The Instigator
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Scyrone
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,753 times Debate No: 3101
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

Johnicle

Con

I found this debate in the archives of past debate topics in the NFL. I thought it would be a lot of fun to debate so I posted it. I will wait for my opponents opening argument before beginning refutation. Whoever takes this debate... good luck.

Thank You
Scyrone

Pro

I would like to note to the voters that my opponent did not make an opening argument for this debate. His first post made no argument, asked no question, and he assumed that he was going to feed off my post. Clearly, he can do so, but just the act of no opening argument shows his inability to show his statement to be true. He basically forfeits his first round.

"the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed"

This is the definition of government. A government (e.g. the United States Government) is a form or system (e.g. Democracy, Republic, Communism, etc.) of rule (laws, Bill of rights, etc.) by which a state, community, etc. (Ohio, or Los Angeles, or the Massai tribe in Kenya) is governed (put into practice through politics).

My position on this debate is Pro to the statement that a corrupt government is better than no government.

My first contention is that anarchism is almost impossible. In America and other parts of the world, the local populace is fueled by power. It starts in an early age. For example, when we are three or four we always ask many more questions than usual. This is so we can learn and gain knowledge to feel bigger. When we are eight or nine years old we always want to stay out later, do what the adults do, etc. because we want to feel bigger and more mature than others. We want to improve. We eventually get to stay out later when we turn thirteen or fourteen and that adds to our power than we have over ourselves. During our teenage years we try to discover ourselves. We lead ourselves to things that have power and things that have riches. These powers and riches are what we want to achieve when we are a teenager. We are able to do some of the mature things now. When we are eighteen we get almost all of our rights and liberties. When we are twenty-one we do get all of them. This all has to do with power. After we get out of high school we try to move up in the world. We always feel drawn to power or at least the election of someone better than us to power. If the President of the United States were to say, "I am declaring Anarchy," the people would not just sit there and say "We don't have a government now." There will always be someone to take over and declare power whether it is the Vice President, or the Congress, or even the CEO of some important oil tycoon or other major corporation. Even if it happened in every country in the world, we are so drawn to power or someone being in power for a government, that we wouldn't allow anarchy to happen. Thus anarchy, the non-government idea, is impossible.

Now I will define corrupt: "guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked"

My second contention is that no government would be the worst act set towards humans ever to happen and would put them in utter chaos, possibly destroying the human race. The government helps human society a lot. The government provides help to the poor, it mediates some of the costs of goods that you need to buy, it protects you from your enemies, it defends you in enemy territory to stop your enemies from directly attacking you, your governments set laws to let you live, to let you be happy, and to stop you from being unhappy. Without our governments we have the possibility to be poor, to be slaves, to be killed for no probable cause, to be killed because you were black or white or Asian or just short or fat, to be non-evolutionistic (no social Darwinism in society), we would not improve, we would die out because everyone would hate each other, we would not enslaved by those who do have the power to not be controlled by a government (one that you would have disestablished). Government provides military protection, public order, social security, economic security, environmental security, and freedom. A corrupt government may take some of those away, but no government would mean none of those would exist. A corrupt government cannot take all of them away or else it wouldn't be a proper government and the people would merely die out.

My third contention is that humans make mistakes, especially governments of humans, and that the government will sometimes ignore a mistake if it is small enough. In other words a corrupt government sometimes does not mean to be a corrupt government and can be misinterpreted. We can say that man is inherently good, and what he thinks he does is good all the time, but he could be wrong, and that brings us to the quote "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Although this does not have to be a direct reference to physical trash and treasure, it could be a mental reference to "one man's good is another man's evil".

