school help: i am debating in school for the affirmative side for this resoulution - Help.com

Ok, first off before I go into too much detail, what form of debate are you using. That’ll help determine your arguments…Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, et cetera? Is this just for a class or an actual tournament?

Second, are you better with Pathos, Logos, or Ethos?

well the articals of confederation were a limited government and they went over real well (not!) so you could use that as an argument taht this isnt even a anarchy this is just a limited government and look how bad it was . no government means no national policy no standard trade agreements not treties no financial help no state or national improvement programs lots of stuff wouldnt be possable

Mendoza, my mind is a bit blown if that is the actual resolution “oppressive governtment is better than no government”

Where on earth are you going to school? Maybe you should contact the FBI instead of figuring out this debate because someone is clearly BONKERS.

Ok, here’s what I’d suggest so far from what I’ve briefly looked up.
It was an old LD topic in the National Forensics League (nflonline.org)
this debate is pretty much an Anarchy versus Communism debate. When writing your case, first make sure you have deffinitions! ALWAYS define your topic. I know that’s not the question, but please include deffs. Oppresive is an important one, and so is Government.

This is from NFL http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:…
It gives two ideas for contentions.

my thought on AFF is that, governemnt is set in place to protect the people. (You can use John Locke’s Social Contract to support this idea.)No matter how oppressive the government might be it still has laws and rules that keep people in check, and consequences for breaking such laws. This keeps a person safe and sound. With an anarchy there is no protection. In many areas where anarcht has reigned or is reigning poeple must hire gaurs to make sure their things aren’t stolen, they nor their children are harmed. I’d rather have the ultra-strong protection and oppresion than have to fend for myself on every little thing because there’s no repercusions for law breakers.

Well, that’s an aweful contention, but what ever. Type “Resolved: Oppressive government is better than no government,” into Google.

Oy, thank heavens watermellon is here to save the day.

specifically, I would cite Brown vs the board of education, if you follow watermellon’s rule of DEFINITIONS.

In effect, I suppose, it could be argued that keeping the status quo of Plessy v Ferguson, would, in essence be remaining silent and thus “no government” on the common law practice of allowing racial segregation. In Brown v the Board of education, this “no government” law was overturned for the greater “oppressive government” ruling in which (and here is where I simply paraphrase, so don’t add this) jackhat racists were forced to no longer hide behind the status quo but were forced, by government intervention, to abide by laws of the land long established.

Of course, you should find a nicer way to say it, but I’m all for the government stepping in and taking over and saying “meh, you can have racist THOUGHTS, but here is how we act on our turf, y’all”

Ha. Sorry, I’ve gotten that lecture given to me so many times within just this year that deffinitions are second nature to me, and I hav eto remind everyone else now! :)

This is a tough one… especially because I don’t know what sort of debate your going to have. I’m used to canadian parlaimentary style, which is generally very fun, and off the cuff debating (the opposition doesn’t know the case in advance and statistics are not allowed). I keep on thinking of Iraq as I think about this case. It was a brutal dictatorship, the worst of the worst, but there was order. I’ve heard that a lot of Iraqi’s think that their situation has gotten worse because after the government was taken out everyone was afraid for their lives.

Anyway, I think for this debate you have to look out for the worst example of a brutal government being used. Bad government needs to be defined, because if not the opposition will characterize oppressive government as the Nazi Parti, who did far worse than just oppresse people. I would advise you to use a specific oppressive government as a reference, preferably one that is not fascist, and not characterized by a rule of terror, not responsible for too many deaths. I would say communism is your best bet, go with Cuba, or China as it is now. Actually, go with Singapore. Singapore is a country as far as I know that doesn’t allow much freedom of speach, does not allow democracy, but is fairly technologically advanced and the people enjoy stability.

Characterizing no government is a bit more difficult. There are no permanent real life examples, that is periods of no government are very short. Part of your argument could be that government is part of human nature.

btw, I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure Singapore is not communist.