That's absolutely crazy. I remember reading this. I remember typing like two sentences about Gus and Palpatine in my vote. Who knows. I'll come back to this tonight if I get the chance.
You seemed to reread it, but so it's more understandable, the tldr version is that if legalization makes people smoke less, then all the reasons marijuana is bad is reasons we should legalize it, that way less people actually smoke it.
In regard to the aggression thing, you should be playing terminal defense. In the wise words of Ray Liotta's character from Marriage Story, "If we start from a place of reasonable and they start from a place of crazy, when we settle we'll be somewhere between reasonable and crazy!"
Edit: Good example of this is me saying that gun control is good because all governments are good and citizens should never resist them.
Notes for Pro,
1. All the freedom stuff I said above.
2. Make sure to check your sources. The violence and aggression one sold you out, so read through an entire thing before you put it in.
3. Make sure you're answering the warrant Con says. If Con says that drivers self report, you need to talk about the unreliability of self-reporting, not post mortem analysis.
Notes for Con,
1. You get lost in the weeds of all the little points and missed the big picture. The legalization decreases use debate should have been a major place, not just you half-hearted questioning a source. There are certain arguments that are lynchpins and you have to check for that.
2. On the driving arguments, answer their post-mortem stuff, either by calling out the self-reporting for the judge or get in the mud about why post-mortem analysis good.
3. I don't really understand the racism argument. I think you need to flesh it way out for me to understand what exactly is going on here.
Really good job, if either side has any questions, feel free to reach out.
1. I buy that mariujuana makes people more violent. The argument about endocannabinoid systems and a 20% increase in hostility through a study of 300k people won me over. The counter study that shows high doses suppress aggression even admit low doses increase aggression.
2. I buy that marijuana is a cause of psychosis. Even if there are other causes, this doesn't contest that marijuana is a cause.
3. I buy that marijuana causes higher accidents. Even if I whole heartedly buy Pro's argument about post-mortem being impossible to fully tell, Con sites 69% self-reporting to driving high.
4. In regard to the idea about motorcycles, nicotine, alcohol, etc. and other risky activities, I see this as a warrant for Pro's freedom claims. With that, I don't weigh this argument for three reasons.
A. I think Con makes the right argument when he says that freedom in a way that harms others is bad. Since they're winning aggression and driving, I think that they win freedom in this instance is bad.
B. Pro is not making freedom win anything. For example, should I have the freedom to murder people? We would say no because freedom in a vacuum isn't worth anything. Pro needs to be saying freedom, especially in this instance, is crucial to personal autonomy or quality of life and say that the negligible amount of deaths don't stack up to that. Freedom in a vacuum is less of a concern for me than deaths.
C. The other way Pro could have used this is ditch all the freedom stuff and say "alcohol, nicotine, and motorcycles make deaths on the road and through health issues and through aggression inevitable, even without marijuana. Since these are inevitable, it is only a question of the benefits from tax revenue" This means that, the idea of marijuana illegalization in a vacuum can't solve for the impacts of Con, but legalization lets you get your benefits. You didn't do any of this work, so I don't evaluate it.
5. I buy that cannabis is better than heroin and that heroin rates of addiction go down when cannabis rates go up. Con says that we shouldn't have addiction, but this doesn't seem responsive to Pro's argument.
6. I believe adolescent drug use and drug use goes down writ large with legalization. Con never answers when Pro says this. Simply restating statistics that show kids in the status quo use drugs doesn't prove anything if it is still less than 50 years ago. While the question of how "legal" drugs are due to state bans would have been a good answer, this is not brought up.
7. For the racism argument, Con falls into the trap of posting links but not doing the work in round. Outside of that, however, I buy that regulations make it hard for POC to get into the industry. Pro does bring up in the fourth round, that policing and jailing negatively affects them worse, as was jailing brought up earlier in the debate, so I feel ok evaluating this for Pro. If systemic racism impacts POC either way, it is better for them to be unable to own a business than go to jail.
8. I take the drug crime stuff as a wash. Both of yall gave one example of drugs getting someone off and drugs getting someone charged. Seems equal.
