1. If there isn't, then small government was a good enough metric. If there is, then it wasn't made in round.
2. You're right, you did say it in the first speech. Extend things, don't leave them in the first speech. Also, if you make two definitions for a word since you had another definition for libertarianism, you need to explicitly say what the merge looks like or kick one by the end of the debate. Since definitions weren't extended through the debate, I went back and just read the first one.
4. Anarchism isn't inherently individual as we understand it. The government and state are distinct in left-wing anarchist study, with syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and anarcho-monarchists all believing a distinct government is essential, but not the state. Capitalists can also be statists. The definition of capitalism isn't free market, but private ownership.
5. You brought up the concept of hypocrisy in the line by line. Debate is 50% argument and 50% ethos. Conclusion or preface claims do a lot to win a debate. I'm not saying you're doing bad, you won the debate and did a phenomenal job. If I say you did or didn't do something that you're sure I'm wrong about, then highlight it more. I'm not perfect, but only imperfect people are going to vote on your debates. When I give those notes, I'm just saying the biggest flaws I take after spending two hours reading and taking notes on a debate (this one may have taken longer), not the biggest flaws that come from some objective truth.
I don't have to prove that no bad governments exist. I said that as a reason that we shouldn't arm citizens. If Sir.Lancelot puts our Nazi Germany, then I answer the warrant, but only in the context of the resolution. Also, for better or worse, there is an incentive in debate to put out the most ambitious version of an argument first. If it's dropped, you get that version. If it's not, you have the rest of the debate to clarify and nuance it. Also, I have two points, the one you said I should start with, and then the other one. You should have one piece of offense and defense on each argument at least. That's my offense.
I'm only going to comment on things that we're fundamentally seeing differently and isn't a semantic distinction.
1. You are right that you tie minarchy to right-wing libertarianism, however, minimum government is not defined as distinct from small government, so this changes nothing materially about my decision. Also, as a sidenote, I flow everything on a spreadsheet when I read these, so if things aren't getting extended, the farther back they are, the less likely I am to remember/account for it. If you think something is important for your case, you need to bring it up every speech.
2. You never say libertarians support or uphold the non-aggression principal. It's not in your definitions or your explanation, you just say they violate. Libertarians violate 100 theoretical concepts from 1,000 ideologies, you have to make clear connections. Regardless of what I know about right-wing libertarian/anarchist philosophy, I'm not going to do the work for you.
3. In regard to voluntary association, the argument RM makes is that crime, which would run rampant, would be involuntary associations. Even if he is right, you make the argument that private security organizations are how the society deals with this, meaning there is an attempt to voluntarily stop involuntary associations, and the effectiveness of this strategy is irrelevant to hypocrisy. Essentially, this is more a shot at RM for not saying that crime is an intentional inclusion of involuntary associations that is not rectified by private security for a billion reasons that they didn't give.
4. The anarchist divide between socialist anarchists and capitalist anarchists is in three ways that you could highlight. I'm just going to use socialist and capitalist for character reasons, but they both represent the anarchist version.
A. Socialists make a delineation between government and state. Capitalists don't, so this delineation means that capitalists don't want any governmental body.
B. Socialists are against capitalism? Like, that answer feels obvious when he's reading a different ideologies axioms and trying to apply it to yours.
C. Anarcho-capitalism is a phrase that means something completely different when divided into it's parts, with anarchism being a distinct branch and capitalism being a distinct branch, both with a million parts underneath. To act like those ideas, which are broad and have differing opinions in between can be totalized against one another does a disservice to the nuance of ideology writ large and is intentionally deceiving.
5. From my perspective, the structure is hard to follow. You can try to change it or not, but when clearly numbered/labeled points are utilized, I know exactly what your answering everytime, especially since each paragraph has multiple distinct points and warrants in it.
6. Round three, you got lost in the line by line work and didn't bring up hypocrisy till you reclarified in Round four.
Characters willing, I would argue these points
1. The fact that the Nazis were defeated by the Allies and not their own citizenry proves that citizens can't fight against tyranny. Winning bad governments exist isn't enough, Pro has to win that they can be defeated by armed citizens without foreign aid.
2. The Nazis took power through armed action that bullied themselves into the polls, bringing and end to the Weimar Republic. A society with no guns wouldn't have been bullied as such, so the offense still stands that armed citizens cause human rights violations.
Notes for Pro
1. Don't give Con their moral framework, they will only use it to beat you. They chose it because it proves their point. Provide a counter framework.
