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

I would like to note to the voters that my opponent did not make an opening argument for this debate. His first post made no argument, asked no question, and he assumed that he was going to feed off my post. Clearly, he can do so, but just the act of no opening argument shows his inability to show his statement to be true. He basically forfeits his first round. "the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed" This is the definition of government. A government (e.g. the United States Government) is a form or system (e.g. Democracy, Republic, Communism, etc.) of rule (laws, Bill of rights, etc.) by which a state, community, etc. (Ohio, or Los Angeles, or the Massai tribe in Kenya) is governed (put into practice through politics). My position on this debate is Pro to the statement that a corrupt government is better than no government. My first contention is that anarchism is almost impossible. In America and other parts of the world, the local populace is fueled by power. It starts in an early age. For example, when we are three or four we always ask many more questions than usual. This is so we can learn and gain knowledge to feel bigger. When we are eight or nine years old we always want to stay out later, do what the adults do, etc. because we want to feel bigger and more mature than others. We want to improve. We eventually get to stay out later when we turn thirteen or fourteen and that adds to our power than we have over ourselves. During our teenage years we try to discover ourselves. We lead ourselves to things that have power and things that have riches. These powers and riches are what we want to achieve when we are a teenager. We are able to do some of the mature things now. When we are eighteen we get almost all of our rights and liberties. When we are twenty-one we do get all of them. This all has to do with power. After we get out of high school we try to move up in the world. We always feel drawn to power or at least the election of someone better than us to power. If the President of the United States were to say, "I am declaring Anarchy," the people would not just sit there and say "We don't have a government now." There will always be someone to take over and declare power whether it is the Vice President, or the Congress, or even the CEO of some important oil tycoon or other major corporation. Even if it happened in every country in the world, we are so drawn to power or someone being in power for a government, that we wouldn't allow anarchy to happen. Thus anarchy, the non-government idea, is impossible. Now I will define corrupt: "guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked" My second contention is that no government would be the worst act set towards humans ever to happen and would put them in utter chaos, possibly destroying the human race. The government helps human society a lot. The government provides help to the poor, it mediates some of the costs of goods that you need to buy, it protects you from your enemies, it defends you in enemy territory to stop your enemies from directly attacking you, your governments set laws to let you live, to let you be happy, and to stop you from being unhappy. Without our governments we have the possibility to be poor, to be slaves, to be killed for no probable cause, to be killed because you were black or white or Asian or just short or fat, to be non-evolutionistic (no social Darwinism in society), we would not improve, we would die out because everyone would hate each other, we would not enslaved by those who do have the power to not be controlled by a government (one that you would have disestablished). Government provides military protection, public order, social security, economic security, environmental security, and freedom. A corrupt government may take some of those away, but no government would mean none of those would exist. A corrupt government cannot take all of them away or else it wouldn't be a proper government and the people would merely die out. My third contention is that humans make mistakes, especially governments of humans, and that the government will sometimes ignore a mistake if it is small enough. In other words a corrupt government sometimes does not mean to be a corrupt government and can be misinterpreted. We can say that man is inherently good, and what he thinks he does is good all the time, but he could be wrong, and that brings us to the quote "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Although this does not have to be a direct reference to physical trash and treasure, it could be a mental reference to "one man's good is another man's evil". My fourth contention is that a corrupt government in power makes it easier to form into a new government and elect a new President or Theocratic Leader if the corrupt government is overthrown. When governments form from no government, it is a long and difficult process. Especially this day in age where there are so many people with so many different opinions. Even today in an election people are split on the smallest of issues. We have many issues and we can't please everyone, but a government must be made if there is none. So let us say the USA went into a state of anarchy. Suddenly, 100 years later, we want one back. Three generations have passed. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the meaning to all America's history would disappear. Nobody would know what it is. Imagine trying to form a new government. We can't pick up where we left off because the stuff we would pick up from is so old that it would be unusable. It would take years to get someone to write up freedoms, or even a group of people to do so. It would take years to implement it and secure and protect our borders. It would take even more years to make sure our government is at least a government again. Now imagine we had a corrupt government, and decided that we would somehow overthrow the person in charge and put someone else in his place. I am sure it would take about 5-10 years for the corrupt government to be removed, but it is better than living without a government for 100 years, and then finally trying to pick up another government that is completely lost, and then trying to set it up and implement it. My fifth contention is that corrupt governments, although can be ruled by dictators and can be almost to the point of nullification, must protect the people, because without the people the government cannot exist to rule. This contention is short and is self-describable, but like Hitler, he killed off some of his populace, but not all of it. He knew he had to keep some of it alive so he could rule. He was corrupt and part of a corrupt government, but it worked out good for him. My conclusion to this round is that, a corrupt government is better than no government because of contention two, no government is impossible because of contention one, therefore the topic is impossible, a corrupt government can almost be any government or no government because of how someone views it (contention three), that governments must protect their people according to contention five (therefore people who strive for power will not throw it away by destroying people, even if they must have a corrupt government), and a corrupt government is easier to convert from than no government (contention four).