Jump to content
TheScuSpeaks

Why do people look down their noses at kritiks of statism?

Recommended Posts

People look down their noses at critiques of statism because debate is a really strange forum to pursue an in-your-face critique of statism. Debate is relentlessly, unapologetically statist in almost every single way, and reading Foucault/Bakunin/Zizek/Whatever has about zero chance of changing it. Most of the time, the critique doesn't even seriously intend to change it; statism is--like most other arguments--generally about winning rounds, not about changing people's beliefs or reforming an activity.

 

For that reason, traditional anti-statist arguments are perhaps the most disingenuous positions in debate, and people know it. That is especially the case when America has a large anti-statist culture that is mostly by and for young people. When a debater is "anti-statist", but hemmorhages money on consumer goods, shows up to school every day, protests nothing, organizes nothing, eats whatever they want, pays little attention to others' problems, and generally acts like anti-statism is a file rather than a life, it's hard to take it seriously.

 

When the personal commitment shows through, I think other people take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Root, and Zack for clearing up the mis-contruing of foucault as statism. While he may be a post-strucualist, he doesnt advocate the destruction, dismantlement, or even focus on the state. Foucault is a critique of power relations whether its disciplinary power in order to make the individual more producive, to normalize him/her or biopower as a 'mechanism' to control the phenomena(sp.) that occur within a population, Foucault situates these things as anything more than a fluid relation that is neither entirely bad or good, but dangerous.

 

At heart, foucault is not "you use the state and thats bad" or even the affirmative allows for bad biopolitics to happen. Its, the affirmative plan and the assumptions and representations, within their evidence and this round, for these reasons should be held as dangerous. As such we should problematize (pick your alternative flavour) those notions to avoid the main danger.

 

Hopefully what little i added wasnt merely repetative, if it was...

 

Edit: Forgot to bring thread back to OT.

 

I think statism is looked down upon because even when i was a novice the idea of statism was mocked by most champs. It was mocked because of its simplicity, other Ks were suggested. Its almost as if statism was a stupid argument. Thats debateable of course, but the conclusion I have come to has been that alot of beef with K teams is a lack of specific anaysis, links, alternatives, and even tag lines for cards. Basically, its the "lazy K debater" arguement which i admit is many times true, however, i think this beef with K teams manifested itself in statism or against statism because like many others on the 1st page said, alot of teams bastardized the arguement and gave it atleast part of the bad name it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Foucault is very different from statist authors, it's not like the link or implication is presented much differently within the round - they both deal with assumptions the affirmative makes, and both will claim the state is the root source of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if Foucault is very different from statist authors, it's not like the link or implication is presented much differently within the round - they both deal with assumptions the affirmative makes, and both will claim the state is the root source of the problem.

 

I am not that familar with statism autors and even less with its application in a debate round. How are the statism links/mpx articulated within a round (im sure this changes with each team) but generically how are they articulated.

 

Correct me anyone if i am wrong, but for the sake of clarification on the Foucault side i would say that i pretty sure the links would be different. Based on the fact that Foucault isnt neccessarily concerned with the state whereas statists are. Look at my post above on how power works, what biopower is, and how the affirmative plays into it and read Root's and Zack's earlier posts that i mentioned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apologies if this is repetitive. i didnt have time to read the whole thread.

 

 

aside from the fact that despite the argument being around for years, debaters horribly recut files and read bad evidence?

 

 

its simple - its debate rules and procedure that make the critique a bad option in debate in the same way that i believe plan-passage linked disads (like politics) are real world consequences, but should not be in a debate round.

 

in debate, critiques require alternatives. it is insufficient to merely criticize a system of action/beliefs without providing an escape. anarchy, as a counterplan, links to the statism critique to the same degree as the affirmative case (usually). at that point, its difficult to argue the critique in a debate round because we demand specificity - what is unique about the affirmative case which demands a negative ballot on statism when an identical though process is not applicable to the negative alternative or the status quo? the negative is almost certain to be unable to provide this justification, at which point they are losing the round, even if their argument has value. debate is not necessarily about the value of one's arguments in the real world - its who is successfully argumentatively maneuvering the other team into an poor argumentative position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not advocating it, but most old coach judges do care about topic specific education. In my opinion who cares, is a Poltics Scenario really any more likely than a Statism K?

 

which is why many of us "old coach judges" also hate most politics disads.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a debater is "anti-statist", but hemmorhages money on consumer goods, shows up to school every day, protests nothing, organizes nothing, eats whatever they want, pays little attention to others' problems, and generally acts like anti-statism is a file rather than a life, it's hard to take it seriously.

