Arguing against the "anarchist" Molyneux accepting at the very beginning of the debate the preposition that voting is not violence (because you're running for president) is a bad idea. How you gonna' stump the "anarchist" (I'm being really over emphatically exaggerating those quotation marks for a reason) by sticking to establishing border enforcement, when voting isn't considered an enforcement as well? You're giving away the whole argument. You can't disprove arbitrary border enforcement is beneficial and non-violent, if you are also going to suppose that arbitrary ideological enforcement is beneficial and non-violent at the same time.