The Instigator
Contra
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
TheBrorator
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Taxes Are Justifiable

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 8 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,355 times Debate No: 21529
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

Contra

Pro

If my opponent wants to argue that ONLY TAXES FOR DEFENSE forces are justifiable, he/she may do that.


Justifiable: [justified] To prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable


------Debate Setup-------


Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing - NO NEW ARGUMENTS THIS ROUND

This debate is mainly if taxes beyond the need for defense are just, and I say they are, the other person would say that NO that taxes are not just. I expect an anarchist to accept this debate, but I do not care. Good Luck


TheBrorator

Con

Challenge Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Contra

Pro

Taxation is justified for a few reasons:

  • Fund Necessary and Beneficial Activities for Society
  • Critical for Government
  • Reduce income inequality
  • Other Beneficial Programs


C1: Fund Necessary and Beneficial Activities for Society


Basic Society:

National defense, law enforcement, and a system of government are all needed to maintain law and order. With no taxation, a government cannot exist beyond very simple means. Obviously, a government is needed for a modern system. If a government was't needed in a society, we wouldn't of evolved to have them.

Infrastructure:

No person has gotten rich by themselves. Every rich person has utilized the vast American infrastructure, payed through taxes by the taxpayers, to get rich. As Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates said (about keeping the inheritance tax):

"Bill Jr. didn't invent the Internet. [He and others] just used it - to make billions. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He got rich off on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the Judicial system, where 9/10ths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back." [1]

If you disagree with the rich on HOW they got rich, on WHY taxes are justifiable, and why they ARE critical to society, I question your sense of decency.

Taxes are our dues — we pay our dues to be Americans and enjoy the benefits of American society. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society that is democratic, offers opportunity, and has a huge infrastructure available to all citizens. This incredible infrastructure has been paid for by previous taxpayers. Roads and highways, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid — every day we all use this vast infrastructure. Our dues maintain it. [3]

C2: Critical For Government

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. I challenge my opponent to name a modern society that survives and flourishes without taxation.

Taxes, unlike market transactions, are also delayed and not less tangible. For example, when we fill up at the pump, in a market transaction, we get gas. With a government transaction, we pay for the gas tax, and we end up with the Interstate highway system and our roads.

I have already discussed the other points of the goods of taxation. If we had no taxation, we wouldn't have government. One needs to have the other to survive. That is why all modern nations have both.

“Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.” -

-Franklin D. Roosevelt

“I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."

-Oliver Holmes Jr.


C3: Reduces Income Inequality


The progressive tax, or just taxes are in general have found to have numerous societal benfits for nations that have taxation. Lower homicide rates, less violence, less teenage birth rates, less mental illness, less obesity, and other societal factors improve when a tax system is used in a nation. [2]

C4: Other Beneficial Programs

As well as our huge, vast infrastructure, our system of law and order, and a functioning, stable, modern Constitutional Federal Republic, we have other programs that our government has created that we get the benefits from. I will name a few benefits from the government that we have gotten through our taxes:

- Regulation of the Business Cycle
- Interstate Highway System
- The Internet
- Public Health Programs
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Social Security and Pensions
- Medicare
- GI Bill
- Federal Housing Authority
- Consumer Protection
- Clean Air and Clean Water Programs
- Workplace Safety
- Anti-discrimination policies
- Anti-Poverty progams
- National Weather Service
- Military and National Defense
- Food and Drug Safety programs
- Scientific and Medical Research
- Student Financial Help
- National Crime Information Center
- Medical Establishment
- Federal Reserve
- Human Genome
- Basic Scientific Research
- Settling the West
- National Parks - Conservation
- Public Libraries
- Education - Schools and Educational resources
[4]

Conclusion

My opponent doesn't support taxation. However, with no taxation, we wouldn't be a modern society. We would have no system of law. Capitalism, the economic system that our nation has used to become rich, requires government as well. We all take advantage of the government programs that exist. We use them all the time. Our taxes pay for the huge, vast American infrastructure. With no taxes, we would become a barren, uncivilized nation. Vote PRO





Sources:


[1] http://governmentisgood.com...
[2] http://psych.mcmaster.ca...
[3] Lakoff, George.
Don't Think Of An Elephant!. 1st ed. Canada: Chelsea Green, 2004. 24-27. Print.
[4] http://www.huppi.com...

