An oppressive government is more desirable than no government at all.
Hello everyone, my name is Christopher Denq and I am the affirmative side of this debate. I would like to firstly provide two basic definitions relevant to this topic, followed by the value and criterion, then my four contentions, and finally, a conclusion.
Firstly, my definitions:
“Oppressive” is defined as unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint on a particular group. “More desirable” is defined as “more appropriate, advantageous, or well advised”. Both were defined by New Oxford American Dictionary.
Secondly, my value and criterion:
Now, the value of life, which is having goals and reasons to live, has been the focus of many societies in the past. I shall reach this by parts of Hobbes Social Contract theory, specifically his idea of man being innately evil and self-interested. I shall also use his hypothetical state of nature, which is the primitive state where animals, or humans, have a natural right to everything and can do anything they will. Additional examples from history shall also be implemented on the affirmative’s side.
Next are my three contentions:
One, oppressive governments are more similar to general governments then no government. More of a basic definition, this contention serves to provide a foundation on which compare the two sides of the debate. Firstly, oppressive governments simply mean an unfair government. A general government could mean a hypothetical perfect government. Both the duties of these governments are to provide security to the citizens, promote social welfare, and make executive decisions, there is no doubt about it. Essentially the only difference between the two is that one does it in a slightly worse way. Let’s bring no government into the picture. The absence of government is a void of such authority, meaning there is no party or group to perform duties. The absence doesn’t protect citizens, it doesn’t give education, or decide to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document