"People and governments are basically bad."
There are some authorities who claim that the above statement (claim) is true.
I can quote from my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli whereby the concept of "all men are bad" was a claim by Niccolo Machiavelli, if needed.
The point here is to answer the OP with his own claim.
If the idea is to discuss something, so as to offer an individual perspective (such as that claim quoted above) for any Challenge by anyone, so as to then have two individual perspectives in competition with each other, so as to avoid false perspectives, or inaccurate perspectives, and so as to improve the accuracy of perspective, then the concept of discussion is the method by which this steady improvement is done. The scientific method in English: in other words.
If the idea is to "debate" whereby any lie works, if it works, to defeat the targeted opponent, so as to subjugate the targeted opponents to the will of the liars, then that is the game being played.
I don't play that game.
If the premise (claim) that all men are bad, as Niccolo Machiavelli and other people of that type claim, then there would be a way to measure that fact in an accurate way.
2 necessary requirements in measuring something, anything, and doing so accurately, is a measuring device and something to measure.
What is considered bad?
How is bad measured?
That is bad enough.
How about a similar (or the same basic) claim in quotes out of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli?
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
That is a lie.
It is an in your face lie to anyone who is basically good.
It is bald faced lying, common among the Dictator types.
They say that "we" are broke, for example, while they claim that the money they collect in taxes has run out, while at the same time they have a second set of books that accurately account for vast amounts of money in their exclusive control.
They say the "we" need to enforce strict gun control while they enforced strict gun control with guns, and lies, and weapons of mass destruction.
They say that every single one of their victims deserve exactly what they pay for, which is, in fact, exactly what they pay for: very well paid liars, dictators, strong men, torturers, pedophiles, psychopaths, sociopaths, robbers, murderers, serial killers, and mass murderers, who do so for fun, and they do so for profit.
What is the base lie?
What is the base point of disagreement?
Who benefits when the victims are led to believe that it is their own fault that they alone have to work to produce more out of less while all their surplus wealth is stolen and then used to steal more?
Even if those honest productive, good, people make pointed sticks, or voluntary governments, or accurate money, or guns to keep the thieves at bay, to defend their good selves, to make crime unaffordable for criminals, the criminals then steal the guns made by the honest productive, good, people, and use those guns to make those victims make more guns, more surplus wealth, so that the criminals now have better ways to steal even more.
Victims get the costs.
Criminals get the benefits.
That is how we all know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that all men are bad.
Who benefits when those honest productive people who constitute the power to increase the standard of living and lower the cost of living for everyone are turned from good people into bad people as they are fooled into blaming each other for the actions of very bad people who are paid a whole lot of money for being the worst people ever to pollute the human gene pool?
Who benefits when those honest productive people are fooled into blaming THINGS, like guns, or governments, or drugs, or terrorism, for the actions of really bad, but high paid, criminals?
If that were true, and not a bald faced lie, then the fact of it being true could be measured accurately.