9. On the costs, I buy that legalization is expensive because of all the supporting costs.
10. People go to jail for simple possession.
11. Children of people in jail are more likely to go to jail.
In conclusion, either side could win the debate from the facts that have been set out before me. The issue is that neither side is saying "car accident deaths are worse than jail time" or vice versa in a way that can give me an easy out. However, my go to is to first way safety versus freedom, and I think I did that evaluation above with a notes. I prioritize safety because those are lives and I'm not given a reason to prefer freedom. With that, I then ask, does legalization decrease drug use, which I find it does. With that, not only does legalization stop jail time, but in a roundabout way, solves all of the violence of drugs.
I have a strong opinion on this one, however, I seem to vote against my opinions all the time, so no bias. As a socialist, I just voted free market capitalism good, lol.
Formal topics are vague enough to allow multiple plans. Even so, I'm ok with vagueness that allows a framework for what the round should be to be best defined within the round.
Very interesting. Capitalist in-fighting is fascinating to me, so I will definitely take a look. I've been busy as of late, but this is my second priority after I vote on a debate I've already started reading through.
The Youtuber (Jreg) talks about how we should commit to frameworks. One of his direct quotes is "if it's the one you die with is irrelevant", which leads me to believe it's less about any specific framework, but simply saying people should commit to a "way of being" instead of passively accepting the status quo. It was more interesting to reinterpret their work as a critique of the concept of cherry-picking pieces of frameworks as opposed to being passively nihilist.
Yeah, any philosophy that says their internal salvation is more important than external good is probably not a good idea. Like, I want to live humbly and all that jazz, but if I'm suffering, I'll be up in arms, you know? Too materialistic for my own good, maybe.
I think the poetics are less that it's a formal poem that rhymes or anything like that, but when I read it, you seem to be conversing in an "abnormal" way, which makes me reconsider this as a medium. For example, you are much more willing to engage in grammatical "errors" and weird spacing, but reading your arguments is easier (for me at least) than traditional writing. I think, and maybe I'm reading way too much into it, you force me to question what makes "good" communication, and if the norms we've developed in this community and writing habits writ large are natural or imposed.
I just got my voting rights back. Sorry I wasn't quick enough. If yall would like, I do have a debate with Lemming that just went to voting though. That, and I have a debate with Sir.Lancelot, RM, that needs to be voted. Only if yall got time.
No, thank you! This was really interesting because, I don't know if you could tell, but my argumentation about cherry-picking parts of a framework is really interesting to me. I do feel like it's a bit of a copout since it wasn't dealing with stoicism directly, but my favorite Youtuber talks about it a lot, so it's on my mind.
I find stoicism kinda goofy, personally, but that's because I find self-suffering philosophies "slave morality" as Nietzsche would call it. The comic you sent made me laugh out loud in class today when I finally looked at it in the mini description, which made me then have to pretend to laugh at something in class.
I love how you type out things. It's like poetry, which makes it really interesting to debate. If you don't mind me asking, and please don't take offense, do you do it intentionally, or is this just how thoughts come into your mind?
Let me read your third round and I'll say yay or nay in my third round post so it's official. Wanna wager the grammar point on who can tell the best two jokes, one in each round?
I'm really interested in this debate, but I want to understand it a bit better. Just to clarify, you're defending that stoicism as a tool is good, but stoicism as an ideology in itself is bad?
And if that is correct, is the Con's burden to prove it is good as an ideology in itself or is proving it as a bad tool also sufficient of the Con's burden?
It really is. It only says those who engage in debates can vote, but this is ridiculous because thousands of forum posts and a true engagement in the community show being a member of a community and the ability to engage in discussion. Those people can be trusted to vote.
I ignore preambles sometimes, so I wanted to reach out here as well. If you would like to agree to make the last speech only weighing and describing why the voter should vote for you as a sort of summary, then you should agree in your next speech. I put the agreement in my preamble.
