The Instigator
brett.winstead
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 40919
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

brett.winstead

Pro

If you get money from local, state or the federal government in any form, whether it be a welfare check, Social Security, an earned income tax credit, a paycheck, whatever, your money comes from behind the point of a gun. There are few exceptions like arguably the government offices that sell you services to pay for what you do like driver's license employees. Another exception would be someone who has paid $1000 in taxes and loses their job and collects $1000 or less in unemployment. The minute they take a dollar more than what they paid in, they are accepting money that came from behind the point of a gun. Same with Social Security. If you pay in $25K over many years and accept $1 more than that, you know the rest.

This debate is not about your need or someone else's need for the money. It is not about how valuable teachers are or how much charity the government gives out in welfare and food stamps. It is about how the money is collected. When anyone receives a check from the government, it came from behind the point of a gun. You have to decide if you can live with that in light of the facts.

Do NOT accept this debate unless you plan to go the full 5 rounds. I am tired of debating with people who quit.
wrichcirw

Con

Introduction



I applaud PRO for initiating most of the debates in which he participates, as it is more difficult to substantiate a position than to argue contra one. I will thus first point out that my opponent has burden of proof for this debate.

Furthermore, PRO makes it clear in the comments section that he is referring to "real guns", which is an extremely specific claim. I will give PRO the option of rescinding this line of argumentation...otherwise I will hold PRO to this level of specificity for this debate.

Regardless, I understand the probable intent of this debate is that PRO seeks to advocate the archetypal libertarian moral position of "government = coercion" and that "coercion is wrong/immoral". I do expect my opponent to discuss the morality of his position in length. If he does not, then I will hold that the resolution is a meaningless statement centered upon the literal use of a gun when receiving a check in the mail from the government. This is prima facie false, as there is no one in my mailbox holding a gun when I open it, and I would move to win the debate if taken at such a literal level.



Initial Impressions



Given that PRO argues a moral position centered around government coercion, I will now point out a couple glaring contradictions in PRO's opening before this debate continues.


II1) PRO states that "If you get money from local, state or the federal government in any form, whether it be a welfare check, Social Security, an earned income tax credit, a paycheck, whatever, your money comes from behind the point of a gun," yet also states that there are certain exceptions, that "someone who has paid $1000 in taxes and loses their job and collects $1000 or less in unemployment" would not be receiving this money via such coercive means.

The problem with this line of argumentation is that unemployment benefits are very, very similar in nature to Social Security in that both are programs in which a citizen pays into a mandatory insurance system with expectations of just "claims", either through unemployment or through reaching age of retirement respectively.
Therefore, either both Social Security and unemployment benefits are both acts of coercion, or neither are. One is not the exception of the other.

PRO's inability to properly delineate these two programs makes me wonder exactly how clear this resolution may be. If the resolution is unclear, I will ask that arguments be automatically be awarded CON due to a faulty resolution.


II2) PRO states that this debate is "about how the money is collected." This ignores the fact that money itself is a tool of the government...therefore anyone who uses money in any fashion is either a participant in coercive activities, or no one is such a participant. The distinction between people who accept government handouts from people who do not is thus a false distinction. Again, one is not the exception to the other.


II3) PRO then states that "When anyone receives a check from the government, it came from behind the point of a gun." Given my above argument in [II2], one could make the argument that anyone who uses money at all is under government coercion. I would then ask if what PRO is attempting to advocate is to abolish money altogether, as it is an integral part of our governing apparatus? If so, I will simply state that PRO's position is absolutely absurd.

Another possible line of argumentation from [II2] is that no one who uses money is under coercion, that money is some sort of mutually agreed upon system that happens to be part of our governing apparatus. Personally I find this claim somewhat hard to believe given the nature of government, but it is much more believable and reasonable than to think that money received from an employer is somehow distinct from money received from the government, given that money itself is part of the government. Again, one is not the exception to the other.



Initial Conclusion



I will thus conclude that PRO's libertarian position is faulty. PRO rails against government handouts, not even recognizing that the method through which this handout is delivered is itself part of the governing apparatus. Even if this money was "legitimately earned" through non-governmental employment, the fact that wages are paid through government sanctioned money means that even "legitimately earned" wages are subject to the same kind of coercion as "illegitimate" government handouts.

The libertarian bent against government becomes absurd at a certain point, and I will contend that PRO's resolution crosses this line. Government is pervasive. The dollar IS a part of government. Therefore, pay in any form involving dollars, either from your employer, from Uncle Sam, or from your cousin's sister's nephew's lemonade stand, involves government action and thus coercion under a libertarian view of morality. This view of morality is absolutely absurd.

Relevant to this debate, if this libertarian moral position proves to be at its core untenable, I move to win this debate, as the distinction PRO is attempting to make between some sort of immoral basis of government action is itself untenable.
Debate Round No. 1
brett.winstead

Pro

Well, it is not every day that someone accepts a debate and declares himself the winner in the first round and this done without even hearing his opponent's debate at all - only the premise! Pretty amazing.

Having said that, yes, it is a literal gun and I don't know how or why you got into the monetary system of government and dollars and such but this has nothing to do with that. It might have made more sense for your time and effort to just accept the debate in the first round.

Let me give you an example of how people who receive money from the government (tax dollars) is getting money from behind the point of a gun. Let's say you are a school teacher in a government school (please don't refer to them as public schools in my presence). You get a paycheck. Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the county government. Where does the county government get it? They get it from property taxes of landowners. How do they get it? They send a notice in the mail once a year and the landowner pays it. What if the landowner does not pay it? They start by sending more notices, each more threatening than before and finally, they send you a notice to evacuate the premises because they inform you that they are seizing the property and it will go up for auction. What if you do not leave the property? Now, pay attention closely because this is the brutal truth. They send the sheriff or other branch of law enforcement to pay you a friendly visit to tell you that it is time to leave. What if you slam the door and tell them that this is your property and you paid for it and you do not owe anyone anything on it? That is when they get out the guns and if you resist, they will use them. Yes, they will shoot you with real guns if you resist enough in order to pay that teacher's salary. Do you see now how a schoolteacher's salary comes ultimately from behind the point of a gun? It is that simple.