2. You can't just say you need to control your house. You need to prove that.
Notes for Con
1. Push harder on discouraging is not only in the house, but a universal act. Pro was losing on this argument, and the Kantian ideal for morality is interesting to enforce.
2. You need a formal "language can be violence" claim. That with some good reasoning would get you so far.
Sir. Lancelot,
If you're asking generally, I get a spreadsheet and use it to fill out every argument (a speech is in a column and a back-and-forth against the opponents is in a row) that is color coded. If you're asking for this round, I was given three axiomatic premises for each ideology, so I just saw if they were hypocritical to those axioms. According to the debate, libertarians are hypocritical about two and anarcho-capitalists are hypocritical about one, kinda. No reason to reinvent the wheel when it's so cut and dry. If either side had told me one axiom was more important than the others and was the only thing that mattered, I would adopt that framework, but they just left me to figure out what is what in this round.
Wylted,
Libertarian philosophy is interesting. I have no interest in defending it through these comments, but it serves as a good critique more than a standalone philosophy.
Unfortunately, I already answered it, but he's right. RM did make the argument that it creates tyranny. I didn't buy the argument, but I didn't explain why in my original vote, so they deserved that explanation. What do you think of the decision, as someone who isn't involved in the debate?
In my notes, I skirt over a lot of the nuance of the conversation, and that is a disservice as that is at the core of the topic (random note, I just got deja vu typing that). Going through the individual places where "tyranny" comes up (not like the quoted word, but the concept).
1. Crimes are never defined as a state. Even if they are bad, individual criminal elements like your security guard killing you or you being robbed are not a hierarchal state, which is the definition I was given to evaluate the round by Athias that wasn't contested by the end of the debate.
2. I'm told that the wealthy will get to make all the rules and are nepotistic, but Athias tells me these rules can't be coerced onto people. You never answer that security can be bought or give me good in-depth analysis that the poor can't afford this and would be at the whim of the rich, so I assume everyone has enough money to afford security to resist the nepotists.
3. There is a performative contradiction RM makes that isn't rectified by the end of the round. I'm told there is simultaneously no rules and that the elites will make all the rules and enforce it on people. Athias tells me there are rules that people have to voluntarily associate with. Even if one of the narratives RM gives me is true, I don't know which I am to vote on, especially Athias isn't self contradictory and this clearly answers both.
4. The argument that people would only benefit themselves and their family is answered by saying that people can choose to engage with who they want. You don't tell me this forms a "state", so I buy that Athias is fulfilling their burden.
5. Finally, even if I grant you win that it creates a state, that is till only one hypocritical point for Athias compared to your two. This is an on balance debate and nobody told me how to weigh different hypocrisies against one another, so I just count one for one.
Notes for RM
1. You get lost in bad v. good government. You're right, anarcho-capitalism is a shit system that allows criminals to run rampant and nothing is secure. The problem is that is what anarcho-capitalists are trying to sell you. There's a difference between internal contradiction and bad results. For example, if a Nazi told you they want to do genocide, that's bad, but not hypocritical.
2. You are winning the anarchism hates capitalism debate because Athias either shit the bed on the answer or doesn't know the difference between socialist and capitalist anarchy to point out your use of the literature, but you drop it. This could have been an a prior showing of hypocriticalness that would have been an easy place for me to vote.
3. For fucks sake, this debate needs structure. If my decision is bad, it's because both of yall are typing essays that I'm just comparing till the second half. Having bulleted, numbered, or titled sections for every offensive argument makes judging this 100x easier, and if the other person doesn't do it, it's really easy to put them down as the roll in the proverbial mud.
Notes for Athias
1. I don't know if you know the difference, but make sure you answer the anarchism hates capitalism warrant better. For example, communists and fascists both are authoritarian, but saying communists hate capitalism doesn't mean fascists do as well. Same thing with anarchists and anarcho-capitalists.
2. For fucks sake, this debate needs structure. If my decision is bad, it's because both of yall are typing essays that I'm just comparing till the second half. Having bulleted, numbered, or titled sections for every offensive argument makes judging this 100x easier, and if the other person doesn't do it, it's really easy to put them down as the roll in the proverbial mud.
3. Good job bringing the last speech back to hypocrisy over good v. bad governance, however, if you do that every round, I have to do a lot less work to vote for you by the end.
Great round to both of yall. If either of yall have any questions, please feel free to message, question, or comment me!
Before I get into a decision, individual arguments, and notes for both sides, I just want to say this was frustrating because the concept of hypocrisy got lost as both sides tried to prove a good government. However, there was a really good debate here, nonetheless.
