In a paragraph, compare and contrast the arguments made by the federalists and the anti-federalists at the constitutional convention about the benefits and problems of a strong central government.

Here are the basic arguments mentioned by both sides:

- The federalist

> They believe that having a strong central governments make it easier for the government to enforce the laws and regulations to the citizens. (Since they intended to establish that the central government's intention will have higher authority compared to the citizen's intention)

> It will make the Bill making process become faster and more efficient (since they don't have to argue about it with the states representative over and over again)

>  It will make it easier for the government to control the economic condition (since they will have full power in determining the taxation of the people without having to argue with the states)

- The anti-federalist

> Strong central government will create a huge risk of oppression of the people. They fear that if they let the government become too strong, united states will transform into tyrannical government where the leader have uncontrolled authority, like the English government at that time.

> They argue that implementation of the laws will be easier if they give local and states government their own autonomy, since they can understand what their people need better than the central government.

i'll just take the points xd