TheBrorator

Con

I will begin by refuting Pros arguments, and then bringing up my own.

====Taxation is justified for a few reasons====
>>>Fund Necessary and Beneficial Activities for Society
>>>Critical for Government
>>>Reduce income inequality
>>>Other Beneficial Programs

R.C1: Fund Necessary and Beneficial Activities for Society

--Basic Society--
Pro's only argument here is that without taxation we would not be able to fund for "national defense, law enforcement, and a system of government." He claims that "If a government *was not* needed in society, we wouldn't *have* evolved to have them."

First of all I would like to say that we, as humans (I assume he means by "we") did not evolve simply to have a government. Governments were created to organize the people, not as a result of evolution. There is no sufficient proof that a government is needed in modern society. There are nomads in the world that live just as well as we do here, according to their own standards. Nomads are those who do not settle in one area, essentially, they manage themselves, no set leader is in power, and no government is present. [3]

Secondly, I would like to point out that all of the programs Pro has listed can be financed by other means than taxation. I can clarify this in a further round if need be, but private organizations, donations and charities are also a major factor in government funding. (If we are to keep the government point in this debate).

Infrastructure:
On Pros argument that "no person has gotten rich by themselves," I would like to bring up the point of the lottery. The lottery is an organization that gives away thousands to millions of dollars to a lucky ticket buyer. When you buy lottery tickets, they are not taxed. The money given away in the lottery is not tax money, but money paid for the tickets. No taxes are needed, because the lottery system itself is paid for by those who buy the tickets.

I also urge a conduct vote to Con because of the clear abuse by the pro when saying "If you disagree with the rich on HOW they got rich, on WHY taxes are justifiable, and why they ARE critical to society, I question your sense of decency." By saying this, Pro calls anyone who is willing to refute this point a lack of decency. This is clear abuse by pro, and limits the Con ground, if the Con were to take it seriously.

We can throw out Pro's quote (source [1]) because of this fact.

Also, the point that taxes are our dues can be thrown out, because simply enough, they are not. "We pay our dues to be Americans..." can be argued by the simple point that not all people pay to be Americans. Taxes are not just a domestic issue, but a foreign as well. The fact is, if we are to debate taxes, Pro must prove that all taxes in the entire world are justified for his side to be legitimate. My point here is, that according to law, paying taxes is a voluntary act. According to Harry Reid, in an interview with Jan Helfeld, he states "Our system of government is a voluntary tax system." [4] This may be a controversial topic, and though the government can take forceful action, under Pros logic, there would be no government anyway. Therefore, if people do not pay taxes, the government can still exist just as it has.

R.C2: Critical For Government:

Pro challenges me to "name a modern society that survives and flourishes without taxation." I would like to provide a list. Andorra, The Bahamas, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama, San Marino, Seychelles, and Switzerland. All of these countries are considered "tax havens" and survive and flourish without taxation. This point will stand on Cons ground. [1]

We can throw away the rest of this contention being that it supports the side that governments of all modern societies are supported only by taxes. Again, I have already listed nations where this is not true.

R.C3: Reduces Income Inequality

The tag line for this argument seems ineffective, but I will argue it anyway. "The progressive tax" are said, by pro, to have found to have numerous societal *benefits* for nations that have taxation. Here, Pro lists good things about the progressive tax, in his mind. But this does not cover income inequality. Lowering homicide rates, obesity, etc. promotes in no way income equality. This argument will be thrown out unless Pro can support his tag line within his arguments. [2]

R.C4: Other Beneficial Programs

Cross-Apply my argument from Contention 1 about these programs being paid for by other means.

