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." (quote from my opponent in this debate) "Pro ~ Round 3 I am going to do my rebuttals to his argument and my closing argument in the last round. I felt it was pointless to bother typing a post when all it would do is create a larger argument." (my opponents entire last round) So my opponent says that he will attack my points in his last speech... but as he said in his first speech, "Clearly, he can do so" (he can attack my points, but yet he chose to put them off to his last speech... the one that I can't argue against since this is MY last speech) If every debater could save ALL of his arguments when they couldn't be refuted then basically they would always win. AT LEAST my first speech established the beginning of this debate to begin, his last speech only extended his refutation to his last speech. Here, I am going to stand, since he blatantly refused to attack my last arguments, please flow these through and since I will be unable to attack any future refutation, please don't accept any of these new arguments. Besides that, I have the following "voter" issues to prove why you should vote for me as I have nothing to refutate. 1. Antarctica Example Once again, this can not go argued until a round that I can not refutate which is COMPLETLY unfair. Therefore, my examples flow through. My biggest example from my last speech was Antarctica which is the perfect example of "no government." Any example brought up by my opponent (which wasn't really any but even if he could) would not be "better" than Antarctica. 2. Pro GUARENTEES corruption while Con only has a chance for it. Since the resolution specifies that the government that pro claims HAS corruption, you will see that Scyrone can not get out of this. HOWEVER, I (Con) only has a chance for corruption to happen since people doing a bad thing is only a chance to happen. 3. Corruption on Pro is worse than on con. IF the chance of corruption on con (no government) happens, you will see the incident as small and contained. But when the corruption on pro does happen and since the corruption is done by the government (as corruption is an adjective), it is much more spread out and deadly (or hurtful). In other words, a government doing something bad hurts more people than one person doing something bad, and on con, the chance of something bad happening is only a chance compared to a guarantee. 4. All of my arguments stand in the end of this round. Since my opponent has chosen not to respond to my arguments last time, I urge you to see that all of my arguments still stand at the end of this round, therefore, I can only see voters voting for the Con side as Antarctica (no government) better than any example of a corrupt government that Pro has not yet provided. Thank You