Short version, grammar, conduct, and sources are problematic and only win/loss debates are justified in my mind. Long version, https://www.debateart.com/debates/4176-resolved-debateart-com-should-eliminate-the-four-points-point-system
Wylted doesn't affect my decision on this issue at all. I've only voted on these other issues in two debates. I voted conduct on a debate where one side called the other side a literal slur (and I regret that decision, as the other side should have called it out, but we only get better with mistakes) and one where I was told to explicitly in round 2 of 4 and the other person didn't contest it. Grammar, sources, and conduct are not metrics that a debate should be "won" on and I stand by that opinion.
Sorry, I personally don't vote on grammar, sources, or conduct unless I'm told to in the round, explicitly, not in the last round. They're optional on the voting policy, so I'm not doing anything wrong and I think that all three are problematic metrics to count "points" for.
This does look interesting. When I first read the title, I thought this was in reference to open-source codes and I got excited for serious policy debates, though this seems just as interesting.
3. Even if you are right that you should say more, highlighting the division is still good, as this division of disparate ideologies still wasn't made in the debate. In the end, two arguments showing that RM is wrong is better than one.
A. I think, unfortunately, we're just disagreeing on what the ideology fundamentally says. I say that anarchists want a government that equitably allows all to participate in decision-making that may result in some people losing the decision. You are saying that anarchists say the government only works if people can opt out.
I. Yeah, that's ok. Like, I don't think that anarchists are trying to pretend they want a realm of chaos and no social systems of making decisions and group activity. I don't think they would call this coercion since every member of the community has an opportunity to participate in the decision making.
II. I don't think dissent alone is punishable, hence why democracy exists. However, if the community votes 99-1 that murder should be illegal, not stopping that one percent from murdering the 99 percent recreates a hierarchy where one can harm others. By having a direct majority guide the decisions of the community, then a minority class doesn't get to stop things from happening, which is the definition of a hierarchy, smaller groups having more power. Most anarchists would be ok with the community stopping rapists, murderers, etc. for their dissent from community guidelines.
B. Voluntarism is only right-wing. I'm gonna answer the points more directly.
I. Left-wing anarchists are against the state, but they define state as distinct from government. This matters because they would not support the Soviet Union or Maoist China because there is a hierarchy in the state, where a small government class makes decisions regardless of the peoples wishes. Left-wing anarchists say that a small group of bourgeois do the same thing in representative democracy, both by controlling the economy and lobbying to have their candidates have more power. This is solved by direct democracy where all have an equal say in the creation of society. It's not about abolishing society, like right-wing anarchism, but making decision-making in society more equitable. The goals are fundamentally different.
II. The commune or union are not states, but governments. There is no direct hierarchical group that can make decisions, and that solves the problem.
III. Anarchy rejects the state. Left-wing anarchism makes this distinct from government. Right-wing anarchism doesn't.
IV. Anarchists would argue that individualism isn't the goal, but equitable access to the decision-making processes. However, they would also argue that capitalism is worse than socialism as socialism is where the workers each get an individual part of the decision-making process where capitalism has the it dictated to them. Sharing a lever of power is more individualistic then never accessing the lever of power.
V. State capitalists exist. Capitalism exists in modern-day China and Nazi Germany as privately owned businesses create profit to owners. Regulations do not dismantle capitalism, only taking the ownership away from the bourgeois/private individuals and giving it to the workers, either directly in libertarian models of socialism, or through the state in authoritarian models.
2. Yeah, that's what I try to do. If you want to see the extreme example of this, you can look at my current debate with Sir.Lancelot. https://www.debateart.com/debates/4118-the-right-to-bear-arms-vs-gun-control I literally am retyping the all my case turns on Pro and my entire Con case every speech, despite them being untouched. No matter how lazy the judge is, there will be no doubt I won any of those points.
3. You have a valid critique of these forms of anarchism (as a syndicalist myself, I think it's valid anarchism, but that's not relevant for this round), but for this debate, all you need to say is that RM is describing anarcho-communists and not anarcho-capitalists, therefore their argument that capitalism and anarchism are incompatible is irrelevant to the question of anarcho-capitalists.