 

When the personal commitment shows through, I think other people take notice.

 

Add to that list "spends thousands of dollars of his/her parents money on debate camps during the summer and lots more of parent money or the school's money....which was raised in very "statist" ways (property taxes) travelling to & from tournaments"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we ran statism and anarchy, people mocked us. Then again, they didn't really have much else to say. Maybe they should have been cutting answers instead of mocking the argument?

 

We drew the basis of our argument from the UT file produced by Nate Gorelick and co. on the Civil Liberties topic.

 

Why did we run it? A few reasons:

 

A) It turned rights-based advantages, which were common, and did very well at that. Nobody does a better job of devaluing human rights than the state. We were usually ahead on this debate. Additionally, the evidence for why the state makes a hierarchical system of values inevitable is a pretty good turn to most critical affirmatives.

 

B) Most impact turns are predictably bad. People would often read "heg good" impacted by Khalilzhad. This was difficult for them when the block was a wall of "collapse of government in the U.S. leads to systemic world collapse." These arguments are highly responsive to most hegemony/realism good based turns.

 

C) Most theory arguments were predictably bad. "Utopian CPs bad" is a solvency concern, and we ran into ONE team all year that had evidence explaining why anarchy wouldn't solve state oppression.

 

Now, here's what I'm NOT saying: I'm NOT saying to run this every round...most of the people above are right, you'll learn very little. I'm NOT saying the pro-anarchy literature is better...most of the people above are right, it's not, and if you try to use this against someone well-prepared you are on the wrong side of the literature.

 

If I were a coach, I would possibly suggest this argument in a few circumstances. First, against teams who use "realism good" as a crutch to answer the K (nothing wrong with realism good, but this is a good way to win that debate.) Second, against teams that read affirmatives you have no other strategy to answer (we used it against Aliens and Animal Liberation frequently).

in debate, critiques require alternatives. it is insufficient to merely criticize a system of action/beliefs without providing an escape. anarchy, as a counterplan, links to the statism critique to the same degree as the affirmative case (usually). at that point, its difficult to argue the critique in a debate round because we demand specificity - what is unique about the affirmative case which demands a negative ballot on statism when an identical though process is not applicable to the negative alternative or the status quo? the negative is almost certain to be unable to provide this justification, at which point they are losing the round, even if their argument has value. debate is not necessarily about the value of one's arguments in the real world - its who is successfully argumentatively maneuvering the other team into an poor argumentative position.

I want to focus on the last sentence first, that debate is about "...argumentatively maneuvering the other team into an poor argumentative position." I wholeheartedly agree. I like the view of debate as chess - part education, part strategy, part game. This is why statism/anarchy have such great potential. The literature on the issue is deep, warranted, and responsive, and a well prepared team can put an unprepared 2AC into a corner.

 

If there is no applicability to the affirmative plan, the affirmative should win on arguments like the perm.

 

Honestly, I think the bigger issue is this; if you can't beat the negative on a counterplan that solves NONE of your case, that means you really can't defend your 1AC, and you really have larger issues than complaining about what arguments the negative runs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hereby add myself to the list of people saying they associate statism K's with silly anarchy counterplans.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brian,

i just dislike how the alternative links to the criticism because of the way debate functions. for example. the link is that the aff uses the state to decide what is good for us and this leads to a cycle of the state usurping more and more power etc etc insert statism terminal impacts. vote against any acceptance of the govt. the alternative is anarchy.

 

all the aff must do is establish that the SQ is statist and if thats true, then the act of anarchy requires the government to recognize itself as being evil and "act in the best interests of the people." - that is statist! therefore the judge must equally reject the aff plan and neg alternative. even if the neg doesnt demand rejection of any acceptance (and thus rejection of aff) the neg is then hard pressed to determine implications unique to the aff case and a threshold of any sort. statism rarely if ever demands a "moral" obligation to reject the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and both will claim the state is the root source of the problem.

That's just plain not the case with Foucault. Foucault's alternative, insofar as he can be said to have one (the idea of saying Foucault has a single alternative seems silly to me, it's really more of an ethic by my understanding) is to make problems. Foucault doesn't on face reject much of anything that I've come accross, he has a generaly revolutionary (in the very broad sense of the word) ethic, but take Discipline and Punish as an example. He doesn't advocate abolishing prisons, he makes a problem of them, he elucidates the previously unthought operations of power that are attached to prisons. He isn't solving a pre-given problem of prisons, he's creating them as an entirely new problem. Nor does he say "dude, like, prisons are disciplinary and that's because they're statist institutions". It seems to me that the last thing Foucault would want to do is indetify a "root" or "source". He seems to be more into local interventions concerned with local formations of power.

