Is Anarchism a Good Political Philosophy

"If you dont like the fact that people challenge your definitions, I would stop using this site. "I must say, I find the prospect of you (a new member) lecturing me on how to use this site to be highly amusing. That said, you've missed the entire point, which is understandable, given your inexperience at debating. I'll explain. The problem with your actions thus far has been three-fold.1) When it comes to defining the terms used in the resolution, if the one starting the debate does not explicitly define what it is they are challenging, it is left up to the affirmative to define what it is they are defending. That would be the scenario here. You did not define "Anarchism", and therefore left it up to me, the affirmative, to define what it is I am defending. That is not to say my definition is immutable. But there must be very good grounds on which to challenge my definitions, which you have had none of. There is no reason to challenge my definitions, outside of the fact that it does not fit your pre-conceived notions of the ideology. False notions.2) It's foolish, and a frustrating waste of time, in that almost always the person defending an ideology knows more about the terms used and beliefs held by members of said ideology, than the person challenging it. An anarchist undoubtedly knows more about what they, as an anarchist, mean by "authority" than a non-anarchist. So your arrogance in this regard, to tell an anarchist they do not know what it is they believe, is incredibly rude, demeaning, and foolish. But most importantly. ..3) You've now turned this entire debate into a useless debate on semantics. You have barely touched upon any of my arguments, conceding most, and dropping almost every argument you put forth in the first round. You've wasted everyone's time with 4 rounds of people squabbling over definitions. This is frowned upon in debate, as it does not get us anywhere meaningful. It does not let us judge the merit or faults of an ideology. This is why it's the job of the affirmative to define what it is they are defending, in the event the negative doesn't define it prior. In essence, your inability to accept that I, and other anarchists, know what we're talking about when we talk about what anarchist ideology states has wasted everyone's time. It's frustrating, from an intellectual standpoint. Which is why it is looked down upon with such distaste from this community. That said, I should hope the voters realize anarchists themselves are more fit than anybody to describe what it is they believe in. Certainly more fit than my opponent. That my opponent cannot, or will not, recognize this, is no longer my problem. "but what Im saying is biologically, we are going to rule each other whether you like it or not. "I would ask you to develop this idea further, and explain and provide evidence for this claim, but seeing as this is the final round, and you have wasted all the previous rounds with semantics, this rather interesting assertion will have remain unbacked, and therefore, be considered irrelevant. This is sad, because these are the kinds of questions I would have hoped to wrestle with in this debate. Questions of human morality and behavior, and whether or not we can function without hierarchal authority. Questions that will now remain largely unanswered. Pity. "Its very foolish when my opponent says that I think that law and morality are the same. No, that is true. .. " It's foolish to assert that law and morality are not the same, despite the fact that you then subsequently concede that they are not the same thing? That is. .. interesting to say the least. Especially when, I quote again, you stated:"In my opponent's textbook, it also talks about the abolition of law. This I feel is [im]moral. "Implying a connection between law and morality, in that the absence of law is the absence of moral goodness. So. .. it is foolish to point out the results of your own arguments? "however if you want to stop people causeing crimes like murdering, raping, stealing and pilaging, you have to put some form of consequnce or punishment"Which does not equate to having a "law". To take a very simple example, if someone treats you rudely, you may be inclined to stop speaking with them, or show them less kindness. Is it the law that this must occur, or will occur? No. It's not even a given fact that it will occur. But it is a consequence, when it does occur. It is a form of punishment. One exercising their right to not associate with someone, while a consequence, is not the same as a law, which prescribes unconsented, forced punishments upon individuals for crimes they have not even truly agreed to not commit. That punishments and consequences exist, does not mean "law" exists. So this point too is irrelevant. And if you think these kinds of actions would explode under anarchy, I again, point you to the above cited societies (the success of which my opponent did not argue against) as perfect examples of how anarchist societies could function without law. "I leave you with this video skip to 4:30" This. .. this is a joke. .. right? Am I supposed to be impressed by some guy talking to a camera, about some other, singular anarchist he has disagreement with? Really? This is your big, knock-down argument? Let alone the fact that at roughly 6:50 he agrees with the anarchist claim that the government has no right to control us, because we did not consent to it. He then goes on to claim how anarchy isn't the solution to that, but as I have displayed above, there are several examples of successful anarchist territories throughout history. Therefore, it can be entirely said that anarchism is not only a solution, but a proven, effective, workable solution. He later brings up a point about murder, which is later entirely undone when he states that he would admit that the anarchist view would still probably be better with regards to it. But he then lobes several, unbacked assertions about anarchism's inability to deal with certain social problems (protecting the environment, building infrastructure, ect. ). This again, however, can be completely dismissed by the fact that there have been successful territories who have done these exact things. All and all, this video is entirely useless to your position. Ladies and gentlemen this brings us to the end of the debate. There are two main reasons I think you should vote for me.1) My opponent has more or less turned this entire debate into an argument about semantics, with very few actually relevant points about anarchism and anarchist philosophy being made. Not only is this unscrupulous behavior, as it brings us nowhere intellectually, it means something much more dire for my opponent. ..2) Due to the nature of my opponent's semantics arguments, he has dropped nearly every argument he has made in this debate, and consequently, has failed to even attempt to refute nearly all of my own, and especially failed to refute the most important ones (i. e. , the success of anarchist territories). All in all, I have quite readily proven my case that Anarchism's claims about authority, and about it's potential to be a real, workable solution to the problem it claims to be out to solve. My opponent has failed to disprove either of these claims. In fact, he has more or less not even attempted to do so. And in the end, my opponent's own video source agreed wth the central anarchist claim, that the state has no right to hold authority over the populace, when we have not consented to it holding that authority. By conceding the central argument, the central premise, of anarchism, all this video has done is serve as an argument in support of the resolution, that Anarchism is a good (sound) political ideology. In short, my opponent has utterly failed to display in any way the faults of Anarchist theory.