My fourth contention is that a corrupt government in power makes it easier to form into a new government and elect a new President or Theocratic Leader if the corrupt government is overthrown. When governments form from no government, it is a long and difficult process. Especially this day in age where there are so many people with so many different opinions. Even today in an election people are split on the smallest of issues. We have many issues and we can't please everyone, but a government must be made if there is none. So let us say the USA went into a state of anarchy. Suddenly, 100 years later, we want one back. Three generations have passed. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the meaning to all America's history would disappear. Nobody would know what it is. Imagine trying to form a new government. We can't pick up where we left off because the stuff we would pick up from is so old that it would be unusable. It would take years to get someone to write up freedoms, or even a group of people to do so. It would take years to implement it and secure and protect our borders. It would take even more years to make sure our government is at least a government again. Now imagine we had a corrupt government, and decided that we would somehow overthrow the person in charge and put someone else in his place. I am sure it would take about 5-10 years for the corrupt government to be removed, but it is better than living without a government for 100 years, and then finally trying to pick up another government that is completely lost, and then trying to set it up and implement it.

My fifth contention is that corrupt governments, although can be ruled by dictators and can be almost to the point of nullification, must protect the people, because without the people the government cannot exist to rule. This contention is short and is self-describable, but like Hitler, he killed off some of his populace, but not all of it. He knew he had to keep some of it alive so he could rule. He was corrupt and part of a corrupt government, but it worked out good for him.

My conclusion to this round is that, a corrupt government is better than no government because of contention two, no government is impossible because of contention one, therefore the topic is impossible, a corrupt government can almost be any government or no government because of how someone views it (contention three), that governments must protect their people according to contention five (therefore people who strive for power will not throw it away by destroying people, even if they must have a corrupt government), and a corrupt government is easier to convert from than no government (contention four).
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Con

For the freedom of the people, I must disagree with...

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

To prove this resolution true, I offer the following arguments...

1. There is more "choice of people" with no government...
Within this resolution, what you will see is that there is no overwhelming power forcing their opinion on other people. With no government, people are able to make their own choices, and with their own choices, more people are happy, thus making no government better than a corrupt government.

2. Corruptness is less on con...
Since this debate topic specifies that pro must defend a corrupt government, you will see that they guarantee corruptness, while on con only having a small scaled, small chance of corruptness. So... even if con (no government) has corruptness, it is guaranteed to be on a lower scale as it is not the whole government being corrupt (as most governments have overwhelming power).

3. No government gives the chance for a successful government to be created.
When there is a corrupt government, it usually takes a long time to over through it (as we are seeing in situation such as Iraq.) However, if you have no government (as the 13 colonies used to be) you will see that they eventually will have the capability of becoming a successful government (as America now is). Thus, con supports the best future (as well as the best present).

4. No government is better than a corrupt government...
Overall, you will see that with more choice, there is more happiness and less corruptness... not to mention having the only chance for future success...thus making it better... please vote Con.

*now to rebuttal my opponents points...

First of all, I would just like to clarify why my opening statement could be seen as "lacking." The whole reason I didn't post any arguments and merely clarification is because it was courtesy toward my opponent as he is trying to "affirm" the resolution. All formal debates always start with Pro and since I was the instigator, this was not possible unless I only used the opening statement to clarify the round. Also, I've read many debates on this website and have so far found this website to use the first statement to clarify. Sorry if this seemed "lazy."

Off his first contention--> Where he was talking about "anarchism as almost impossible"... What you have to see is the irrelevance that this argument holds. I challenge my opponent to explain how this the pro side. All the resolution asks is if there is a corrupt government (and anarchy already exists) and there is a land with no government, which is better? This resolution has nothing to do with the chance of having a corrupt/no government, but merely which is better.

Down to his definition of corrupt... (guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked)... I must ask the question to the voters... is this the kind of people that you want to be governed by? Or... would you rather have no government.

Off his second contention--> Where he talked about this "utter chaos" with no government... Cross apply HIS DEFINITION against this argument. Compare the two. The guarantee of "dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked" or the chance of "chaos." Also, look to the places of land that have had no government or presently has no government. Simply put, you have to see is that America used to have no government and is now (obviously) successful and also look to Antarctica... this (once again) is an example of no government... and no "utter chaos." Therefore.. making this debate a chance of chaos on a small scale (con) against guaranteed deceit and corruptness on a big scale (pro). I personally would rather have no government.

