Still have the self-protection question above (Would there be no law? A return to the wild west days?), and…
–how are they organized?
Hahaha, ILO’s getting demolished. Hooray for the triumph of the concrete over the styrofoam.
Smears was obviously using little, bite-size words. How nice.
I still haven’t read the whole debate yet, but I have week after next off.
I can’t wait to see how ILO replies.
Especially to this part:
I went to the movies the other night w/ my man and my mom-in-law (Gran Turino) (sp?) and in the previews I noticed there’s a Watchmen movie coming out. Who watches the watchmen? I say that just in case ILO is thinking of arguing that “watchmen” do not equal “government” (if what is being governed against is social chaos/disorder). [Tangent: Is Smears a thinly veiled Ozymandias fan (assuming I’m remembering the graphic novel correctly)?]
Trying to apply this debate to langauge (meme) and physics (not quantum?; not naturalistic fallacy?) is interesting… can also apply it to the individual… as far as the conscience being the ‘governor’ of each individual within a society… it is through the staff of ideas that watchmen guide the flock… but His ‘sheep hear My voice’ and are not obliged to allow bad memes to filter in through their governing consciences… so it’s like a sort of ‘checks and balances’ thing… not static… but not chaotic… and I think we (at least in the U.S., on our own soil) see its fruit today… though with much room for improvement (bailing out those responsible for ‘the fleecing of the flock’ with no accountability, for example) (not that I’m interested in going in to that).
Anybody want to translate Gamer for me?
He said, “If you’re going to lose while debating in favor of anarchy, screw up the order of language and at least get points for thematic style.”
That’s the moral I got out of it, anyway.
And he seems to think the sort of folks who would debate in favor of the ‘ideals’ of anarchy, are those who feel oppressed… but aren’t (he thinks ‘ideals’ are … only conceived by people of leisure). His heart wasn’t in this one, iow.
ILO at least deserves an ‘honorable’ mention.
This whole discussion could’ve been so much more. I’m not feeling optimistic about the remaining debates.
Funnily enough, I understand every word of his post - I’m not sure if that’s a good thing though. 
Gamer’s post was an anarchist’s version of a debate. Both he and Smears managed to channel that free-wheeling spirit that is anarchy. Very meta.
Oh, and when is debate the second?
After the judging of debate the first, probably start sometime next week.
Fuck ILO and Fuck ILP, Gamer wins in grand style.
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
As you all may be aware I will adopt an avatar in commemoration of the first ILP v. ILO Debate. In the event that ILP wins, I will make my avatar the scales of justice, or something along those lines, and if ILO wins, I will adopt an anarchy emblem as my avatar (Namely Gamer’s) This will remain my avatar until the conclusion of all debates.
I would also like to announce that next year for ILO v. ILP Debate Competition 2010 that I will not be judging the debate, nor will I have anything to do with the organization thereof. I will be volunteering to represent the side that wins the second debate in this competition.
Thank you for your kind attention.
When will the second debate start?
After the first debate has been decided. We’re waiting on Phaedrus but KrisWest has told me she is prepared to judge and I will also be prepared after one more read-through. So, what I think I will do is post up in the morning hours (followed by KW) and then Phaedrus will post his decision last if it is not up by midnight tonight.
We will then change the judges’ posting order for a later debate.
So those writing the opening post ought have their statement prepared is what you are saying?
Should that person so choose. To the best of my knowledge, ILO is to post first in this debate, and they will still have the forty-eight hours from when I announce the second topic (officially) to do so.
Round 1 Judgements:
Damn my arrogance. 
Wow - that one really came down to a photo finish. Ahead by 0.25.
Thank God we weren’t rounding down. =D>
[size=85][Sits on edge of seat and chews nails.][/size]
After giving the matter what I feel to be fair and due consideration, the penalty on Gamer (individually) has now been attributed to ILO. (As a team)
My judgment as well as Gamer’s (individual) score has been modified.
I was blatantly wrong to penalize Gamer as an individual for what is (in my opinion and estimation) a team infraction and I sincerely apologize.
Good job everyone and well, Yay for us.!!! =D>
Finally read your post in Debate 1. I didn’t want to read it ‘in passing’ or skim it due to lack of time. I thought you did very well. Definitely kept my attention once I sat down to read it.
I would like to respond to this part:
–Tab
You ended up saying it becomes more reasonable for an individual to let people get away with stuff. I’m just saying it could’ve been worded better. But I got what you meant. It means 1) they face the behavior less, and 2) they don’t usually have to correct it if they do… they just call 9-11 or whatever. I didn’t see why you felt it necessary to say the point was to reduce such behavior, not erradicate it (are you saying “the pipe dream is not there”? good point!). I was hoping for something like “law is good, does not merely proscribe or prohibit, but describes what is conducive to social cohesion… describes the ‘mechanics’ of social cohesion”… [and I would add] and so law is “lived out” in archic anarchies [but that sort of goes against the stance of both teams].
Congratulations! on the win. Unfortunately I’ll be missing the final two debates.
Cool avatar (at the time of this reply, lol).
<><
Ah, no. Sorry that was a horrible convoluted sentence. 
Let me illustrate. Say you live somewhere very rainy. Everybody travels around in heavy waxed-cotton slickers and carries umbrellas which they hold down over their faces, so they can’t see much beyond their toes.
They’d be stupid not to. They’ll catch colds. Achooo!
Then the government employs anti-rainmakers. They sit on street-corners and chant away the rain. At first they are a bit so-so, and it rains off and on, unpredictably all over the place. So everyone continues to wear their restrcitive clothing.
But then the anti-rainmakers get better. They reduce the chance of rain down to the point where a few people start leaving their stuff at home and walk heads up and unencumbered aloong the streets. They get to their destinations quicker, and bump into each other less.
Some times it rains though, and they get colds. Achooo. Then the slickers laugh and say “ha, I told you so.”
But then the anti-rainmakers get so good they nearly nearly stop the rain entirely. It rains a bit in certain places still, but as long as you detour around those places, you’re okay.
Now everyone walks around in their shorts, getting tan and smiling. And they look at the slow old hardcore slickers and shake their heads as they rush by, out-competing them.
You skipped this part:
I got what you meant. It means 1) they face the behavior less, and 2) they don’t usually have to correct it if they do… they just call 9-11 or whatever. I didn’t see why you felt it necessary to say the point was to reduce such behavior, not erradicate it (are you saying “the pipe dream is not there”? good point!). I was hoping for something like “law is good, does not merely proscribe or prohibit, but describes what is conducive to social cohesion… describes the ‘mechanics’ of social cohesion”… [and I would add] and so law is “lived out” in archic anarchies [but that sort of goes against the stance of both teams].
[To reply to your reply: You’re saying the anti-rainmakers (law-makers, law-enforcement) are employed by the archies, and all the archies are walking around with tans ('cause it’s usually sunny), whereas the anarchists within the archies are all wearing restrictive slickers to protect themselves from crime (since they don’t believe in law-making or enforcement, even though they benefit from it) and saying “See? Those law-makers and enforcers can’t fix this!” whenever crime does happen. I like it–alot… except the rain and the sun both have their ups and downs–but that which conflicts with love is never ‘up’ – always ‘down’. What would be preferrable, from where I observe, is that an “archy” besides God is not necessary, it is not necessary to have any “do nots”, because everyone loves as they should (against such things there is no law). The kingdom of heaven, iow. Woohoo! Excuse me. Just makes me want to shout with approval.]