All you need to do now is substitute some other method of receiving money from the government and trace the money trail as to how the government got it. They don't "ask" for property taxes, income taxes and a host of other taxes. They tell you in so many polite words through mail-in notices the following unmistakeable message:

"Pay the amount that we demand or we get out the guns." It is just an issue of when you will concede, not if or how.

I know people don't like this. Boy, my Dad did not like it when I told him that his Social Security came to him that way. He said "I paid into the system all my life and I am just getting back what's mine!" Wrong, Dad. You paid X amount and you are getting back MUCH more than the X you paid in which he admitted to. The minute you receive back one penny more than what you paid in, you are gettting money from behind the point of someone else's gun.

Do NOT argue with me on the morality of taxes because that is a much longer debate and has nothing to do with this debate. Not all taxes are immoral and only a fool thinks that all taxes are moral just because some law approves of a certain tax. The morality or lack thereof in a tax is entirely how it is collected. If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral. It is quite funny that the average person who gladly takes that government check that has been taken from someone else would never take their own gun and point it at their neighbor and say "give me" because I want it. They want the strong arm of government to do what they would never conceive of doing.
wrichcirw

Con

Although I thank my opponent for a prompt reply, I cannot thank him for a reasonable argument.


Rebuttal


R1) PRO has stated that this debate is about a "literal gun" and so this debate gets carried into absurdist territory. Why is it a gun and, say, not a tazer? Or a billy club with handcuffs? Or a mean rottweiler? Or a punch in the face? Or a grenade, RPG, tank, or nuke?

This seems to be semantical, but I clearly gave my opponent the chance to make his resolution clearer and more relevant to a topic of significance. PRO has sacrificed this chance to make a rather absurd assertion.

Regardless of whether or not you buy this particular rebuttal, I will continue addressing PRO's arguments.


R2) PRO then goes into an example with a schoolteacher. Let me give you an example of an IBM employee (madlibs):

Let's say you are a computer technician at IBM. You get a paycheck. Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the Fed, every dollar is printed at the Federal Reserve. What happens if you burn this money? That is when they get out the guns and if you resist, they will use them. Yes, they will shoot you with real guns if you resist enough in order to burn that dollar bill. Do you see now how ridiculously absurd this scenario is?

All my opponent is saying is that if you break the law, the government will come get you (burning money is illegal - http://www.nbcnews.com...). If you don't break the law, then no meanies with guns will come to shoot you. If you lawfully receive government money, and if you lawfully pay your taxes, no guns, nukes, RPGs or tanks will get involved to scare you, because you're simply a nice guy who pays his taxes. Good for you.

Therefore, as long as you and others are not breaking the law, "Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun." The resolution is negated.


R3) PRO: "They don't "ask" for property taxes, income taxes and a host of other taxes. They tell you in so many polite words through mail-in notices the following unmistakable message: "Pay the amount that we demand or we get out the guns.""

This is again absurd. If you break the law, yes, you will become subject to enforcement. However, you didn't need to buy property to pay property taxes. There are also many ways to earn tax-exempt income (municipal bonds http://www.investopedia.com...), and to buy things without paying sales tax (i.e. you can buy something out of state and have it shipped to you). No one forced you to get into a situation where you would have to pay taxes, if you are so paranoid about "bad men with guns" coming after you.


R4) PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."

a) Refer to R1 - it may not necessarily be a gun, and this alone would negate the resolution.

b) What if I pointed a gun at someone threatening my family? How is this immoral? Basically, there is such a thing as justifiable violence.


R5) PRO: "It is quite funny that the average person who gladly takes that government check that has been taken from someone else would never take their own gun and point it at their neighbor and say "give me" because I want it."

There are plenty of things the average person takes for granted that the government provides. As I've stated earlier, one of these things is a unified currency to ease transactions, i.e. the dollar. The dollar is part of our governing apparatus; most people would agree that we are better off having a unified currency than a barter society. Also, having the government print this currency would allow for the government to take out counterfeiters, something I do not expect my neighbor to know how to do.


Conclusion


PRO is presenting the archetypal libertarian position that "government = coercion" and "coercion is bad". I will repeat again:

"The libertarian bent against government becomes absurd at a certain point, and I will contend that PRO's resolution crosses this line. Government is pervasive. The dollar IS a part of government. Therefore, pay in any form involving dollars, either from your employer, from Uncle Sam, or from your cousin's sister's nephew's lemonade stand, involves government action and thus coercion under a libertarian view of morality. This view of morality is absolutely absurd."

Relevant to this debate, PRO's libertarian moral position is at its core untenable. It's not that "coercion is bad", it's that "breaking the law is bad", and PRO seems to have zero respect for the law, and thus finds there are many problems in his life. If you and others don't break the law, then "Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun."

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
brett.winstead

Pro

R1) Why is it a gun and, say, not a tazer? Or a billy club with handcuffs? Or a mean rottweiler? Or a punch in the face? Or a grenade, RPG, tank, or nuke?

(shaking my head in utter amazement)

PRO then goes into an example with a schoolteacher. Let me give you an example of an IBM employee;

Let's say you are a computer technician at IBM. You get a paycheck. Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the Fed, every dollar is printed at the Federal Reserve. What happens if you burn this money? That is when they get out the guns and if you resist, they will use them. Yes, they will shoot you with real guns if you resist enough in order to burn that dollar bill.


The money does not come from the Fed. The government merely prints that green paper with dead presidents that the Fed authorizes. The green money is simply a median of exchange. Originally, governments did not even do that. People first bartered until banks were formed where they could drop off smaller, more valuable means of exchange like gold or silver making exchange easier than hauling 2500 apples for a cow . The fact that the government and Fed has now put themselves in charge of printing fake money has nothing to do with this debate and each time you mention it, you are getting further off track. Money comes from the backs of working people who earn it. Our federal reserve notes are only worth what people perceive them to be worth. Your thoughts that all money comes from the government is true only in a literal sense as to who prints the paper. The perceived value of the paper comes from labor and the trade of goods and the government's ability to tax.

Therefore, as long as you and others are not breaking the law, "Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun." The resolution is negated.

