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

For the freedom of the people, I must disagree with. .. Resolved: On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government. To prove this resolution true, I offer the following arguments. .. 1. There is more "choice of people" with no government. .. Within this resolution, what you will see is that there is no overwhelming power forcing their opinion on other people. With no government, people are able to make their own choices, and with their own choices, more people are happy, thus making no government better than a corrupt government. 2. Corruptness is less on con. .. Since this debate topic specifies that pro must defend a corrupt government, you will see that they guarantee corruptness, while on con only having a small scaled, small chance of corruptness. So. .. even if con (no government) has corruptness, it is guaranteed to be on a lower scale as it is not the whole government being corrupt (as most governments have overwhelming power). 3. No government gives the chance for a successful government to be created. When there is a corrupt government, it usually takes a long time to over through it (as we are seeing in situation such as Iraq. ) However, if you have no government (as the 13 colonies used to be) you will see that they eventually will have the capability of becoming a successful government (as America now is). Thus, con supports the best future (as well as the best present). 4. No government is better than a corrupt government. .. Overall, you will see that with more choice, there is more happiness and less corruptness. .. not to mention having the only chance for future success. .. thus making it better. .. please vote Con. *now to rebuttal my opponents points. .. First of all, I would just like to clarify why my opening statement could be seen as "lacking. " The whole reason I didn't post any arguments and merely clarification is because it was courtesy toward my opponent as he is trying to "affirm" the resolution. All formal debates always start with Pro and since I was the instigator, this was not possible unless I only used the opening statement to clarify the round. Also, I've read many debates on this website and have so far found this website to use the first statement to clarify. Sorry if this seemed "lazy. " Off his first contention--> Where he was talking about "anarchism as almost impossible". .. What you have to see is the irrelevance that this argument holds. I challenge my opponent to explain how this the pro side. All the resolution asks is if there is a corrupt government (and anarchy already exists) and there is a land with no government, which is better? This resolution has nothing to do with the chance of having a corrupt/no government, but merely which is better. Down to his definition of corrupt. .. (guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked). .. I must ask the question to the voters. .. is this the kind of people that you want to be governed by? Or. .. would you rather have no government. Off his second contention--> Where he talked about this "utter chaos" with no government. .. 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. " Also, look to the places of land that have had no government or presently has no government. 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. " Therefore. . making this debate a chance of chaos on a small scale (con) against guaranteed deceit and corruptness on a big scale (pro). I personally would rather have no government. Off his third contention--> Where he talked about humans making mistakes. .. This once again proves the impacts of the two "types" of governments. (no government) where if a human makes a mistake it has a small effect. (corrupt government) where if a human makes a mistake, it could mean every bad thing happening that anyone could imagine. What's the difference between a mistake from an individual and a mistake from a government? Bigger impact. .. and since the resolution specifies they ARE corrupt. .. thus making the mistakes imminent, and the impacts, all the greater. Off his fourth contention--> where he talks about the corrupt government having a better chance to be a successful government rather than no government. .. Against this, I have to point out a few examples. .. such as Iraq. .. where the only way we were able to make it better was when we killed thousands of people. .. What about other corrupt governments such as North Korea. .. the only way we would change them is if we killed more people and risked nuclear war (since they have them). .. Corrupt governments have way more capabilities than no governments which does make it harder to change to a successful government. .. Also look to America which went from no government to a successful government. .. but what provoked the Revolutionary War, was not the creation of the government but the separation of the government. If you look close to the actions of events, you will see two governments at the time of the war which was created YEARS before 1776. Off his fifth contention--> where he talked about the protection of the people by governments. .. against this, you have to see that corrupt governments truly have no interest in protecting us. Simply look to North Korea and Iraq. .. they didn't give a crap about their people which is why they were corrupt. If there was no government, you allow them to be able to protect themselves and protect each other. ..