Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I'm going to just address your points one by one for my last statement. First off, you can't just put forth a new definition in the last round to make my argument look bad. If you wanted to set the terms you should have done so in round one. But since you didn't, I posted the definitions. And it also seems peculiar why you waited to submit it now, instead of in an earlier round or in the comments. You didn't have a problem with my definitions earlier, why now? I'm curious as to what you mean by "vague" when talking about the 2 laws. They're very straightforward. Also interesting to use the doctor as an example. In order to be a doctor you have to sign a contract with the hospital and I believe you also have to work under certain rules of a doctor. If you sign the contract an follow the rules, you are agreeing to do something. I'm sure somewhere in the contract it says that their patients lives are their responsibility. If the doctor screws up, but does everything he/she can to save the patient, then they have not broken the law, because they did everything they agreed to do. Accidents are a part of nature and cannot be predicted so they should not be used as a basis to sue. And why would a court be necessary? If it were included in the doctor's contract to report any mishaps in the O. R, the other doctor's would let the boss know. When the other doctors in the room say that he did everything he could to save the patient, then he's fine. Also, as you try to refute my point about the 3 branches of government, you actually affirm my argument. What you stated is a government going through a judicial process. Once again, it is not stopping or preventing the crime, just laying out a punishment. That statement all depends on how high the leadership goes. Naturally, a corp would be laid out like a police department because it would be most familiar to everybody. City by city, no more, no less. That way, one "precinct" cannot gain control over the other. Once again, you say the laws are vague, but they're not. They're very straightforward. And you say they can interpret and enforce as they please but provide no evidence as to back up that claim. Police officer's don't interpret the law as they please. They follow what is written. And saying a check is needed for the corp is like saying a check for the police is needed. Which it isn't. I would also like to point out that my opponent's opinion about corruption in the corp isn't backed up with a source, and also, my idea of the corp has never been tried so we don't know now do we? Also, his theory about Dan, Joe and Bob and then translating it to countries, doesn't really work or make sense considering government framing isn't the easiest or practical of crimes to commit. You also claim that anarchy leads to oppressive government, which is true in the cases provided, but my theory hasn't been tried yet so you really can't say it won't work. My opponent's last statement also doesn't make sense, I'm not quite sure how to refute your points and defend my own without making new arguments. And you didn't outline those conditions in round one. In closing: I believe that no government is more desirable than an oppressive one because under the two laws it promises freedom and privacy, economically, socially and personally. It's attitude of forcing opinions down the throats of it's citizens is unjust and doesn't warrant a desirable society. Look at Fascist Germany and the USSR. A country that lives under the two laws will not act in a manner that warrants hostile retaliation and will not discriminate against peoples regardless of ethnic background or religion. My thanks to Jdoe for this debate.