Motion: “Regulation is more effectively provided by a free and open market than by government edict”

Three time's the charm (supposedly) as they say! This is the third iteration of video debates on Citizen Jane Blog, and with it we have a new and exciting motion, debate format, and even a new debater.


As I go over in the video,  the debate below features Markus Daskcal, a third time return video debater (thank you so much Markus!) and a new participant, James Chillemi. For some brief introductions:

James Chillemi, arguing in the affirmative, has a BA from Ave Maria University in Politics and History and a JD from Ave Maria School of Law. He is also a Fellow at the Stonegait Instititue.  He is the former co-founder of, and has been featured on several websites and podcasts, including,, the Logical Anarchy, the Conscious Resistance, and Peace Propoganda Podcast. Additionally, his impressive resume includes being the author of “Leaving the Cave, An Amiable Introduction to Anarchy: A Free Market Manifesto".


Markus Daskcal, arguing in the negative, currently works in the software industry as a Project Manager. He is progressive and supports political leaders who are committed to solving problems that affect peoples' lives, fully understanding that the system our founders created has checks and balances, and requires compromise and flexibility to get anything done. He has no patience for those who can only attack from the sidelines while accomplishing nothing of value themselves.


James and Markus debated the following motion: : “Regulation is more effectively provided by a free and open market than by government edict”.


The structure for the debate will be more formal than previous versions, and will follow the Oxford style (although we were not as strict to the guidelines as we could have been). I will post the format below the video, but in short, as aforementioned, James will be arguing the affirmative side, Markus the negative. Both will have a chance to introduce and rebut each others arguments, as well as answer questions from me, your gracious moderator. All responses have a given amount of time in which they are allotted to speak.


The debate will begin with an introduction from the affirmative, a negative rebuttal, an introduction from the negative, and then an affirmative rebuttal. Following that will be a question and answer section, and closing remarks and rebuttals.

Due to a brief interruption due to some external factors (that's life, as they say!) the video is split into two parts. Please make sure to watch both! Click on the arrow to switch between each portion.


Also, as a side note, please forgive any of the technological difficulties and real time additions on the video (i.e. a text I received!) I am slowly but surely learning how to improve my video editing skills, but in the meantime I hope you can still enjoy the wonderful content from the debaters. As always, I highly encourage any commentary in the comments section, as well as feedback on how to make the debate and blog better. 

Without further ado, enjoy! 

Widget Didn’t Load
Check your internet and refresh this page.
If that doesn’t work, contact us.

Intended Oxford Style format (although the actual debate was a bit flexible)

Introduction portion 

1. Affirmative Introduction (James): 5 minutes

2. Negative Rebuttal (Markus): 3 minutes​

3. Negative Introduction (Markus): 5 minutes​


4. Affirmative Rebuttal (James): 3 minutes​

Question and answer portion  

1.I asked the following question to the negative (Markus)


I want to read to you the following quote from Sheldon Richman, the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute: “Economically speaking, people cannot do whatever they want—and get away with it—in a freed market because other people are free to counteract them and it’s in their interest to do so. That’s part of what we mean by market forces. Just because the government doesn’t stop a seller from charging $100 for an apple doesn’t mean he or she can get that amount. Market forces regulate the seller as strictly as any bureaucrat could—even more so, because a bureaucrat can be bribed. Whom would you have to bribe to win an exemption from the law of supply and demand?”

What would your response be to such a claim? More specifically, is the free market a better and more fair regulator than the government?


2. Negative (Markus) response: 5 minutes


3. Affirmative (James) rebuttal: 3 minutes

4. I asked the following question to the affirmative (James):

How do you avoid systemic biases (such as racism and sexism) that have shown again and again to find their way into the marketplace, without regulation?


5. Affirmative (James) response: 5 minutes

6. Negative (Markus) rebuttal: 3 minutes​

Closing portion

1.Affirmative (James) closing: 5 minutes

2.. Negative rebuttal (Markus): 3 minutes


3. Negative closing (Markus): 5 minutes


4. Affirmative rebuttal (James): 3 minutes