I vote Athias, here's why:
1. I have to ask, what do libertarians say they are (I go to them first just because they were the first advocated for). I get one definition from Athias (I know Athias is Con on the site, but Pro for the resolution in round, so I'll just use Athias and RM, as opposed to Pro and Con to describe yall. Nothing I say is meant personal.) that says libertarians are liberals who support liberty over all else, assumingly fraternity and equality based on classic liberal doctrine. This is later extended to property rights and small government. There was a definition of minarchism, but I don't know if this is representative of libertarians or anarchists and no one does that work for me, so I ignore it.
1A. So, first question, do libertarians place liberty over all other concerns? The main divide is whether can you be free/liberated if you're in danger of criminals and whether can you be free if you can lose elections and be coerced at all. The coerced doesn't matter because libertarians claim to be a state still, meaning they advocate for a certain level of coercion, so it isn't hypocritical for that coercion to exist. The other question, about being free if you are in danger of crime, has to go through levels. Athias attempts to answer this in two ways, you can be free of crime without coercion and that the freedom you lose from police is worse.
1Aa. I buy that private security fails, mostly because Athias's answer to that they fail is that the police fail to protect as well.
1Ab. I buy that the police do fail their job and can't be held accountable. RM's use of wording that implies that they can SOMETIMES be held accountable makes me skeptical that they protect more than they infringe. This implies that safety is placed over liberty at least to a certain extent.
1B. Do libertarians support the free market? No, it was dropped that they support a monopoly over certain issues with no answer to this. We get the answers about stopping fraud and money devaluation, but I at least have some defense that consumers wouldn't go to bad actors (this is unanswered) and that the state is worse at handling currency (only answered with the bad actors warrant).
1C. Do they support a "small government"? Small government is never defined, so do I think only police and currency are small? I guess?
2. Anarcho-capitalism is defined by Athias as no hierarchical government, voluntary association, only private institutions, and the possible existence of public projects. RM pushed back a little bit by reading left-wing anarchism and saying this was antithetical to capitalism, causing tension in the definition, but Athias said this was ethical questioning only and RM dropped this, so I buy that Athias's definition stands. RM also tried to complicate it by playing semantics of sovereignty but dropped this after Athias pointed to the other definition.
2A. Does anarchism (this represents anarcho-capitalism because I'm lazy) support abolishing a hierarchical government? Yes, RM never claims that they keep a secret state.
2B. Does anarchism only endorse voluntary associations? RM complicates this question by bringing up no entity to stop crime, but Athias is very clear that there are just private, for-profit entities that stop crime, so I buy that, even if not perfect, voluntary associations are the goal.
2C. Does anarchism only endorse private institutions? Yes, RM never claims that there are secret public institutions.
In conclusion, even without getting into the nuance of the points, two of anarchisms are uncontested and all of libertarianism are contested, making me feel comfortable pulling the trigger there without sorting through all of the arguments. However, I sort through them because I don't have friends to talk to instead (jk, I had fun reading this debate, honestly). Libertarians are hypocritical about their supposed priority of liberty because they endorse police who are aggressive and worse for liberty and the free market because they allow for state monopolies over certain areas. I buy they are honest about a small government writ large, however. Anarchists are definitely genuine about no government and only private institutions. They aren't hypocritical about voluntary associations (as the anarchist doesn't create the criminal like the libertarian creates the police), but they do fail to deliver.
Notes for Pro
1. You get lost in the sauce of "who's a better boxer" instead of who would win in a fight. Bulbasaur is statistically weaker than a Squirtle, but Bulbasaur would still win the fight. I use this analogy to say that you need to tell me what a fight looks like. Is Nicolico going so long that Floyd quits, is he getting the knockout, or is he racking up points? The only description I'm given of how Nicolico wins rounds is Round 1 when you say he tired a guy out into giving up. I don't think he could do that to Floyd.
2. You number your speech so well in Round 1, but then Con creates a mud pit in how they don't answer your points directly or number their points, and then you wrestle in the mud pit. I write all the arguments on an excel sheet when I judge to be as fair as possible to yall, and that's easier when both sides try to stick to points.
3. The argument you mishandle the most is the "modern boxing is just better". Your answer is three reasons why it's better, nutrition, tech, and regulations. You should focus on the regulations making boxers unable to fully engage and how fighting more gave more training (you say they fought more, but going that extra step takes it from defensive (proving the opponent untrue) to offense (saying the opponent is proving your point)).
