Anarchy is an awful idea.

The resolution is that 'anarchy' is an awful idea. I'm not exactly sure the instigator's purpose in instigating this debate or the difference between his arguments and the resolution itself. Of course I will have to wait for my opponent to clarify in their opening argument. But first, definitions.Anarchy- a state of society without government or law.This merely refer to government as institutionalized and monopolized rule over a given geographical area. Monopolized services are generally that of police, courts, and defense, among other non-necessary services such as industry or education in some cases. Competing protection agencies are usually outlawed and law refers to positive law, or law created by the State, that is enforcable over it's given rule.Awful- extremely bad, unpleasant, or uglyBoth of these preliminary definitions I obtained from Dictionary.com. From these definitions my opponent must show, in order to uphold the resolution, that a lack of institutionalized and monopolized rule over a given are is either an 'awful' idea or would lead to 'awful' results.My opponent's principle(and only) argument thusfar is that (1) child pornography would inevitably result (2) child pornography is awful and (3) that anarchists try to justify this in their arguments against the government or State.(1) InevitabilityThis argument is wholly unsubstantiated by my opponent. Obviously child pornography is widespread in the world today, even where most geographical regions have some sort of law or regulatory insitution in place with the purpose of stopping it's existence and availability. There is no reason to believe that CP is not the inevitable result of governent existence or that an anarchist society would not be in a better position to deal with CP or do just as well/poorly as current governments.(2) AwfulnessAgain no substantiation by my opponent. If he is to argue that it is bad, he runs into the problems of defending any moral system he would use to defend this position. Also, as to being unpleasant, if the action is coerced but the child is too young or not mentally suitable in determining if it is pleasant or not, at the least it cannot be proven that it is unpleasant for the child victims. Then on ungliness, it is obviosly a matter of opinion wholly separated from issues of morality. Just because I have no moral problems with a painting by Salvador Dali does not mean I do not find his paintings ugly.(3) Anarchist justificationI do not believe there has yet to be an anarchist justification of child pornography or the coercion of young individuals into performing or performing such acts. At the very least it is not an explicit argument in anarchism generally. Anarchist arguments generally refer to institutionalized violence by the States, the suppression of market forces by the State, or the upholding of a coercive capitalist system of economics by the State. Nowhere in these arguments do anarchist ever argue that the State ought to be abolished because it does not allow for child pornography.==Conclusion==I apologize to my opponent if I unintentionally strawmanned my opponent as his first post is unclear at best as to what his arguments in defense of the resolution are. In any event, I will rap up my round here and pass the debate back to my opponent.