The Instigator
Zapurdead
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
snelld7
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/24/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,434 times Debate No: 7956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Zapurdead

Pro

Contention 1: If a government is not powerful and strong, it will not have the capacity to rule its citizens and enforce the law with an iron fist to prevent crime. According to the United Nations World Crime Survey, countries entrenched in turmoil like Columbia and South Africa have homicide rates 63 and 51 per 100,000, respectively. Compare this to the homicide rate of the US, "5.5 homicides per 100,000 people." Countries that are in turmoil obviously do not have a strong government that can enforce the law and bring safety to its citizens, and the World Crime Survey has also shown that these countries have rather high crime rates. In addition, according to Facts on File, "Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991. As a result of the general lawlessness in that country, pirates have been able to create sophisticated criminal networks…" and, "Only through the creation of a stable government in Somalia will the threat of piracy subdue." As you can see, lack of a government means that there is no law to be enforced. This puts the lives of a country's citizens in danger. However, an oppressive government will be strong enough to enforce the law and ensure the safety of its citizens, making an oppressive government more desirable than no government when it comes to assuring safety and stability.

Contention 2: A country with no powerful government cannot provide municipal and federal services, such as hospitals, fire fighting services, etc., and must rely on other countries, becoming a burden to the world. In addition, uncontrolled Somalia piracy of the Coast of Aden has already cost the world $150m in ransom money and over 95 attempted attacks on freighter vessels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Contention 3: A country, such as Somalia, with no central government has no federal military to defend itself, both from internal and external threats. According a 2008 survey by the CIA, Somalia has, "No national-level armed forces." This lack of a military has led to uncontrolled internal conflict in Somalia. According to the Elman Peace and Human Rights Organization, this fighting between Somali insurgents has left about 9,000 civilians dead, and around 12,000 civilians injured since the first outbreak of war in 2007. A government For example, following the Bolshevik takeover of Russia and the formation of the USSR in 1922, Hungary staged an attempted revolution thirty-four years later. A government like Somalia's would have been unable to control the revolution, but the USSR, whose oppressiveness has given it power, was able to suppress both Hungary and the Revolution within days. Therefore, we can see that a country with no government is a breeding ground for rebellion, which can harm both a country and its neighbors.

I'm doing this for a debate I have to do in class, so someone please argue with me.
snelld7

Con

I will try my hardest to help you out

As the negative side in this debate, I wont try to prove that having an oppressive government is worse, but that it's basically the same.

Argument 4 c1) """If a government is not powerful and strong, it will not have the capacity to rule its citizens and enforce the law with an iron fist to prevent crime. According to the United Nations World Crime Survey, countries entrenched in turmoil like Columbia and South Africa have homicide rates 63 and 51 per 100,000, respectively. Compare this to the homicide rate of the US, "5.5 homicides per 100,000 people." Countries that are in turmoil obviously do not have a strong government that can enforce the law and bring safety to its citizens, and the World Crime Survey has also shown that these countries have rather high crime rates."""~You

What your point in contention 1 is, is that without a strong government, people will basically "go nuts."
First off, you have to prove that the United States's government is a strong government or even an oppressive government for this part of your contention to work out in your favor.

Argument 4 c2) """country with no powerful government cannot provide municipal and federal services, such as hospitals, fire fighting services, etc., and must rely on other countries, becoming a burden to the world. In addition, uncontrolled Somalia piracy of the Coast of Aden has already cost the world $150m in ransom money and over 95 attempted attacks on freighter vessels."""~You

Like before, this is a big assumption. The assumption here is that people can not act civilized on their own, and that they need a "Big brother" figure in order to do right. Can you prove this? Can you prove that without a government, people won't be able to have fire fighters, policemen, etc.?

Argument 4 c3) """A country, such as Somalia, with no central government has no federal military to defend itself, both from internal and external threats. According a 2008 survey by the CIA, Somalia has, "No national-level armed forces." This lack of a military has led to uncontrolled internal conflict in Somalia. According to the Elman Peace and Human Rights Organization, this fighting between Somali insurgents has left about 9,000 civilians dead, and around 12,000 civilians injured since the first outbreak of war in 2007."""~You

First against external issues...