A. In regard to your critique of anarchism writ large, I don't think this is true. I don't think most anarchists would be ok with no system of governance in place and most would tell you they support a governmental apparatus. The argument why this isn't coercion like a bourgeois or state (as distinct from government) apparatus is two-fold.
I. You can choose to contribute to the system, but there is no punishment for leaving or not contributing. (I'll be honest, this feels unrealistic in the sense that, where do those who don't want to contribute to any system go? Liberals would tell you that you can opt out of the social contract, but every scrap of land is owned by a country.)
II. Direct democracy means that it's not coercion, but a mutual dialogue/negotiation. If the commune/union decides to up food production on a 80-20 vote split, then this is the worker/masses deciding what to do, not the bourgeois/state.
B. Voluntarism is only a right-wing anarchist concept. Not relevant to left-wing anarchism. Also, they would argue that capitalism creates classes that exploit and this does as much as the state to impose on your freedom.
Thank you very much! That means a lot, especially since I judge high school debates, determining who went to a state meet just a couple of days ago, and I hope to be a high school debate coach after I finish this semester, working on teacher certification right now. I'll vote on both of those if I have time to.
1. I'm going to explain the different ways I could have evaluated this, and maybe the difference makes sense. All of them are different ways to interpret the minarchy/libertarian split, but they don't change what my vote would be.
A. I don't look at minarchism at all. I only measure the small government metric of libertarianism. (How I actually voted)
B. I look at minarchism and see it is defined as minimal government. I interpret this as the same as small government since no difference is given. (How I ideally should have voted upon reflection. The only difference is how close attention I pay, not to how I voted)
C. I look at the definition of minarchism as minimal government and say this is different than small government based on my own personal value and then default to small government as it is directly libertarian. (How I would vote if I personally intervened, but it has no consequence)
2. The extension makes no confusion. If you have the characters, always extend every point your opponent drops every speech. That way there can be no doubt in the mind of judges just as dumb or much lazier than me.
3. "State" as defined by left-wing anarchists is the creation of a distinct "class" of those who are hierarchically above the masses. A monarch, Soviet dictator, or elected representative would all fit this roll as, even if they have "approval" of the citizens, because they operate a separate hierarchical class. Syndicalists would say that the use of direct democracy in the union and anarcho-communists would say that the use of direct democracy in the commune would constitute governments (institutions that make social decisions), but not states as there isn't a distinct class. This is the original basis of anarchy as it originates from Kropotkin, with right-wing variants not really being formally created until Rand much later. My argument here isn't that one or the other is the true anarchy or is less hypocritical or that one is good, but simply that highlighting this difference in this round would have helped you as RM was trying to obfuscate this to say all anarchists hate capitalism.
4. That's fair. I'm enjoying it as well as this will force me to try and be more cognizant when going over these rounds. You were right that you brought up hypocrisy and I should be more watchful of that. These don't alienate me. I was just highlighting that my mistake, even if it is my mistake, unfortunately will be inevitable in debates where clear communication is not prioritized just as highly or even higher than good argumentation.
I will, it is my second priority behind a debate that goes out in like 22 hours.
That's absolutely crazy. I remember reading this. I remember typing like two sentences about Gus and Palpatine in my vote. Who knows. I'll come back to this tonight if I get the chance.
I thought I voted on this? Am I losing my mind?
You seemed to reread it, but so it's more understandable, the tldr version is that if legalization makes people smoke less, then all the reasons marijuana is bad is reasons we should legalize it, that way less people actually smoke it.
In regard to the aggression thing, you should be playing terminal defense. In the wise words of Ray Liotta's character from Marriage Story, "If we start from a place of reasonable and they start from a place of crazy, when we settle we'll be somewhere between reasonable and crazy!"
Edit: Good example of this is me saying that gun control is good because all governments are good and citizens should never resist them.
Notes for Pro,
1. All the freedom stuff I said above.
2. Make sure to check your sources. The violence and aggression one sold you out, so read through an entire thing before you put it in.
3. Make sure you're answering the warrant Con says. If Con says that drivers self report, you need to talk about the unreliability of self-reporting, not post mortem analysis.
