Oppressive Government Research Paper

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
This government will provide health care, education, luxuries, and most importantly, security, to all those that meet the requirements. For example, Hitler’s infamous Third Reich was an incredibly oppressive government, and yet it still maintained a healthy social welfare; it still functioned effectively until humanity and justice saw it through. There were those that had access to luxuries such as expensive wines; they had jobs during a massive economic recession. Statistics taken from National Center for Education Statistics showed a significant 32% decrease in illiteracy rates from 1930 to 1940 while only a 12% decrease from 1969 to 1979 during the Protest Movement and revolution. Now, I am not trying to advocate Nazi supremacy, but rather, pointing out some advantages arising from any form of government. Under an oppressive government, there will always be the oppressed and oppressors – otherwise, it would not be called an oppressive government. Some people receiving benefits versus everyone constantly struggling, constantly fighting – which is what will happen if there is no government – is indeed a better comparison. This perfectly coordinates with my value, as social welfare and system benefits are needed to maintain
Now, Hobbes had another theory about human nature, and that was developed on the basis of human rationality. Persay, during the state of nature, the state of war, people will fight and die. However, do to self-preservation and rationality these people will eventually come together and form social contracts. They give consent to be ruled, forming a government, establishing organization. Naturally, people seek organization in their entropic world, meaning a government is logically sound. Now, with this leading figure in power, tough decisions can be made easily and efficiently. Take the election of 1812 between Democratic-Republican James Madison and Federalist DeWitt Clinton, for example. Statistics taken from United States History’s website show that 50.4% of popular vote went for Madison and 49.6% for Clinton. Virtually half and half, and if there were no government or leading figure, people would fall straight back into the state of war and kill each other for conflicting opinions. How this actually ties into the aff’ side remains on my first contention’s point: oppressive more similar to gov’ than no gov’. The only difference if this were an oppressive government would be that Big Brother presses Madison’s percentage down to 38% and raise Clinton’s. Decisions are still made, people still survive and prosper.