Would they need one? If they aren't attacking anyone, and if they aren't putting their nose in anyone's path, is that bad? I haven't heard of them going into an external war anytime recently [...] so why do you feel it is a neccessity to have troops?

Now against internal issues...

They don't need troops in order for this to be corrected. All they need are police officers/Vigilante types. Use the U.S for example, we don't send in our troops everytime we have a dispute, we use officers.

============================Moving on to my own arguments==========================

Even our founding fathers pointed out the issues with oppressive governments...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I'd like to highlight the words, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it." What this is basically saying, is that if the government becomes oppressive/destructive/non-productive, then they are to be removed.

John Locke (the person who holds the ideals by which all modernized governments are based) even brings forth the theory of administratove justice. Essentially what the theory of administrating justice is, is that a legitimate government has the responsibility to uphold the law. However, a government that doesn't fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, and citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy. The citizens can therefore uprise and overthrow their government.

So, in conclusion, having an oppressive government is the same as having no government at all, by the simple fact that if your government is oppressive then they are to be overthrown. If something is to be overthrown, the statement made is that is might as well not be there. Which equivalates it to not having a government in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1
Zapurdead

Pro

"What your point in contention 1 is, is that without a strong government, people will basically "go nuts."
First off, you have to prove that the United States's government is a strong government or even an oppressive government for this part of your contention to work out in your favor.

Like before, this is a big assumption. The assumption here is that people can not act civilized on their own, and that they need a "Big brother" figure in order to do right. Can you prove this? Can you prove that without a government, people won't be able to have fire fighters, policemen, etc.?"

What I'm saying is that without a government, these fire fighters, policemen, etc., won't be as effective.
Quite frankly, how much money does a country with no government make and spread in a way that it will provide municipal services to its inhabitants?
None.
In an oppressive government, we have money being spread to places like fire departments, police, etc. This is because oppressive governments know that they have to at least take some care of its people, to ensure prevention of rebellion.
Without this funding, government services will not be as effective as if they were in an oppressive government.
Sure, we can have a vigilante police force, but how does it compare to a fully armed police department.
Yes, groups of people will always rise from the ashes, but they are not as effective without a government.

"Would they need one? If they aren't attacking anyone, and if they aren't putting their nose in anyone's path, is that bad? I haven't heard of them going into an external war anytime recently [...] so why do you feel it is a necessity to have troops?"
Government ensures that the status quo is maintained. If government collapses, there will be no one to keep this status quo. People will compete for resources, and it will be violent. Also, radical groups from neighboring nations often take the chance to seize control in a country in turmoil. (Hitler after the fall of the Wiemar Republic, Al-Qaeda after the turmoil in Afghanistan...) Oppressive governments can keep violent or revolutionary organizations down, while weak government/no government is a breeding ground for violence and more turmoil.

"Now against internal issues...

They don't need troops in order for this to be corrected. All they need are police officers/Vigilante types. Use the U.S for example, we don't send in our troops everytime we have a dispute, we use officers."
See the two points above.

"John Locke (the person who holds the ideals by which all modernized governments are based) even brings forth the theory of administrative justice. Essentially what the theory of administrating justice is, is that a legitimate government has the responsibility to uphold the law. However, a government that doesn't fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, and citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy. The citizens can therefore up rise and overthrow their government."
What is the meaning of law in the paragraph? I would agree that John Locke believed that governments that didn't uphold the law should have been overthrown. What law in particular? Each country and government has its own distinct set of laws. Some oppressive governments have very strict laws, but may not break them.

"So, in conclusion, having an oppressive government is the same as having no government at all, by the simple fact that if your government is oppressive then they are to be overthrown. If something is to be overthrown, the statement made is that is might as well not be there. Which equivalates it to not having a government in the first place."
There is a difference between oppressive government and no government. As a matter of fact, they are polar opposites. Just because oppressive governments can be rebelled against, doesn't mean that they will. Oppressive governments have the power to keep the status quo and prevent rebellion.