Notes for Con,
1. You get lost in the weeds of all the little points and missed the big picture. The legalization decreases use debate should have been a major place, not just you half-hearted questioning a source. There are certain arguments that are lynchpins and you have to check for that.
2. On the driving arguments, answer their post-mortem stuff, either by calling out the self-reporting for the judge or get in the mud about why post-mortem analysis good.
3. I don't really understand the racism argument. I think you need to flesh it way out for me to understand what exactly is going on here.
Really good job, if either side has any questions, feel free to reach out.
Very good debate, I vote Pro and here's why
1. I buy that mariujuana makes people more violent. The argument about endocannabinoid systems and a 20% increase in hostility through a study of 300k people won me over. The counter study that shows high doses suppress aggression even admit low doses increase aggression.
2. I buy that marijuana is a cause of psychosis. Even if there are other causes, this doesn't contest that marijuana is a cause.
3. I buy that marijuana causes higher accidents. Even if I whole heartedly buy Pro's argument about post-mortem being impossible to fully tell, Con sites 69% self-reporting to driving high.
4. In regard to the idea about motorcycles, nicotine, alcohol, etc. and other risky activities, I see this as a warrant for Pro's freedom claims. With that, I don't weigh this argument for three reasons.
A. I think Con makes the right argument when he says that freedom in a way that harms others is bad. Since they're winning aggression and driving, I think that they win freedom in this instance is bad.
B. Pro is not making freedom win anything. For example, should I have the freedom to murder people? We would say no because freedom in a vacuum isn't worth anything. Pro needs to be saying freedom, especially in this instance, is crucial to personal autonomy or quality of life and say that the negligible amount of deaths don't stack up to that. Freedom in a vacuum is less of a concern for me than deaths.
C. The other way Pro could have used this is ditch all the freedom stuff and say "alcohol, nicotine, and motorcycles make deaths on the road and through health issues and through aggression inevitable, even without marijuana. Since these are inevitable, it is only a question of the benefits from tax revenue" This means that, the idea of marijuana illegalization in a vacuum can't solve for the impacts of Con, but legalization lets you get your benefits. You didn't do any of this work, so I don't evaluate it.
5. I buy that cannabis is better than heroin and that heroin rates of addiction go down when cannabis rates go up. Con says that we shouldn't have addiction, but this doesn't seem responsive to Pro's argument.
6. I believe adolescent drug use and drug use goes down writ large with legalization. Con never answers when Pro says this. Simply restating statistics that show kids in the status quo use drugs doesn't prove anything if it is still less than 50 years ago. While the question of how "legal" drugs are due to state bans would have been a good answer, this is not brought up.
7. For the racism argument, Con falls into the trap of posting links but not doing the work in round. Outside of that, however, I buy that regulations make it hard for POC to get into the industry. Pro does bring up in the fourth round, that policing and jailing negatively affects them worse, as was jailing brought up earlier in the debate, so I feel ok evaluating this for Pro. If systemic racism impacts POC either way, it is better for them to be unable to own a business than go to jail.
8. I take the drug crime stuff as a wash. Both of yall gave one example of drugs getting someone off and drugs getting someone charged. Seems equal.
9. On the costs, I buy that legalization is expensive because of all the supporting costs.
10. People go to jail for simple possession.
11. Children of people in jail are more likely to go to jail.
In conclusion, either side could win the debate from the facts that have been set out before me. The issue is that neither side is saying "car accident deaths are worse than jail time" or vice versa in a way that can give me an easy out. However, my go to is to first way safety versus freedom, and I think I did that evaluation above with a notes. I prioritize safety because those are lives and I'm not given a reason to prefer freedom. With that, I then ask, does legalization decrease drug use, which I find it does. With that, not only does legalization stop jail time, but in a roundabout way, solves all of the violence of drugs.
Me forfeiting one round doesn't mean anything if they forfeited one round as well, right?
I'm about to read through and vote on this, however, I do love the idea that Con says Anakin Skywalker most resembles Anakin Skywalker. Easy dunk.
Hey, I saw my vote got reported. Did I do anything wrong?