Off his third contention--> Where he talked about humans making mistakes... This once again proves the impacts of the two "types" of governments. (no government) where if a human makes a mistake it has a small effect. (corrupt government) where if a human makes a mistake, it could mean every bad thing happening that anyone could imagine. What's the difference between a mistake from an individual and a mistake from a government? Bigger impact... and since the resolution specifies they ARE corrupt... thus making the mistakes imminent, and the impacts, all the greater.

Off his fourth contention--> where he talks about the corrupt government having a better chance to be a successful government rather than no government... Against this, I have to point out a few examples... such as Iraq... where the only way we were able to make it better was when we killed thousands of people... What about other corrupt governments such as North Korea... the only way we would change them is if we killed more people and risked nuclear war (since they have them)... Corrupt governments have way more capabilities than no governments which does make it harder to change to a successful government... Also look to America which went from no government to a successful government... but what provoked the Revolutionary War, was not the creation of the government but the separation of the government. If you look close to the actions of events, you will see two governments at the time of the war which was created YEARS before 1776.

Off his fifth contention--> where he talked about the protection of the people by governments... against this, you have to see that corrupt governments truly have no interest in protecting us. Simply look to North Korea and Iraq... they didn't give a crap about their people which is why they were corrupt. If there was no government, you allow them to be able to protect themselves and protect each other...

So please vote Con

Thank You
Scyrone

Pro

Now for my rebuttal.

For your first point, you say: "There is no overwhelming power forcing their opinion on other people." This is true for no government, but can also be true for a corrupt government. It is hard not to find a corrupt government today (yes, America is corrupt). I think you possibly contradict yourself in this argument though. " . . . people are able to make their own choices, and with their own choices, more people are happy." What if it was my choice to kill you, your family, and your friends? Would you still be happy? No. No government does not mean complete and full happiness. No government would be more chaotic. Anarchism/no government would be more chaotic.

Your second point, I agree with. But this isn't really a point. More of just putting the obvious into words.

No government gives the chance for a successful government to be created? Not really. Iraq was not corrupt in the way you are thinking. As I have said before in previous debates, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists, and killed enemies of his people. If all the Atheists in America rose up against the government and started killing people then I assume the government would capture and kill them. Same situation in Iraq. Iraq did not touch us until we came there. Look at the situation now. No government created a corrupt government now. The President of Iran is more welcome in Iraq now than a US troop is. America is very corrupt. We came from no government, and look how we turned out. We supported racism, slavery, anti-feminism, and War. Look how Germany ended up after Hitler was gone, we took over along with England, Russia, and France, and then we turned it into an even bigger corrupt place. Then when we left them on their own, what happened? They became a great nation.

Your fourth point basically is included in my first paragraph.

"This resolution has nothing to do with the chance of having a corrupt/no government, but merely which is better."

My first contention does have something to do with the resolution. It means that the PRO side of this debate is almost impossible to accomplish. Even if no government were better, it would not be possible to implement it. In the PRO argument for every debate, the person must back up why the resolution is correct and agreeable, and must provide a way to back it up, and also include a solution in how it will work. Basically, my opponent in this debate cannot argue fully to why "no Government" is better than a "Corrupt Government". No government is impossible. It's like me saying a resolution such as, "Flying cell phones are better than broken cell phonesm," because flying cell phones do not exist.

"Cross apply HIS DEFINITION against this argument. Compare the two. The guarantee of "dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked" or the chance of "chaos.""

No, this is not true. Dishonesty, bribery, lack of integrity, and being crooked does not mean chaos at all. It can lead to chaos, but it is not definite, like no government is.

"Simply put, you have to see is that America used to have no government and is now (obviously) successful and also look to Antarctica... this (once again) is an example of no government... and no "utter chaos.""

America? Successful? No. Many people are stricken with poverty, tens of thousands of Americans are not insured medically, we are heavily in debt, the people are constantly challenging each other with religion and politics, and nothing is done correctly. Antarctica on the other hand DOES have no government, but not because the people want it that way. There are no people. Why have a government when nobody is in your country?