Now, my other point. Let's take a look a the rule of Joseph Stalin in Soviet Russia. He ruled with an iron fist, and replaced a weak and unable government and replaced it with a strong and able one.
In the past, oppressive governments have always made it their priority to make their country more and more powerful, which is a benefit. The USSR and Communist China was an especially interesting one.
Following the Communist takeover in the USSR and Communist China, both Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin created economic growth plans for their countries, coined the name "The Five-Year Plans" The Five-Year Plans of China, the USSR, and pro-Soviet India generated impressive results for their country.

http://www.geni.org...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

So I would like to say that oppressive governments have the power to enforce law, arm officers, provide government services and help the economy better than any lack of government could do. Humans need organization to survive, and government provides that. In anarchy, mankind cannot thrive.
snelld7

Con

This has turned out pretty interesting...

>>>>>What I'm saying is that without a government, these fire fighters, policemen, etc., won't be as effective.
Quite frankly, how much money does a country with no government make and spread in a way that it will provide municipal services to its inhabitants?
None.

Why do you assume that they will be unable to have money, and even more so, why do you assume money is necessary. There are many different versions of currency exchange. They could just go into the bardering system for example. Isn't this what they did before "money" was present?

In other words, prove that they won't be able to have money, and that them not having "money" is a bad thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>Government ensures that the status quo is maintained. If government collapses, there will be no one to keep this status quo. People will compete for resources, and it will be violent.

You see, the main problem here is your assumptions. If the government is made up of "individual citizens," then why do you assume that these individual citizens can't funtion without the government? Would it actually be plausable to say that without government people are "nutz" and can't function? The native americans were functioning quite well without a government. It is because people are the way they are that governments work, not the other way around.

Plus, can you actually prove it will be more violent? I'm 100% sure when you add in crooked cops, a misguided leader, and an army that goes to war [...] That surpasses the dangers of competing within a country. What makes you think they will compete within the country in a violent manner anyways?

>>>>>Also, radical groups from neighboring nations often take the chance to seize control in a country in turmoil.

As I stated before, what makes you think they will be in turmoil? Plus, does this statement say something about having no government, or about the malicious behavior of the terrorist groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>There is a difference between oppressive government and no government. As a matter of fact, they are polar opposites. Just because oppressive governments can be rebelled against, doesn't mean that they will.

True, doesn't mean that they will. But what it does mean, is that the people are better of without the government that is order, and that it might as well not be there.

>>>>Oppressive governments have the power to keep the status quo and prevent rebellion.

Great, they hold the power to make nothing change even though the people don't like whats going on...THAT MAKES IT WORSE!

>>>>Now, my other point. Let's take a look a the rule of Joseph Stalin in Soviet Russia. He ruled with an iron fist, and replaced a weak and unable government and replaced it with a strong and able one.

The problem with these few sentences and the many that follow, is that before the oppressie government came into order, there was a weak one in place. MEANING THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THERE THAT THE PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO LET THIS OPPRESSIVE ONE COME TO POWER. On my stance, there is NO government AT ALL! This is untopical for to reasons.

1) Because you are talking about an instance where there is SOME type of gov.

and

2) Because you STILL have not yet proven to me that the society of the non-governmental people will be weak and in need of reform.

Resolution NEGATED
Debate Round No. 2
Zapurdead

Pro

>"Can you actually prove it will be more violent? I'm 100% sure when you add in crooked cops, a misguided leader, and an army that goes to war [...] That surpasses the dangers of competing within a country. What makes you think they will compete within the country in a violent manner anyways?"

Okay, first off, an oppressive government does not equal a corrupt government. (see definition below) While it can be possible in an oppressive government, it can be just as possible for a corrupt leader to gain power in an anarchist state. How? Logically, in times of strife, humans will looks towards a leader who can promise security and safety. If a leader can convince people that he or she can bring peace and stability to an anarchist state, people will want them in power.

>"True, doesn't mean that they will. But what it does mean, is that the people are better of without the government that is order, and that it might as well not be there."

But you have yet to shown WHY people are better off without oppression.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
op�pres�sive (-prsv)
adj.
1. Difficult to bear; burdensome: oppressive laws.
2. Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly; tyrannical.
3. Weighing heavily on the senses or spirit: oppressive weather. See Synonyms at burdensome.

