It appears that both Tab and Tentative have acknowledged that the Debate has resulted in something less than strictly formal, based upon that, I will Judge this Debate strictly on the merits of the arguments.
It seems that, based upon the definitions provided by Tab in his first post, Repression and Coercion are generally used to accomplish the same ends.
Tab begins the actual argumentation process by stating that repression, while not originally expressly intended, must be good for something. Tab makes sure to make the distinction that repression is not necessarily good, in and of itself, but that it accomplishes a specific purpose.
Tab points out that both repressive and supportive Governments use essentially the same tools to accomplish whatever the desired ends happen to be at the time.
Tab argues that repression, at a minimum, provides predictability and stability.
Tab doesn't necessarily mention superior organization, in so many words, but basically states that if a new Government rises up from among the repressed to take over, the new Government has basically proved it has the ability to sustain for a long-enough period of time that the system of merely having, "A Government," does not get thrown into utter chaos.
Tab points out that those who were previously repressed must liberate themselves from the repression, or they will simply be repressed anew by those who helped liberate them. Tab gives relevant and recent examples.
Tab reiterates his opening concerning the usefulness of repression.
Tentative immediately points out that far more Governments have failed than succeeded which would indicate that repression and coercion do not work. Tentative acknowledges, at the same time, that repression and coercion are the ultimate results of most Governments.
Tentative states that he will provide examples of a better Governmental alternative(s) later.
Tentative points out that repressive/coercive Governments will not sustain forever, but are generally successful in the short run. Tentative states that the more people are repressed, the more they will resent the repressive Government and that this exists worldwide.
Tab questions whether Tentative is really referring to a, "Short-run," in his examples.
Tab points out that the Romans were coercive, according to some, but they had barbarian tribes who wanted to join the Roman Empire. It cannot be coerced if it is voluntary.
***Note, maybe that means that Tab's numbers concerning the length of time the Roman Empire was in power do not counter Tentative's point because Tab seems to acknowledge that the Roman Empire was not coercive the entire time.***
Tab points out that there can exist coercion that is actually supported by the masses via the legitimacy of the authoritative body...all of which is based upon public opinion.
***Would that not mean that the masses were not, "Coerced," but accept the authority voluntarily?***
Tab points out that legitimate coercive force exists for the public good in maintaining order and predictability, but, the citizenry may draw lines in the sand concerning the degree to which coercive force may be employed.
Tab reiterates his points in his concluding paragraph.
Tentative states that history shows a progression of failures.
Tentative states that we must first accept coercion and repression as failures. Tentative poses a question, knowing the answer, which is basically that the world is not in a continuous state of unbreaking stability.
Tentative states that restraint, which is a concept used to determine what is best for all parties involved, is the ultimate answer to achieving social stability.
Tentative states that only generations conditioned to practice restraint and to put what is best for all above anything else will result in restraint being Universally practiced.
***How will these generations do this when they live under a cloud of repression and coercion? Is Tentative proposing a solution that can never be realized simply because the solution is first required to be completed before it can even begin?***
Tab points out that we do not all practice restraint.
Tab concedes that Tentative's solution would work if we did all practice restraint, but then also asks how we could effectuate Universal restraint without the use of repression and coercion.
Tab points out that, in a society where all practice restraint, the first individual or group to not practice restraint seizes the power and will, presumably, maintain that power with coercion and repression.
Tab drew a pretty cool graph, which he uses to illustrate points previously made.
Tab concludes by stating that the most restrained society is also the most repressed.
Ouch! Tentative uses Tab's graph against him by demonstrating that, despite Tab's claim of stability, there is a seemingly unending cycle of crashes and burns.
Tentative then back-pedals, in a way, and concedes that repression and coercion will always exist in some form, (citing child-rearing) but simply that it does not have to be the most dominant mode of stability.
Tentative states that if restraint is taught long enough, genuine social stability finally takes hold.
I only have one comment outside of the actual judgment, so I'll make that now:
I agree with Tentative that practicing restraint to the greatest degree possible would result in a society that could be the most stable for the longest period of time. However, to get people to exhibit that sort of restraint, I believe, would involve generations of the most intense form of physical-punishment conditioning possible...and maybe even some emotional/psychological punishment.
You would basically have to replace even the most innocuous amount of pride with absolute humility and submission to the collective. Absolutely any sign of putting yourself above the collective, in any way whatsoever, would have to be met with intense physical punishment and psychological breakdown. People would have to be convinced to believe, without any question or doubt whatsoever, that they are inherently worthless and exist only for the betterment of other people.
Once this task has been deemed accomplished, those who effectuated this great feeling of mass humility would have to kill themselves immediately, otherwise, they would be destined to continue the repression/coercion by which they got the masses to believe this way in the first place. Ironically, to resist taking absolute God-Like control over a populace that has been conditioned to be controlled would be the single greatest act of restraint ever.