Well, sure, if a person does not break the law, the government does not usually get out the guns but I said usually. People who have not broken any laws have had guns pointed at them by your feds. Teachers do not break the law by taking a job in a government school by teaching. Their paycheck comes from behind the point of a gun. Is it breaking the law? That is a non issue in this debate. I said this was not about the morality of certain kinds of tax collection. Your denial about whether or not a government check comes from behind the point of a gun or not is not going to change the fact. Why do you think people pay property taxes....sometimes in outrageous unfair amounts? They know the guns will come out if they don't. How can you sit there and deny that that is true? Try it sometime. Stop paying, ignore the letters and hold your ground. See what happens. If the guns don't come out, I will concede that I am wrong and you win. Here is a simpler way: Call your local property tax office and ask them how it works if you don't pay your property taxes and you refuse to leave. Ask them the ultimate result and get back to me, okay?

R3) PRO: "They don't "ask" for property taxes, income taxes and a host of other taxes. They tell you in so many polite words through mail-in notices the following unmistakable message: "Pay the amount that we demand or we get out the guns.""

This is again absurd. If you break the law, yes, you will become subject to enforcement. However, you didn't need to buy property to pay property taxes.

?? What if I want to exercise my right to buy property? That makes no sense. Are you suggesting we all commit suicide so we don't have to pay certain taxes?

There are also many ways to earn tax-exempt income (municipal bonds http://www.investopedia.com......), and to buy things without paying sales tax (i.e. you can buy something out of state and have it shipped to you). No one forced you to get into a situation where you would have to pay taxes, if you are so paranoid about "bad men with guns" coming after you.

Again, you are completely off track when it comes to this debate and again, it is not about the morality of taxation. It is not about how to avoid paying certain taxes. Read the title line once again.

"If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."

Refer to R1 - it may not necessarily be a gun, and this alone would negate the resolution.

I would hope that any thinking person who votes on this debate can see the extreme absurdity of this statement.

What if I pointed a gun at someone threatening my family? How is this immoral? Basically, there is such a thing as justifiable violence.

What does this debate have to do with anyone threatening your family????????????

The dollar is part of our governing apparatus; most people would agree that we are better off having a unified currency than a barter society.

Again, the median of exchange has nothing to do with this debate.

Also, having the government print this currency would allow for the government to take out counterfeiters, something I do not expect my neighbor to know how to do.

Rotfl! I cannot believe you contrasted a counterfeiter with the government's printing of money! They are one and the same. Did you not know that our money is not backed by anything other than perception? You need to see:

http://www.rense.com...

What the Fed has been doing with money printing is counterfeit. Only they can do it and we cannot. That is the the deception and not at all the subject of this debate. Try to stay on track.

PRO is presenting the archetypal libertarian position that "government = coercion" and "coercion is bad".

Let me guess: You took one look at my profile, saw the word "libertarian" and jumped to 43 conclusions about me and my views? How am I doing so far? At least I have a profile instead of hiding behind complete anonymity, including my age. You seem to imply that government is not coercion. Let me quote George Washington for you: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." But I suppose you think government is this peaceful entity that exists to serve us while we ride our unicorns over the rainbow in search of the fountain of youth. Whatever.

"The libertarian bent against government becomes absurd at a certain point,

Libertarians are not against government and as I think I have mentioned, this is off topic.

Government is pervasive. The dollar IS a part of government. Therefore, pay in any form involving dollars, either from your employer, from Uncle Sam, or from your cousin's sister's nephew's lemonade stand, involves government action and thus coercion under a libertarian view of morality. This view of morality is absolutely absurd."

None of this paragraph makes any sense because none of it is on topic. I am guessing that you receive some check from the government and you are willing to jump through any hoops to justify the morality of how it was derived as long as it was "legal". Did you not know that everything government does is "legal?" Does that make it moral?

Relevant to this debate, PRO's libertarian moral position is at its core untenable. It's not that "coercion is bad", it's that "breaking the law is bad",

Are you suggesting that we should obey all laws because all laws are moral? If they pass laws against exercise, would you say to me "Well, just don't exercise and you won't be breaking the law. Problem solved."

and PRO seems to have zero respect for the law

Wow, what a conclusion you have jumped to once again! What law did I mention that I have zero respect for? You should lose this debate and be metaphorically arrested just for mentioning that! You seem to have zero respect for facts. Where did I say ONE WORD about having no respect for the law?

, and thus finds there are many problems in his life.

Again, conclusion jumping and you know nothing about my life. Are you one of those rare people who thinks that every law that the government passes is a good, moral law and they we can avoid problems if we just obey the laws? I guess you are and if you were alive during the Revolution, you would have been a Loyalist and had nothing to do with fighting the British. You are what is wrong with this country. You are why we have so few freedoms and you are the reason this country is going down the toilet of Socialism. I hope in the next round, you can actually stay on topic.
wrichcirw

Con

Rebuttal


R1) CON: "PRO has stated that this debate is about a "literal gun" and so this debate gets carried into absurdist territory."

PRO: "(shaking my head in utter amazement)"

My opponent clearly drops this point. This point alone, as ridiculous as it is, is enough to negate the resolution. Even if PRO convinces the audience that the government is full of bad guys that want to give you a hard time, there is no reason to think they will only do it with a gun, as this ridiculous resolution clearly states. There are no government baddies with guns pointing at you if you go to H&R Block and file your taxes. There are only government baddies when you break the law...and they may not even use a gun.

Again, I gave my opponent a clear chance to properly define the resolution, and my opponent has clearly failed to do so. Therefore, all we are left is this absurdly specific resolution, the burden of which is impossible for PRO to prove. PRO must prove that every time someone pays taxes, there is literally a government agent with "a literal gun" standing there to ensure you pay your taxes. This is prima facie absurd, and thus the resolution is negated.

Anyway, I will continue to address the rest of my opponent's arguments in case the audience actually is interested in a substantive debate. Regardless, I ask the audience to note that this resolution is extremely poorly crafted, and that PRO has decided to forward a prima facie absurd resolution. The responsibility for this absurdity falls on PRO's lap, not CON's. Therefore, subsequent debate will be about topics wholly irrelevant to the resolution.


---

---

---


R2) PRO: "The money does not come from the Fed. The government merely prints that green paper with dead presidents that the Fed authorizes. The green money is simply a median of exchange. "

Money IS a medium of exchange. That's all money is:

"something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

...therefore money DOES come from the Fed.