Notes for Con
1. You won on presumption, which is good for BOP on pro debates, but not phenomenal. Work on hammering harder how Floyd would win. Also, you drop a lot of defensive arguments, like the calcium, expert analysis of Nicolico's defense and cherry-picking (you said this wasn't true, but never warranted or answered Pro's individual points).
2. Please, when constructing new arguments, title/number them and use the opponent's title/numbers when answering. It makes the debate so much easier to judge.
3. Pro does a good job of describing Floyd in 2007, not over his career. You need to be more time specific with a lot of your points.
As always, really good debate. Please comment, question, or message me with any questions or complaints!
I vote Con because Pro has failed to prove how Nicolico would win.
This is a really good round, and I'll type a lot here, so I'll explain the anatomy of my decision so you can get what you want, only. I type out how every argument happens individually, then under that, type a conclusion of my weighing those against one another. I come back to the top and put my decision, and then try to give notes, usually three, of what both sides could have done to make them win or win by a larger margin.
1. The burden of proof is that Nicolino could win, meaning I need to buy that statement as true to vote Pro.
2. Was Nicolino good at defense, or just the inventor of defense? Pro has an expert analysis of how good Nicolino was, as well as a quote from a trainer about how he could bait people into swinging and then dodge. The only argument comparing pure defense between the two is the nickname game, and I buy that Pretty boy is probably an appearance thing, but untouchable is probably from good defense.
3. On energy conservation, Pro is uncontested.
4. On training, I buy that Floyd does better training as this is uncontested.
5. On the difficulty of boxing today versus in the 70's, even though boxers fought more, I buy that the nutrition information, tech, and training techniques mean that boxers today are better (writ large) than boxers in general. I buy judging has stayed consistent, however.
6. Is Floyd best at defensive opponents? Uncontested yes, the contestation Pro gives is that Nicolino is good enough to overcome this, not that Floyd isn't good at beating defensive debaters.
7. I buy Floyd plays dirty and this will have an effect on catching Nicolino off guard in small moments.
8. I buy that Floyd doesn't use a hybrid strategy, but is transitioning to defense in 2007 (even if he had a hybrid strategy at other times in his career, there is no year on this)
9. I buy that in 2007 Floyd had calcium deficiencies in his hand.
10. I buy that Floyd has much more stamina than Nicolino because of better training.
11. I buy that Floyd cherry-picks fights that he can win and pushes boxes off until they're past their prime.
12. I buy that Floyd has reach and Nicolino has strength/girth.
These disparate points, unfortunately, aren't put all together for me by either side, leaving winning offense on both sides for me to piece together. The BOP says I have to answer the question, can Nicolino beat Floyd, so I begin with the question of will either tire out, to which I say no, Nicolino conserves energy and Floyd has the stamina from training. Next, I ask, can either knock out the other one, to which I have to put pieces together. Both are weak hitters, but Floyd has 27 knockouts. His knockouts, however, are not given to me in a timeframe of his entire career, however, I do know that he cherry-picks fighters he can beat and he had calcium deficiencies in 2007, so he's trying to avoid punching. Nicolino is a weak hitter, so he couldn't get the knockout either. This means the boxing round comes down to points. I know the boxing has gotten harder with time, Floyd is best at defensive opponents (even if they are cherry-picked to be weak) and He will also sneak in extra hits by playing unfairly. Floyd, however, has calcium deficiencies and therefore is a defensive boxer as well. Pro, however, has no offense about Nicolino's hitting. The big issue here is I have a huge blindspot in my ability to vote Pro, namely, I don't know how Nicolino won rounds. I know for a fact he wouldn't tire out Floyd because it's 12 rounds and Floyd can do that. I know for a fact that he wouldn't get the knockout either because he was a weak hitter. I'm never told about him racking up points in a fight, so I don't feel that has been proven to me. Even if I'm skeptical about Floyd's ability to rack up points in a fight because of his transition to defense, I still believe that has been labeled as a strategy, while Nicolico has no winning strategy for me to vote on.
Thank you very much. I'm trying to go through all the debates with little to no votes because I really like judging rounds so that support that I'm not sounding like a dumbass means a lot. If there are any other rounds you have that need votes, I would be happy to weigh in.
1. If there isn't, then small government was a good enough metric. If there is, then it wasn't made in round.
2. You're right, you did say it in the first speech. Extend things, don't leave them in the first speech. Also, if you make two definitions for a word since you had another definition for libertarianism, you need to explicitly say what the merge looks like or kick one by the end of the debate. Since definitions weren't extended through the debate, I went back and just read the first one.
