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

Now for my rebuttal. For your first point, you say: "There is no overwhelming power forcing their opinion on other people." This is true for no government, but can also be true for a corrupt government. It is hard not to find a corrupt government today (yes, America is corrupt). I think you possibly contradict yourself in this argument though. " . . . people are able to make their own choices, and with their own choices, more people are happy." What if it was my choice to kill you, your family, and your friends? Would you still be happy? No. No government does not mean complete and full happiness. No government would be more chaotic. Anarchism/no government would be more chaotic. Your second point, I agree with. But this isn't really a point. More of just putting the obvious into words. No government gives the chance for a successful government to be created? Not really. Iraq was not corrupt in the way you are thinking. As I have said before in previous debates, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists, and killed enemies of his people. If all the Atheists in America rose up against the government and started killing people then I assume the government would capture and kill them. Same situation in Iraq. Iraq did not touch us until we came there. Look at the situation now. No government created a corrupt government now. The President of Iran is more welcome in Iraq now than a US troop is. America is very corrupt. We came from no government, and look how we turned out. We supported racism, slavery, anti-feminism, and War. Look how Germany ended up after Hitler was gone, we took over along with England, Russia, and France, and then we turned it into an even bigger corrupt place. Then when we left them on their own, what happened? They became a great nation. Your fourth point basically is included in my first paragraph. "This resolution has nothing to do with the chance of having a corrupt/no government, but merely which is better." My first contention does have something to do with the resolution. It means that the PRO side of this debate is almost impossible to accomplish. Even if no government were better, it would not be possible to implement it. In the PRO argument for every debate, the person must back up why the resolution is correct and agreeable, and must provide a way to back it up, and also include a solution in how it will work. Basically, my opponent in this debate cannot argue fully to why "no Government" is better than a "Corrupt Government". No government is impossible. It's like me saying a resolution such as, "Flying cell phones are better than broken cell phonesm," because flying cell phones do not exist. "Cross apply HIS DEFINITION against this argument. Compare the two. The guarantee of "dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked" or the chance of "chaos."" 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. "Simply put, you have to see is that America used to have no government and is now (obviously) successful and also look to Antarctica... this (once again) is an example of no government... and no "utter chaos."" America? Successful? No. 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. Antarctica on the other hand DOES have no government, but not because the people want it that way. There are no people. Why have a government when nobody is in your country? "guaranteed deceit and corruptness on a big scale" Not on a big scale. A corrupt government does not mean everything in the government is corrupt. It can be small or big. And again, corrupt to one person, can be a good government to another. "it could mean every bad thing happening that anyone could imagine" 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. "where the only way we were able to make it better was when we killed thousands of people" 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? "Corrupt governments have way more capabilities than no governments which does make it harder to change to a successful government" 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. "Simply look to North Korea and Iraq... they didn't give a crap about their people which is why they were corrupt" Does the US government give a crap about gay marriage? Poverty? Racism? Lower and middle classes? No. Not this day in age. Supposedly they are corrupt because they do not protect their people, which is not true. They protect their people, but they protect them from what they consider to be the poison of the outside world. Again, Saddam Hussein killed rebellious, violent people in his country, not all innocents. Clearly, PRO side has more meaningful points. I provide non-definite, but assured answers, while Con assures himself and others that he is right and there is to be no reason why they are wrong (Hitler? Kim Jong-Yu (sp?)?). No it was not an attack, I am merely saying that most of your opinions are projected to be the same way that ‘corrupt governments' use to broadcast their info. Thanks.