Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than no government at all.

>>>Okay, first off, an oppressive government does not equal a corrupt government. (see definition below) While it can be possible in an oppressive government, it can be just as possible for a corrupt leader to gain power in an anarchist state. How? Logically, in times of strife, humans will looks towards a leader who can promise security and safety. If a leader can convince people that he or she can bring peace and stability to an anarchist state, people will want them in power. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Let's Define some terms: Corrupt- To make corrupt; to change from good to bad; to draw away from the right path; to deprave; to pervert; In a depraved state; debased; perverted; morally degenerate; weak in morals; With lots of errors in it; not genuine or correct; in an invalid state; In a putrid state; spoiled; tainted ... Oppression- the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority This provided, you see that if you are oppressive (holding someone/something unjustly back from their potential) then you are corrupting that person (To draw away from the right path) and you, yourself, is corrupt (not genuine or correct). They flow hand in hand. If you get one, you inadvertently get the other. ============================================================================ >>>But you have yet to shown WHY people are better off without oppression. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Do I need to? Is it not evident that people are better off without oppression. The simple fact that this debate is occuring isn't proof enough (as in, we wouldn't debate something like a just/perfect government is better than no government, simply because it's obvious which is the right answer;whereas in YOUR resolution they are similar, which sparks the debate) Oppression is wrong because it is purposely unjustly hindering someone from achieving their true potential, for anothers gain. Help you out any? ============================================================================ >>> But let's look at an example of an oppressive government that did uphold the law very well, and is very successful today: Singapore. In Singapore, it is illegal for more than five people to gather in protest except for designated areas, without a police permit. (the government gets the final say in whether or not you can protest) -The punishment for petty crimes such as thievery is caning, which is very painful. -The punishment for possession of drugs, among other crimes, is death. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yes, because killing someone for doing or selling drugs is very just and should be upheld around the world (please tell me you catch the sarcasm in this) Not only is your point invalid because I said earlier that if they're oppressive they should be overthrown (meaning they might or might not do it, but since the option of wanting to is there, it's basically saying the two are either equal or the non-governmental system would be better aka THY DON'T HAVE TO, BUT THEY CAN), but your point is also being upheld with things taht are clearly unjut. You honestly think people who sell drugs because they don't have money and would like to be able to provide for themselves, and people who do drugs to either get themselves away from their problems or to do it to look cool or feel good; ACTUALLY deserve death? ============================================================================ >>>>My opponent says that in an anarchy... __________________________________________________________________________________________________ NOWHERE, do I state anarchy. The definition of anarchy is as follows: a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) Time and time again, you state "ANARCHY." This is not my stance. In an anarchy, there is mas state of confusion and chaos as a result of a failed government. In the state i'm describing THERE NEVER WAS A GOVERNMENT TO FAIL. I'm speaking of a society where they use bartering instead of cash, they use vigilantism to stop criminals, and they band together to stop invaders (never do they assume the offensive). No government is needed for this. People run the government, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This said, people can run things without a government. You can say "i'm speaking of a fairy tale world"all you want to. But, keep in mind it was you who invented the "NON-GOVERNMENTAL" society when you gave birth to the resolution. There is a MAJOR difference between the anarchic society you speak of, and the non-governmental society I speak of. Why do you assume they can't produce a positive outcome? I noticed you state people come together because they realized it is better to have a government. Yes, this is true, however, we're not speaking of a normal government. We're speaking of an oppressive government. They didn't assemble together to be oppressed. Oppression is counterproductive to the reason that they'd want to assemble (to thrive in full potential). So you stating this is null and void, and holds no weight in today's debate. ============================================================================ >>>>>In a society of non-government, people are not unified. If what you say is true, then why do people band together in anarchy? Because humans need a ruling group to keep control! When citizens form their own groups in anarchy, that is government, and people need government! __________________________________________________________________________________________________ False, they are unified. They just aren't under a government with specific policies, congressional hearings, mayors, presidents, representatives, etc which you are use to having with unity. And then, once again, anarchy isn't the case here. So for the following reasons, I respectfully ask for a vote in my favor: 1) Oppression (purposely unjustly hindering someone from achieving their true potential, for anothers gain) is counterproductive to the reason we have a government (To thrive to our fullest potential and make sure everything goes smoothly) thus, resulting in the abolishion of the oppressive government. 2) If the oppressive government should be abolished, than it is equal to or less than having no governmnet (thus making them the same and not what the resolution states) Thanks, and no problem.