PRO then discusses barter, implying that a barter system is preferable to what we have today. This is PRO's burden to prove, as he is advocating against the status quo. As it stands, I will repeat what I said in the prior round: "The dollar is part of our governing apparatus; most people would agree that we are better off having a unified currency than a barter society."



R3) PRO: "What if I want to exercise my right to buy property? That makes no sense. Are you suggesting we all commit suicide so we don't have to pay certain taxes?"

a) CON is not the one with the tax problem. CON has no qualms about paying taxes. CON does not break the law, so CON will buy property, and pay property taxes. CON will not get a visit from government baddies with guns, bazookas, and rottweilers, and CON will own property.

PRO on the other hand seems to like to delve into illegal activity, and does not seem to want to pay taxes whenever taxes are due. That's PRO's problem. One way to solve it is to not buy property in order to avoid paying property taxes.

Taxes are defined by law. Play by the rules, and no one will get hurt. No one with guns or rottweilers will come sniff you out.


b) "Rights" are also defined by law. The "right to buy property" is a right encoded by law, specifically property law (http://en.wikipedia.org...). You do not have rights to buy property that do not conform to the law. For example, you cannot buy a chunk of Mars, because there are no laws that stipulate how Martian property is going to be managed, how title will be held, etc...

I know the point sound ridiculous...it is because at a certain point, the myopic focus by libertarians on some sort of magical set of "rights" everyone MUST have independent from government becomes absurd. Without law, there are no rights.


c) PRO: "it is not about the morality of taxation. It is not about how to avoid paying certain taxes."

PRO completely ignores evidence that he can find ways to not pay taxes legally, thereby completely avoiding the big government baddie looking to scare him with their guns and tasers and dogs with big teeth.


R4) PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."

CON: "What if I pointed a gun at someone threatening my family? How is this immoral? Basically, there is such a thing as justifiable violence."

PRO: "What does this debate have to do with anyone threatening your family????????????"

PRO does not seem to be able to follow his own line of argumentation. Clearly in the example above, I state that if you point a gun at someone, it is not necessarily immoral. This refutes PRO's ridiculously inaccurate moral standard.



R5) a) PRO makes the absurd claim that "What the Fed has been doing with money printing is counterfeit." This is ridiculous. What the Fed has been doing is printing LEGAL TENDER.

If we used gold as money, it would only have validity as LEGAL TENDER. Why? Because gold would then be part of contract law, and only LEGAL TENDER can be valid in contracts. All of this requires government sanctioning, else any Tom, Dick, or Jane would just pick up a shotgun and find their own way to enforce a contract. Gold by itself, without government sanction, is NOT money. You cannot walk into a grocery store and buy some broccoli with your gold nuggets.

PRO's charge of counterfeit is thus absolutely absurd.

b) PRO also claims that "the median of exchange has nothing to do with this debate", even though this debate is centered around GOVERNMENT MONEY. Again, absurd. The resolution is absurd, PRO's point is absurd, and PRO's arguments in general are all absurd.


R6) PRO: "Let me guess: You took one look at my profile, saw the word "libertarian" and jumped to 43 conclusions about me and my views? How am I doing so far? At least I have a profile instead of hiding behind complete anonymity, including my age."

This is ad hominem and poor conduct. I made no assumptions stemming from PRO's profile, I reached conclusions stemming from this particular debate.


R7) PRO: "Let me quote George Washington for you: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." But I suppose you think government is this peaceful entity that exists to serve us while we ride our unicorns over the rainbow in search of the fountain of youth. Whatever."

None of this has anything to do with this myopically and ridiculously specific resolution.


R8) PRO: "Did you not know that everything government does is "legal?""

Then you'd better ensure that what your government encodes into law is in your best interests, instead of making useless appeals to fallacious moral standards.


R9) PRO: "If they pass laws against exercise, would you say to me "Well, just don't exercise and you won't be breaking the law. Problem solved.""

PRO fails to consider that WE live in a democracy. WE pass laws by electing representatives who serve our interests. The government is part of US.


R10) PRO: "What law did I mention that I have zero respect for?"

Tax law. Laws surrounding Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, the military, courts, police force, firefighters, etc...anything and everything that is paid by "GOVERNMENT MONEY", per this ridiculous resolution.

PRO has zero respect for any and all of these institutions. PRO's line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous and does not conform to reality.


R11) CON: "thus [PRO] finds there are many problems in his life."

PRO: "Again, conclusion jumping and you know nothing about my life."

I know that PRO has a lot of problems stemming from non-compliance with the tax system, and the tax system is part of just about everyone's life.



Conclusion


PRO's gripes and complaints are absolutely absurd. By claiming "Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun", he is claiming that the government should be shut down out of some inane moral bias.

There are several benefits that a government provides that make having a government desirable. As long as you do not break the law, you will not be exposed to any of the big bad meanies that PRO seems so absolutely terrified of.

Therefore, the resolution is absolutely and totally ridiculous and has no basis in reality. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen, Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun.
Debate Round No. 3
brett.winstead

Pro

There are no government baddies with guns pointing at you if you go to H&R Block and file your taxes.

Makes no sense. Why would they and when did I imply that they would?

Therefore, all we are left is this absurdly specific resolution, the burden of which is impossible for PRO to prove.

I told you how to prove it. Call your local tax office and ask them what happens if you do not pay your property taxes.

PRO must prove that every time someone pays taxes, there is literally a government agent with "a literal gun" standing there to ensure you pay your taxes.

No sir, you are highly mistaken. They are there with the guns when you do NOT pay the taxes. Do you understand the difference? I am not sure you do.

R2) PRO: "The money does not come from the Fed. The government merely prints that green paper with dead presidents that the Fed authorizes. The green money is simply a median of exchange. "

Money IS a medium of exchange. That's all money is:


That is what I said.

...therefore money DOES come from the Fed.

And the FED is not the government.

PRO then discusses barter, implying that a barter system is preferable to what we have today.

