Is Anarchism a Good Political Philosophy

I am growing quickly irritated with this rising semantics argument. So this will be the last I speak of this matter (which I shouldn't even be having to speak about because again, as the affirmative, it is my duty to define what it is I am defending, not my opponent's).First of all, when Heywood speaks of Anarchy being opposed to authority "in all it's forms", he obviously does not literally mean all forms of authority. That would, again, be asinine, because that would mean one's authority over themselves is somehow invalidated. That is not anarchist theory, and I have pointed this out many times to you. Please stop pretending it is, and actually debate the information provided. Heywood is using authority as anarchists use it. To mean hierarchy. When I say anarchists are opposed to illegitimate authority, perhaps to make it clearer for you it would be best to discuss what kinds of authority they are okay with. Specifically, Anarchists are proponents of non-hierarchal, voluntary, stateless systems. Obviously within the systems one can hold authority, provided people consent to an individual holding that authority. If you need evidence of this:"First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism challenges. While it is customary for some opponents of anarchism to assert that anarchists oppose all kinds of authority, the reality of the situation is more complex. While anarchists have, on occasion, stated their opposition to "all authority" a closer reading quickly shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, what we tend to call hierarchy."[1]I suggest reading that source. You don't have to read it in it's entirety, just read the entirety of B.1. It explains what Anarchists mean by authority, and what kind of authority they are and are not okay with. Complete with quotes from notable anarchists to support their case. There's no real reason for me to copypasta such a large wall of text, so click the link below, and read it yourself.I will not be playing this semantics game any longer, and if my opponent chooses to continue trying to challenge the provided definition of Anarchism, I will no longer be engaging him on the point. I am more than a little insulted that I have had to go to such great lengths to simply get my opponent to understand that I know what the hell I'm talking about. I should think anarchists themselves, more than anyone else, know what they mean by "being opposed to authority". I am frustrated that so much of this debate has been wasted by useless semantics.As a final note, your college dictionary doesn't lie, it is merely mistaken, as most dictionaries are; because again, they use the common terminology. Not necessarily the terminology in the way actual members of the ideology would use it. This is why it is inaccurate."For example, someone can be against the community by having their own self interests and they might feel that they are forced to do something by the community which in itself may be considered a illegitamate authority. "The community is not a hierarchal authority, and is a form of collective. An individual is not bound to obey the whim of the collective, under threat of punishment; that they may choose to do so out of respect, or desire for the benefits of living in a collective, is not the same as the compulsory servitude imposed upon people from birth by the State, or others forms of hierarchal (illegitimate) authority."In my opponent's textbook, it also talks about the abolition of law. This I feel is moral. While I've said that we are going to do only the definition of good in terms of it being logically sound, I argue why not morally as well. Its important to recognize whether or not anarchism is logically sound and moral. We have laws so people don't commiti crimes such as theft, murder, rape and etc."I'm assuming my opponent meant "immoral" in that sentence.Please note my opponent (fallaciously) conflates law with morality. The abolish of law is not the abolition of morality, and not a ticket for a free for all with no consequences. It simply means people will not be forced to abide by a pre established set of rules handed down to them by their ruling superiors, and forced to obey. It means they now have a choice in what they do, and can determine for themselves what they believe to be moral and immoral.If my opponent disagrees with this, I must ask them, are they admitting that it is only the law which prevents them from murdering, raping, and pillaging?"Im very confused when my opponent says that whether government is good or bad does not change one way or another if they are illegitimate forms of authority."When Anarchists say a form of authority is illegitimate, they mean it has no right to exist, as it has no right to hold that authority over you. In this sense, it does not matter if a State is "good" or "bad", because that does not change one way or another whether or not it is justified in forcing you to bend your knee to it."When my opponent says that they shouldnt even be forced to have a compulsory service in the first place, I agree with him and I dont agree with him. I agree with him in the sense that maybe someone would not want to be subjegated by a certain law but I disagree in the sense that we need laws and governments."That would be the contention, yes.And I've been waiting for you to justify that claim this entire debate. Because that's all it is currently. An unsubstantiated claim. A bold, unbacked assertion.To have a state is to restrict the freedoms of the individual. That requires adequate justification. Justification you have yet to provide, or even attempt to argue about.And now we're about to enter into the final round..."The fact that the matter is, most people dont want to become anarchists mostly because they feel that it is a waste of time and less democratic."The fact that most people don't want to be Anarchists is not testament to it's soundness or unsoundness as a political ideology, and to suggest it is is to suggest a form of ad populem fallacy. Further more, a Stateless society is the most democratic form of society there can be, so for people to feel that they would have less democracy just means they are wrong in what they feel.I want to end this round by elaborating a little more on Anarchist theory. Anarchism believes that human beings, at their core, are good, or at the very least neutral, and therefore are entirely capable of ruling themselves, without external, hierarchal authority. They don't need to be told "this is wrong, and if you do it, you will be punished by us". They can discover for themselves right and wrong, by virtue of human compassion for their fellow members of society. They do not need to swear fealty to faceless leaders and flags in order to preserve peace and safety. If you need evidence of this, here are examples of successful Anarchist territories:The Paris Commune: Despite what my opponent might have you believe, the Paris Commune was a smashing success for Anarchists, as it proved that people could thrive economically and intellectually, in a stable setting, without the need of the State or other forms of hierarchal authority. The fall of the commune was not due to it's own ideals and practices, but rather, simply due to it's size, and the presence of a much larger, more heavily armed, aggressive force.The Free Territory: It arose during the period of workers uprisings and rebellions all across Russia, formed in 1918, and lasting until 1921. It too was a successful display of a stateless society functioning perfectly fine, while also maintaining (limited) military power, for defense purposes. It too fell only when a much larger, more powerful aggressor attacked it.These are two, commonly cited societies which demonstrate that Anarchist philosophy can be applied successfully. A list of more societies can be found in the sources below[2].Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...