What good points? Genuinely, I like to be better. Please explain to me.
I have a strong opinion on this one, however, I seem to vote against my opinions all the time, so no bias. As a socialist, I just voted free market capitalism good, lol.
I accepted at the very least.
I finally voted on this! I forgot to mention this, but if yall have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask.
Formal topics are vague enough to allow multiple plans. Even so, I'm ok with vagueness that allows a framework for what the round should be to be best defined within the round.
If I vote as a tie, is that good or bad for the "mutual forfeit"?
Very interesting. Capitalist in-fighting is fascinating to me, so I will definitely take a look. I've been busy as of late, but this is my second priority after I vote on a debate I've already started reading through.
The Youtuber (Jreg) talks about how we should commit to frameworks. One of his direct quotes is "if it's the one you die with is irrelevant", which leads me to believe it's less about any specific framework, but simply saying people should commit to a "way of being" instead of passively accepting the status quo. It was more interesting to reinterpret their work as a critique of the concept of cherry-picking pieces of frameworks as opposed to being passively nihilist.
Yeah, any philosophy that says their internal salvation is more important than external good is probably not a good idea. Like, I want to live humbly and all that jazz, but if I'm suffering, I'll be up in arms, you know? Too materialistic for my own good, maybe.
I think the poetics are less that it's a formal poem that rhymes or anything like that, but when I read it, you seem to be conversing in an "abnormal" way, which makes me reconsider this as a medium. For example, you are much more willing to engage in grammatical "errors" and weird spacing, but reading your arguments is easier (for me at least) than traditional writing. I think, and maybe I'm reading way too much into it, you force me to question what makes "good" communication, and if the norms we've developed in this community and writing habits writ large are natural or imposed.
I just got my voting rights back. Sorry I wasn't quick enough. If yall would like, I do have a debate with Lemming that just went to voting though. That, and I have a debate with Sir.Lancelot, RM, that needs to be voted. Only if yall got time.
No, thank you! This was really interesting because, I don't know if you could tell, but my argumentation about cherry-picking parts of a framework is really interesting to me. I do feel like it's a bit of a copout since it wasn't dealing with stoicism directly, but my favorite Youtuber talks about it a lot, so it's on my mind.
I find stoicism kinda goofy, personally, but that's because I find self-suffering philosophies "slave morality" as Nietzsche would call it. The comic you sent made me laugh out loud in class today when I finally looked at it in the mini description, which made me then have to pretend to laugh at something in class.
I love how you type out things. It's like poetry, which makes it really interesting to debate. If you don't mind me asking, and please don't take offense, do you do it intentionally, or is this just how thoughts come into your mind?
I'm so happy our jokes will be deliberated for six months. I loved your second one.
Let me read your third round and I'll say yay or nay in my third round post so it's official. Wanna wager the grammar point on who can tell the best two jokes, one in each round?
I'm really interested in this debate, but I want to understand it a bit better. Just to clarify, you're defending that stoicism as a tool is good, but stoicism as an ideology in itself is bad?
And if that is correct, is the Con's burden to prove it is good as an ideology in itself or is proving it as a bad tool also sufficient of the Con's burden?
I just finished this one. I'll probably wait a little bit. A little burnt out on this topic, lol.
It really is. It only says those who engage in debates can vote, but this is ridiculous because thousands of forum posts and a true engagement in the community show being a member of a community and the ability to engage in discussion. Those people can be trusted to vote.
They took my ability to vote away. I'm very sorry, friends.
I'm cool with that. I'm pretty bad about sitting down and cramming out a speech, but if it helps you, I'm down.
Sure! Are there any changes to the wording, rules, or description you would want?
I ignore preambles sometimes, so I wanted to reach out here as well. If you would like to agree to make the last speech only weighing and describing why the voter should vote for you as a sort of summary, then you should agree in your next speech. I put the agreement in my preamble.
You forced me to use all but thirteen characters in that last speech. Hopefully, I'm pushing you to your limits as well.