====My Own Arguments====
The resolution of this debate is simple: "Taxes Are Justifiable" This clearly states that all taxes created are completely justifiable. I will concede to Pros definition here. Essentially, if I can prove one tax ever created on this planet as unjustifiable, the vote defaults to Con.

C1: Goodwill

Goodwill is an organization that takes donated cloths and sells them at a knock-off price for those who don't have the money to buy the big name-brands. In fact, most teens will shop there just so they can save up. However, when we think about the tax on a Goodwill product, we can see a few flaws. 1. If this is a "charity" because of the lower price, why tax it? 2. This is simply double taxation, triple taxation, etc.

Let's look at a pair of jeans from Holister that will usually sell for about $50. One will buy these jeans, wear them a few times and donate to Goodwill. That pair of jeans will be placed on the racks for a lower price, but for a tax. A teenager will buy these jeans again, wear them for as long as he/she likes, and donate them back. Now, the jeans have been taxed a total of 3 times, and who's to say the cycle ends there?

If Pro can explain why taxing the same piece of merchandise over and over and over again is justifiable, let him. However, anyone can clearly see that this is not, and there can be no arguments sufficient enough to prove why one item should be taxed as many times as those at these donation centers.


====Conclusion====
The resolution states that taxes are justifiable.
If one tax is unjustifiable, the resolution becomes false.
I have proved that a tax is unjustifiable.
The resolution becomes false.
The round defaults to Con.

Because grammar and spelling is a voting issue I have put *s around every word I quote from pro that is either mispelled or does not meet specific grammar rules.
Though the debate should not be decided on that fact, I have already presented why the obvious vote is to Con.


[1] http://www.investopedia.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[4] http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Contra

Pro


Thanks for your response.


I will tell the voters that the one mistake I made was a pure accident, and unlike you my PC has no spell check. You mispelled cloths.


--------Rebuttals----------



C1: Government and Taxes = PRO


"There is no sufficient proof that a government is needed in modern society. There are nomads in the world that live just as well as we do"


Sorry but there is plenty of proof. I will simplify this debate. Taxes = government. You cannot have one easily without the other. Here are reasons why Taxes are justified, and why government is justified from those justified taxes:


Ø Taxes Are Justified:

  • § Fund Necessary and Beneficial Activities for Society

  • § Critical for Government

  • § Reduces Income Inequality

  • § Other Beneficial Programs

  • Ø Government Is Needed

    • § National Security

    • § Assistance to those unable to fully support themselves

    • § Equal Access to Opportunity

    • § Economic Development

    • § Oversight of Financial Markets and Institutions

    • § Protection and Advancement of Public Interest Market Cannot Fix

    • § Providing Investment when projects are too demanding for Market

    • § Revenue Collection Service




Government is good. Taxes are therefore needed. Government can perform a better job with the pillars of government necessity I listed than a anarchist state could. No taxes = anarchist.


Plus, my opponent's source listed no evidence of "nomads thriving." It was talking of the evolution of some sharks. Clealy my opponent ignored this case as well that government is needed.


Infrastructure:


My opponent ignored this argument and didn't respond to it. You cannot fund a huge, quality infrastructure with a lottery.


How the Rich - Got Rich:


About taxation and how it is moral and necessary to society, my opponent ran away from this argument (ignored it). I apologize to my opponent about questioning his decency if he disagrees with the rich on how they got rich, but nevertheless, my opponent dropped the infrastructure argument altogether, and how taxation is needed.


C2: Funding For Government with voluntary private entities


"private organizations, donations and charities are also a major factor in government funding."


