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

If there was one reason why voters should vote for me, it would be the scale of evil on the two sides. If a corrupt government makes a bad mistake, it could mean deaths of thousands (or more). If a individual in a place with no government makes a bad mistake, the worse that could happen is a few people POSSIBLY die. He agrees with my 'a corrupt government has more corruptness' argument. Isn't it BETTER than to have LESS corruptness. Obviously... please therefore vote Con accordingly :)... onto the specific arguments presented on the flow. Before I go onto specific refutation, I would first like to point out something that he said in his last speech. He said that Antarctica had no government but also had no people so you couldn't accept it. Let me be the first to tell you that this is NOT TRUE. In fact, 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. Let's now compare the two sides. My perfect no government society of Antarctica where there is no bad whatsoever, and his best corrupt government society of America where, as he says, "Many people are stricken with poverty, tens of thousands of Americans are not insured medically, we are heavily in debt, the people are constantly challenging each other with religion and politics, and nothing is done correctly"... which isn't including the amount of crimes/murders that go unsolved........... TO ALL VOTERS...... which is better? For me... Antarctica rocks my face off :) NOW to specific refutation... Off his first paragraph--------> He basically talks about if it was his choice (under no government) to kill me to make his life better. I agree that this would not be a good thing. However, that is NOT better than a government "making the choice" of killing millions of jews to make their lives better. What you will see in this debate (and have already seen) is the difference between a corrupt government an no government is the ill effectiveness of the two when a bad choice is made. Another thing that you will see is the chance of this to happen... as he has already agreed to is that a corrupt government IS corrupt... but is no government corrupt... the best answer available to Pro is maybe... not yes like I have already gotten Pro to admit to. Off his second (line)-------> This is where he admits to a corrupt government being corrupt... 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) Off his third paragraph--------> This line of argumentation is getting quite cloudy and off-topic. It basically talks about the chance of getting a good government out of the type of government that we defend. We both defend good outcomes and bad outcomes from each others types of governments. I honestly don't see how this determines how one is better than the other however. Therefore, I would ask my opponent (as I would be willing to) just consider this argument a draw, and if you were unwilling to, I will argue this in the next speech of mine... To be honest, I could argue it, but I don't see it as a big argument in this round. 4th paragraph was covered in paragraph 2 on both sides... Off his 1st contention--> I see this argument as irrelevant. This argument does not prove that any government is not/better than the other. He assumes that there are not examples of no government. However, I have offered the example of Antarctica. I challenge my opponent to (on balance) offer his BEST corrupt government and I will match it up with Antarctica. Simply put, there is no CORRUPT government that offers a better life than the life provided at Antarctica (even though extremely cold but the people are used to it and generally stay indoors anyway) Off of next line ("No, this is not true. Dishonesty, bribery, lack of integrity, and being crooked does not mean chaos at all. It can lead to chaos, but it is not definite, like no government is")--> I'm sorry, but this is RIDICULOUS an NOT true. HE defines corrupt as all of those things (Dishonesty, bribery, lack of integrity, and being crooked)... He says that it will lead to these things BUT the definition does not say "lead to"... it says it IS... AND THEN he goes on to say that no government has all of those things but a no government society only has a SMALL CHANCE to have corruptness. Again, Antarctica has no corruptness and the best society that he can offer is guaranteed corruptness as the resolution specifies. Off of next paragraph (where he explained America as being corrupt)--> Right, America does know some corruptness... but remember what I said before... You defend the corruptness, not me, if you are trying so hard to prove America as corrupt, remember that you are trying to prove that this corruptness MUST be better than my no government and my example of Antarctica. Flow through all corruptness defined within this debate of America as it proves how corruptness can have a deadly effect. Off of "For example? I see a lot of the things you say have no examples. You provide the theory, but you do not provide the action to your theory to let people see why it is true."--> Well, you seem to have a lot of examples of corruptness yourself with America, but besides that I offer Antarctica as well as Hitler and the Jews. Simply put, however, I do offer the guaranteed corruptness (as the resolution specifies) vs. maybe corruptness... Off of "Haha, we have not made anything better in Iraq. So if I feel as though I can make my life better by killing you, it is okay? And it is okay for a government?"--> First of all, Iraq is a corrupt government becoming another corrupt government which means you just made an argument against yourself. And again, I am willing to just call this line of argumentation as a draw unless you want me to teach you the difference between developments on no/corrupt governments becoming any better. Such as arguments of ALL the corrupt governments still being corrupt (North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan... etc.)... just tell me if this argument is a draw or if you want me to continue arguing it. Off of "But it is not our job to change other governments. You misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was that the people INSIDE the country, the actual citizens, can change the government better"--> What you don't understand here, however, is that the ONLY way to be able to change the government from "INSIDE", is if there is no government. Corrupt governments prevent this. Off of his second to last paragraph--> Beginning with the US caring about gay marriage, poverty, etc... to this I have to say that no they do not which makes their corruption WORSE than no governments... Secondly, corrupt governments do not protect their people. To prove this, move to the end of the paragraph where he talks about Saddam. He is the worst of examples as he doesn't protect people, he might not persecute some people but he does not protect them. There was an example where one of his soccer teams lost at some sort of World event... When they got home, he sentenced them to life in jail where they have to stay in that tornado position FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. This happened ONLY because they did not win. THAT is the type of corruption that the government can have a mass effect on many people. Off of the last paragraph--> It has so far been a great debate, but I truly think that now, CON has more meaningful arguments and I urge the voters to consider the chance of corruption (con) vs. Guaranteed corruption (pro) and vote accordingly. Thank You