JediSenoj451, I'm calling you out! (Or, the Jjanda and Senoj debate thread.)

Discussion in 'Big Brother House' started by Jjanda_Solo, Jun 26, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jjanda_Solo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2001
    star 5
    Well, Senoj, you said in my Getting to Know Your Fellow Housemates thread that you've competed in debates etc. I've never actually competed (due to going to small schools etc. I never really had the chance), but most of my friends would tell you I'm rather good at arguing.

    So, pick your topic, and your point of view, and lets debate! (If you really can't think of anything then I guess I'll think of something, or I suppose you could withdraw your offer to debate on demand, but come on, it'll be fun. :D :p)

    EDIT: Oh, and here's how I figure we can do this. When you're on, look at this thread and if I posted the last argument then post an argument against that or whatever. And I can do the same. That way we won't have to be on at the same time necessarily, and we'll have lots of time to frame a reply anyway.
  2. JediSenoj451 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2001
    star 4
    Alright. Get ready to RUMBLE!

    The first topic will be a traditional speech and debate topic on government. Maybe later we can get into more touchy arguments such as Abortion or the Death Penalty. ;)

    Topic #1: Is an opressive government more desirable than no government (aka anarchy)?

    In other words, would you like to live in Hitler's Germany, (extreme example... there are examples of oppressive governemnts less harsh) or a place with no government.... which means if a person decides to kill you... who's going to stop them etc?

    I'm going with no government. But if you really want this side, we'll change. :)

    First argument: Oppressive goverments harm rights, and thus are illegitimate.

    What do I mean by this? A government is formed to protect people. The minute a government begins taking away the rights it is suppose to protect, it loses it's legitimacy. Actually, I've debated a lot on different forms of government, and have a nifty quote up my sleeve to illustrate this point. ;)

    ??because the ultimate justification of the existence of states is the protection and enforcement of the natural rights of the citizens, a government that engages in substantial violations of human rights betrays the very purpose for which it exists and so forfeits not only its domestic legitimacy, but its international legitimacy as well.? ~Fernando Teson.

    So what does this all mean? Because by definition oppressive governments harm people, they must be less desirable than a state of Anarchy. Why? Because at least Anarchies have the possibility of not harming rights (which is something all people desire.) Oppressive governments have no possibility of protecting all rights. Thus, a state of no government is more desirable.

    OK. So you go on ahead and poke holes into my argument, then state an argument of your own on why oppressive governments are GOOD. (Or at least better than no form of government to guide people. Etc. ) When we get bored, we'll pick a new topic. :)

    ~*Senoj*~
  3. Jjanda_Solo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2001
    star 5
    "Topic #1: Is an opressive government more desirable than no government (aka anarchy)?"

    Sounds like a fine topic. :)

    "I'm going with no government. But if you really want this side, we'll change."

    That's fine, I'll take the other side. I'm not sure which one is my actual view... perhaps by the end of the debate I'll know.

    "First argument: Oppressive goverments harm rights, and thus are illegitimate."

    My First Argument: Oppressive governments protect and ensure some rights, while anarchy guarantees none, and thus an oppressive government is bettter than anarchy.

    Even in the most oppressive government, there are certain rules that, if followed, will pretty much guarantee life and at least some safety. In general, if you follow what the regime asks and don't stick your neck out, you will at least stay alive, and chances are have enough freedom to at least somewhat enjoy life.

    In an anarchy, on the other hand, there is no one to protect you no matter what you do, unless you happen to be a faster draw on a gun or whatever than anyone else in the world. Most governments will not kill you for no reason whatsoever, while anyone anywhere in an anarchy could do just that, and there would be no penalty.

    Besides, a state of true anarchy is basically insupportable and will never last long at all. Someone will begin to take control, usually whoever is the best with a gun. The tribal, street-gang style governments that come into being this way will almost necessarily be extremely oppressive, and violent, with not even an attempt at reason.

    You said that in an anarchy there is at least a possibility of having rights, while in an oppressive government there is no chance. I say, in an oppressive government you at least get a pretty good guarantee of at least the most basic right, life, and probably some others, while in an anarchy no rights are guaranteed. I would even go so far as to say that it's almost a guarantee that rights will be taken in an anarchy, because, as I said, it is always the most violent and greedy type of people that would tend to take over in such a situation.

    So, in conclusion (of this particular argument, but not the debate I'm sure), I would say that, basically, anarchy is almost guaranteed to end up as an oppressive government of sorts, though a probably even more violent and less organized one. And thus, an oppressive but organized government to begin with is better than an anarchy that will lead to a government (of sorts) with no reason at all.

    Okay, your turn. :)
  4. JediSenoj451 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2001
    star 4
    However, we have to realize that the rights violations in a oppressive government will be FAR larger than anything that can possibly happen in a state of anarchy. Throughout history oppressive governments have committed genocide and widespread murder. For example, Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia held mass killings, and tortured and starved its own people. In addition, oppressive governments in the twentieth century perpetrated genocides against the Armenians and Jewish people, and slaughtered tens of millions in China and the Soviet Union.

    Nothing on this grand a scale could ever happen in a state of no government. The reason is that oppressive governments collect heavy taxes from its citizens to support the military and force its people to participate in armies. In this way, corrupt officials commanding armies have the tools to commit massive crimes against humanity. However, in the state of nature, the monopolization of power that is necessary to commit crimes of such magnitude does not exist.

    What is the worst that could happen? At most a man could kill a few people in an anarchy. In an oppressive government, it could be millions.

    In addition, how easy is it to stand up to an oppressive government? Almost impossible. They will kill any individual that attempts to resist. In a state of no governemnt, at least one has his shot gun to protect himself.

    You mentioned that an oppressive government is at least predictable. However, having a government that is predictable is not neccessarily helpful. The Jews KNEW they were being persecuted because of their religion. Unfortunately, they were unable to do anything about it.

    We have to realize, also, that in a state of anarchy people can get along. There will not neccessarily (Sheesh... I can NEVER speel that word :p ) be a state of chaos with no government. Sometimes, people come together in mutual self-interest to form cooperative associations that control benefits such a judicial system.

    This has actually been illustrated throughout history. The Efe and Igbo tribes of South Africa (Which are NOT considered governments) formed cooperative associations that watched out for its people. If a conflict arose, respected elders would make decisions to solve the conflict. Since these elders opinions are highly valued, most individuals listened to them. If the conflict could not be settled by talking, a member in question might move.

    Thus, a state of anarchy can have all the benefits of an oppressive governments with no guaranteed harms.

    Edit: You mentioned that a state of anarchy might form a violent government that harms its citizens. (Which, I would like for you to note, is an oppressive government. And you, by stating how such a government would be bad further illustrates why oppressive governments are undesirable. ;) ) But at least the chance to form a good government is greater in an anarchy. In a state of no government, all people have to do is decide to come together to form a democracy etc. However, this will be A LOT harder to acheive in an oppressive government simply because the corrupt officials will resist the change. No on is out to get in a state of anarchy.

    Edit again: Sorry, another thought just came to me and I wanted to get it down. ;)

    Back to the "Who's going to stop someone from killing you in an anarchy?" argument. Let's pretend an individual kills another person in an oppressive government. Remember, by definition, an oppressive government harms rights. So who is to say one will actually get a trial in an oppressive government? Also, in many cases these court systems are corrupt. So once again, there is no guarantee an oppressive government will actually protect one individual from another. Esp. if it is a hated minority that is being harmed.

    ~*Senoj*~
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.