Sir, I was once in an email conversation with my cousin. He was rambling on about all sorts of things venturing way off topic, much of what I did not recognize as sane conversation. I did not ask him at the time but I did find out later. He literally was on drugs. It was a prescribed drug but a drug nonetheless. He could not say anything that made sense. Now, with all due respect and in light of the fact that I said nothing positive or negative about bartering but only mentioned it to explain something else, are you on some kind of drug right now...either prescribed or illegal? Because if you are, please wait for the effects to wear off before making yet another absurd conclusion in your mind based on nothing that I ever said because even a small child could go back and read the earlier rounds and see that in no way, shape or form did I "imply" that bartering is preferable to what we have today. I hope it is only drugs and not your severe dishonest or worse.

This is PRO's burden to prove, as he is advocating against the status quo. As it stands, I will repeat what I said in the prior round: "The dollar is part of our governing apparatus; most people would agree that we are better off having a unified currency than a barter society."

Please see previous response and note that this debate never was about replacing the dollar with a barter system.

PRO on the other hand seems to like to delve into illegal activity, and does not seem to want to pay taxes whenever taxes are due.

As I continue to read, I am more and more convinced that sobriety is not something you have committed to because a small child will see in this debate that all you have done is make responses to things that I never said. There is something wrong at your end.

PRO completely ignores evidence that he can find ways to not pay taxes legally, thereby completely avoiding the big government baddie looking to scare him with their guns and tasers and dogs with big teeth.

I cannot decide now if you sound like someone under some kind of legal or illegal influence or someone who is just an idiot. Where did I say anything about not paying taxes? Where? Where? Where?

R4) PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."

CON: "What if I pointed a gun at someone threatening my family? How is this immoral? Basically, there is such a thing as justifiable violence."


Really? You actually have to ask? Let me help you. Pointing a gun at someone demanding money = immoral. Pointing a gun at someone to tell them to stop threatening your family = moral. If you have any more questions that are easier than that and I cannot imagine that you would because there aren't any that are easier, feel free to ask.

R5) a) PRO makes the absurd claim that "What the Fed has been doing with money printing is counterfeit." This is ridiculous. What the Fed has been doing is printing LEGAL TENDER.

Now, I understand your point of view. If the government or FED does it, it is legal and if we do it, it is not. Thanks for pointing that out. I was not sure how that worked.

Gold by itself, without government sanction, is NOT money. You cannot walk into a grocery store and buy some broccoli with your gold nuggets.

You are dead wrong, sir. I can trade cow manure for broccoli if the broccoli grower is willing to make the trade.

PRO's charge of counterfeit is thus absolutely absurd.

Well, if you don't know the truth about our money, please spend some time Googling. The word "counterfeit" actually means: "made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud." The green bill we use are not counterfeit in that strictest definition but what other word should we use? The paper does not represent anything real like gold or silver. I can see educating yourself in how the FED has screwed us over is not in your interest.

This is ad hominem and poor conduct. I made no assumptions stemming from PRO's profile, I reached conclusions stemming from this particular debate.

No, you did not. Just admit it. Poor conduct? You have lied repeatedly about what I said when I said nothing of the sort. Anyone reading this debate can see that. Using latin phrases does not make you sound more intelligent. It just sounds like you are trying to sound more intelligent.

R9) PRO: "If they pass laws against exercise, would you say to me "Well, just don't exercise and you won't be breaking the law. Problem solved.""

PRO fails to consider that WE live in a democracy. WE pass laws by electing representatives who serve our interests.

It is difficult to believe that you or anyone actually believes that elected reps serve our interests. I just don't know what to say except "wow."

No, we are not a democracy. You have fallen for a lie. http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com...

10) PRO: "What law did I mention that I have zero respect for?"

Tax law. Laws surrounding Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, the military, courts, police force, firefighters, etc...anything and everything that is paid by "GOVERNMENT MONEY", per this ridiculous resolution.

PRO has zero respect for any and all of these institutions. PRO's line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous and does not conform to reality.


You are just lying. By you even mentioning police and firefighters, you are really showing your butt to me suggesting that I want anarchy. I just hate lying debaters. I said from the beginning that this debate was not about the morality of government's power to tax or whether they should be in the business of taking from one person to give to the other. I was simply pointing out how it works. You have to be living in Denialville if you think that they will not get out the guns to collect your Social Security. That is what I am guessing you get.

I know that PRO has a lot of problems stemming from non-compliance with the tax system, and the tax system is part of just about everyone's life.

Really? So you have some evidence that I am "non-compliant with the tax system." Please, for all of our audience, submit your evidence.

By claiming "Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun", he is claiming that the government should be shut down out of some inane moral bias.

Nope, you are lying again. If you were not lying, where did I say any of that? You are lying and you cannot stay on topic. You will not admit your receiving of government monies and will never admit that they came from behind the point of a gun. You cannot see these obvious things because you cannot stop jumping to different conclusions about me and lying.
wrichcirw

Con

Rebuttal


I first want to address an argument from PRO that I overlooked in round #3:


R12) PRO: "Well, sure, if a person does not break the law, the government does not usually get out the guns but I said usually. People who have not broken any laws have had guns pointed at them by your feds. Teachers do not break the law by taking a job in a government school by teaching. Their paycheck comes from behind the point of a gun. Is it breaking the law?"

As long as no one is breaking the law, a teacher's paycheck does NOT come from behind the point of a gun, or a knife, or whatever. PRO is assuming the argument here. The only reason coercion would become an issue is if the law was being broken.


Now, onto the rest of the debate.


R13) PRO: "I told you how to prove it. Call your local tax office and ask them what happens if you do not pay your property taxes."

Anyone who fails to pay taxes they owe is breaking the law. Breaking the law will get the cops on your trail.


R14) CON: "PRO must prove that every time someone pays taxes, there is literally a government agent with "a literal gun" standing there to ensure you pay your taxes."

PRO: "No sir, you are highly mistaken. They are there with the guns when you do NOT pay the taxes. Do you understand the difference? I am not sure you do."

PRO makes a mistake here in interpreting his own resolution. In order for government workers and welfare recipients to get "government money", other people must first pay their taxes...otherwise there's no money for the government to give out (unless they print it, but that's another story).

Therefore, in order for the resolution to be affirmed, PRO must indeed show that government baddies are there with guns when you DO pay your taxes.


