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

I think the best way to refute my opponent's last response is to simply state the main points in the debate and how the CON wins them. But before entering my main points, I would like to identify some non-voting issues and show why the debate over them is insignificant. First, with Thoreau, this issue has become muddled from its original purpose to prove that one) man can live at peace in the state of nature, and two) sometimes it is better to be in nature instead of an unjust government. Second, on corrupt government, sure corrupt governments can be advanced to become a little less corrupt. But every government, at some level, still is corrupt. This issue cannot be changed. The fact that the state of nature does not also needs to be pulled through for it is as inherent as a corrupt government always being corrupt. The first issue in voting is the issue that I supposedly take a corrupt government to an extreme. I must disagree. In his rebuttal of my second, third, and fifth contention, he claims I take away all human rights when looking at a corrupt government. I never say this. What I do claim, however, is that logically a corrupt government is necessarily corrupt. The PRO agrees with this in his first post about how governments are made of immoral humans so all governments, regardless of advance, will possess a degree of corruption. But, what the PRO did not claim is what makes a government corrupt. I, the CON, prove what a corrupt government is two fold. One, a government is meant to protect human rights, but if it is corrupt, then it does not uphold its duty to some level or another. Two, the government must have corrupt laws in order to let the government get away with its corrupt nature. If a corrupt government does not uphold my rights, then all it can do is take away my rights, such as natural liberty and my right to take matters into my own hands, without guaranteeing my rights that I supposedly get upon entering a social contract with a government. Taking this point back to the resolution, we see that a corrupt government cannot be better than no government at all for in both cases, nothing protects your civil liberties, rights when entering a governmental social contract. At this point alone, the CON wins, however, to put the final nail in the coffin, the CON proves on multiple occasions how a community can be BETTER than a corrupt government. The second main issue I would like to bring up relates to what I just said, how the state of nature can be better than a corrupt government. I would also like to pull through all mentions of community, which the PRO virtually drops. I have been ridiculously repetitive on this point, yet I feel it is the point that ensures my victory. "We see that a community, like me teaching others calculus or chemistry, includes people working together. Under this type of system, there are no laws but a mutual understanding of what is mutually beneficial to all parties… All protection of rights can be achieved, teaching and education can be done, and all other benefits that a government fails to provide can be provided under a community setting in which no body, no government can judge, tax, or punish others as a superior, but in which all parties recognize all others as equals, working together for mutual benefit." Not only does this point prove the existence of a governmentless society, but it also shows the benefit of the state of nature over a corrupt government. A community, such as the one described, can provide all benefits the PRO claims I cannot achieve as well as form a union in which my 50 dollars will be taken care of, in contrast to a scenario of the American Government. For further details, pull through my previous points on this issue, which were unattacked. Take that back, the PRO does provide a small response to this point in which he claims the corrupt government has a structured system of justice. I guess I can agree with this point, the American system of Justice does of a structure of sorts. However, what does structure do? This structure, in fact, keeps me away from my 50 dollars! To have 50 dollars stolen is "no big deal" to the corrupt system of Justice in America. THIS PROVES THE CORRUPTION OF GOVERNMENT! In fact, I have had 50 dollars stolen from me, my right to property has been compromised and what did the government do…nothing! I could not take action into my own hands for I am part of the "American Social Contract." At least if I were under a community within the state of nature that would protect my rights, I would at least have a chance to get my 50 dollars back. In essence, it is that chance of getting back my 50 dollars which upholds my right to property, not some governmental law. I will end this debate with the third and final issue on which the CON wins this debate round. This issue is that of moral superiority. Look back to my opponent's first post, "Better means morally superior." From this, I created a criterion for debate in which I GAVE my opponent an easy route to victory. To uphold his position, ALL he had to do was show how a government, corrupt or not, is morally superior to no government at all. He identified this path by stating… "My opponent offers an acceptable resolutional analysis. So i agree. Yes, we must evaluate a median and yes I must prove a corrupt government is better, hence the resolutional phrase." But, my opponent did not accept this challenge AT ALL. Both times in which I challenged him to let him meet his victory conditions, these are his responses… "My opponent comes up with a witty rhetorical question.. "Then we must ask ourselves, which is more morally superior, no government in which people can live harmoniously or a necessarily corrupt government which violates human rights?" The fallacy within this text is quite obvious. CON states, in anarchy people can live harmoniously. Not only does he fail to prove such a claim, but this harmony has been disproven multiple times in my above examples. Leading me to another rhetorical question. "Is the deletion of rule and law pragmatic in a world that has FOREVER seen government?" The answer need not to be restated." His response PAINED me for he did not even attempt to show how his position was morally superior. Hence, I challenged him AGAIN to receive this. "CON's FIFTH CONTENTION is once again about how a corrupt government denies ALL human rights and there's no point in reiterating myself." I digress. I have shown, throughout all my speeches, the moral superiority of no government. Regardless of pragmatism or chaos, the state of nature guarantees your rights where a corrupt government cannot. In the argument of being moral superior, you only have one way to vote. For the issues, I take the resolution on balance, corrupt governments are necessarily corrupt, and no governments are better socially and morally than corrupt ones, I can only see a CON decision.