The Instigator
Mr.BennyBoo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
condeelmaster
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
condeelmaster
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 86531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Mr.BennyBoo

Pro

This is my first debate, and I am having a hard time grasping the rules of a LD debate. I am doing this only for practice, so if you are passionate about this topic, please have grace on me :)

My case:




We have 7.4 billion people on the earth. Having no government might have been fine in the middle ages when there were not as many people, but now there are just to many people to actually live without any kind of power over the people. People are just getting to independent for there not to be any overall, enforced, rules.






Authority is necessary. Without any authority there would be no way to record and right wrongs. Justice would not be served correctly. What would happen if someone were to kill another person? What kind of justice would be served? Where would revenge stop?






Who would care for the disabled? The mentally ill, those who cannot provide for themselves? What would become of them? There are to many orphans, homeless, and hopeless people that need help for us to go ungoverned.




Government Funding. Sure, no one likes taxes, but they do help to keep the nation running smoother than it would without. Without taxes, who would pay to have schools built and taught (because even though it would be great for everyone to be home schooled, not everyone has parents to teach).



Basically all a government is supposed to be, is just a group of people organizing things for better of people.

condeelmaster

Con

Thanks for the debate. Good luck to my opponent!!


Having an oppressive government is some of the worst things that can happen to a nation. All rights and freedoms are violated. We have seen what happens. People would be free. So what you choose: being free or being oppressed?


Authority is necessary

Having no government doesn't mean there's no authority. People would still be able to organize themselves and to have some degree of authority. For instance, people could form committees or assemblies. That would be authority without government.


Who would care for the disabled?

Firstly, people living in a community would help whoever needs it. There's no need for a government, good people exists in every situation.
Secondly, who said an oppressive government would help the disabled? If you ever read about oppressive governments you would know they don't care about people at all. Look at Venezuela or Cuba.

Government Funding

Private companies are better at giving services than the government. Taking the example you gave, education: which are the better schools? Which are the universities everybody wishes to go? The private ones.


Studying oppressive governments

There are plenty of examples of oppressive governments. North Korea, Arabia Saudi, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc.
In this countries people is killed, humiliated, persecuted, censored, segregated, tortured... Basically, every right is violated. How can we permit this to occur? It insane to even think of the possibility of installing an oppressive government.

What could be worst than oppression?


Government is tyranny, anarchy is liberty

Theft is taking away something from someone without asking, and all government does this every day by taxes, confiscations, redistribution of wealth, "owning" the public space... Then all governments commit theft. If a government commits theft, it is a tyranny. Therefore, all governments are a tyranny. Tyrannies shouldn't be permitted to exist. Ergo, all governments shouldn't be permitted to exist.

Debate Round No. 1
Mr.BennyBoo

Pro

Mr.BennyBoo forfeited this round.
condeelmaster

Con

I already made my case, and since Pro didn't post any new argument or rebuttal, there's no much to say.

Remember the burden of proof is on Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.BennyBoo

Pro

Sorry, lost track of time for the 2nd debate.


In the case that there were no government, we would be "free."

But, according to Thomas Hobbes, if men were to back to a "free" state, it would be total disaster.

Hobbes argues that "in a state of nature", men are obliged to do everything in their power to preserve their own happiness and freedom in their lives. In essence, it is every man for himself. In this state, anything a man does to preserve his life and property is right and good (because there is no government or justice system to tell him it is wrong). Each individual is the "best" judge on how to accomplish this all-important goal. However, because everyone would not agree with his judgement a state of war or conflict ensues.

If there is no powerful, central authority, human beings are doomed to live in a constant state of chaos and war.

This is what Hobbes refereed to as the "state of nature".

Chaos.
condeelmaster

Con

First, let's clraify some thing about the Hobbes' argument.


" In this state, anything a man does to preserve his life and property is right and good"

That's not what Hobbes said. The theories about the natural state of man all agreed that there was not private property in that state, so this statement is wrong.



" Each individual is the "best" judge on how to accomplish this all-important goal. However, because everyone would not agree with his judgement a state of war or conflict ensues. "

So basically Pro is saying we are not capable of having moral values and that the government is the only capable of knowing what is good and what is not. Let's remember the governators aren't aliens, they are humans like us. Then, they have the same moral capacities as us. Therefore, they aren't better judges of what's right or wrong than us.

Also, Pro is expressing that because man would not agree there would be wars and conflicts. Anyone with common sense would admit this is the same that happens now. The same disagrements between individuals happen between governments, so this is not a valid argument.



"If there is no powerful, central authority, human beings are doomed to live in a constant state of chaos and war."

There's no evidence supporting this. Morover, there's evidence supporting the opposite. If we look back at that "state of nature" we will see there were no wars, men and women lived peacefully.


An oppresive government takes freedom and rights from people. On the other hand, anarchism means returning all the rights to the humans. Anarchy would embrace equality freedom, while an oppresive government would prohibit this. We can't permit an oppressive government to rise again.



Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
I could make a few arguments against this. However I agree with you. Good luck!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Mr.BennyBoocondeelmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Mr.BennyBoocondeelmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO contends that an oppressive government is preferable over no government due to support for justice, education, and care for the disabled. CON rebuts that oppressive governments violate rights and freedoms. Justice can be attained by other means, privatization of the education, and community support for the disabled. Government is not the standard for moral values. Although most points and counter points made on both sides are not particularly strong enough to cancel one view over another; CON does provide examples of oppressive governments where human rights violations are at issue to bolster his position. PRO uses Hobbes, but does not tie in examples to firm her point. S&G tied, both sides were equal in proper language expression. Neither side used sources, tied. Conduct to CON, PRO forfeited a round.