Short version, grammar, conduct, and sources are problematic and only win/loss debates are justified in my mind. Long version, https://www.debateart.com/debates/4176-resolved-debateart-com-should-eliminate-the-four-points-point-system
Does the preamble stuff in my Round 2 speech make sense? I know Sir forfeited, so I'm not worried, just curious for other rounds.
My sibling in Christ, why do you have three open challenges but your forfeiting most of the rounds I judge with you in it?
Sure! I'm in class right now and I'm judging a high school debate tournament this weekend, so I may not get the chance to until Sunday.
Is my vote any different than your vote? I can't watch the video right now, I'm in class.
Sarcasm alone isn't worth it, but a pivot in a performance kritik, who knows.
Wylted doesn't affect my decision on this issue at all. I've only voted on these other issues in two debates. I voted conduct on a debate where one side called the other side a literal slur (and I regret that decision, as the other side should have called it out, but we only get better with mistakes) and one where I was told to explicitly in round 2 of 4 and the other person didn't contest it. Grammar, sources, and conduct are not metrics that a debate should be "won" on and I stand by that opinion.
Sorry, I personally don't vote on grammar, sources, or conduct unless I'm told to in the round, explicitly, not in the last round. They're optional on the voting policy, so I'm not doing anything wrong and I think that all three are problematic metrics to count "points" for.
I've seen the movie, just didn't realize that's what it was until I read the description.
This does look interesting. When I first read the title, I thought this was in reference to open-source codes and I got excited for serious policy debates, though this seems just as interesting.
Then I might steal your trolling styler for the kritik idea I have.
I forgot to tell yall that yall should feel free to reach out in any way if yall have any questions or comments about my vote!
I recommend you read my vote, or at least the notes for Con.
I feel bad, I've voted on every debate that had no votes except this one, but I just have no clue how to evaluate it.
3. Even if you are right that you should say more, highlighting the division is still good, as this division of disparate ideologies still wasn't made in the debate. In the end, two arguments showing that RM is wrong is better than one.
A. I think, unfortunately, we're just disagreeing on what the ideology fundamentally says. I say that anarchists want a government that equitably allows all to participate in decision-making that may result in some people losing the decision. You are saying that anarchists say the government only works if people can opt out.
I. Yeah, that's ok. Like, I don't think that anarchists are trying to pretend they want a realm of chaos and no social systems of making decisions and group activity. I don't think they would call this coercion since every member of the community has an opportunity to participate in the decision making.
II. I don't think dissent alone is punishable, hence why democracy exists. However, if the community votes 99-1 that murder should be illegal, not stopping that one percent from murdering the 99 percent recreates a hierarchy where one can harm others. By having a direct majority guide the decisions of the community, then a minority class doesn't get to stop things from happening, which is the definition of a hierarchy, smaller groups having more power. Most anarchists would be ok with the community stopping rapists, murderers, etc. for their dissent from community guidelines.
B. Voluntarism is only right-wing. I'm gonna answer the points more directly.
I. Left-wing anarchists are against the state, but they define state as distinct from government. This matters because they would not support the Soviet Union or Maoist China because there is a hierarchy in the state, where a small government class makes decisions regardless of the peoples wishes. Left-wing anarchists say that a small group of bourgeois do the same thing in representative democracy, both by controlling the economy and lobbying to have their candidates have more power. This is solved by direct democracy where all have an equal say in the creation of society. It's not about abolishing society, like right-wing anarchism, but making decision-making in society more equitable. The goals are fundamentally different.
II. The commune or union are not states, but governments. There is no direct hierarchical group that can make decisions, and that solves the problem.
III. Anarchy rejects the state. Left-wing anarchism makes this distinct from government. Right-wing anarchism doesn't.
IV. Anarchists would argue that individualism isn't the goal, but equitable access to the decision-making processes. However, they would also argue that capitalism is worse than socialism as socialism is where the workers each get an individual part of the decision-making process where capitalism has the it dictated to them. Sharing a lever of power is more individualistic then never accessing the lever of power.
V. State capitalists exist. Capitalism exists in modern-day China and Nazi Germany as privately owned businesses create profit to owners. Regulations do not dismantle capitalism, only taking the ownership away from the bourgeois/private individuals and giving it to the workers, either directly in libertarian models of socialism, or through the state in authoritarian models.
