Anarchy is practical and effective.

The Pro has posted a great introduction so I will start with my three main points.1. Anarchism Denies Human NatureOne of the most intrinsic aspects of human interaction and involvement is empowerment. Humans beings from the dawn of history have always sought to empower themselves over others regardless of beliefs, creeds, cultures and or rationality. It is a fundamental evolutionary trait that has kept the human race going for much longer then it may have been otherwise.Any aspect of society you place yourself in will be filled with people attempting to empower themselves over others with or without consent. Whether it is a religious, political, or any social institution you are bound to encounter the same problem. With this in mind even in mutual anarchistic cooperatives, competition will always be present."A popular evolutionary explanation of aggression is the "beast within" view. According to this view, "survival of the fittest" has bred aggression in human beings. It is thus "human nature" to be aggressive. Modern evolutionary psychology has a more sophisticated view. This view states that "human nature" includes a lot of psychological mechanisms and motives. Men are generally more physically and verbally aggressive than women. Aggression is just one technique among many others that humans use as they strive for mastery of material resources, as well as for respect from and connectedness to others." [S1]2. The State has no Intrinsic Moral ValueThe very premise of anarchism is flawed. It states the state/government is inherently immoral and depending on your flavor of anarchism the reason for this varied. Regardless all anarchistic viewpoints tie to this singular flawed premise.The problem with this premise is that the state can infact act in a morally responsible and ethical way. The most influential civilizations in history have for the majority existed in strict hierarchical societies governed by a rule of law (and with great success). It is unreasonable to assume that simply because the state is empowered to make decisions on it's behalf that it is therefore always immoral. 3. Who rules?Anarchism dances around the question of who rules. All systems in any institution always end up in the power of one or few. Whether it is capitalism, socialism or communism eventually power always ends up in the hands of a few. From the Roman Republic to the corporate oligarchy of the United States it is entirely reasonable to assume that any mutual anarchistic cooperative will eventually end up consolidated in the power of one or few individuals whos only desire is to maintain the status quo in presevation of their power. 4. Pro's FallaciesThe pro has stated several fallacious arguments within this round that I will attempt to address.1. "A fully anarchist society is probably not practical or effective, but neither is a fascist one."This is a false dichotomy. It is illogical and unreasonable to assume that the lack of an anarchistic cooperative inevitability leads towards fascism. 2. "Since capitalism is based on the exploitation of many by a few"This is a questionable cause fallacy.Example: A and B are associated on a regular basis.Therefore A is the cause of B.While it is reasonable to assume that capitalism can be associated with exploitation it is not true that capitalism is the cause of exploitation (or that it is intrinsic). Communist and socialist regimes are more then capable of exploiting their populations just as ruthlessly as any capitalist model. Correlation does not equal causation. Sources:1. http://psypress.co.uk...