 

Edit: keep in mind that I'm not trying to put you down or anything. The only reason I'm having this discussion is that I think Foucault should and can be so much more than a simple statism author. He has very important and relevent things to say that relate to debate and they extend far beyond saying that the State is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zack - Again, you're making all of the analysis that's not in rounds. I agree that Foucault writes much differently, but the cut and dried version you see in 1NC's often is not as different as you say it should be (nor could it really be, considering time constraints).

 

bRubaie - I just want to say, realism is perhaps the best answer to statism that there is, for two reasons:

 

First, the state will always exist, and a good statist debater will not deny this, they will just say that your advocacy of the state in the round is bad; even a deep anarchist debater would not really deny that the state we create in the round is no different from the state that is upheld every day in governmental actions. As a result of this, attempts to disband it do not function well in the real world, and in a realism debate, you have to take into account the fact that advocacy of the "violent state" is no worse than the "violent world" that they claim will result from us not having a government.

 

Second, and more importantly, though, the fact remains that we need a government to fend off against threats from other nations. Critiques are of course not policy options, but since a debate without application from the real world is just infinitely regressive, one must take into account the fact that anyone who would advocate a disbanding of the government would have to advocate that a world without said state is a good thing.

 

Also, state inevitable arguments work well - if it were really possible to take down the state, it would have been outlawed/otherwise prevented long ago. For this reason, talk of anarchy is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zack - Again, you're making all of the analysis that's not in rounds. I agree that Foucault writes much differently, but the cut and dried version you see in 1NC's often is not as different as you say it should be (nor could it really be, considering time constraints).

K, I see what you're saying now. You're correct, Foucault often is reduced to a statism K, but it need not be like that. I don't think that time constraints have anything to do with it, it's simply a refusal on the part of debaters to take the less traveled, more difficult path. Ultimately, it's likely more rewarding in a number of ways to try to do more with Foucault than "state bad judge".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counterplan text would advocate "The United States Federal Government should dismantle itself in lieu of anarchy."

all the aff must do is establish that the SQ is statist and if thats true, then the act of anarchy requires the government to recognize itself as being evil and "act in the best interests of the people." - that is statist!

The text does not require the government to recognize anything. The counterplan does not specify why the government dismantles itself. It just does.

 

Perhaps there is a minimal risk of a link in regards to state action. Even if that's true, the turn (the state is gone) outweighs the link (it gets one last hurrah). You gotta spend money to make money.

therefore the judge must equally reject the aff plan and neg alternative. even if the neg doesnt demand rejection of any acceptance (and thus rejection of aff) the neg is then hard pressed to determine implications unique to the aff case and a threshold of any sort. statism rarely if ever demands a "moral" obligation to reject the case.

Both your arguments are generally true. That may not be the case on this topic, however. This topic seems to mandate that you substantially increase the power of the government through a demand of service. That's a pretty hefty link, especially given the ambitions of most draft proponents circa 2003.

First, the state will always exist, and a good statist debater will not deny this, they will just say that your advocacy of the state in the round is bad; even a deep anarchist debater would not really deny that the state we create in the round is no different from the state that is upheld every day in governmental actions. As a result of this, attempts to disband it do not function well in the real world, and in a realism debate, you have to take into account the fact that advocacy of the "violent state" is no worse than the "violent world" that they claim will result from us not having a government.

No debater wishing to win an anarchy debate will concede that the state is inevitable. We had very specific evidence (Barclay, I think) describing what a transition to anarchy would look like. There would be some intermittent violence, but eventually we'd evolve into small governments of mutual self-aid.

 

Realism is a theory of state compeition. As I described above, a necessity in winning the realism debate is winning that if the United States collapsed, others would follow. Once again, we had some VERY detailed evidence (Bookchin) explaining that the fall of the U.S. would be the fall of all other states. His warrants escape me, but they were surprisingly good.

 

Most realism authors assume a world where United States power DECLINES, not one where it's entire apparatus vanishes. This is problematic for you in this debate. They have evidence detailing other nations' behavior following government collapse...unless you've done a lot of research about realism following anarchy (read: not Mearshimer), you're shooting blanks.