Sorry for the two pings, I voted and then realize I didn't select Con. My bad.
2. Yeah, that's what I try to do. If you want to see the extreme example of this, you can look at my current debate with Sir.Lancelot. https://www.debateart.com/debates/4118-the-right-to-bear-arms-vs-gun-control I literally am retyping the all my case turns on Pro and my entire Con case every speech, despite them being untouched. No matter how lazy the judge is, there will be no doubt I won any of those points.
3. You have a valid critique of these forms of anarchism (as a syndicalist myself, I think it's valid anarchism, but that's not relevant for this round), but for this debate, all you need to say is that RM is describing anarcho-communists and not anarcho-capitalists, therefore their argument that capitalism and anarchism are incompatible is irrelevant to the question of anarcho-capitalists.
A. In regard to your critique of anarchism writ large, I don't think this is true. I don't think most anarchists would be ok with no system of governance in place and most would tell you they support a governmental apparatus. The argument why this isn't coercion like a bourgeois or state (as distinct from government) apparatus is two-fold.
I. You can choose to contribute to the system, but there is no punishment for leaving or not contributing. (I'll be honest, this feels unrealistic in the sense that, where do those who don't want to contribute to any system go? Liberals would tell you that you can opt out of the social contract, but every scrap of land is owned by a country.)
II. Direct democracy means that it's not coercion, but a mutual dialogue/negotiation. If the commune/union decides to up food production on a 80-20 vote split, then this is the worker/masses deciding what to do, not the bourgeois/state.
B. Voluntarism is only a right-wing anarchist concept. Not relevant to left-wing anarchism. Also, they would argue that capitalism creates classes that exploit and this does as much as the state to impose on your freedom.
Of course! Feel free to message me whenever you are available.
Thank you very much! That means a lot, especially since I judge high school debates, determining who went to a state meet just a couple of days ago, and I hope to be a high school debate coach after I finish this semester, working on teacher certification right now. I'll vote on both of those if I have time to.
Sorry yall got two alerts, I accidentally sent the first vote as a tie.
1. I'm going to explain the different ways I could have evaluated this, and maybe the difference makes sense. All of them are different ways to interpret the minarchy/libertarian split, but they don't change what my vote would be.
A. I don't look at minarchism at all. I only measure the small government metric of libertarianism. (How I actually voted)
B. I look at minarchism and see it is defined as minimal government. I interpret this as the same as small government since no difference is given. (How I ideally should have voted upon reflection. The only difference is how close attention I pay, not to how I voted)
C. I look at the definition of minarchism as minimal government and say this is different than small government based on my own personal value and then default to small government as it is directly libertarian. (How I would vote if I personally intervened, but it has no consequence)
2. The extension makes no confusion. If you have the characters, always extend every point your opponent drops every speech. That way there can be no doubt in the mind of judges just as dumb or much lazier than me.
3. "State" as defined by left-wing anarchists is the creation of a distinct "class" of those who are hierarchically above the masses. A monarch, Soviet dictator, or elected representative would all fit this roll as, even if they have "approval" of the citizens, because they operate a separate hierarchical class. Syndicalists would say that the use of direct democracy in the union and anarcho-communists would say that the use of direct democracy in the commune would constitute governments (institutions that make social decisions), but not states as there isn't a distinct class. This is the original basis of anarchy as it originates from Kropotkin, with right-wing variants not really being formally created until Rand much later. My argument here isn't that one or the other is the true anarchy or is less hypocritical or that one is good, but simply that highlighting this difference in this round would have helped you as RM was trying to obfuscate this to say all anarchists hate capitalism.
4. That's fair. I'm enjoying it as well as this will force me to try and be more cognizant when going over these rounds. You were right that you brought up hypocrisy and I should be more watchful of that. These don't alienate me. I was just highlighting that my mistake, even if it is my mistake, unfortunately will be inevitable in debates where clear communication is not prioritized just as highly or even higher than good argumentation.