The government does us more harm than good.

Your response argument did not really make a lot of sense. Apparently you have never heard of inductive reasoning or proving a point through examples. You assert initially that government is the cause of the rise in many different things. What I instead aim to prove is that government is often the only solution to growing ailments that face our nation, and moreover that a corpratocracy unhindered by government control is immesurably worse. Instead of substantively adressing my examples or my general argument you just attempt to declare them irrelevant. To my understanding, debates generally proceed from a premise or topic in this case that the government does us more harm than good. You then gave forth an argument or a construct in favor of that, and it is my duty to present evidence to the contrary. If so, then why is all my evidence that is not exactly a response to your literal examples deemed irrelevant? This is illogical and counterintuative. The fact is that most of your examples fall into a similar mold as to what I have set up in my construction. Most stem from a lack of government protections or overly powerful corporations. Gas prices are a great example, because corporate entities continue to raise them up at their will and have an essential monopoly of control. China has lead control problems because its newly formed proto-corporations are poorly checked by its government. Utility prices are actually at their cheapest when controled by the government such as with the TVA rather than when corporations dominate such as Enron. The important thing to emphasize here is that all of these conclusions could resonably be drawn from my examples in the first argument. I did not need to spell them out for you or to any other cognizant reader. Historical examples are great at proving points. The reason I used this particular one is that in no point in american history is there as clear a demarcation between a totaly free market corporatocracy and vigrous government protection that followed in the early 20th century, and therefore there is no better place to look to see the impact of more government. My later point was a response to you if and only if you were going to argue that because government does more harm than good it should be abolished. If you were planning to take that route, I hoped to impose resonable burdens on you. Since you have not taken up these burdens I assume you did not mean to go down that path. Iceland was used because it was the closest to a government free society I know of that still functioned. It was filled with bloodshed and anarchy and I asked if that was the government free society you invisioned. If all you really were trying to argue is that the current government, as in the 110th U.S congress and the 43rd U.S president and the John Roberts court, were doing us harm as a society, then that should have been much more clear in your construct and moreover would not a topic I would accept debating. It is no doubt that our current government is one of the worst in our history, but I would argue it is because they fundamentally mistrust government and therefore sabatage it at every step. Government is neccesary to help people in situations where they would be prey to the machinations of corporations that hold monopolies beyond their control. A system without government would inevitably be far far worse.