Resolved: On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.

. http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... "If every debater could save ALL of his arguments when they couldn't be refuted then basically they would always win. " That statement in itself is wrong. A debater possibly could win or not win if they left all the rebuttals till the last round. Also, an opponent can put rebuttals in his or her last round, as shown in the links above. Also, just because you created the debate, does not mean you create rules for debating. There is no set form. "since he blatantly refused to attack my last arguments" I didn't refuse, I delayed. Just as you delayed your first round. "please flow these through and since I will be unable to attack any future refutation, please don't accept any of these new arguments" Refutation in the last round is not forbidden. I will refute your points. You can either sulk about it in the corner and complain, or you can accept that by STARTING the debate, you accept to NOT be the last one to make a post. The same thing could be said as, "Since you are the last one to make an argument, it shouldn't be counted because it is unfair. " Now for my rebuttals: "it could mean deaths of thousands (or more)" Or less. You have not defined which mistakes a corrupt government could make, nor have you defined the mistakes an individual could make. "my mom (kind of sort of) dated this guy named Pat Stevens who flew down to Antarctica for a few months to work as a welder. He told me about it and said that all the people live under ground, but in no way was under a government" Again no evidence. I could merely reply saying, "Actually my mom knew this guy who went to Antarctica and said that the rumor that they lived underground was a lie and that everyone lived above ground. " "Antarctica where there is no bad whatsoever" ~ My Opponent "it was reported that the ozone shield, which protects the Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation, had dwindled to the lowest level recorded over Antarctica" "Katabatic or gravity-driven winds blow coastward from the high interior, at wind-speeds of up to 300km per hour" "A disappointed Scott and his four companions embarked on their return journey but died in blizzards and the extreme cold - the first recorded deaths on Antarctica" "they will face predominantly sunny, windless days (-10oC to -20oC). However, the unpredictable Antarctic whether can marshal storms that can drop temperatures to as low as -50oC with winds blowing at up to 300km/hr" "the team will have to deal with sheer isolation and monotony for the length of the trek" . http://www.xixa.com.sg... "Antarctica isn't bad. " It will only possibly KILL you, especially if you are inexperienced. Of course Antarctica is bad. I am sure if it at least had a government they would be able to provide food, shelter, and some decent trade. Because like I said before, a government, even a corrupt government, without people, is not a government. With a government there would be a bigger amount of safety there. "However, that is NOT better than a government "making the choice" of killing millions of jews to make their lives better" Yes, this could possibly happen. But think of it this way, out of ALL the corrupt governments on the planet, throughout entire history, only a small amount of them did something as catastrophic as this. As for millions? It was one government, a corrupt government, which went from a corrupt government, to a great government now. "I would simply ask you to extend this into the Pro and Con being only separated by guaranteed corruptness (that has massive effects) (pro) vs. maybe corruptness (that MAY hurt a few people) (con)" No, do not twist the rules of debate. What if an individual in "no government" decided to wipe out everyone he could, and did so? Wouldn't that be bad too? Yes. "(even though extremely cold but the people are used to it and generally stay indoors anyway)" Scientists live their. Mature, decent, good scientists who are performing a temporary job. Not "the people" such as "the citizens of the United States of America". There are NO permanent residents. I could say, "There is no government on the Ocean and look how many lives it has taken throughout history. " "definition does not say "lead to". .. it says it IS" The definition does not say either. It was you who assumed it lead to chaos. I said it did not lead to chaos definitely. I never denied that lack of integrity, etc. was not the definition. Get your facts straight and read the argument correctly. Do not twist them. And again, you do not offer guaranteed corruptness; it says "corrupt" which does not specify an amount of how corrupt. "First of all, Iraq is a corrupt government becoming another corrupt government which means you just made an argument against yourself. " No, I never mentioned Iraq having another corrupt government. I mentioned Iraq and carried on with another argument. "Corrupt governments prevent this. " No it does not. For example, Nelson Mandela in South Africa became president of a free nation after a corrupted, pure white, government was in place. "corrupt governments do not protect their people" America is corrupt, but they protect there people. It is not guaranteed that they will not be protected. As said before three times, any government, even a corrupt government, needs the people to be a government. They will not kill them all aimlessly. As for his closing argument, it revolved around one thing. It DID NOT revolve around "no government" being better, as established in the resolution, it revolved around "he admits to a corrupt government being corrupt" (as established in the resolution, obviously) and "he cannot refute my arguments because I say so". Now I present my closing argument: A corrupt government is better because: a) any government protects all or most of it's people (so they can stay a government) b) a corrupt government can provide for it's people (shelter, safety, security, necessities to live) c) a corrupt government is not certainly fully corrupt d) a corrupt government can change easily from itself to a better government e) a corrupt government is not fully corrupt (as in there are always people in the government willing to help the non-corrupt cause) f) it is very hard to avoid being corrupt these days in government No government is not better because: a) ‘no government' cannot protect it's people from other strong governments (like if the USA wanted to wipe out all the people on Antarctica) b) ‘no government' cannot provide the necessities for many to live, thereby destroying many and putting it into chaos (the recent movie ‘Doomsday' for example) c) ‘no government' is not corrupt, but it's people can be d) ‘no government' is clearly longer to make another good government e) ‘no government'/anarchism is impossible because of one person always trying to be in power f) chaos will always exist, even if there was "no government" Thank You for the debate, and I thank the voters for taking the time to read the debate.