Second, and more importantly, though, the fact remains that we need a government to fend off against threats from other nations. Critiques are of course not policy options, but since a debate without application from the real world is just infinitely regressive, one must take into account the fact that anyone who would advocate a disbanding of the government would have to advocate that a world without said state is a good thing.

This is referenced above. Other nations would follow suit, ergo no threat. I'm not saying this is an unwinnable debate, or that there isn't good literature to support you, I'm just saying that it's unlikely you will find it in your high school's "realism good" backfile.

Also, state inevitable arguments work well - if it were really possible to take down the state, it would have been outlawed/otherwise prevented long ago. For this reason, talk of anarchy is pointless.

It is CERTAINLY possible to take down the state. Perhaps this is historical shortsightedness. Removing the state occured on a fairly routine basis for centuries. Just because we're experiencing an era of statism doesn't mean it's unchallengable.

 

Talk of anarchy is not pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The counterplan text would advocate "The United States Federal Government should dismantle itself in lieu of anarchy."

 

okay sure.

 

The text does not require the government to recognize anything. The counterplan does not specify why the government dismantles itself. It just does.

 

sure it does. the statist government doesnt dismantle itself without recognizing itself as being bad. if you continue to assert that such recognition is not necessary, not only does it run counter to logic, but it is entirely utopian and permitting such utopian fiat is inherently bad for all debate. i think you can agree with that, yes? this also leads into the "statism will never die" arguments. because you dismantle the state without the state recognizing its own evils, you leave the statist mindset in the hands of the decision makers who can form a new state. and if they do recognize prior to dismantling, then their action is still statist because the state is deciding what is best for you. in the debate world, the neg is forced to accept either that the state will always exist or that the alternative links to its own criticism. take your pick.

 

even if you still dont agree, the govt dismantling itself is EQUALLY statist as the plan text under almost every circumstance. the generic link is most often extrapolated as simply "you use the government and expand its powers." well, the alternative links the same.

 

Perhaps there is a minimal risk of a link in regards to state action. Even if that's true, the turn (the state is gone) outweighs the link (it gets one last hurrah). You gotta spend money to make money.

 

but then there is no reason to vote neg. if a statist action has minimal risk, then there is minimal risk to the aff. then there is no reason why one cannot straight perm, delay perm, etc. if you buy the argument that the state can dismantle itself without selfrecognition of its own evils, then there is no reason why the perm cant succeed because you can do plan, and then dismantle the govt and thus preserve both the anarchy and solve the harms fo the case.

 

 

 

 

statism as a philosophical argument has value in the real world. it just doesnt jive with the debate round. its one of those arguments that people threw into debate context without fully understandng how it functions within a sphere of competitive discourse. just like how debaters twist the concept of opportunity cost. i am sorry, but the minute you start twisting the argument to suit the arena instead of twisting the arena to suit the argument, you lose the value of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No debater wishing to win an anarchy debate will concede that the state is inevitable. We had very specific evidence (Barclay, I think) describing what a transition to anarchy would look like. There would be some intermittent violence, but eventually we'd evolve into small governments of mutual self-aid.

 

First of all, it's impossible to predict what the "transition to anarchy" will look like because it's never happened in modern society. You can make some good guesses but I'm sure there a lot of different ways for the state to come down. Do you really think that it's possible for your argument to come true?

 

Second, I suppose your problem is that you're running a shallow anarchy argument. I'll address that at the end of the post.

 

Realism is a theory of state compeition. As I described above, a necessity in winning the realism debate is winning that if the United States collapsed, others would follow. Once again, we had some VERY detailed evidence (Bookchin) explaining that the fall of the U.S. would be the fall of all other states. His warrants escape me, but they were surprisingly good.

 

Haha. Bookchin has a lot of claims, but not a whole lot of great warrants. Also, this is another case where you need to think logically - a US fall does not guarantee that other nations fall, it only makes the chances of a superpower like China taking over the US and making it communist, which just turns the alternative. Even if you think your evidence was good, any decent debater would have a lot of reasons why Bookchin is wrong.

 

Most realism authors assume a world where United States power DECLINES, not one where it's entire apparatus vanishes. This is problematic for you in this debate. They have evidence detailing other nations' behavior following government collapse...unless you've done a lot of research about realism following anarchy (read: not Mearshimer), you're shooting blanks.

 

Would you please stop patronizing me and making me out to be an idiot on this subject? I run statism all the time, I know what I'm talking about.

 

I would say that the collapse of US government is also a decline of US governmental power. You'd have to be an amazing debater with amazing evidence to prove that other states would fall; mainly because it's never happened in modern times, and since my claim is the more logical one, that's the one we should default to; all of your evidence is truly theory that has no application in the real world.