You would have stability, but life would be meaningless. Without any pride whatsoever, an individual cannot take pleasure in even the most altruistic of acts. He can never look at himself as having done something, "Good for others," or, "Good for society," but rather, would be condemned to look at himself as doing what was necessary.
You would have stability, however...
The closest Tab comes to a self-contradiction is when he discusses Governmental stability and then gets into a discussion about what happens when a new Government overthrows the old one. It's so painfully obvious, however, that Tentative would have made that point on his own (as he so rapidly jumped on it) that I can't really hold that one against Tab.
It's basically just a technical thing. Technically, I would wait for my opponent to bring up anything that could potentially serve as a counter-argument to my thesis.Tentative-1st Post
Tentative does well to assert that repression and coercion are an ends, not a means, and that most Governments using either/both have failed.
Tentative does well to point out that it is the very repression and coercion that causes revolt.
***However, I believe that Tentative would have put himself in a better position in this Debate had he just went ahead and outlined his entire Governmental approach in his opening. He hinted at it, but the only thing of substance in his post was rebuttal, which gave Tab the opportunity to counter-argue the rebuttal in his 2nd Post, while Tentative did not even really get into his thesis until his own second post which was the fourth post in the Debate.
Tentative sure as Hell had room to do it, too. His opening post was extremely short.Tab-2nd Post
Tab seems to ignore that not all of the citizenry is actually being coerced if they voluntarily and unquestionably accept the authority. You really don't have to quell the uprising of the masses when the masses are too busy bowing before you...of their own volition.
Basically, Tab states that there is a point where the public goes all Twisted Sister with, "We're not gonna take it anymore," but that does nothing to obfuscate the fact that, in order to be repressed/coerced, you would actually have to be doing something that the Governing body does not want you to do. Otherwise, you simply agree with the ruling body. You think that the ruling body is right in most, if not all, situations.
You have restrained yourself.
***I think that Tentative should have capitalized more on the above, but it seems that he was too busy posting his actual thesis to address this very easy hole in Tab's counter-argument to Tentative's rebuttal.
No offense, Tentative.Tentative-2nd Post
Tentative reiterates that we are not continuously stable. He states that we must accept repression/coercion as failures which is basically the same thing as us to accept his premise before he has actually supported his premise...and actually...before he has made his thesis.
Tentative then states that restraint is the best means by which social stability will be obtained/maintained. I would also give Tentative points for waiting for Tab to mention that restraint will only be conditioned via repression/coercion.
Tentative does, however, fail to realize that the actual societal system in place when this restraint is to be Universally instilled is one of repression/coercion. How does that happen?Tab-3rd Post
Tab jumps on the point that repression/coercion will be necessary to instill restraint, and asks how we could instill restraint without repression and coercion.
Tab also points out that restraint must fail, because the first to escape a paradigm of restraint will rule, presumably via repression/coercion. Tab points out that the most restrained society is the most repressed.Tentative-3rd Post
I really like how Tentative used Tab's graph to further his own
I really wish that Tentative would have really put his mind into going into a greater effort to minimalize the effects of repression/coercion, because I believe that he could have come up with something if he really wanted to. He basically says that it will always exist, but doesn't have to dominate. I don't think that's really going far enough. He can concede that it will always exist, and that's fine, but he has to find a way to minimize
it, to make it nothing more than a blip on the radar of Governance.
Tentative does conclude by essentially stating that, the more restraint prevails, the less fluctuation (and more stability) there will be.________________________
Fuck.I'm scoring the first round: 9-8, Tab
-MAIN REASON: The first post is for the presentation of a thesis and Tentative did not do that. Tab does not get the full ten points due to self-contradiction, however harmless.I'm scoring the second round: 7-8, Tentative
-MAIN REASON: I have objections to both posts. (See above) I mean you no offense, Tab, but in this post, you made the most obvious mistake I have ever seen you make in a Debate, (You really could have saved it for a future Debate with me, you know...
) but you basically try to say that those who already accept the authority in place are repressed/coerced. They are not. They don't have to be. They accept the authority. Repression/Coercion is what you do to citizens that do not
accept your authority.I'm scoring the final round: 10-9, Tab
-MAIN REASON: Both of them do a great job in their final posts, but Tab points out that the repression/coercion will, at some point, be necessary to make the conditioning of restraint work, and Tentative does not do enough to minimize the perceived necessity of repression/coercion. Tentative does an absolutely fantastic job of using Tab's own graph (!) to highlight the fact that more restraint leads to more stability, but, if it takes repression/coercion to generate restraint, wouldn't that simultaneously be more repression/coercion leading to more stability? In fact, wouldn't that mean that (despite the error of Tab's second post) you would just cause there to be more citizenry that merely accepts the authority of the Government as nothing is worse than bloodshed and uprising causes bloodshed? Looking out for the good of all, first and foremost, as it were.FINAL SCORE: 26-25, TAB
This has been an excellent Debate by both of you guys. I have judged a shitload of these things at this point, and this has been my favorite one to judge so far.