I will respond to David Friedman's comments on my positions in the debate, and hopefully later I will have time to critique his position more thoroughly. I will use David's enumeration of paragraphs.

1. First of all, I am not saying that all these negative consequences I ascribe to anarchism are only possible, I think they are probable. The probable consequences: increasing crime because there are individuals  not protected  by a defense agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e more easy victims; incentivizing the acquisition of military hardware by criminal gangs to increase their pool of potential victims( something they do not do it now because it makes no sense for them now) , an arms race between criminal gangs and defense agencies, as well as foreign tyrants that would attempt to rob and extort the weakest of us , i.e., those that could not deter their aggression; an increase in the possibility of civil war inside United States because all conflicts between defensive agencies with armies have this potential outcome - something that is not true today, even under our mixed system.
I have explained the premises that lead me to these conclusions, I would like to know which ones David disputes. David said that the defense agencies would normally not fight, implying sometimes they would. If two defense agencies fight that is a mini war here in the United States. Some of these wars will draw in other defense agencies , increasing the scope of the war and have collateral damage that would make life miserable in your city. You don't need too many of them for things to be horrible.
The premises for my conclusion that there would be an increase in criminality are: there will always be people that choose predation, they prefer to pick on the weakest links- victims, there are individuals  not protected  by a defense agencies that used to be protected by the state i.e more easy victims. Thus, more crime.
Premises for the conclusion that criminal gangs would be incentivized to buy military hardware.
With a central government there is no incentive for criminal gangs to acquire tanks, guided missiles, or drones, because that just makes it easier for them to be caught and they do not increase their pool of victims. However, once the state is removed every investment in military hardware increases the amount of potential victims. David thinks that this investment would be unwise on their part. How does he know? Does he know cost-benefit analysis of criminality ? On the face of it, a small investment in guided missiles would increase the potential for extortion enormously. More and more people would just have to give in to the demand of extortion.
 The same logic applies to foreign tyrants and criminals. David's answer is, he would depend on charity to pay for a professional army that could deter these threats of extortion. I think this is imprudent and I would never rely on charity to protect my freedom, and all my property. It is too flimsy a reed on which to support your whole life. I think your chances protecting your liberty and property are greater by socially organizing with people that are willing to pay for such an important service and commit to this legally in the form of a limited government.
In the debate, each of us has a right to define what we consider optimal social organization, David argued that no government was the optimum, I argued that limited government was the optimum. Each of us has to live with the likely consequences of setting up that structure, including the possibilities of deviating from it to some degree. The deviations from limited government I criticize and try to change, but by and large I consider the American experiment a great success (compared to any previously existing anarchist model), providing a great life for me, most Americans and I suspect for David as well. Contrary to anarchists , I don't consider it a failure because we have strayed from the model to some degree.
 The deviations from David's model, we didn't even get into!

Our horrible civil war, was one such case of a deviation from the principles of limited government, which depend on the consent of the governed and the recognition that if there is a fundamental difference regarding social organization there should be a procedure to secede peacefully, like I have suggested and offered the anarchists and none of them seem to be interested in it. They appear to have no interest to move to an anarchist zone within the United States and then secede.

2. The more security agencies there are , the more probability there will be more conflicts; and one of the parties will resort to physical force to enforce their view of what is right. If there is no law of the land that applies to everyone, then on top of all disputes we now have we will also have disputes about what the law should be on every issue , criminal law, civil law,, criminal procedure, civil procedure , inheritance law , tort law , penalties  , etc. This will also increase the amount of disputes and conflicts, regardless of whether many agencies refer conflicts to arbitration. It also increases the uncertainty of what the law is, which makes business and investment, less likely.
I describe those hunter gatherer societies of the first million years that had no government as anarchy because I view the lack of government as the essential characteristic for anarchism. The point was that there was very little progress during that period, nor was there much progress or a great civilization in the Icelandic anarchist experiment or the Somali anarchist experiment. In fact, all of these had very high levels of predation and poverty. Compare that with the American limited government experiment. It is night and day.
I explained why the government was instrumental in the increased progress; for example, irrigation canals, generals laws like the Roman law and reduction of internal military conflicts, because there was a monopoly of major force in the government.

3. It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of defense agencies there would be under anarchy and how they would operate, and what plans they would offer to their customers , but it is probable that there will be a variety of plans and kinds of defense agencies, some of which would not refer all matters to arbitration, some would be simply alliances of people that feel close and share values, even bad values like white power groups, black power groups, Muslims that believe in sharia law and want to apply it, pedophiles that want to protect each and form alliances, security agencies that advertise better judges and their outcomes in home judicial practice/better than the arbitration, criminal gangs that just want to protect each other and practice predation etc.  If they have sufficient military power, nobody will mess with them.
Which ones would go broke and how long it would take them to go broke is difficult to predict, but David seems to think he knows.

4. Voters do not have to be ignorant of political issues or candidates. Nor is necessarily irrational for them to spend some time in making these decisions that effect their freedom, property and every aspect of their life. In fact it is quite rational to do so and responsible citizens within the context of their lives should allocate some time to this value. Not only to vote correctly, but to influence how other people vote and think, and thus affect the social organization in which they live, i.e., their society. One of the reasons we do the correct thing is to serve as an example to others, and thus influence their actions as well. This is one such case when assuming some social responsibility helps improve your chances of having your individual rights respected. It is not just the issues and candidates, it's also the principles.
I spent time discussing political issues, including whether anarchism is the optimal system to affect the out come. If I didn't think I could affect the outcome I would not do it. I act with purpose. Some of these purposes are indirect like I mentioned above.
The anarchist movement is draining the energy of the people that are fighting for freedom and limited government today in this country. It is the logical consequence of accepting anarchism. Don't run for office, don't vote, don't discuss any public policy because they're all wrong because they are all enacted by government and government is Ă«vil". They are shirking their social responsibility, and if the government becomes even more unlimited, with more infringements on our individual rights, they will have to take their part of the blame. I on the other hand, can rest with a good conscience because I'm doing everything I can to prevent more infringements of our rights. I expose the flaws and contradictions in the flawed public policies, politicians and journalists. You can see my interviews on YouTube/Jan Helfeld and make up your own mind about my contribution.