"guaranteed deceit and corruptness on a big scale"

Not on a big scale. A corrupt government does not mean everything in the government is corrupt. It can be small or big. And again, corrupt to one person, can be a good government to another.

"it could mean every bad thing happening that anyone could imagine"

For example? I see a lot of the things you say have no examples. You provide the theory, but you do not provide the action to your theory to let people see why it is true.

"where the only way we were able to make it better was when we killed thousands of people"

Haha, we have not made anything better in Iraq. So if I feel as though I can make my life better by killing you, it is okay? And it is okay for a government?

"Corrupt governments have way more capabilities than no governments which does make it harder to change to a successful government"

But it is not our job to change other governments. You misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was that the people INSIDE the country, the actual citizens, can change the government better.

"Simply look to North Korea and Iraq... they didn't give a crap about their people which is why they were corrupt"

Does the US government give a crap about gay marriage? Poverty? Racism? Lower and middle classes? No. Not this day in age. Supposedly they are corrupt because they do not protect their people, which is not true. They protect their people, but they protect them from what they consider to be the poison of the outside world. Again, Saddam Hussein killed rebellious, violent people in his country, not all innocents.

Clearly, PRO side has more meaningful points. I provide non-definite, but assured answers, while Con assures himself and others that he is right and there is to be no reason why they are wrong (Hitler? Kim Jong-Yu (sp?)?). No it was not an attack, I am merely saying that most of your opinions are projected to be the same way that ‘corrupt governments' use to broadcast their info.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Con

If there was one reason why voters should vote for me, it would be the scale of evil on the two sides. If a corrupt government makes a bad mistake, it could mean deaths of thousands (or more). If a individual in a place with no government makes a bad mistake, the worse that could happen is a few people POSSIBLY die. He agrees with my 'a corrupt government has more corruptness' argument. Isn't it BETTER than to have LESS corruptness. Obviously... please therefore vote Con accordingly :)... onto the specific arguments presented on the flow.

Before I go onto specific refutation, I would first like to point out something that he said in his last speech. He said that Antarctica had no government but also had no people so you couldn't accept it. Let me be the first to tell you that this is NOT TRUE. In fact, my mom (kind of sort of) dated this guy named Pat Stevens who flew down to Antarctica for a few months to work as a welder. He told me about it and said that all the people live under ground, but in no way was under a government. Let's now compare the two sides. My perfect no government society of Antarctica where there is no bad whatsoever, and his best corrupt government society of America where, as he says, "Many people are stricken with poverty, tens of thousands of Americans are not insured medically, we are heavily in debt, the people are constantly challenging each other with religion and politics, and nothing is done correctly"... which isn't including the amount of crimes/murders that go unsolved........... TO ALL VOTERS...... which is better? For me... Antarctica rocks my face off :)

NOW to specific refutation...

Off his first paragraph-------->

He basically talks about if it was his choice (under no government) to kill me to make his life better. I agree that this would not be a good thing. However, that is NOT better than a government "making the choice" of killing millions of jews to make their lives better. What you will see in this debate (and have already seen) is the difference between a corrupt government an no government is the ill effectiveness of the two when a bad choice is made. Another thing that you will see is the chance of this to happen... as he has already agreed to is that a corrupt government IS corrupt... but is no government corrupt... the best answer available to Pro is maybe... not yes like I have already gotten Pro to admit to.

Off his second (line)-------> This is where he admits to a corrupt government being corrupt... I would simply ask you to extend this into the Pro and Con being only separated by guaranteed corruptness (that has massive effects) (pro) vs. maybe corruptness (that MAY hurt a few people) (con)

Off his third paragraph-------->

This line of argumentation is getting quite cloudy and off-topic. It basically talks about the chance of getting a good government out of the type of government that we defend. We both defend good outcomes and bad outcomes from each others types of governments. I honestly don't see how this determines how one is better than the other however. Therefore, I would ask my opponent (as I would be willing to) just consider this argument a draw, and if you were unwilling to, I will argue this in the next speech of mine... To be honest, I could argue it, but I don't see it as a big argument in this round.

