States are fundamentally immoral

Thank you. I will begin with an overview, and then move into the key points of clash in this debate to demonstrate why I have won. OverviewLet's begin by remembering Pro's BOP in this round. Pro must prove that the very conception of a state and, thereby, all states, are innately and fundamentally immoral. Though Pro comically attempts to dispute this reading of the resolution, it is clear that Pro must prove the ultimate positive statement, that all states are immoral. This comes from the inclusion of the word 'fundamentally.' Upon further analysis, Pro himself demonstrates that this bar cannot be met. I would also like to take a moment to note the petulance, ignorance, and downright absurdity that underlines most of Pro's argumentation, especially in the last round. By begging the question and using circular logic, asking me to define complicated terms like 'citizen' and 'peace,' and complaining that my arguments are somehow ambiguous or incomprehensible, it is clear that Pro is over his head in the round, rhetorically and stylistically. As a result, Pro's rebuttal to my argumentation are incredibly weak, if present at all. Action vs. ActorA central focus of my argumentation has been to demonstrate the gap between the morality of an action and the morality of an actor. I have demonstrated that one (individually and collectively) retains moral agency even though he may have done immoral acts. If this is the case, then the resolution and all of Pro's arguments are negated. Pro's response is lacking. Pro asserts that by doing acts you are immoral, that if you lie you are a liar. Besides the fact that this is mere assertion without any justification, Pro misses the nuance in my arguments, that making moral judgements on individuals, groups, and institutions goes beyond a single action. Rather, such judgements are the result of an accrual of such actions. However, Pro refuses to engage with this idea. As a result, my arguments must flow through as valid and Pro loses the round. State of Nature/Formation of a StateI have stated that the only alternative to the state is the state of nature, a situation with far more rights violations, disutility, suffering, and immorality than could possibly occur under a valid state. Thus, even if a state does some immoral things, under a utilitarian calculus, the state is still the moral option. Pro literally concedes the entire debate when he claims, "How about an alternative to a violent state being one that is non-violent?"If Pro can conceive of a scenario where a state is nonviolent and, therefore (under Pro's framework), moral, then states are not fundamentally immoral; rather, only some are. Thus, the resolution is negated. Also, I urge you to flow through all of my arguments about the condition of the state of nature, the social contract, and actors acting immorally outside of the state. We get no real response from Pro to any of these other than a comical misunderstanding of the social contract (which is physically present in constitutions and signed tacitly upon using government services) and all of my other philosophical arguments. As a result, my arguments must flow through as true and, again, negate the resolution. Offensive ViolenceI have argued that, sometimes, under a utilitarian calculus, proactive, offensive violence is moral when weighed using a utilitarian scale. I cited World War I and the involvement of the United States as an example, though innumerable conceiveble scenarios of such actions exist. The response we get from Pro is, literally, "define all of your terms."This is comical and shows the general attitude of Pro as one that is averse to good-spirited debate. If Pro cannot have a debate without a semantic definition of words like 'citizen' and 'rights,' especially when these definitions are not central to the clash, then I am not sure how Pro can have a productive debate at all. I will not define these commonplace terms, and I urge you to flow the arguments through as valid. I also have put forth the idea that immoral actors claiming to act on behalf of the state are actually acting outside the state, due to laws the state has physically codified and the social contract. This would mitigate marginal instances of perceived state immorality, though by this point the resolution has already been negated. We get no real response, other than a continued assertion that these things really are indicative of and innate to the state. This argumentation from Pro is not sufficient, is not rational, is not substantiated, and, ultimately, loses Pro the round. ConclusionI have conclusively won this round by demonstrating that Pro has not met the BOP of the round, that immoral actions do not make immoral actors, that states are more moral than the alternative, and that offensive violence is sometimes justified. Pro has made little concerted effort to refute these notions and, having refuted Pro's entire argument, I clearly win this debate on the flow. To conclude, I would like to note that Pro claims that, "I never argued that states are immoral 'by its nature." If this is the case, then I sincerely wonder what fundamentally actually means. It is clear Pro cannot, and has not, provided a cohesive solution to the errors in his case, stemming from the incredibly high BOP set by the resolution. I urge a Con vote and am proud to oppose.