4. Anarchism isn't inherently individual as we understand it. The government and state are distinct in left-wing anarchist study, with syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and anarcho-monarchists all believing a distinct government is essential, but not the state. Capitalists can also be statists. The definition of capitalism isn't free market, but private ownership.
5. You brought up the concept of hypocrisy in the line by line. Debate is 50% argument and 50% ethos. Conclusion or preface claims do a lot to win a debate. I'm not saying you're doing bad, you won the debate and did a phenomenal job. If I say you did or didn't do something that you're sure I'm wrong about, then highlight it more. I'm not perfect, but only imperfect people are going to vote on your debates. When I give those notes, I'm just saying the biggest flaws I take after spending two hours reading and taking notes on a debate (this one may have taken longer), not the biggest flaws that come from some objective truth.
I was hoping I'd at least get one answer from you.
I don't have to prove that no bad governments exist. I said that as a reason that we shouldn't arm citizens. If Sir.Lancelot puts our Nazi Germany, then I answer the warrant, but only in the context of the resolution. Also, for better or worse, there is an incentive in debate to put out the most ambitious version of an argument first. If it's dropped, you get that version. If it's not, you have the rest of the debate to clarify and nuance it. Also, I have two points, the one you said I should start with, and then the other one. You should have one piece of offense and defense on each argument at least. That's my offense.
Should I go watch the movie to get references better before I judge?
I'm only going to comment on things that we're fundamentally seeing differently and isn't a semantic distinction.
1. You are right that you tie minarchy to right-wing libertarianism, however, minimum government is not defined as distinct from small government, so this changes nothing materially about my decision. Also, as a sidenote, I flow everything on a spreadsheet when I read these, so if things aren't getting extended, the farther back they are, the less likely I am to remember/account for it. If you think something is important for your case, you need to bring it up every speech.
2. You never say libertarians support or uphold the non-aggression principal. It's not in your definitions or your explanation, you just say they violate. Libertarians violate 100 theoretical concepts from 1,000 ideologies, you have to make clear connections. Regardless of what I know about right-wing libertarian/anarchist philosophy, I'm not going to do the work for you.
3. In regard to voluntary association, the argument RM makes is that crime, which would run rampant, would be involuntary associations. Even if he is right, you make the argument that private security organizations are how the society deals with this, meaning there is an attempt to voluntarily stop involuntary associations, and the effectiveness of this strategy is irrelevant to hypocrisy. Essentially, this is more a shot at RM for not saying that crime is an intentional inclusion of involuntary associations that is not rectified by private security for a billion reasons that they didn't give.
4. The anarchist divide between socialist anarchists and capitalist anarchists is in three ways that you could highlight. I'm just going to use socialist and capitalist for character reasons, but they both represent the anarchist version.
A. Socialists make a delineation between government and state. Capitalists don't, so this delineation means that capitalists don't want any governmental body.
B. Socialists are against capitalism? Like, that answer feels obvious when he's reading a different ideologies axioms and trying to apply it to yours.
C. Anarcho-capitalism is a phrase that means something completely different when divided into it's parts, with anarchism being a distinct branch and capitalism being a distinct branch, both with a million parts underneath. To act like those ideas, which are broad and have differing opinions in between can be totalized against one another does a disservice to the nuance of ideology writ large and is intentionally deceiving.
5. From my perspective, the structure is hard to follow. You can try to change it or not, but when clearly numbered/labeled points are utilized, I know exactly what your answering everytime, especially since each paragraph has multiple distinct points and warrants in it.
6. Round three, you got lost in the line by line work and didn't bring up hypocrisy till you reclarified in Round four.
Characters willing, I would argue these points
1. The fact that the Nazis were defeated by the Allies and not their own citizenry proves that citizens can't fight against tyranny. Winning bad governments exist isn't enough, Pro has to win that they can be defeated by armed citizens without foreign aid.
2. The Nazis took power through armed action that bullied themselves into the polls, bringing and end to the Weimar Republic. A society with no guns wouldn't have been bullied as such, so the offense still stands that armed citizens cause human rights violations.
I'm a fuck up and forgot notes for yall.
Notes for Pro
1. Don't give Con their moral framework, they will only use it to beat you. They chose it because it proves their point. Provide a counter framework.
2. You can't just say you need to control your house. You need to prove that.
Notes for Con
1. Push harder on discouraging is not only in the house, but a universal act. Pro was losing on this argument, and the Kantian ideal for morality is interesting to enforce.
