Resolved: No government is preferable to an oppressive government

General CritiquesMy opponent claims that I have no impacts, and that the impact of returning to the state of nature is insufficient to be an impact since I didn't explain when are where the state of nature has occured in history. However, this is clearly explained in the Friend evidence that explains the warrants behind the State of Nature and exactly what we can expect to happen if we return there. The refutation to this is weak at best, non-existent more realistically.ObservationMy opponent here is abusively shifting the goalposts on the definition of what qualifies as a state and, thus, what qualifies as affirmative ground. An anarchy would represent no such heirarchy or chain of command as my opponent is advocating for. He's claiming that anything that is not controlled by a single person who controls literally everything is not a state, thus excludes things like groups in complete control from being a state. This is highly abusive as that leaves me literally no ground to work with under this resolution. I ask that you refer back to the actual wording of the resolution and hold my opponent to government, and not advocating that the local country club or state college is an example of a stateless society that works. His definition works as a way to exclude most states from actually being qualified as states, as if someone chooses to work under that state willingly it isn't a state according to his definition. But first, that's insanely abusive as it rules out almost every governmental structure from being classified as a state, which gives me literally zero ground for this debate. Secondly, it's not even in line with the resolution as my opponent must be defending that the lack of GOVERNMENT is better than an abusive government. A compulsive monopoly is not required for the formation of a governmental state. This is evident from the very dictionary definitions of what a government and state are[1][2]. But thirdly, his definition actually precludes the formation of any state if true, because no state can actually be compulsary. If I do not wish to follow the rules of a state I can simply leave the state, which violates it's compulsive nature. This is why my opponent must stick to the resolution and why you prefer my definitions of government and state provided in this round. My opponent references the burden placed upon me, a burden that I am fulfilling: A state is necessary to keep us from devolving into the State of Nature, which has only been refuted insofar as my opponent is only asking for when this has happened but that can't be proved insofar as the Upshaw analysis proves that statelessness is really non-achievable. If my opponent wants to return us to a true form of statelessness, we will end up in the State of Nature, which was clearly explained in the Friend evidence. This is a burden that only a state can provide. So I'm fufilling his burden.My observations stand. You can extend the Upshaw analysis and instantly negate on the fact that statelessness is actually impossible to truly achieve, and thus there is no reason why we would give it preference.The BeginningMy opponent claims there's no warrant for law and order being synonmyous with a state. Yet that's the very definition of what a state is. You prefer my definition over my opponent's abusively extended one. He then claims that a government doesn't actually solve back, yet he doesn't touch on the Friend 2 evidence that explains exactly how forming the social contract and creating a state solves back for it. His assertion that mankind is naturally aggressive is a claim I never made. His claim that I don't explain the what and how of the State of Nature is entirely false, and explained within the very contention he's attacking. The Friend evidence clearly explains what the state of nature is and I clearly explained that the only thing preventing the state of nature from returning is the social contract. By dissolving the social contract, which is my opponent's inherent advocacy by negating, he's advocating for the return of the state of nature, which is worse than any other impact. Non-governmental non-violent agreements don't solve back as that's not a social contract. The only thing preventing the State of Nature's return, which my opponent has not addressed, is the Social Contract.My opponent is mistaken that this argument is for a civilization instead of a state, as a social contract is exactly what creates a state. The turn doesn't apply to my argument. But even if you don't buy that, there's absolutely no warrant as for why a) the turn is true or b) how the turn links to the affirmative case. So you can ignore it pretty easily.My opponent claims that I'm wrong about man's inherent desire to kill, which is a claim I never made. Friend is clear in that it's man's constant distrust of one another and their desire to preserve their own lives that creates the chaos and disorder in the state of nature. His argument has no link to my case.My opponent claims that the state of nature never existed. That's true. Why is it true? Because in order for there to be a state of nature, there must be an example of anarchy first before the state of nature can begin. If there is a governmental structure or state, then the state of nature is prevented from returning. My opponent, thusly, implicitly concedes to my observational points that anarchy cannot be achieved by making the claim that there is no historical proof of the state of nature ever forming. This is reinforced by the fact that he has still not provided a single example of a historical benefit coming directly from anarchy being established. This means that you give massive weight to the observations and can easily negate off of them.The EndI'm going to keep this short since my opponent provides no warrant for most of the actual refutations here. Only the first few have any actual warrant, and thus are the ones I will address.The first one is simple enough. The Social Contract justifies the creation of a state (or government mind you, the terms are synonymous). As the creation of a state is in direct opposition to a stateless society, it perfectly affirms the resolution.The second one is also easily refuted with a more in-depth look at what the Hobbesian social contract implies. The mere fact that we follow the law(s) is consent to the Social Contract. As Christine Travis explains[3], "He believes that the will is ... the last thought a person has before making a decision, and that consent therefore can be given under coercion because a person has still willed to consent to whatever action they are being coerced into. ...a person consenting to a government or to a law out of fear of the state of nature is still giving consent."The third argument relies on his definition holding as non-abusive and sustained throughout the debate, which is addressed previously.His fourth argument has literally no warrant to it. Even under the governmental structure there are still Stand your Ground laws and rights to self-defense and such, which completely negate his argument that people don't have the rights to private property and self-ownership under the state.There's no impact to his sixth argument or his eigth. Men always being violent is not my claim, which is clearly explained in the Friend evidence.Affirmative CaseMy opponent's escape from having to provide historical examples of benefits coming directly from anarchy being established is humorous. He does nothing to try to outweigh the state of nature, and shows no actual benefits coming off of establishing anarchy. This means I best fulfill the BOP, as i'm showing a direct benefit from establishing it, while my opponent has none. And his linking out of the harms of a state has no warrant to it at all, he just asserts that no government doesn't have the same harms. So he has no actual benefits coming off of the affirmative case at all. Resolution negatedhttp://debate.org...;