R15) PRO: "And the FED is not the government."

lol, that's like saying that the POTUS is not the government, or the FBI is not the government. The FED is part of the government, just like the POTUS, FBI, DHS, etc...

"...the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government.""
http://www.federalreserve.gov...


R16) PRO: "Now, with all due respect and in light of the fact that I said nothing positive or negative about bartering but only mentioned it to explain something else, are you on some kind of drug right now...either prescribed or illegal?"

Entertaining as this is, this is rather insulting and a clear breach of conduct.


R17) PRO: "Where did I say anything about not paying taxes? Where? Where? Where?"

Here:

PRO: "Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the county government. Where does the county government get it? They get it from property taxes of landowners. How do they get it? They send a notice in the mail once a year and the landowner pays it. What if the landowner does not pay it?"


R18) PRO: "Pointing a gun at someone to tell them to stop threatening your family = moral."

PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."

I hope it is self evident that PRO's statements here are contradictory. The contradiction highlights the absurdity of his view on morality; PRO's absurd sense of morality is the ideological foundation behind PRO's resolution.


R19) PRO: "You are dead wrong, sir. I can trade cow manure for broccoli if the broccoli grower is willing to make the trade."

Que?


R20) PRO: "You have lied repeatedly about what I said..."

Ok...this is a serious charge. How does PRO know I'm lying? Admittedly I'm not taking his arguments very seriously because of their absolutely absurdist nature, but in no way did I ever misrepresent PRO's position with intention to deceive. I again ask that conduct be taken into consideration.


R21) PRO: "No, we are not a democracy. You have fallen for a lie."

lol, I will concede this point, that we are a constitutional republic and not a strict democracy. Therefore, I will adjust my argument to compensate:

PRO fails to consider that WE live in a constitutional republic. WE pass laws by electing representatives who serve our interests.

If PRO thinks that elected officials do not serve the electorate, I don't know what else to say to that. Perhaps we should just have PRO serve as dictator for life, in order to make him happy.


R22) PRO: "By you even mentioning police and firefighters, you are really showing your butt to me suggesting that I want anarchy. I just hate lying debaters."

I don't understand PRO's complaint here. Police and firefighters are indeed paid by GOVERNMENT MONEY, so they are quite relevant to this resolution, as relevant as PRO's (erroneous) schoolteacher example.


R23) PRO: "So you have some evidence that I am "non-compliant with the tax system." Please, for all of our audience, submit your evidence."

PRO's entire case rests upon one question - "what if you don't pay your taxes?" This is non-compliance with the tax system.


R24) CON: "By claiming "Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun", he is claiming that the government should be shut down out of some inane moral bias."

PRO: "Nope, you are lying again. If you were not lying, where did I say any of that? You are lying and you cannot stay on topic."

lol, allow me to explain myself. I think PRO/CON both agree that it's not a good thing to be needlessly threatened with a gun, therefore, if the resolution is affirmed, then we shouldn't be paying anyone with government money. Well, if the government isn't hiring or paying anyone, that's pretty much the government shutting down. We're shutting it down because threatening people with guns is bad.

So, basically, if the resolution is affirmed, we are indeed saying that the government should be shut down, and given point #R18 this round, it's rather evident that PRO's moral position is contradictory and convoluted, and thus inane.



Conclusion



This round was easier to rebut than I expected. The basic message still stands:

"The resolution is absolutely and totally ridiculous and has no basis in reality. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen, Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun."

None of the bad things PRO outlines will happen to you if you pay your taxes and follow the law. Those bad things only happen to you if you break the law. "Receiving government money" has nothing to do with PRO's gripes against government.

I also want to remind audiences that this resolution requires that PRO prove that there are government agents with guns (and not taser or rottweilers) present whenever you file your taxes. This is an extraordinary claim, and I will be extremely surprised if PRO can possibly meet burden. I've filed taxes for myself and others for many years and have never encountered this scenario.
Debate Round No. 4
brett.winstead

Pro

R17) PRO: "Where did I say anything about not paying taxes? Where? Where? Where?"

Here:

PRO: "Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the county government. Where does the county government get it? They get it from property taxes of landowners. How do they get it? They send a notice in the mail once a year and the landowner pays it. What if the landowner does not pay it?"


Let me ask you again a little slower...where....did...I...say...anything...about...not....paying...taxes...in...that....paragraph? You said that I said "PRO on the other hand seems to like to delve into illegal activity, and does not seem to want to pay taxes whenever taxes are due." In light of that and in light of the possibility that you are on some kind of medication, you are either on that medication or you are a deceptive liar and hoping to somehow win a debate based on misquoatations of things that I did not even come close to saying. How would you like it if I said "Con seems to advocate wife beating in order to get her to pay taxes. Therefore, if she would just pay, he says he would not have to beat her." Do you think that would set you off just a little? Are you trying to insult the voters of this debate by consistently putting words in my mouth/writings that are not even there?

R18) PRO: "Pointing a gun at someone to tell them to stop threatening your family = moral."

PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."

I hope it is self evident that PRO's statements here are contradictory.

Well, yes, they are contradictory...if you completely misquote me you lying piece of garbage! What I said was: "Pointing a gun at someone demanding money = immoral." You conveniently left out that part about demanding money showing once again that you are trying to sway voters by using the art of deception.

R20) PRO: "You have lied repeatedly about what I said..."

Ok...this is a serious charge. How does PRO know I'm lying? Admittedly I'm not taking his arguments very seriously because of their absolutely absurdist nature, but in no way did I ever misrepresent PRO's position with intention to deceive. I again ask that conduct be taken into consideration.

OH, buddy, we should both lose points on conduct. You are a liar and I have pointed out each lie and have called you a lying piece of garbage. I don't regret that one bit. That is what you are. Win or lose this debate, that is what you are.

PRO's entire case rests upon one question - "what if you don't pay your taxes?" This is non-compliance with the tax system.

No, it is not and we are not even talking about income taxes which is about the only tax you can go out of your way to not pay that comes to mind. The rest of the taxes, you just don't get the services or get property seized. Nowhere in this debate did I advocate not paying taxes. Not one word of one paragraph. I simply pointed out that certain taxes are collected at gunpoint and given to someone else, something that would be illegal for me to do to my neighbor but government can. It is up to the recipient to decide if they want to continue to accept money from behind the point of a gun.