2. You need a formal "language can be violence" claim. That with some good reasoning would get you so far.
Sir. Lancelot,
If you're asking generally, I get a spreadsheet and use it to fill out every argument (a speech is in a column and a back-and-forth against the opponents is in a row) that is color coded. If you're asking for this round, I was given three axiomatic premises for each ideology, so I just saw if they were hypocritical to those axioms. According to the debate, libertarians are hypocritical about two and anarcho-capitalists are hypocritical about one, kinda. No reason to reinvent the wheel when it's so cut and dry. If either side had told me one axiom was more important than the others and was the only thing that mattered, I would adopt that framework, but they just left me to figure out what is what in this round.
Wylted,
Libertarian philosophy is interesting. I have no interest in defending it through these comments, but it serves as a good critique more than a standalone philosophy.
Unfortunately, I already answered it, but he's right. RM did make the argument that it creates tyranny. I didn't buy the argument, but I didn't explain why in my original vote, so they deserved that explanation. What do you think of the decision, as someone who isn't involved in the debate?
I forgot to put this on my vote, and I'm very sorry, but feel free to question, comment, or message me about the vote.
Feel free to argue with me (that's not meant sarcastically, I swear). I should be able to defend my decision since this affects your ranking.
In my notes, I skirt over a lot of the nuance of the conversation, and that is a disservice as that is at the core of the topic (random note, I just got deja vu typing that). Going through the individual places where "tyranny" comes up (not like the quoted word, but the concept).
1. Crimes are never defined as a state. Even if they are bad, individual criminal elements like your security guard killing you or you being robbed are not a hierarchal state, which is the definition I was given to evaluate the round by Athias that wasn't contested by the end of the debate.
2. I'm told that the wealthy will get to make all the rules and are nepotistic, but Athias tells me these rules can't be coerced onto people. You never answer that security can be bought or give me good in-depth analysis that the poor can't afford this and would be at the whim of the rich, so I assume everyone has enough money to afford security to resist the nepotists.
3. There is a performative contradiction RM makes that isn't rectified by the end of the round. I'm told there is simultaneously no rules and that the elites will make all the rules and enforce it on people. Athias tells me there are rules that people have to voluntarily associate with. Even if one of the narratives RM gives me is true, I don't know which I am to vote on, especially Athias isn't self contradictory and this clearly answers both.
4. The argument that people would only benefit themselves and their family is answered by saying that people can choose to engage with who they want. You don't tell me this forms a "state", so I buy that Athias is fulfilling their burden.
5. Finally, even if I grant you win that it creates a state, that is till only one hypocritical point for Athias compared to your two. This is an on balance debate and nobody told me how to weigh different hypocrisies against one another, so I just count one for one.
Notes for RM
1. You get lost in bad v. good government. You're right, anarcho-capitalism is a shit system that allows criminals to run rampant and nothing is secure. The problem is that is what anarcho-capitalists are trying to sell you. There's a difference between internal contradiction and bad results. For example, if a Nazi told you they want to do genocide, that's bad, but not hypocritical.
2. You are winning the anarchism hates capitalism debate because Athias either shit the bed on the answer or doesn't know the difference between socialist and capitalist anarchy to point out your use of the literature, but you drop it. This could have been an a prior showing of hypocriticalness that would have been an easy place for me to vote.
3. For fucks sake, this debate needs structure. If my decision is bad, it's because both of yall are typing essays that I'm just comparing till the second half. Having bulleted, numbered, or titled sections for every offensive argument makes judging this 100x easier, and if the other person doesn't do it, it's really easy to put them down as the roll in the proverbial mud.
Notes for Athias
1. I don't know if you know the difference, but make sure you answer the anarchism hates capitalism warrant better. For example, communists and fascists both are authoritarian, but saying communists hate capitalism doesn't mean fascists do as well. Same thing with anarchists and anarcho-capitalists.
2. For fucks sake, this debate needs structure. If my decision is bad, it's because both of yall are typing essays that I'm just comparing till the second half. Having bulleted, numbered, or titled sections for every offensive argument makes judging this 100x easier, and if the other person doesn't do it, it's really easy to put them down as the roll in the proverbial mud.
3. Good job bringing the last speech back to hypocrisy over good v. bad governance, however, if you do that every round, I have to do a lot less work to vote for you by the end.
Great round to both of yall. If either of yall have any questions, please feel free to message, question, or comment me!
Before I get into a decision, individual arguments, and notes for both sides, I just want to say this was frustrating because the concept of hypocrisy got lost as both sides tried to prove a good government. However, there was a really good debate here, nonetheless.