4th paragraph was covered in paragraph 2 on both sides...

Off his 1st contention--> I see this argument as irrelevant. This argument does not prove that any government is not/better than the other. He assumes that there are not examples of no government. However, I have offered the example of Antarctica. I challenge my opponent to (on balance) offer his BEST corrupt government and I will match it up with Antarctica. Simply put, there is no CORRUPT government that offers a better life than the life provided at Antarctica (even though extremely cold but the people are used to it and generally stay indoors anyway)

Off of next line ("No, this is not true. Dishonesty, bribery, lack of integrity, and being crooked does not mean chaos at all. It can lead to chaos, but it is not definite, like no government is")-->

I'm sorry, but this is RIDICULOUS an NOT true. HE defines corrupt as all of those things (Dishonesty, bribery, lack of integrity, and being crooked)... He says that it will lead to these things BUT the definition does not say "lead to"... it says it IS... AND THEN he goes on to say that no government has all of those things but a no government society only has a SMALL CHANCE to have corruptness. Again, Antarctica has no corruptness and the best society that he can offer is guaranteed corruptness as the resolution specifies.

Off of next paragraph (where he explained America as being corrupt)-->

Right, America does know some corruptness... but remember what I said before... You defend the corruptness, not me, if you are trying so hard to prove America as corrupt, remember that you are trying to prove that this corruptness MUST be better than my no government and my example of Antarctica. Flow through all corruptness defined within this debate of America as it proves how corruptness can have a deadly effect.

Off of "For example? I see a lot of the things you say have no examples. You provide the theory, but you do not provide the action to your theory to let people see why it is true."-->

Well, you seem to have a lot of examples of corruptness yourself with America, but besides that I offer Antarctica as well as Hitler and the Jews. Simply put, however, I do offer the guaranteed corruptness (as the resolution specifies) vs. maybe corruptness...

Off of "Haha, we have not made anything better in Iraq. So if I feel as though I can make my life better by killing you, it is okay? And it is okay for a government?"-->

First of all, Iraq is a corrupt government becoming another corrupt government which means you just made an argument against yourself. And again, I am willing to just call this line of argumentation as a draw unless you want me to teach you the difference between developments on no/corrupt governments becoming any better. Such as arguments of ALL the corrupt governments still being corrupt (North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan... etc.)... just tell me if this argument is a draw or if you want me to continue arguing it.

Off of "But it is not our job to change other governments. You misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was that the people INSIDE the country, the actual citizens, can change the government better"-->

What you don't understand here, however, is that the ONLY way to be able to change the government from "INSIDE", is if there is no government. Corrupt governments prevent this.

Off of his second to last paragraph-->

Beginning with the US caring about gay marriage, poverty, etc... to this I have to say that no they do not which makes their corruption WORSE than no governments... Secondly, corrupt governments do not protect their people. To prove this, move to the end of the paragraph where he talks about Saddam. He is the worst of examples as he doesn't protect people, he might not persecute some people but he does not protect them. There was an example where one of his soccer teams lost at some sort of World event... When they got home, he sentenced them to life in jail where they have to stay in that tornado position FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. This happened ONLY because they did not win. THAT is the type of corruption that the government can have a mass effect on many people.

Off of the last paragraph--> It has so far been a great debate, but I truly think that now, CON has more meaningful arguments and I urge the voters to consider the chance of corruption (con) vs. Guaranteed corruption (pro) and vote accordingly.

Thank You
Scyrone

Pro

I am going to do my rebuttals to his argument and my closing argument in the last round. I felt it was pointless to bother typing a post when all it would do is create a larger argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Con

"I would like to note to the voters that my opponent did not make an opening argument for this debate. His first post made no argument, asked no question, and he assumed that he was going to feed off my post. Clearly, he can do so, but just the act of no opening argument shows his inability to show his statement to be true. He basically forfeits his first round."