 

This is referenced above. Other nations would follow suit, ergo no threat. I'm not saying this is an unwinnable debate, or that there isn't good literature to support you, I'm just saying that it's unlikely you will find it in your high school's "realism good" backfile.

 

It is CERTAINLY possible to take down the state. Perhaps this is historical shortsightedness. Removing the state occured on a fairly routine basis for centuries. Just because we're experiencing an era of statism doesn't mean it's unchallengable.

 

Yeah, it used to occur, but it hasn't occurred in any modern times for a country like the US - the best evidence you'll get is like anarchy in Spain during the civil war, and that got shut down. Today's statism is much more subtle and thus that much harder to remove. In historical times, statism meant dominating with physical force. Now statism is more of a biopolitical control, and it's just another inherent barrier to anarchy, along with the fact that a violent revolution would probably not work.

 

Talk of anarchy is not pointless.

 

Shallow anarchy is a very hard debate to win, I would think. A good statism critique wouldn't actually advocate anarchy; rather, it would advocate rejection of the statist assumptions that the affirmative presents. The affirmative creates a "state" in the 1AC by claiming that it exists and it can create change, when in reality the state is not an entity. Putting our blind faith into this process is what causes the problem. Sure, the ultimate goal is anarchy, but it's different in a very important way - deep anarchists don't really advocate a violent overthrow of the government. The idea is to slowly and surely spread the ideals of anarchy to people until they realize they are tired of the statist system and it has no more legitimacy - remember that the only reason the statist system works is because we tell it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sure it does. the statist government doesnt dismantle itself without recognizing itself as being bad.

The government in the status quo also doesn't look at itself as being in the wrong. There is a distinction here, of course, in that it's more likely to morph itself than dismantle itself, but fiat is about casting probabilities aside. The counterplan is a should question.

if you continue to assert that such recognition is not necessary, not only does it run counter to logic, but it is entirely utopian and permitting such utopian fiat is inherently bad for all debate. i think you can agree with that, yes?

Contrary to whose logic? Do judges state in their paradigm "I believe the government's doing a damn good job and I don't wanna hear no talk of anarchy"?

 

There's nothing utopian about this concept. Governments come and go on a yearly basis. Sure, the U.S. has had a much higher degree of consistency, but less than three centuries ago colonists thought centralized government in the U.S. was utopian, stuff drawn from looney French philosophers, etc.

 

A concept is "utopian" if it is unpracticable. This makes the question of utopianism in anarchy a solvency question. This is why we read evidence about the transition, the global effect, and the product following anarchy...to disprove the belief that it is utopian.

this also leads into the "statism will never die" arguments. because you dismantle the state without the state recognizing its own evils, you leave the statist mindset in the hands of the decision makers who can form a new state. and if they do recognize prior to dismantling, then their action is still statist because the state is deciding what is best for you. in the debate world, the neg is forced to accept either that the state will always exist or that the alternative links to its own criticism. take your pick.

This is the best argument on this thread, and certainly one of the best to answer statism and anarchy. The government apparatus crumbles, but wealthy influentials with guns, resources, etc. remain. However, this is far from set in stone. The structure of the global environment is wholly reliant on the regularity of government, especially when provided by the U.S.

 

You can assert that a new state would emerge. We will assert that, as said above, we will evolve into small communities of mutual self-aid. There is evidence from qualified sources which use detailed historical analysis to describe the transition and after-effect.

even if you still dont agree, the govt dismantling itself is EQUALLY statist as the plan text under almost every circumstance. the generic link is most often extrapolated as simply "you use the government and expand its powers." well, the alternative links the same.

Some teams make that argument, but it's not one I've made...I don't really see a need to defend it.

but then there is no reason to vote neg. if a statist action has minimal risk, then there is minimal risk to the aff. then there is no reason why one cannot straight perm, delay perm, etc. if you buy the argument that the state can dismantle itself without selfrecognition of its own evils, then there is no reason why the perm cant succeed because you can do plan, and then dismantle the govt and thus preserve both the anarchy and solve the harms fo the case.

You COULD do that, but doesn't that seem just a bit unfair to the negative? That your perm would cease to advocate your plan? That seems like a pretty nifty way of getting out of any disad, critique, counterplan, argument...

