The Instigator
helpfulinsight
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
treeless
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

An abusive government is better that no government at all.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 251 times Debate No: 81341
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

helpfulinsight

Pro

Human life has changed exponentially over the past 10,000 years where people are being more connected than ever, this sense of group living has led to all sorts of governmental bodies. However what if the governments we created become or are abusive, is it worth having the government at all? Please keep this debate more value oriented because that what it is intended to be. this is also not a debate to criticize existing governments however it is okay to use them as example in the debate I can't wait to see the out come as I am interested in this myself. Good luck and have fun!
treeless

Con

Thank you for instigating an interesting topic.

In all the history of man, there has never been a society that was devoid of government. Society necessitates leaders from its roots, children are born as subordinates to their parents, there are alphas and betas with their own defined roles dictated by "elders" or leaders of such clans and groups. In short, even the family unit is a form of government itself.

We can then only logically conclude that government is inherently necessary to society, and thus, there is no dichotomy in the debate, as it is impossible for there to be no form of government at all within a family. Even within an anarchy, by the nature of human beings, when people form groups, there will be followers and leaders within them. Even if the group performed under direct democracy, it is a form of government making decisions and leading the group.

For this debate to be brought into meaning, we must then establish the specific context of what "government" entails. I am assuming for our purposes, we are debating macro governments, eg. "formal" governments that rule countries spanning several communities.

My argument will not be to criticize existing governments and will be value-oriented, as Pro states in his OP.

The biggest flaw in the resolution and the OP that Pro makes is that he does not qualify what "abusive" means (or can mean) in the context of this debate. For instance, if there is a government that consists of tyrants that give no rights at all to its citizens and treats them like livestock, killing them arbitrarily, enslaving them, toying with them for their amusement, it would be an abusive government; and for all purposes of this debate, it is easily preferable that there is no government at all than systematically being bound to torture and depravity.
Debate Round No. 1
helpfulinsight

Pro

helpfulinsight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
helpfulinsight

Pro

helpfulinsight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.