(quote from my opponent in this debate)

"Pro ~ Round 3

I am going to do my rebuttals to his argument and my closing argument in the last round. I felt it was pointless to bother typing a post when all it would do is create a larger argument."

(my opponents entire last round)

So my opponent says that he will attack my points in his last speech... but as he said in his first speech, "Clearly, he can do so" (he can attack my points, but yet he chose to put them off to his last speech... the one that I can't argue against since this is MY last speech) If every debater could save ALL of his arguments when they couldn't be refuted then basically they would always win. AT LEAST my first speech established the beginning of this debate to begin, his last speech only extended his refutation to his last speech. Here, I am going to stand, since he blatantly refused to attack my last arguments, please flow these through and since I will be unable to attack any future refutation, please don't accept any of these new arguments. Besides that, I have the following "voter" issues to prove why you should vote for me as I have nothing to refutate.

1. Antarctica Example
Once again, this can not go argued until a round that I can not refutate which is COMPLETLY unfair. Therefore, my examples flow through. My biggest example from my last speech was Antarctica which is the perfect example of "no government." Any example brought up by my opponent (which wasn't really any but even if he could) would not be "better" than Antarctica.

2. Pro GUARENTEES corruption while Con only has a chance for it.
Since the resolution specifies that the government that pro claims HAS corruption, you will see that Scyrone can not get out of this. HOWEVER, I (Con) only has a chance for corruption to happen since people doing a bad thing is only a chance to happen.

3. Corruption on Pro is worse than on con.
IF the chance of corruption on con (no government) happens, you will see the incident as small and contained. But when the corruption on pro does happen and since the corruption is done by the government (as corruption is an adjective), it is much more spread out and deadly (or hurtful). In other words, a government doing something bad hurts more people than one person doing something bad, and on con, the chance of something bad happening is only a chance compared to a guarantee.

4. All of my arguments stand in the end of this round.
Since my opponent has chosen not to respond to my arguments last time, I urge you to see that all of my arguments still stand at the end of this round, therefore, I can only see voters voting for the Con side as Antarctica (no government) better than any example of a corrupt government that Pro has not yet provided.

Thank You
Scyrone

Pro

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

"If every debater could save ALL of his arguments when they couldn't be refuted then basically they would always win."

That statement in itself is wrong. A debater possibly could win or not win if they left all the rebuttals till the last round. Also, an opponent can put rebuttals in his or her last round, as shown in the links above. Also, just because you created the debate, does not mean you create rules for debating. There is no set form.

"since he blatantly refused to attack my last arguments"

I didn't refuse, I delayed. Just as you delayed your first round.

"please flow these through and since I will be unable to attack any future refutation, please don't accept any of these new arguments"

Refutation in the last round is not forbidden. I will refute your points. You can either sulk about it in the corner and complain, or you can accept that by STARTING the debate, you accept to NOT be the last one to make a post. The same thing could be said as, "Since you are the last one to make an argument, it shouldn't be counted because it is unfair."

Now for my rebuttals:

"it could mean deaths of thousands (or more)"

Or less. You have not defined which mistakes a corrupt government could make, nor have you defined the mistakes an individual could make.

"my mom (kind of sort of) dated this guy named Pat Stevens who flew down to Antarctica for a few months to work as a welder. He told me about it and said that all the people live under ground, but in no way was under a government"

Again no evidence. I could merely reply saying, "Actually my mom knew this guy who went to Antarctica and said that the rumor that they lived underground was a lie and that everyone lived above ground."

"Antarctica where there is no bad whatsoever"

~ My Opponent

"it was reported that the ozone shield, which protects the Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation, had dwindled to the lowest level recorded over Antarctica"

"Katabatic or gravity-driven winds blow coastward from the high interior, at wind-speeds of up to 300km per hour"

"A disappointed Scott and his four companions embarked on their return journey but died in blizzards and the extreme cold - the first recorded deaths on Antarctica"

"they will face predominantly sunny, windless days (-10oC to -20oC). However, the unpredictable Antarctic whether can marshal storms that can drop temperatures to as low as -50oC with winds blowing at up to 300km/hr"

"the team will have to deal with sheer isolation and monotony for the length of the trek"

http://www.xixa.com.sg...

