CON claims. Even if CON's claim is assumed fact, it does not show education to be more important than the military and police
- State monopoly of violence was defended through sourcing Britannica, and it was shown to still be THE defining feature of a state
The very purpose of a state is the establishment of order and security
The Myanmar military has been terrorizing civilians since a coup two months earlier. On the day of the parade, soldiers killed over 90 people for protesting military rule, including a 5-year-old boy and three teenagers. An estimated 564 people have been killed in Myanmar since the Feb. 1 coup.
- the immense increase in stability, trust and security they provide
You rebut your very own argument. If the purpose of a state is to establish order and security, with military, then how come people in England suffered?
How, may I ask, do you rule this fair and just? It's against your R1 argument. So, I deny the importance of Military.
nowadays, Police CAUSE more chaos than they stop
PRO: The military and the police are the most important agencies run the governmentCON: The military and the police are not the most important agencies run the governmentDescription definitions from Cambridge:
- GOVERNMENT: the system used for controlling a country, city, or group of people:
- AGENCY: a government organization:
- IMPORTANT: necessary or of great value:
PRO will be arguing that the military and the police are the most necessary or valuable agencies run by the government.CON will be arguing that this is not the case -- he thus needs to provide evidence that there exists another agency that is more necessary than the military and the police.
- PRO's argument that the police and military are defining features of a state directly agrees with the definition of Government as "a system for controlling people". In fact, my argument backed by Britannica goes to show that without a monopoly on violence an entity cannot be called a state. Moreover, "a system for controlling a country" cannot exist without a monopoly and violence -- thus the truth of the resolution is backed by Britannica as well as Cambridge dictionary, by merit of the police and the government being the very defining feature of a state/government over a peaceful entity without the power to control people.
- CON's argument fails because he does not provide evidence that another agency than the military and police are more important than those two.
- PRO's argument that the police and the military are the most necessary and valuable agencies directly prove the resolution immediately and without the need for more evidence. PRO has thus proved the resolution and fulfilled his BoP, case closed. CON has not done the same, so his BoP is not fulfilled, case closed.
- The definition of AGENCY disproves CON's claim that education is more important than the military and the police. No agency called "education" exists in any country, as it is just a broad term that encompasses learning, while in fact military and police can themselves train new recruits.
Concession in R3.
Well, first off, Con says Vote Pro in round 3, by which I'm assuming he's conceding the debate.
Con's first argument, was in his disagreement of definition. There 'are communities and societies without police or military. Though Con didn't continue on the attack of definition. And there 'are problems with such an argument I suppose, it's hardly 'common in history, and even rarer in modern society, to have no military or policing method.
Con's second argument of education, 'could have been pursued along the lines of a culture/society/state, in not losing it's values. Make an argument of soul over body, so to speak.
Con's third argument of police and military being counterproductive, was well addressed by Pro in his rebuttal and other arguments. Keeping with Pro's theme of monopoly on violence in this modern world, the institutions become invaluable, and more important being they some thing the state 'must pay close attention to, in order to avoid the situations mentioned by Con.
Pro I'd say, made a steady showing throughout debate, of managing to state, keep, and convince his opponent of his argument and definitions.
Monopoly on Violence 'is a pretty old concept, age old as stick or stone.
There 'is some vagueness on agencies, I think though. Education/Propaganda, for instance, being vital in holding control 'over police and military.
Police and military, being vital over holding control over Education/Propaganda.
No notable differences in sources, spelling, grammar, or conduct.
Sorry vote is a bit rambling, I ought to sleep.
Argument - Con appears to have conceded, writing: "I...….personally agree with PRO. His arguments were better, I admit."... Con also asks the voters to vote Pro. "Vote PRO!!". - Pro
Sources - In round 1 Con does raise a concern regarding Pros use of source material, writing: "You have taken a definition from a dictionary, from which can be meddled with according to the writer's taste.". But Pro does respond to it, writing: "CON accuses me of using a cherry-picked dictionary definition of "state". In doing so he falsely calls Britannica a dictionary, while it is in fact an encyclopedia; meaning not only is it the more scholastic source but also more accurate factually, rather than being strictly legal -- and remember we are discussing factual statements rather than the law in this debate.", and agree or disagree, this argument appears to be dropped by Con. In fact, Benjamin actually made a counter argument against Cons use of Britannica encyclopedia which also went unrebutted. - Pro
S&G - Neither made copious amounts of mistakes, if any - Tie
Conduct - Con was too honest and gracious, which should be awarded with an acknowledgement - Con
Thanks for voting
Thanks!!! I'll work on my length and sources.
Congrats on your first debate. I am impressed with your debating skills, especially after learning you are only 12; good job.
Thank you for voting
I'm not sure if he's good though. I'll tell you my thoughts after I finish my debate
no problem, i'm down to have a debate with him though
Don't mind him, he's just a friend I invited for a private debate.
Btw, we're doing "Video Games improve real life skills" I'm Con.
I think he accidently tagged you, sorry.
on what topic
for the debate what else?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
sorry what are you down for?
yeah ok im down for that
No problem, I’m up to debate anything.
Give me some time to improve, and I'll see about that.
Fair enough, fair enough, we can always have a rematch. I'm open to a one week debate.
Come on man, that was a 2 day debate time. I'm not sitting in front of this laptop 24/7.
I thought. you were to busy to debate...
Thanks for the positive output. I'll work on my length in the future.
Great idea, yet not so much perfectly executed. You would have benefited from a long argument with space to discuss implications as well as try to provide evidence of a society functioning without police -- that might have made your point more effective. By making the argument extremely short you are kind of wasting your round, as nothing is remembered or have any impact. Otherwise, you had a cool angle I hadn't expected.
I'd like opinions on my R2 argument.
I would argue that Social security is more important on the grounds that it costs more than the military.
The most important agencies that the government runs, that means the most important agency in general, not only in a specific state.
What do you think of my argument?
Do you mean the military and police are the most important agencies run BY the government, as opposed to some other agencies, such as EPA? I choose that one at random just as an example, and one which I find effectively too political in its current guise to be legitimate.