In one of your previous debates, you said that:
>"John Locke (the person who holds the ideals by which all modernized governments are based) even brings forth the theory of administratove justice. Essentially what the theory of administrating justice is, is that a legitimate government has the responsibility to uphold the law. However, a government that doesn't fulfill its responsibility is not a legitimate government, and citizens aren't obligated to recognize its legitimacy. The citizens can therefore uprise and overthrow their government."

Meaning that if a country didn't uphold a law, it would be okay to overthrow it. But let's look at an example of an oppressive government that did uphold the law very well, and is very successful today: Singapore.
In Singapore, it is illegal for more than five people to gather in protest except for designated areas, without a police permit. (the government gets the final say in whether or not you can protest)
http://news.sg.msn.com...
The punishment for petty crimes such as thievery is caning, which is very painful.
http://www.corpun.com...
The punishment for possession of drugs, among other crimes, is death.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yet, Singapore has the lowest homicide rate in the world, at only 0.95 per 100,000.
That is about 1 person per 1,000,000, or statistically, about THREE AND A HALF MURDERS PER YEAR.
And although Singapore's laws may be oppressive and harsh, they do a good job of keeping crime down.
Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com...

WE need laws to protect our citizens, and stricter laws keep crime rates down. Why?
As Philosopher Thomas Hobbes said best, "Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Obviously, there is a reason why we have laws, because they work to prevent crime.

My opponent says that in an anarchy, everyone will get along, but then why would we need laws? There are always people there who will take advantage of a lack of government to commit crimes. Otherwise, why would thieves, murderers, rapists, etc., exist?
According to Thomas Hobbes, men are inherently evil, that government exists to create cooperation and peace.
That is Hobbes's social contract.
Humanity does not work together because they are good, it is because they know that every other man is bad.

Even John Locke advocated for government. Why? Because he knew that without a controlling power, people would still go out of control. Again, that is why there are theives, robbers, murderers, etc.
Why not everyone is a criminal, some are, and that is why government needs to be there to moderate the law.

In an oppressive, government, we have a law system , with lawyers and judges and law people.
In an anarchy, we have vigilante police forces, that may only exist to seek revenge. Remember how when the French Revolution was overthrown, the peasants killed thousands for no reason?

> that before the oppressive government came into order, there was a weak one in place. MEANING THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THERE THAT THE PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO LET THIS OPPRESSIVE ONE COME TO POWER. On my stance, there is NO government AT ALL! This is untopical for to reasons."
However, this government that people didn't like was not an oppressive one.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
op�pres�sive (-prsv)
adj.
1. Difficult to bear; burdensome: oppressive laws.
2. Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly; tyrannical.
3. Weighing heavily on the senses or spirit: oppressive weather. See Synonyms at burdensome.

Just because people don't like a government, doesn't make it oppressive. For example, if somebody lived in a democracy, and they hated it because they didn't agree with it's laws, that doesn't make the government oppressive.
Besides, oppressiveness is not always bad. Sometimes, it IS a good thing, as I have shown.

>Because you STILL have not yet proven to me that the society of the non-governmental people will be weak and in need of reform.
In a society of non-government, people are not unified. If what you say is true, then why do people band together in anarchy? Because humans need a ruling group to keep control!
When citizens form their own groups in anarchy, that is government, and people need government!

Sorry if this sounds PFish, my teacher gave us an LD topic to debate PF style.
:X

Regardless, this has been a good round, and my first. I do believe it has been of great help to me. I eagerly await your response.
snelld7

Con

>>>Okay, first off, an oppressive government does not equal a corrupt government. (see definition below) While it can be possible in an oppressive government, it can be just as possible for a corrupt leader to gain power in an anarchist state. How? Logically, in times of strife, humans will looks towards a leader who can promise security and safety. If a leader can convince people that he or she can bring peace and stability to an anarchist state, people will want them in power.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let's Define some terms:

Corrupt- To make corrupt; to change from good to bad; to draw away from the right path; to deprave; to pervert; In a depraved state; debased; perverted; morally degenerate; weak in morals; With lots of errors in it; not genuine or correct; in an invalid state; In a putrid state; spoiled; tainted ...

