Your opponent has no humility and assumes that since he cannot imagine how something works then it cannot work. He defines law as government. His views about currency are childlish - “What if I use one form of currency and Pro uses another? What if they are valued differently? This does not make much sense.” Does he know that there are other currencies besides USD? He makes assumption that anarchy is utopia without providing proof. In fact good argument can be made that minimal state is an utopia. He then goes on to say “Is freedom, then, only for the strong or wealthy?” I would argument that indeed today it is. Also he makes exactly the same stupid argument as Rob does - there is no known succesful anarchy in history therefore it can’t exist. He makes argument that statelesness equals anarchy, without distinction whether one chooses anarchy or is forced into it by state collapse.
It can be easily seen that your opponent never debated anarchist before:)
"It looks like you are debating the site’s #1 debater, 100 percentile, won 95% of 272 debates. She is #1 on the top 10 list. I would say she is on the ropes in round #2. "
This I found to be surprising, to say the very least. For all I know, she may retort with a devastating argument in favor of statism, but, up to this point, what she has demonstrated inclines me to think the opposite.
Keep up the good work, Sieben!
For my future posts, would someone mind telling me how to actually quote?
Also my friend from NY is visiting this week so I won’t get to this for awhile… I’ll have to do it when she’s sleeping or something lol.
Also my friend from NY is visiting this week so I won’t get to this for awhile… I’ll have to do it when she’s sleeping or something lol.
Looks like Sieben has won
Click on reply, look at the html used to create the above quote, the at the beginning and at the end. I copy and paste what I want to reference, then manually type the commands at the beginning and end exactly as shown.
Thanks for the support guys. I was really intimidated at first too.. but we’ll see. I think debate.org is a good way for me to branch out to new people, since its neutral ground and 1v1. Even if I run into idealogues, they’re constrained by peer review (voting period). I guess I don’t know how objective the community judging is, but all the debaters I know in real life are completely adamant about flow and extensions.
I used to, and be pretty thorough. But anymore I realise it’s a waste of time, I only bother talking to people who know what I’m talking about. I feel no need to explain to people why their position is stupid.
The numbers/letters are just tags. You’re supposed to use them to keep the debate organized. Instead I had to preface everything with “the neg says X” instead of “Neg C2:” This is a good example.
D1-5 are my definitions. They’re used to allocate “ground” for the debate.
C2 means contention 2. Contentions are arguments that prove you win the resolution. For example, I have to prove anarchy is humanitarian, so all my contentions should make that argument.
O means observation. They’re used to help put everything in a more logical/empirical framework. Like setting up standards. They don’t prove my case but are good for spiking (addressing in advance) arguments.
Its great if your opponent is like “Contention 3: Anarchy might have problems” All you have to do is say “see my O3”
Never bother reading the original works of Marx, Keynes, Friedman, or any other statist. Consult the Holy Church of Rothbardology in your district to receive criticisms of those cranks in pdf form.