The Proof: Private donations cannot fund a modern nation


I would like to see an argument here. Look at the Roman Empire. With many of their people slaves, they didn't provide any tax revenue (actually hurt revenue). With many soldiers fighting the Germanic and other tribes, the Roman Empire was losing its tax base. As the Empire shrank, so did the tax revenue, and separate Feudal systems evolved to create their own public resources that they were lacking from the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire could not afford to pay government employees, roads, public aqueducts, and eventually collapsed. [1]


A government cannot survive without taxation. Taxes are the dues we pay for a modern society.


C3: "All" Taxes Need to Be Justified


"If we are to debate taxes, Pro must prove that all taxes in the entire world are justified for his side to be legitimate. My point here is, that according to law, paying taxes is a voluntary act."


No, I don't have to argue that all taxes are justified. That is absurd. We are talking about taxes in general. This is because when you talk about something, you are talking about the general theme of that topic unless otherwise specified. With taxes, we are talking about average taxes, not some unfair, unjust taxes such as the Stamp tax or a regressive tax.


Compare it to a box of french fries you get at Wendy's. Sometimes you get an extra curly fry. You love the fries, but the extra curly fry was not good. This doesn't make you say, "I hate these fries." No, you would say, "these fries are pretty good, but not perfect." Difference.


C4: Tax Havens/ "No taxed" nations


I asked my opponent to list nations that currently do not have any taxation. Here is his list:


"Andorra, The Bahamas, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama, San Marino, Seychelles, and Switzerland"


Nope. These nations have taxes. As Percentage of GDP in taxes collected:


USA: ---------------- 14.7% of GDP


Luxembourg: -------39.8% of GDP


Bahamas: ----------17.2% of GDP


Cyprus: -------------41.3% of GDP


Liechtenstein: ------ 18.6% of GDP


Mauritius: -----------20.8% of GDP


Monaco: Has 20% value-added tax, stamp taxes, companies have 33% tax on profits unless money was generated in Monaco.


Panama: ------------25.7% of GDP


San Marino: --------57.5% of GDP


Seychelles: ---------36.3% of GDP


Switzerland: -------35.5% of GDP


[2]


In fact, the nations with the lowest taxes actually tend to have weaker economies (with USA and Singapore being the only exceptions). Some nations with the lowest taxation rates: Burma, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. [2]


C5: Income Inequality


The effects I listed, such as lower homicide rates, higher average health, less mental health problems, lower rates of obesity, etc., are the results of lower income inquality. With taxes, the income gap is reduced. So, taxes = better societal benefits. [3]


C: Taxes Are Justified


Taxes pay for the vast infrastructure, legal system, educational system and resources, and the economic resources that allow people to make a lot of wealth in the first place. Second, the tax money provided to social programs and safety net raises the overall standard of living, and reduces the amount of poverty, allowing for more productive employees, a larger group of active consumers, and greater entrepreneurship, and thus a much more dynamic economy overall.


Conclusion:


Taxes are necessary for government. Government is an entity that man has realized is needed to have a better, stronger future. Many societal benefits come from less income inequality as a result of taxation. With a vast, strong infrastructure, a nation that cares for its elderly and poor, defends itself strongly and effectively, a nation that allows people to have a chance to succeed, a nation that allows people to become rich and have a strong economy, and a nation that is more perfect and modern, all requires taxes. VOTE PRO!


Sources:


[1] http://ancienthistory.about.com...


[2] The World Factbook (App)


[3] http://psych.mcmaster.ca...












TheBrorator

Con

TheBrorator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Contra

Pro

My opponent could not defeat any of my arguments. Therefore, taxes are justifiable. All my points stand, and my opponent has failed to refute any of them.

If my opponent even argues a new case in round 5 - he loses, because he cannot argue in round 5, as I said in R1 that would be banned.

VOTE PRO

TheBrorator

Con

I am sorry for missing the last round, and have not suggested that I will pose new arguments in this one. I immediately urge a vote for Con on Conduct because of my opponent's response to my forfeiting the round. Both being insulting claiming that I could not refute any of his points, and claiming that I did not do it in the past round anyway. I will post the following response (part from before I forfeited the round, and continuing, obviously I will pose no new arguments).
I would also like to point out that the only reason I have forfeited the last round is because I am at TFA State - Speech and Debate competition and have no had access to the internet for some time, now.

