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

I will try my hardest to help you out As the negative side in this debate, I wont try to prove that having an oppressive government is worse, but that it's basically the same. Argument 4 c1) """If a government is not powerful and strong, it will not have the capacity to rule its citizens and enforce the law with an iron fist to prevent crime. According to the United Nations World Crime Survey, countries entrenched in turmoil like Columbia and South Africa have homicide rates 63 and 51 per 100,000, respectively. Compare this to the homicide rate of the US, "5.5 homicides per 100,000 people." Countries that are in turmoil obviously do not have a strong government that can enforce the law and bring safety to its citizens, and the World Crime Survey has also shown that these countries have rather high crime rates."""~You What your point in contention 1 is, is that without a strong government, people will basically "go nuts." First off, you have to prove that the United States's government is a strong government or even an oppressive government for this part of your contention to work out in your favor. Argument 4 c2) """country with no powerful government cannot provide municipal and federal services, such as hospitals, fire fighting services, etc., and must rely on other countries, becoming a burden to the world. In addition, uncontrolled Somalia piracy of the Coast of Aden has already cost the world $150m in ransom money and over 95 attempted attacks on freighter vessels."""~You Like before, this is a big assumption. The assumption here is that people can not act civilized on their own, and that they need a "Big brother" figure in order to do right. Can you prove this? Can you prove that without a government, people won't be able to have fire fighters, policemen, etc.? Argument 4 c3) """A country, such as Somalia, with no central government has no federal military to defend itself, both from internal and external threats. According a 2008 survey by the CIA, Somalia has, "No national-level armed forces." This lack of a military has led to uncontrolled internal conflict in Somalia. According to the Elman Peace and Human Rights Organization, this fighting between Somali insurgents has left about 9,000 civilians dead, and around 12,000 civilians injured since the first outbreak of war in 2007."""~You First against external issues... Would they need one? If they aren't attacking anyone, and if they aren't putting their nose in anyone's path, is that bad? I haven't heard of them going into an external war anytime recently [...] so why do you feel it is a neccessity to have troops? Now against internal issues... They don't need troops in order for this to be corrected. All they need are police officers/Vigilante types. Use the U.S for example, we don't send in our troops everytime we have a dispute, we use officers. ============================Moving on to my own arguments========================== Even our founding fathers pointed out the issues with oppressive governments... "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I'd like to highlight the words, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it." What this is basically saying, is that if the government becomes oppressive/destructive/non-productive, then they are to be removed. John Locke (the person who holds the ideals by which all modernized governments are based) even brings forth the theory of administratove justice. Essentially what the theory of administrating justice is, is that a legitimate government has the responsibility to uphold the law. However, a government that doesn't fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, and citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy. The citizens can therefore uprise and overthrow their government. So, in conclusion, having an oppressive government is the same as having no government at all, by the simple fact that if your government is oppressive then they are to be overthrown. If something is to be overthrown, the statement made is that is might as well not be there. Which equivalates it to not having a government in the first place.