I vote Athias, here's why:
1. I have to ask, what do libertarians say they are (I go to them first just because they were the first advocated for). I get one definition from Athias (I know Athias is Con on the site, but Pro for the resolution in round, so I'll just use Athias and RM, as opposed to Pro and Con to describe yall. Nothing I say is meant personal.) that says libertarians are liberals who support liberty over all else, assumingly fraternity and equality based on classic liberal doctrine. This is later extended to property rights and small government. There was a definition of minarchism, but I don't know if this is representative of libertarians or anarchists and no one does that work for me, so I ignore it.
1A. So, first question, do libertarians place liberty over all other concerns? The main divide is whether can you be free/liberated if you're in danger of criminals and whether can you be free if you can lose elections and be coerced at all. The coerced doesn't matter because libertarians claim to be a state still, meaning they advocate for a certain level of coercion, so it isn't hypocritical for that coercion to exist. The other question, about being free if you are in danger of crime, has to go through levels. Athias attempts to answer this in two ways, you can be free of crime without coercion and that the freedom you lose from police is worse.
1Aa. I buy that private security fails, mostly because Athias's answer to that they fail is that the police fail to protect as well.
1Ab. I buy that the police do fail their job and can't be held accountable. RM's use of wording that implies that they can SOMETIMES be held accountable makes me skeptical that they protect more than they infringe. This implies that safety is placed over liberty at least to a certain extent.
1B. Do libertarians support the free market? No, it was dropped that they support a monopoly over certain issues with no answer to this. We get the answers about stopping fraud and money devaluation, but I at least have some defense that consumers wouldn't go to bad actors (this is unanswered) and that the state is worse at handling currency (only answered with the bad actors warrant).
1C. Do they support a "small government"? Small government is never defined, so do I think only police and currency are small? I guess?
2. Anarcho-capitalism is defined by Athias as no hierarchical government, voluntary association, only private institutions, and the possible existence of public projects. RM pushed back a little bit by reading left-wing anarchism and saying this was antithetical to capitalism, causing tension in the definition, but Athias said this was ethical questioning only and RM dropped this, so I buy that Athias's definition stands. RM also tried to complicate it by playing semantics of sovereignty but dropped this after Athias pointed to the other definition.
2A. Does anarchism (this represents anarcho-capitalism because I'm lazy) support abolishing a hierarchical government? Yes, RM never claims that they keep a secret state.
2B. Does anarchism only endorse voluntary associations? RM complicates this question by bringing up no entity to stop crime, but Athias is very clear that there are just private, for-profit entities that stop crime, so I buy that, even if not perfect, voluntary associations are the goal.
2C. Does anarchism only endorse private institutions? Yes, RM never claims that there are secret public institutions.
In conclusion, even without getting into the nuance of the points, two of anarchisms are uncontested and all of libertarianism are contested, making me feel comfortable pulling the trigger there without sorting through all of the arguments. However, I sort through them because I don't have friends to talk to instead (jk, I had fun reading this debate, honestly). Libertarians are hypocritical about their supposed priority of liberty because they endorse police who are aggressive and worse for liberty and the free market because they allow for state monopolies over certain areas. I buy they are honest about a small government writ large, however. Anarchists are definitely genuine about no government and only private institutions. They aren't hypocritical about voluntary associations (as the anarchist doesn't create the criminal like the libertarian creates the police), but they do fail to deliver.
Yeah, aff means affirmative and neg means negative. So if I say "extend the aff", that would mean extend the affirmative case.
Notes for Pro
1. You get lost in the sauce of "who's a better boxer" instead of who would win in a fight. Bulbasaur is statistically weaker than a Squirtle, but Bulbasaur would still win the fight. I use this analogy to say that you need to tell me what a fight looks like. Is Nicolico going so long that Floyd quits, is he getting the knockout, or is he racking up points? The only description I'm given of how Nicolico wins rounds is Round 1 when you say he tired a guy out into giving up. I don't think he could do that to Floyd.
2. You number your speech so well in Round 1, but then Con creates a mud pit in how they don't answer your points directly or number their points, and then you wrestle in the mud pit. I write all the arguments on an excel sheet when I judge to be as fair as possible to yall, and that's easier when both sides try to stick to points.
3. The argument you mishandle the most is the "modern boxing is just better". Your answer is three reasons why it's better, nutrition, tech, and regulations. You should focus on the regulations making boxers unable to fully engage and how fighting more gave more training (you say they fought more, but going that extra step takes it from defensive (proving the opponent untrue) to offense (saying the opponent is proving your point)).
