Many of the following government aspects help the economy.

Okay, then; we are arguing about government vs. privatization. INFRASTRUCTURE "The third is an obvious falsehood, as people often share in expenses, and the community would simply meet and agree to split the costs of building a road. No government is necessary. " However, what if the entire town wants to build roads? The easiest way would be to have it run by the town government. The easiest way to collect the money would be through government taxes. Let's say we have a town way back in Ohio. The roads are becoming poor, so the people press for the roads to be fixed. The local government already represents the town, so they collect road taxes from the people, and use the money to hire a road-building contractor to get the roads built for the town. People in Texas don't have to pay for these roads in Ohio. If an entire community is meeting to determine things, then they are actually their own local government. "-competition for building" The government could easily pay the cheapest contractor to build, so that would still be competition. "-competition for use" You didn't even explain this aspect in Round 1. However, it could probably also occur with government. "-privately owned and maintained" If the people decide that their road is poor, then the government fixes it. It remains maintained. "-all transactions voluntary" The government only fixes road that the people decide need fixing. "-demand allows for efficiency" The people still demand roads from the government. So, many of your points are equally beneficial with government. However, government allows for easier payment among large amounts of people, such as an entire town, city, state, or country. Try to get every city along a highway to pay for the highway without some help from a government of some sort. Therefore, vote PRO on this contention. WARFARE "My opponent's second point is irrelevant, as defense and war are two different things. .. ." A country has to be prepared to engage in warfare to engage in defense. A country that cannot defend itself is doomed. However, a country needs military defense to defeat invading militaries. This military defense is a key part of warfare. Additionally, claiming new land and/or slaves from other countries can be a great thing for an economy. People go out and populate the land, and plantations have cheaper labor, allowing for lowered prices. "For years the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan routinely made raids on Russian principalities for slaves and to plunder towns. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... "They are different in that warfare intended to boost the economy is never defensive. " And so, there are two different types of warfare that government can engage in: 1. Defensive - The country is under attack, and the government sends out a military to stop them. This keeps the economy alive, as a country that has its entire ex-population enslaved and all of its land taken over really doesn't have much of an economy. The government is supposed to protect its people, and to do that, it needs the ability to react to invasion with protective warfare. 2. Offensive - The country invades another country, either because relations between the two countries are at an all-time low, or because the other country is defenseless, and a new addition of land and slaves helps the economy and reduces overpopulation. "My opponent's first point claims that government should actively engage in war with other countries to help their economy. While this may allow for war-related industries to boom, it destroys a nation's ability to trade with other nations. " The U. S. did not enter WWII just with the economy in mind. You have to recall that they joined the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, making WWII a defensive war for the United States. . http://www.dummies.com... "By eliminating the exporting and importing markets of goods, the economy is weakened. " True, but a weakened economy is preferable to a non-existent one. "Therefore, warfare should be limited. " However, the government should still be prepared to engage in warfare. "Defense is not warfare either, though my opponent may try to play it that way. " And I will. A military operation between enemies (warfare), such as sending troops to repel an incoming invasion, is an act of defending the country from said invasion (defense). Therefore, warfare can be defense, and it could also be an invasion with the intention of helping the country and the economy. "War weakens trade relations, ultimately causing more harm than good. Therefore, warfare harms the economy. " However, if steps of war are not taken, the economy ends up in an even worse state. If the government declares war against an invading country, or the invading country declares war, then the countries fight, and preferably, the country wins, then the economy only ends up with a minor dent. However, if the country doesn't even bother to take any steps of war, or their army is too weak, then the country is overrun by foreigners, and the land belongs to the other country, and the economy of slaves is never a good one. A weakened economy is preferable to no economy. Therefore, warfare ended up having a positive effect on the economy. (If you take a 0 (economy), and subtract 5 (overrun by foreigners), and end up with -5 (current economy), but then manage to add 4 (taking steps in warfare, to protect the economy), you'd have -1 (better current economy). Therefore, it helps the economy to lessen the impact of an invading country. Because warfare overall helps the economy, vote PRO on this contention as well. CURRENCY "This is obviously false. Governments keep commercials from falsifying information in marketing their products, but government does not fund those companies and shows no signs of truly taking them over. My opponent's logic is clearly flawed. " However, how would such private companies make a profit? They are selling metal-value coins for their established price, so this leaves no profit, and instead leaves expenses in the management of the company. You can't sell money for more than the money is worth. Nobody would buy four nickels with a quarter. Such companies could therefore not exist without some alternative revenue, such as government taxes. "However, he drops the point that governments have abused currency before. They have also done this by reducing the fineness and thus the value of their coin, as noted by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. " Well, your first examples were with governments that used paper money, which becomes irrelevant if a government uses metal-based currency. Anyways, in searching your link for "fineness," I only come up with one paragraph about how a guinea of some established fineness would be worth twenty-one shillings. Additionally, you say that government cannot be trusted running money, because they abuse the fineness, but they can be trusted to regulate other companies in their production? This also becomes impossible if the companies cannot ever maintain a profit, and must be attached to government. "Competition is the key element that makes currency best privatized. " Competition only occurs with a profit. "So, currency is also best privatized. " Sadly, currency CAN'T be privatized. Thus, government is the only solution. Therefore, vote PRO on this contention. "I await my opponent's arguments. " This has been a good debate. Thanks. Don't forget, I win if I win two or three contentions, but I lose if I only win one or zero contentions.