Final answer:
Arguments supporting a monarchy in 1 Samuel include effective defense against threats and stronger state infrastructure, while anti-monarchy arguments involve potential oppression by kings and burdensome demands on the population.
Step-by-step explanation:
Arguments in favor of establishing a monarchy in 1 Samuel 8-12 include the need for centralized leadership to effectively defend against external threats such as the Philistines, and the view that a monarchy could create a unified and stronger state infrastructure, as exemplified by the achievements of kings like David and Solomon in driving back the Philistines and building the first temple in Jerusalem. Pro-monarchy arguments also highlight the establishment of a professional army, a caste of scribes, and a bureaucracy, which were seen as necessary for the survival and prosperity of Israel during a tumultuous period.
Conversely, arguments against a monarchy include the biblical account of God warning the Israelites that a king would lead to oppression, such as in the case of the northern kingdom after the split of Israel and Judah, where kings were often depicted as abusing their subjects. Additionally, there were concerns about the heavy burdens placed on the people, such as the taxes and forced labor demanded by King Solomon, which caused discontent and ultimately contributed to the division of the kingdom after his reign.