"The resolution is absolutely and totally ridiculous and has no basis in reality. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen, Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun."

Using your logic, anything we get does not come from behind the point of a gun. I can kidnap children and demand ransom and as long as you pay me, I will give you the children back. See, no point of a gun, right? That is your logic. I can even pull my gun out at a convenient store and tell them I will shoot them and see how fast they grab the money and as long as I did not literally point it at them, there was no threat, right? Your logic. The USA can tell some tiny little island country that we want it and they know how much stronger our military is than theirs so therefore, they can submit to us and we can get that island and make it ours without one gun being drawn. All they have to do is obey us. With your logic, government can LITERALLY do anything they want to the citizenry and and as long as we obey their laws and submit to what they want, no one points a gun at us. This is not a misquote of your logic. It is your logic. You think that government demanding money from behind the point of a gun is nonexistent if we obey the laws. What do you think a law is? A law is something that, if broken, force will become involved. What do you think is behind government force? A gun or guns. For some reason, you are having difficulty wrapping your mind around this. Certain taxes are collected morally as in use taxes (roads, parks, etc.) and certain taxes are collected from behind the point of a gun. Deal with it.

I am really glad this debate and your lies are about over.
wrichcirw

Con

Rebuttal


PRO's incessant accusations of deceit are getting irritating. I have addressed his accusations (even though I should not have to)...I ask that conduct be strongly taken into consideration.


R25) PRO: "Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the county government. Where does the county government get it? They get it from property taxes of landowners. How do they get it? They send a notice in the mail once a year and the landowner pays it. What if the landowner does not pay it?"

"Let me ask you again a little slower...where....did...I...say...anything...about...not....paying...taxes...in...that....paragraph?"

"it" = "property taxes"

Sigh...

PRO then goes on about big meanies doing bad things to people. These people broke the law...they are not exactly good people.


R26) PRO: "Pointing a gun at someone to tell them to stop threatening your family = moral."

PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."


PRO: "Well, yes, they are contradictory...if you completely misquote me you lying piece of garbage! What I said was: "Pointing a gun at someone demanding money = immoral." You conveniently left out that part about demanding money showing once again that you are trying to sway voters by using the art of deception."

This is a false charge...PRO made two contradictory statements without admission of clarification. Anyone doing a quick search of the debate will find I quoted my opponent perfectly, indeed I copy/pasted his statements. I was fully justified in making my comparison and did not misquote my opponent.

As it is, "pointing a gun at someone demanding money WHEN THAT PERSON HAS RENEGED ON A CONTRACT AND OWES YOU MONEY = moral"

We can continually play this game, but in the end, the main problem stems from PRO's inability to articulate a convincing moral position at the beginning of this debate. PRO has changed his moral position on more than one occasion, and has made clearly contradictory statements.


R27) PRO: "Nowhere in this debate did I advocate not paying taxes. Not one word of one paragraph."

This is simply false. See #R25 in this round.

Is my opponent lying? Highly doubtful, although it is clear PRO is having quite a bit of trouble articulating a clear and defensible position.


R28) CON: "The resolution is absolutely and totally ridiculous and has no basis in reality. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen, Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun."

PRO: "Using your logic, anything we get does not come from behind the point of a gun."

Again, as long as you're following the law, guns will not get involved.


R29) PRO: "I can kidnap children and demand ransom and as long as you pay me, I will give you the children back. See, no point of a gun, right?"

This is when PRO's resolution becomes absurd. Sometimes, people kidnap children using a gun, sometimes they don't.

Relevant to this resolution, sometimes the cops use guns, sometimes they don't. See point #R1 in rounds 2 and 3 regarding this point...the resolution is negated by PRO's ridiculous insistence upon the specificity of an actual gun.


R30) PRO: "The USA can tell some tiny little island country that we want it and they know how much stronger our military is than theirs so therefore, they can submit to us and we can get that island and make it ours without one gun being drawn. All they have to do is obey us."

This is exactly how we annexed Hawaii. Not sure how this is relevant to the resolution.


R31) PRO: "With your logic, government can LITERALLY do anything they want to the citizenry and and as long as we obey their laws and submit to what they want, no one points a gun at us."

Correct, except that in our country, WE elect the representatives that write our laws. We don't write laws, because we're not trained to write laws...this is why many of our representatives are lawyers by profession. So, the government is quite literally doing anything WE want. To separate the government from the citizenry is rather absurd.

Laws are not necessarily the tools of oppression PRO would have you believe they are. Good things come out of good laws, bad things come out of bad laws. That makes it imperative that we elect the right people to represent our interests and do what is best for us.

Ronald Reagan is an excellent example of a libertarian president who was elected on the belief of "good government", i.e. a smaller government more responsive to people's needs (I know this is debatable, just bear with me, lol). Most people view Reagan positively...it seems we do get it right sometimes.


R32) PRO: " You think that government demanding money from behind the point of a gun is nonexistent if we obey the laws. What do you think a law is? A law is something that, if broken, force will become involved."

If a gun is the only thing that prevents you from breaking the law, I sincerely hope you do not own a car, as without a cop in the backseat with a gun to your head, you'd be driving on the wrong side of the road.


R33) PRO: "What do you think is behind government force? A gun or guns."

Again, PRO's myopic focus on "gun or guns" is ridiculous. Government force utilizes tanks, RPGs, nukes, etc...this myopic focus by PRO is enough to negate this resolution, as PRO continually insists upon a "literal gun."


R34) PRO: "Certain taxes are collected morally as in use taxes (roads, parks, etc.) and certain taxes are collected from behind the point of a gun. "

This is a concession of the resolution by PRO. PRO concedes that there are certain forms of tax that do not involve coercion, and do not involve guns. Regardless of whether or not I agree with PRO's assertion, it clearly follows that Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT NECESSARILY COME from behind the point of a gun.



Conclusion



At first, this debate was a rather light-hearted attempt by me to argue against a libertarian position, but PRO's incessant and unfounded accusations of lying and deceit have made this debate an extremely unpleasant experience. I would like audiences to note I have not reciprocated in lobbying charges of deceit, as they are wholly unfounded for both PRO/CON. I would like to ask for conduct against PRO, as such charges are wholly inappropriate.