Notes for Con
1. You won on presumption, which is good for BOP on pro debates, but not phenomenal. Work on hammering harder how Floyd would win. Also, you drop a lot of defensive arguments, like the calcium, expert analysis of Nicolico's defense and cherry-picking (you said this wasn't true, but never warranted or answered Pro's individual points).
2. Please, when constructing new arguments, title/number them and use the opponent's title/numbers when answering. It makes the debate so much easier to judge.
3. Pro does a good job of describing Floyd in 2007, not over his career. You need to be more time specific with a lot of your points.
As always, really good debate. Please comment, question, or message me with any questions or complaints!
I vote Con because Pro has failed to prove how Nicolico would win.
This is a really good round, and I'll type a lot here, so I'll explain the anatomy of my decision so you can get what you want, only. I type out how every argument happens individually, then under that, type a conclusion of my weighing those against one another. I come back to the top and put my decision, and then try to give notes, usually three, of what both sides could have done to make them win or win by a larger margin.
1. The burden of proof is that Nicolino could win, meaning I need to buy that statement as true to vote Pro.
2. Was Nicolino good at defense, or just the inventor of defense? Pro has an expert analysis of how good Nicolino was, as well as a quote from a trainer about how he could bait people into swinging and then dodge. The only argument comparing pure defense between the two is the nickname game, and I buy that Pretty boy is probably an appearance thing, but untouchable is probably from good defense.
3. On energy conservation, Pro is uncontested.
4. On training, I buy that Floyd does better training as this is uncontested.
5. On the difficulty of boxing today versus in the 70's, even though boxers fought more, I buy that the nutrition information, tech, and training techniques mean that boxers today are better (writ large) than boxers in general. I buy judging has stayed consistent, however.
6. Is Floyd best at defensive opponents? Uncontested yes, the contestation Pro gives is that Nicolino is good enough to overcome this, not that Floyd isn't good at beating defensive debaters.
7. I buy Floyd plays dirty and this will have an effect on catching Nicolino off guard in small moments.
8. I buy that Floyd doesn't use a hybrid strategy, but is transitioning to defense in 2007 (even if he had a hybrid strategy at other times in his career, there is no year on this)
9. I buy that in 2007 Floyd had calcium deficiencies in his hand.
10. I buy that Floyd has much more stamina than Nicolino because of better training.
11. I buy that Floyd cherry-picks fights that he can win and pushes boxes off until they're past their prime.
12. I buy that Floyd has reach and Nicolino has strength/girth.
These disparate points, unfortunately, aren't put all together for me by either side, leaving winning offense on both sides for me to piece together. The BOP says I have to answer the question, can Nicolino beat Floyd, so I begin with the question of will either tire out, to which I say no, Nicolino conserves energy and Floyd has the stamina from training. Next, I ask, can either knock out the other one, to which I have to put pieces together. Both are weak hitters, but Floyd has 27 knockouts. His knockouts, however, are not given to me in a timeframe of his entire career, however, I do know that he cherry-picks fighters he can beat and he had calcium deficiencies in 2007, so he's trying to avoid punching. Nicolino is a weak hitter, so he couldn't get the knockout either. This means the boxing round comes down to points. I know the boxing has gotten harder with time, Floyd is best at defensive opponents (even if they are cherry-picked to be weak) and He will also sneak in extra hits by playing unfairly. Floyd, however, has calcium deficiencies and therefore is a defensive boxer as well. Pro, however, has no offense about Nicolino's hitting. The big issue here is I have a huge blindspot in my ability to vote Pro, namely, I don't know how Nicolino won rounds. I know for a fact he wouldn't tire out Floyd because it's 12 rounds and Floyd can do that. I know for a fact that he wouldn't get the knockout either because he was a weak hitter. I'm never told about him racking up points in a fight, so I don't feel that has been proven to me. Even if I'm skeptical about Floyd's ability to rack up points in a fight because of his transition to defense, I still believe that has been labeled as a strategy, while Nicolico has no winning strategy for me to vote on.
Sure! I don't know a lot about boxing, so if it's not a great decision, I'm sorry.
Sorry, I meant the Pro case. I did debate in high school and do it currently in college and Pro/Con is Aff/Neg in those circles.
Thank you very much. I'm trying to go through all the debates with little to no votes because I really like judging rounds so that support that I'm not sounding like a dumbass means a lot. If there are any other rounds you have that need votes, I would be happy to weigh in.
It forces him to give examples, and I can then beat him in the examples. My argument doesn't have to be true, just has to be won.
Wait, so is the pro defending the status quo on gun control, or a world with no regulation?