 

That there is a minimal risk to the plan is arguable. Things like rights protection and national service seem like pretty convincing examples of links to how the state upholds itself. It is not a question of whether there's a link, it's a question of how that link compares. It does the state much more good to draft hundreds of thousands of soldiers to strengthen its hegemony then it does to dismantle itself.

statism as a philosophical argument has value in the real world. it just doesnt jive with the debate round. its one of those arguments that people threw into debate context without fully understandng how it functions within a sphere of competitive discourse. just like how debaters twist the concept of opportunity cost. i am sorry, but the minute you start twisting the argument to suit the arena instead of twisting the arena to suit the argument, you lose the value of the argument.

Which arguments did I make that were twisted? I wasted a large portion of my senior year reading anarchist literature. I read a solvency advocate for my counterplan, who happened to be the same author who wrote my links to statism. Our argument was very simple. You defend your 1AC, we'll defend anarchy. It makes perfect sense within the context of debate, especially when you have room to make link differentials (i.e. the counterplan links more than the aff...)

First of all, it's impossible to predict what the "transition to anarchy" will look like because it's never happened in modern society. You can make some good guesses but I'm sure there a lot of different ways for the state to come down. Do you really think that it's possible for your argument to come true?

 

Second, I suppose your problem is that you're running a shallow anarchy argument. I'll address that at the end of the post.

It's impossible to predict things that haven't happened before? I think the problem we're having is I'm saying one thing, and you're responding to another. I never suggested a violent revolution. I suggested the government absolving itself of jurisdiction.

 

What is "shallow anarchy?"

Haha. Bookchin has a lot of claims, but not a whole lot of great warrants. Also, this is another case where you need to think logically - a US fall does not guarantee that other nations fall, it only makes the chances of a superpower like China taking over the US and making it communist, which just turns the alternative. Even if you think your evidence was good, any decent debater would have a lot of reasons why Bookchin is wrong.

I guess any decent debater would also have those "China wants to make the U.S. communist" cards. Maybe that's why I'm not a decent debater...I just don't have that evidence. That is an example of me being patronizing. I was simply explaining a distinction earlier.

 

This is the difference between you and I. We are both laughing at each other's arguments, but I had the courtesy not to type it out. I'm a bland writer (and person, really) and was trying to make my language more colorful. I did not mean to insult your intelligence before. I'm doing it here now because my right clicker on my mouse is broken and I can't keep copying and pasting my arguments to respond to you.

I would say that the collapse of US government is also a decline of US governmental power. You'd have to be an amazing debater with amazing evidence to prove that other states would fall; mainly because it's never happened in modern times, and since my claim is the more logical one, that's the one we should default to; all of your evidence is truly theory that has no application in the real world.

"My arguments are better because they're more logical." See, I can do it, too.

Yeah, it used to occur, but it hasn't occurred in any modern times for a country like the US - the best evidence you'll get is like anarchy in Spain during the civil war, and that got shut down. Today's statism is much more subtle and thus that much harder to remove. In historical times, statism meant dominating with physical force. Now statism is more of a biopolitical control, and it's just another inherent barrier to anarchy, along with the fact that a violent revolution would probably not work.

These are good arguments. I don't know what your problem is with both teams having good evidence from qualified authorities discussing a world of anarchy.

Shallow anarchy is a very hard debate to win, I would think. A good statism critique wouldn't actually advocate anarchy; rather, it would advocate rejection of the statist assumptions that the affirmative presents. The affirmative creates a "state" in the 1AC by claiming that it exists and it can create change, when in reality the state is not an entity. Putting our blind faith into this process is what causes the problem. Sure, the ultimate goal is anarchy, but it's different in a very important way - deep anarchists don't really advocate a violent overthrow of the government. The idea is to slowly and surely spread the ideals of anarchy to people until they realize they are tired of the statist system and it has no more legitimacy - remember that the only reason the statist system works is because we tell it so.

What is shallow anarchy? Is that the kind you don't like? Because I like my anarchy with cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's impossible to predict things that haven't happened before? I think the problem we're having is I'm saying one thing, and you're responding to another. I never suggested a violent revolution. I suggested the government absolving itself of jurisdiction.

 

Yes, it is impossible. We make predictions based on the past. Anarchy has never happened in modern times. Therefore anyone who tries to predict the future of anarchy is just making conjecture and doesn't have any fact backing them up.

 

What is "shallow anarchy?"

 

Shallow anarchy is the direct overthrow of the government, as opposed to deep anarchy, which is causing the state to become irrelevant by pointing out that the state only has power because we say it does. If we stop acknowledging that, the state ceases to exist.

