On balance, a corrupt government is better than no government.

Your responses contained a sufficient amount of detail. As a road map I am going to make responses to CON's statements then give a big picture analysis for the ease of the judge and readers. FIRST CON CONTENTION, "Thoreau" COn states, "the CON must win this round by showing that no government is better than a corrupt one." But if you review the round, no where has CON explicitly proven how an anarchy is BETTER than a corrupt government, all he focuses on is how bad a corrupt government is. In so far as he does not show how no government can do the things a corrupt government fails to do, then i win this round by default as CON's burden hasn't been upheld. SECOND CON states, "My opponent claims that no one has the power to enter or exit from the state of nature freely. I will contend that you can, BUT at the same time feel the immorality of governmental punishments." This argument is flawed because, at the point in which your being punished by a specific government, you are no longer in an anarchy. Therefore making my initial argument about a person not being able to enter and exit an anarchy still be upheld in todays debate. THIRD CON states, "At what line can a government force one to enter under a social contract. The PRO has not accounted for this. I will also contend that it is human free will that should determine if one does or does not form a social contract." One is not FORCED to enter a social contract. Instead their citizenship is a declaration of consent to uphold their contractual obligation. FOURTH CON states, "If one is forced to enter a society in which he or she deems morally corrupt, then this only demonstrates an increased sense of undesirability and immorality of the government." I fail to see how this mandates anarchism. In an anarchy NOT EVERYONE is going to see this as morally acceptable. This argument is NON-UNIQUE because this resentment is going to exist in both a corrupt government as well as in an anarchy. FIFTH CON states, "Walden and Thoreau, moreover, show more than just an allegory. In fact, they correctly portray the true grandness of nature and the corruption of government." Not only is CON bringing up new evidence (Walden) but he still doesn't directly point out WHERE they are portraying the grandness of nature. This argument cannot have ANY grounds in today's debate because I do not know where this information was found. CON doesn't even show how Walden and Thoreau prove an anarchy real and on top of that more morally justifiable. He simply states this as true. SIXTH CON states, "Thoreau was sent to jail as a result of his unwillingness to accept the government as moral by not paying taxes. By doing this, Thoreau only proved the intolerance of an immoral and corrupt government but also how no government must be the superior option." Thoreau doesn't prove ANYTHING by not paying taxes. Rather than his lack of upholding his contractual obligation of adhering to the law. In no way is paying taxes unjust or immoral. A government receives taxes for multiple reasons one of those reasons is for Thoreau's son, John's education. This doesn't prove as to how a government is corrupt. The crime Thoreau committed cannot be justified by him yelling, "THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT!" While at the same time his son is being educated at Harvard University. SECOND CON CONTENTION, "Laws of government" CON states "A corrupt government, by definition, is one that does not protect but takes away human rights" This is in direct contradiction to CON's 1st resolutional analysis. This statement is extreme. My opponent is stating that a corrupt government, by definition, fails to PROTECT instead takes away human rights. The US government protects me because when i walk down the street at night i see cops that I know will arrest someone if they rob me. BAM! His analysis has been disproved. My opponent is talking about an EXTREMELY CORRUPT government like Nazi Germany, rather than a government on balance, like Present-day USA. Making this argument non-resolutional because we MUST focus on balance. CON states " I will respond that a community, lacking government, can still protect this right and not need to take away from them." My opponent once again doesn't prove as to HOW this wouldn't occur in an anarchy. In a community lacking government their is no such thing as true right to property because everything belongs to everyone. Ergo once again my argument about how an anarchy cannot protect citizens is still alive in today's debate. THIRD CON contention, "Original purpose" CON states, "A government is meant to protect rights. Corrupt governments do not protect human rights, cross apply point 2. Therefore, a corrupt government does not do what it is meant to do." But i have already disproven this fact. Because this is an extreme approach to what a corrupt government is. CON states, "when I have 50 dollars stolen from me, what is the government to do. They still have little to no ground in punishing this criminal." Once again this argument is non-unique because we can ask the same question about an anarchy. What is an anarchy to do? At least in a government we have a more structured way to serve justice. In an anarchy violence would occur when one individual thinks that they can "serve justice". Meaning a corrupt government is better because we have a structured system, though flawed at times, it doesn't lead to chaos. CON states, "As will be addressed in my fifth point, we must see that by entering a social contract with a corrupt government, we lose more than we gain." To explain what this contract gives you. You give up some freedoms, like the freedom of autonomy to murder, molest and steal. IN RETURN you receive protection from those murderers rapists and thieves. Not a bad deal, huh? That's why we agreed to it instead of a state of nature millions of years ago. CON's FOURTH CONTENTION, "Once a corrupt government, always a Corrupt Government." Con states, "So, there was some governmental corruption back in the day dealing with sex and race, despite what the PRO would like you to think, have these issue been resolved…no." Of course they haven't been resolved, but my point in this argument wasn't the complete deletion of racism and sexism BUT how RACE and SEX haven't been as oppressed as they were in the past. Not that long ago women couldn't vote, now we have Hilary Clinton. Not that long ago we had segregation and slavery, but now we have Barrack Obama. And to answer the Barack Obama question, the government doesn't have control over people's minds. they cannot fully erase racism, if some people are upset because they have a black man running for president that has nothing to do with the overall goodness of the government itself. CON's FIFTH CONTENTION is once again about how a corrupt government denies ALL human rights and there's no point in reiterating myself. LAST!! CON's SIXTH CONTENTION, "Locke and Just for FUn" CON STATES, "We must see how the Locke quote still applies." No, this quote no longer applies as it has been disproven by the fact that Locke was simply evaluating the PRE EDENIC society of the state of nature before people knew about Money and before people were introduced to sin. This Pre-edenic lifestyle no longer exists. We as human being are to selfish, to irrational, and to sinful to attempt to live in peace without a government. This is true despite ANYTHING anyone says, ever since we've been introduced to a government it has been IMPOSSIBLE to enter a place of no government and magically become PEACEFUL and HARMONIOUS. CON then goes on about the difference between a goverment and community but I will just say ultimately I'd rather live in a place where my rights are for the most part protected, rather than in an anarchy where people's right's are at risk.FOR this i AFFIRM.Thanks Drapheonix. =D