Anarchism will lead to our eventual demise

So my opponent reads the comments. Totally fair. No matter. My position shall not change. My opponent's lack of clarity when stating the resolution will inevitably be her downfall. The resolution is "Anarchism will lead to our eventual demise". While, admittedly, my opponent obviously wants to debate the pro's and con's of anarchism. However, this is highly abusive toward the con debater because, obviously, there are no real benefits to anarchism. This makes things highly abusive for me, and an incredibly one-sided debate toward the pro. However, the vagueness of the resolution allows me to make a successfull argument in the fact that, if the aff case is true, then we as humans would inevitably not want to adopt anarchism. The resolution, as the pro wishes she put it, is "Provided anarchism is universally accepted, would lead to our eventual demise". However, that is not what the given resolution states. Don't let her suddenly change the resolution in the middle of the round because that's highly abusive for me as the debater. I can't predict what she will change the argument to, and she could just change the resolution as to invalidate all of my arguments, which prevents actual educational debate. My current resolution accepts education because I'm teaching my opponet that when making a resolution, make sure that the wording of the resolution is absolutely crystal clear as to avoid ranging topical arguments. My opponent's case rests on the premise that if anarchy was accepted, then we would all die or something like that. This position only begs the question of why we would accept anarchism in the first place. Because, if my opponent's case is true, would we then not want to accept it in the first place? This simple observation functions in a few ways in terms of the debate:1) It functions as a case turn to my opponents case because if it is true, then we would negate because we wouldn't accept something that would inevitably lead to our doom.2) It outweighs and functions on a higher level than my opponent's case because it questions the assumptions that my opponent's case relies on to work in the first place. So, because of the vague wording of the resolution, the vote becomes an easy win for the con debater. To prove my observation true, all I have to do is a) Prove that we CURRENTLY do not endorse anarchism and b) disprove the last point she provides that over time we would accept anarchism. If I can do that, then you vote con. P1:We currently don't endorse anarchy. Look to the forms of government that are accepted around the world. Not one of them LACK a government. Thus, we don't endorse anarchy in our world today. P2:To refute my opponent's point that teenagers dream of one day overthrowing the government and revelling in the lack of the hierarchy of the higher class, of 'stickin' it to the man! '. There's one problem with my opponent's point: there's absolutely no evidence as for why this is true. Even if she proves that teenagers are ALL rebellious little pricks who hate their parents and teachers and people who try to free themselves from the control of those above them, there's no corrolation to this causing us to devolve into anarchy. Just because teenagers are rebellious, why does this make adults and elderly people and toddlers rebellious and wanting to go to anarchy? Teenagers alone would not be enough cause us to go to anarchy. There's no corrolation between the two.