 

I guess any decent debater would also have those "China wants to make the U.S. communist" cards. Maybe that's why I'm not a decent debater...I just don't have that evidence. That is an example of me being patronizing. I was simply explaining a distinction earlier.

 

You're right, any decent debater would have that evidence. If you don't, I can see why you would say that.

 

This is the difference between you and I. We are both laughing at each other's arguments, but I had the courtesy not to type it out. I'm a bland writer (and person, really) and was trying to make my language more colorful. I did not mean to insult your intelligence before. I'm doing it here now because my right clicker on my mouse is broken and I can't keep copying and pasting my arguments to respond to you.

 

OK, I'm glad you are taking the moral higher ground and in the mean time, conceding my argument.

 

"My arguments are better because they're more logical." See, I can do it, too.

 

Yeah, reading a card doesn't automatically make you right. My argument is logical, you just failed to acknowledge it. If you actually give a reason why your argument is more logical, I'll listen, but... you haven't.

 

These are good arguments. I don't know what your problem is with both teams having good evidence from qualified authorities discussing a world of anarchy.

 

My problem is that debate is not about evidence wars, it is about making logical arguments. If you think reading your Bookchin evidence makes you right, then you need to reconsider your argument. Some statism arguments just make sense - the argument that China will go away just because our state does, simply doesn't.

 

What is shallow anarchy? Is that the kind you don't like? Because I like my anarchy with cheese.

 

I explained that above.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is impossible. We make predictions based on the past. Anarchy has never happened in modern times. Therefore anyone who tries to predict the future of anarchy is just making conjecture and doesn't have any fact backing them up.

Should I trash my Hillary ballot? We've never really had a woman president in modern times, and the far right IS pretty scary, but I can't predict how they'd react...

 

Jokes aside, there are three problems here:

 

First, authors like Bookchin don't just sit around looking for cool things to say in their books. They take "deep" (to borrow your favorite word) looks at history, gather research from modern experts of multiple stripes, and go though extensive peer-editing. YOU, my friend, make shit up. "It makes sense to me" does not make you an expert. This leads into...

 

Second, all your OFFENSE is YOU making a PREDICTION about a future of anarchy.

 

Third, there is a difference between a qualfied hypothesis and conjecture. I noticed that difference while reading you and reading people who had, you know, done research on the subject.

Shallow anarchy is the direct overthrow of the government, as opposed to deep anarchy, which is causing the state to become irrelevant by pointing out that the state only has power because we say it does. If we stop acknowledging that, the state ceases to exist.

I wondered why I hadn't heard this term in the literature before. Then I decided to test it out. It turned up five hits on google: infospot.com, you, accordingtomichael.blogspot.com, geocitites.com/timesquare/castle, and groups.msn.com/worldofwriters.

 

Then I realized exactly why I hadn't heard it before. It's because, as shocked as I was to discover this, you were making shit up.

 

The problem with your argument is that it isn't responsive to anything our authors talk about. The Crimethinc Workers Collective, for instance, points out the state upholds social hierarchy. It's mechanisms make things like racism, poverty, homophobia, environmental destruction, etc. inevitable.

 

Black people could choose to not acknowledge the government, but that uh....caused some problems. People living in poverty could ignore the state, but that does nothing for their plight. Gays could ignore the government, and lord knows that would solve all their social ills. Of course, if we recognized the state REALLY shouldn't have any control over the environment, it would suddenly stop destroying it.

 

This is a matter of practice. This isn't French political theory about liberating ideology. This is not the critique of alienated theorists exploring the mechanations of the state, and for you to characterize it like that (just don't acknowledge it!) is naive and insulting. It is those who abandoned faith in the government LONG ago, the professors who have studied millenia of lies, and activists who see no hope "working through the system."

OK, I'm glad you are taking the moral higher ground and in the mean time, conceding my argument.

Oh shit! I conceded your "haha bookchin!" argument! I don't even know why I'm typing the rest of this, I've already fallen to your cunning logic.

 

For your benefit and mine, I went back and examined the Bookchin evidence. I found something neat, which I sometimes find when reading his work; warrants! (do you like Bookchin's writing? I think you would).

 

He argues that every era has an empire that shapes global culture, military strategy, and foreign policy. It worked for the Romans, it worked the Brits, and so far it's going okay for the U.S. He says that people are increasingly frustrated and fed up with their government (it's probably their fault for acknowledging it...idiots). He continues that were the United States to crumble, it would inspire others to follow suit. After all, if a superpower can be undone, why not Tunisia, or Ethiopia?

