Help me debate

[powder]

I have very little experience debating issues like anarchy and am still learning a lot about the topic myself.  I do enjoy the banter and I think it is a very important topic.  I was hoping I could get some tips on debating from some of you clever anarchists.  

 

In general I am interested in simple, direct and concise arguments that will at least give people pause or jar their thinking to counteract the automatic slogan stuff like:  'government is a necessary evil'; 'at least we get to choose our leaders'  'I don't want to live in a Mad Max world'  etc.  It is like having a debate with a religious person who just responds with, 'the bible says...' even though it is totally unrelated to anything you have said.

 

I don't want to get into specifics of answering how every little thing in society will be handled like roads and national defense, etc. mainly because I don't have all the answers and I don't think anyone does and they will likely be fluid and changing.  the problem there too is that if you offer ideas and solutions people often focus on those and miss the larger issue and then dismiss the whole premise as a result.  

 

Still, those seem to be the most common questions that are raised.  "what would we do about...?"  

 

what are some good ways to respond to valid concerns about anarchy (change) without getting into too much detail but still keeps people engaged and focused on the main issue, ie. government is unethical.   

 

perhaps there are a series of good, simple questions that you folks like to use to get people to think about, and have to defend their positions.  

[DaVinci]

Some of the best advice I've been given is to remember that your position is consistent. You reject all forms of violent aggression and not just some. This allows you to punch holes in your oppositions arguments.

 

Also, the "against me" argument works well too. So when someone says they are okay with taxes tell them you respect that, but then ask if they respect that you don't want to be taxed.

[TheRobin]

I don't know the exact numbers, but Stef has some very good podcast on that topic. Also, depending on with whom and where and in what situation you're in you might want to not use certain arguments that are quite explosive (basically anything that calls people being evil for supporting government). On the other hand the same arguments are very important when talking to friends, family (basically anyone who claims to like you), because that liking someone and having them being shot for doing what he thinks is moral don't really go well together.

[Pepin]

Something I've been finding helpful is getting in touch with the statist(s) within me and to have an inner dialog with them in the car. This is pretty effective for any position, but is particularly effective for something you've been propagandized for.

 

You are likely to get far better rebuttals from parts within you. You also will start to come up with some great arguments and witty retorts, like:

 

Statist: We need to get money out of politics

Me: I agree, let's start with taxation

 

If you are a little confused as to what I am talking about, take a bit of time and start making the average statist argument out loud. Be aware of your experience, and see what happens.

[powder]

good stuff, thanks, keep em comin'  

 

I would like to track down those pod casts if anyone has an idea of how to pinpoint them.  

[travioli]

For me it's always been principles, principles, principles. Maybe it's because I'm lazy... but it's worked haha. Check out Stef's podcast "Beautiful Freedom", and he uses the "Who will pick the cotton" argument. Others that I've used to guide my arguments is "Debating freedom without solutions", "advice for the young at heart", "how to change a persons' mind", and I bet more that I can't think of.

 

The "who will pick the cotton" comparison is one of my favorites, including the universality arguments (how can one in a costume have the right to tax/declare war and other opposing rights when he is just another human), the "against me" argument, of course just applying the NAP, and always sticking to pointing out the gun in the room known as the state, and how it is the source of so many of the supposed criticisms of anarchism. I just like to nip it in the butt and always stick to the argument of morality first--it applies to more situations, and you don't have to run around looking up stats haha.Hope that helps!

[Hannibal]

I'm a huge cheerleader for Ayn Rand. I mention her because I've found her analyses and explanations amazingly clear and hard to argue against.

 

Check her out. You could start by searching for terms (such as "freedom", or whatever) at theaynrandlexicon.com which references the varying works of hers from which the quotes are taken.

 

I should mention that she was very much against anarchy though  But her vision of the state was an entirely voluntary one - the only issue being that she believed that the state, whether you paid for it or not, is the only legitimate institution that was allowed to initiate force when it came to enforcing NAP violations, e.g. carting someone off to prison, or extracting someone from their home in order to face justice.

 

Her reasoning is sound though - it's just that she came to a slightly different conclusion, and the exact same reasoning would be used by an anarchist.

[tasmlab]

For me, it often seemed when debating that it was like whomever 'won' would be given instant power after the conversation to fully implement their ideas into the world.  Why else would people get so angry over a conversation?

 

We are absolutely powerless to affect anything at the state level.  I like to remind people that we are powerless to even make minimum wage 1 cent more or less, so that most of the debate we are having is de facto for fun and a hobby.  Which means there is no reason to get angry, raise voices, insult etc.,

 

I like to concede points.  And I like to find common ground and things people agree with.  And say "I don't know" a lot.   And be curious.  And cheerful.

[LovePrevails]

Ask questions 

 

"So you are asserting x ?"

"So do you you agree that y ?"

"So since x and y, does it not follow that z?"

"Well since not z then x cannot be true,"

[Zimobog]

I have very little experience debating issues like anarchy and am still learning a lot about the topic myself.  I do enjoy the banter and I think it is a very important topic.  I was hoping I could get some tips on debating from some of you clever anarchists.  

 

In general I am interested in simple, direct and concise arguments that will at least give people pause or jar their thinking to counteract the automatic slogan stuff like:  'government is a necessary evil'; 'at least we get to choose our leaders'  'I don't want to live in a Mad Max world'  etc.  It is like having a debate with a religious person who just responds with, 'the bible says...' even though it is totally unrelated to anything you have said.

 

I don't want to get into specifics of answering how every little thing in society will be handled like roads and national defense, etc. mainly because I don't have all the answers and I don't think anyone does and they will likely be fluid and changing.  the problem there too is that if you offer ideas and solutions people often focus on those and miss the larger issue and then dismiss the whole premise as a result.  

 

Still, those seem to be the most common questions that are raised.  "what would we do about...?"  

 

what are some good ways to respond to valid concerns about anarchy (change) without getting into too much detail but still keeps people engaged and focused on the main issue, ie. government is unethical.   

 

perhaps there are a series of good, simple questions that you folks like to use to get people to think about, and have to defend their positions.  

 

I didn't become An-Cap because someone answered every question I had, but because I don't believe that evil (the initiation of force) is ever necessary or preferable to a win-win. Think about what evidence you yourself required to come to the truth and you will find that perhaps certain facts sparked your imagination. For me, the truth that initation of violence=evil and government=monoply on the initation of violence lead me to the conclusion that government=evil.

 

Debating just how awful a Mad Max world without a government might be stimulating to the imagination, but not nearly as awful or stimulating as the reality of living in Washington DC .

[Kevin Beal]

I think being able to be spontaneous and make mistakes is highly underrated. I don't think it's possible to have a set of arguments prepared and rely on them the whole way. There's always going to be something unexpected come up, one of your pieces of evidence is called into question (even though the point is still valid) or something like that.

 

I think in that way, it's more practice than anything else. And the best practice is principled practice. If you rely more on principles than conclusions, then you are going to be much more adaptable and on point.