"Antarctica isn't bad." It will only possibly KILL you, especially if you are inexperienced. Of course Antarctica is bad. I am sure if it at least had a government they would be able to provide food, shelter, and some decent trade. Because like I said before, a government, even a corrupt government, without people, is not a government. With a government there would be a bigger amount of safety there.

"However, that is NOT better than a government "making the choice" of killing millions of jews to make their lives better"

Yes, this could possibly happen. But think of it this way, out of ALL the corrupt governments on the planet, throughout entire history, only a small amount of them did something as catastrophic as this. As for millions? It was one government, a corrupt government, which went from a corrupt government, to a great government now.

"I would simply ask you to extend this into the Pro and Con being only separated by guaranteed corruptness (that has massive effects) (pro) vs. maybe corruptness (that MAY hurt a few people) (con)"

No, do not twist the rules of debate. What if an individual in "no government" decided to wipe out everyone he could, and did so? Wouldn't that be bad too? Yes.

"(even though extremely cold but the people are used to it and generally stay indoors anyway)"

Scientists live their. Mature, decent, good scientists who are performing a temporary job. Not "the people" such as "the citizens of the United States of America". There are NO permanent residents. I could say, "There is no government on the Ocean and look how many lives it has taken throughout history."

"definition does not say "lead to"... it says it IS"

The definition does not say either. It was you who assumed it lead to chaos. I said it did not lead to chaos definitely. I never denied that lack of integrity, etc. was not the definition. Get your facts straight and read the argument correctly. Do not twist them.

And again, you do not offer guaranteed corruptness; it says "corrupt" which does not specify an amount of how corrupt.

"First of all, Iraq is a corrupt government becoming another corrupt government which means you just made an argument against yourself."

No, I never mentioned Iraq having another corrupt government. I mentioned Iraq and carried on with another argument.

"Corrupt governments prevent this."

No it does not. For example, Nelson Mandela in South Africa became president of a free nation after a corrupted, pure white, government was in place.

"corrupt governments do not protect their people"

America is corrupt, but they protect there people. It is not guaranteed that they will not be protected. As said before three times, any government, even a corrupt government, needs the people to be a government. They will not kill them all aimlessly.

As for his closing argument, it revolved around one thing. It DID NOT revolve around "no government" being better, as established in the resolution, it revolved around "he admits to a corrupt government being corrupt" (as established in the resolution, obviously) and "he cannot refute my arguments because I say so".

Now I present my closing argument:

A corrupt government is better because:
a) any government protects all or most of it's people (so they can stay a government)
b) a corrupt government can provide for it's people (shelter, safety, security, necessities to live)
c) a corrupt government is not certainly fully corrupt
d) a corrupt government can change easily from itself to a better government
e) a corrupt government is not fully corrupt (as in there are always people in the government willing to help the non-corrupt cause)
f) it is very hard to avoid being corrupt these days in government

No government is not better because:
a) ‘no government' cannot protect it's people from other strong governments (like if the USA wanted to wipe out all the people on Antarctica)
b) ‘no government' cannot provide the necessities for many to live, thereby destroying many and putting it into chaos (the recent movie ‘Doomsday' for example)
c) ‘no government' is not corrupt, but it's people can be
d) ‘no government' is clearly longer to make another good government
e) ‘no government'/anarchism is impossible because of one person always trying to be in power
f) chaos will always exist, even if there was "no government"

Thank You for the debate, and I thank the voters for taking the time to read the debate. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
yes sir... my RND 2 argument took a while but is now complete... good luck!
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
John, ya still there? (25 characters)
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
Well, every government knows some corruption.
But it is only better up to a certain extent.

And you're all around with demanding that odd debating structure, but now you don't even make a decent opening round?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by meganlg43 9 years ago
meganlg43
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lumpyballsIV 9 years ago
lumpyballsIV
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 9 years ago
shaqdaddy34
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
JohnicleScyroneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30