 

But I'm not out of the woods yet! I have to think of reasons why China would not turn us all communist. How about this for a start: China is already unravelling internally. President Hu's social agenda has collapsed. Relgious movements are increasingly vocal and agitated. Local farmers are falling into poverty and leading a revolt against the government. I bet you they'd all feel a lot better, though, if the U.S. fell. Then they'd all rally round (while China suffered no economic ramifications of our collapse, by the way) and bring their little red books.

Yeah, reading a card doesn't automatically make you right. My argument is logical, you just failed to acknowledge it. If you actually give a reason why your argument is more logical, I'll listen, but... you haven't.

Oh shoot. I cut all these cards without logic. I guess I'm back to the drawing board. There is a reason college debate is largely evidence-based, moreso than any other debate activity in the world. It is to increase the quality of analysis and force debaters to make real arguments, instead of making up terms like "shallow" or "deep" anarchy.

My problem is that debate is not about evidence wars, it is about making logical arguments. If you think reading your Bookchin evidence makes you right, then you need to reconsider your argument. Some statism arguments just make sense - the argument that China will go away just because our state does, simply doesn't.

I want you to imagine a world of debate where your ideology prevails. Debaters who research a subject in-depth, scrupulously screening piles of evidence to find warranted, qualified, responsive evidence would lose because they didn't fit YOUR subjective, unpredictable version of logic.

 

There is a value to analytical argument which is widely undervalued in debate. However, as impressive as your thoughts may seem to you, they don't strike me as having the same degree of fact as Bookchin's.

 

Something about spending 10 years in college, two years to put together a comprehensive, 300 page effort which is written and reviewed with people at the top of academia appeals to me. Something about people using scare tactics of dem Chineesers trying to make us all commies and made up theories of anarchy from a high school student doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of your arguments are flawed for one reason: all of the evidence for a good argument is simply used to reinforce the argument. In your case, you have no logic, you rely on the cards. The best type of argument is a logical one supported by evidence - your arguments are not logical, they just have evidence.

 

You give absolutely no warrants as to why your arguments are right - the only thing you do is one analysis of Bookchin (which is wrong, by the way - in those past examples, countries were not interconnected like they are now - in the time of Rome, it was the only superpower).

 

Also, do you have to be so rude in your post? I'm giving logical reasons to point out the fact that anarchy is impossible to predict, and instead of most statism debaters, who acknowledge that anarchy is impossible in the real world, you actually believe your argument. You really think that the collapse of the US would lead to the collapse of all other governments? It doesn't matter if China is in ruins, the disappear of the US would turn all that around by removing China's economic rival and hegemonic rival. You really think that countries like North Korea, Iran, and China would sit and do nothing if the United States collapsed?

 

Also, I didn't say I expected you to know what "shallow anarchy" means. If you wanted me to explain what I meant, you could have asked instead of simply ridiculing it.

 

By the way, I guess I fit your category of being qualified - if all that means is to have "done research on the subject," well, I guess that means I'm qualified!

 

Like, it really scares me that you truly believe that anarchy would be exactly as you say. Predicting the future is flatly impossible, and it's even harder if you have nothing to base your predictions on. The only reason I even bother responding is that in a world where predictions of the future are okay, I at least have some fact to base mine on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I really being that rude? You've called every argument I've made illogical. When I've cited others, you've laughed at their name and suggested that they simply didn't have any warrants. When I brought up their warrants, you simply assert that I'M crazy for finding what they have to say persuasive.

 

Most importantly, you seem to be suggesting (based on logic you claim entirely for your own) that people should just ignore the state. That's a slap in the face to anyone who has ever had their entire life ruined by the world the state has created.

 

You have done NOTHING to suggest to me you've completed reading even the most basic anarchist pamphlet, much less that you would know their position well enough to develop a cogent response.

 

Like, I'm really scared that you don't like, read and respond and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

max,

brian is slapping you around.

 

brian,

 

lets just take this one bit at a time...

 

 

i think you missed the logic in my first real statement on the last post. how can a STATIST government opt to dismantle itself without recognizing its own evils? a statist government wouldnt do that. ever. it would continue in its statist ways to expand its own authority and legitimacy. in order for the government to backtrack, it requires one of two things -

1) fiatting the mindsets

2) self recognition

 

the fiat is utopian. the self recognition doesnt exist. ergo in neither situation does it really matter - the anarchy alternative never materializes. if you assert that self recognition exists, then it only further entrenches statism because the act of self recongition followed by dismantling is EQUALLY statist as the plan and therefore is a concrete example of how statism can never be escaped even by the act of dismantling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...