Oppression- the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority

This provided, you see that if you are oppressive (holding someone/something unjustly back from their potential) then you are corrupting that person (To draw away from the right path) and you, yourself, is corrupt (not genuine or correct).

They flow hand in hand. If you get one, you inadvertently get the other.
============================================================================

>>>But you have yet to shown WHY people are better off without oppression.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do I need to? Is it not evident that people are better off without oppression. The simple fact that this debate is occuring isn't proof enough (as in, we wouldn't debate something like a just/perfect government is better than no government, simply because it's obvious which is the right answer;whereas in YOUR resolution they are similar, which sparks the debate)

Oppression is wrong because it is purposely unjustly hindering someone from achieving their true potential, for anothers gain. Help you out any?
============================================================================

>>> But let's look at an example of an oppressive government that did uphold the law very well, and is very successful today: Singapore.
In Singapore, it is illegal for more than five people to gather in protest except for designated areas, without a police permit. (the government gets the final say in whether or not you can protest)

-The punishment for petty crimes such as thievery is caning, which is very painful.
-The punishment for possession of drugs, among other crimes, is death.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, because killing someone for doing or selling drugs is very just and should be upheld around the world (please tell me you catch the sarcasm in this)

Not only is your point invalid because I said earlier that if they're oppressive they should be overthrown (meaning they might or might not do it, but since the option of wanting to is there, it's basically saying the two are either equal or the non-governmental system would be better aka THY DON'T HAVE TO, BUT THEY CAN), but your point is also being upheld with things taht are clearly unjut. You honestly think people who sell drugs because they don't have money and would like to be able to provide for themselves, and people who do drugs to either get themselves away from their problems or to do it to look cool or feel good; ACTUALLY deserve death?
============================================================================

>>>>My opponent says that in an anarchy...

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOWHERE, do I state anarchy. The definition of anarchy is as follows: a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)

Time and time again, you state "ANARCHY." This is not my stance. In an anarchy, there is mas state of confusion and chaos as a result of a failed government. In the state i'm describing THERE NEVER WAS A GOVERNMENT TO FAIL. I'm speaking of a society where they use bartering instead of cash, they use vigilantism to stop criminals, and they band together to stop invaders (never do they assume the offensive). No government is needed for this. People run the government, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This said, people can run things without a government.

You can say "i'm speaking of a fairy tale world"all you want to. But, keep in mind it was you who invented the "NON-GOVERNMENTAL" society when you gave birth to the resolution. There is a MAJOR difference between the anarchic society you speak of, and the non-governmental society I speak of. Why do you assume they can't produce a positive outcome? I noticed you state people come together because they realized it is better to have a government. Yes, this is true, however, we're not speaking of a normal government. We're speaking of an oppressive government. They didn't assemble together to be oppressed. Oppression is counterproductive to the reason that they'd want to assemble (to thrive in full potential). So you stating this is null and void, and holds no weight in today's debate.
============================================================================

>>>>>In a society of non-government, people are not unified. If what you say is true, then why do people band together in anarchy? Because humans need a ruling group to keep control!
When citizens form their own groups in anarchy, that is government, and people need government!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
False, they are unified. They just aren't under a government with specific policies, congressional hearings, mayors, presidents, representatives, etc which you are use to having with unity. And then, once again, anarchy isn't the case here.

So for the following reasons, I respectfully ask for a vote in my favor:

1) Oppression (purposely unjustly hindering someone from achieving their true potential, for anothers gain) is counterproductive to the reason we have a government (To thrive to our fullest potential and make sure everything goes smoothly) thus, resulting in the abolishion of the oppressive government.

2) If the oppressive government should be abolished, than it is equal to or less than having no governmnet (thus making them the same and not what the resolution states)

Thanks, and no problem.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
Me2 lol
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I agree with CON.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
Zapurdeadsnelld7Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by Zapurdead 7 years ago
Zapurdead
Zapurdeadsnelld7Tied
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 snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
Zapurdeadsnelld7Tied
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