Furthermore, PRO insists upon the literal use of a gun when people pay their taxes. I don't know why PRO insists upon such a literal interpretation...several people in the comments of this debate pointed it out before this debate started, and I gave PRO the chance to clarify, to which he insisted upon a "literal gun". So be it, that makes the resolution nearly impossible for PRO to prove. Sometimes the cops use guns, sometimes they don't. This is enough to negate such a ridiculously specific resolution.

I'd also like to mention that PRO got quite caught up in his insults and rebuttals...he didn't even forward a cogent case in his final round. I remind the audience that PRO has burden of proof.


Some more key points dropped by PRO from the debate:

- If the resolution is affirmed, we are indeed saying that the government should be shut down, which is absurd. For example, the dollar is part of our governing apparatus; most people would agree that we are better off having a unified currency than a barter society.

- In order for the resolution to be affirmed, PRO must indeed show that government baddies are there with guns when you DO pay your taxes. PRO has not met this burden of proof.

- If you point a gun at someone, it is not necessarily immoral. This refutes PRO's ridiculously inaccurate moral standard.


- Without law, there are no rights.



In the end, in order for this debate to have any meaningful substance, one needs to put it in the context of legal and illegal acts. If you do things that are legal, no government baddies will come after you. If you do things that are illegal, then the guns and tanks come out.


Therefore, if you typically don't break the law, the resolution is false:


Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT come from behind the point of a gun.

Vote CON. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
This debate was ridiculous. After the first round, I'm surprised that con continued to take it seriously. Pro is either a troll, or has been very brainwashed into his mode of thinking. I am leaning toward brainwashed because of his use of verbal emotional representation when presented with conundrums. It could be a chainsaw, handcuffs, a tank, or a nuke con's argument to this fact would be off topic, except Pro clearly advocates for Guns. But he never fully addresses any threats behind the guns, or never identifies causes or process of getting this money out from in front of the 'gun' and into the pockets of the people. I didn't even find anything in the debate as possibly moving toward a resolution until Con made the analogy of family being threatened which pro dismissed. BOP is on pro. Con negates the premise, convincing Argument to Con, conduct to con for taking this debate seriously, no reliable source points, S&G to con for readable structure.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
lol, I'm not going to extend this debate in the comments section.

At first I thought this debate would be entertaining, until I realized you were serious about the absurd nature of the resolution - that resulted in this debate becoming a bit unpleasant. Then, you began lobbing charges of deceit without any real warrant, at which point there's no need to consider anything else you have to say.
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
I am about done with you (hopefully forever) but I am going to address a couple of things you said:

You: "WE elect the representatives that write our laws. We don't write laws, because we're not trained to write laws...this is why many of our representatives are lawyers by profession. So, the government is quite literally doing anything WE want."

Rotfl! Do you honestly believe that the government is doing anything WE want? So spending your money to educate prostitutes in China on how to drink more responsibly on the job was your idea? Yes, that is real. Congress gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737. My idea or yours? You sir, are little short of a raving freaking lunatic who lives in a fantasy world. You probably voted for Obama and love big government. Yes, the government, just before spending your money asks permission from your representative. Hey, we can make it all better by just voting in the right guy or gal, can't we!

You: " I would like audiences to note I have not reciprocated in lobbying charges of deceit,"

That is because I never once lied. Why would you accuse me of lying when it was you who consistently lied from the 3rd round on.

You: "Anyone doing a quick search of the debate will find I quoted my opponent perfectly, indeed I copy/pasted his statements. I was fully justified in making my comparison and did not misquote my opponent."

LOL. So now you are going to lie yet again in hopes that no one actually reads the round when you completely omitted the part about pointing a gun to DEMAND MONEY? Then you lie about quoting me accurately when we both know you did not. You are one piece of work. You not only lied about what I said but are expecting anyone who read this debate to buy into your lies. When I asked you when did I advocate not paying taxes, you foolishly pointed out another paragraph that had nothing of the sort. We do agree on one thing. This debate was painful.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Let's see where this goes.
Posted by amay 3 years ago
amay
Hah, well put Endarkened
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
I second what amay said. I assumed you were referring to a figurative gun. You'll forgive me for doubting that men in black suits waltz into people's houses, pull out guns, and say, 'give us your money. We need to pay for Social Security.'
Posted by amay 3 years ago
amay
So what do you mean that it came from behind the point of a gun?

You say that it is about how the money is collected, so do you mean that it was taken from someone else at gunpoint?

I really don't want to accept this debate until I am more sure of what my position will have to be.

And did you actually mean real guns?

Clarify please.
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
No, they are real guns.
Posted by amay 3 years ago
amay
What do you mean that it came from behind the point of a gun? Do you mean that the money you're receiving was taken off other people at gun-point?

And I presume we're talking a figurative gun here?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
brett.winsteadwrichcirwTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This is either funny in an awful way or the other way around. Pro, you've really got to articulate your argument more. For example, when Con argued that the government could use a variety of weapons to extract money from its citizens, you said: "(shaking my head in utter amazement)". This is not an argument. Even if we agree with you (and I might or might not - don't know what your point is), we're not allowed to vote based on our own opinion. So you have to articulate your argument better. You could say, for example, that "gun" isn't literal, and although guns are involved sometimes, the resolution refers to any kind of force. But you never said that. And there are lots of places where you were similarly ambiguous. And your insults were kind of funny, in a way, but they went on for too long and anyway, it's totally inappropriate to insult your opponent. After all, they're supposed to disagree with you. It's a bit unfair to react like that.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
brett.winsteadwrichcirwTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a nightmare of a debate. Both sides had atrocious conduct, though Pro went far beyond with the personal insult. Con's conduct issues were consistently bring things up that went off topic and did not relate to the debate. But Pro went way overboard with many of the things he said. As for the arguments. Pro asserted that it was a literal gun that EVERY DOLLAR was tied to. He had the BOP, however he only showed that some of the money, theoretically, may have come from behind the point of a gun. He, in no way, met the burden that EVERY DOLLAR is collected that way and even admitted that it wasn't. Arguments go to Con for that.