I would first like to thank my opponent, Contra, to debating in a manner that was both educational and persuasive, however, I would like to rebuild my case, rebut my opponents, and draw out the voting issues again.

First, I would love to even the playing field in this debate in the sense that I easily could have debated absolutely anything I wanted relating to the resolution because Pro did not take the initiative to make it more specific. I will present why this limits the Con ground.

====Limits Con Ground====

Essentially, but posting a resolution as vague as Pro's we can assume it is one thing, or another, or another, etc. This multiplies the Pro's ground to an unfair level in that he can debate absolutely anything he wants, whereas he can also say that I debated the wrong topic. Pro will not change the debate resolution from what I understood it as, because that is where my case is centered. If Pro does this, not only does he limit my chance of votes to zero, but presents an unfair debate in total. Pro easily could have said the same thing about any portion of the resolution I debated against. I could have said something completely different, and again, he would have turned it so I would not have been able to debate with a unique case.
Therefore, conduct still goes to Con.

====Spelling and Grammar====
Debate.org presents the wonderful opportunity to check your spelling. Unlike my fault of making a type-o and not being able to pick up on it within this website, Pro had every opportunity to correct his own mistakes. Spelling mistakes are essential to this debate in that all plans are rejected immediately it there is one spelling error found. However, being that this is an online community of debaters, the vote goes to the contender with the least amount of these errors. Pro cannot explain that his computer does not have a spell check, because simply enough, debate.org provides one. This claim is false. I would also like to pose the argument that he claimed only one of his mistakes was an accident and did not see my correction of another term, as well, so I have still made less errors.
Spelling and Grammar votes go to Con.

====C1: Government and Taxes = PRO====
Pro adds evidence to this claim in the last round, all examples will be thrown out as there cannot be any new claims/warrants in this round.

Pro claims taxes = government. We all know this is not true. "You cannot have on easily without the other." Pro, in this claim, says that you can have one without the other, just not easily. Case in point, you can have government without taxes, admitted by pro. C1 goes to Con.

Under "Taxes are justified" because they fund for this, that, and the other, is refuted by my point that there are other private funds for these programs. Income inequality will always be a factor, and always has been in society as a whole. Reducing it is too vague in that this could mean less income for the rich and more for the poor, this is not just to the rich. We see this topic brought up a lot in today's society in that the rich pay lower taxes than the poor, we solve by having everyone pay the same percent tax. I have also already proved taxes are not critical for government. Government can exist without taxes, as conceded by Pro, therefore, all points under "Government Is Needed" have been refuted because government still exists without taxes, therefore, all point are available without taxes.

On the point that it would lead to anarchy, I have refuted this as well, proving that government will still exist.

My source citation at 3 was shortened due to debate.org's limit on length of a link, his point about my source not being about nomads will be thrown out, because it was a citation for the point that we did not evolve for government, but that we evolve to survive.

==Infrastructure==
I did not ignore this argument, Pro looked over it and did not understand that the lottery itself is an infrastructure in that the money is collected, it is sent to one area, it is then banked for a check, that check is sent. This proves my point that the lottery is an infrastructure, whether it be a "huge" one or not, it is, and my point stands.

==How the Rich - Got Rich==
You can cross apply my argument on Infrastructure, as again, Pro has looked over my previous argument. I would also like to point out the constant abuse by the Pro in that he says I ignored his points just because my responses are not sufficient to his standards.

====C2: Funding For Government with Voluntary private entities====
Again, Pro proposes a new claim, this is thrown out. Though the Contention stands, new claims cannot be added, only refutes to previous arguments. I would like to argue the Roman Empire point, but will not because it is of no use as a voting issue.

Besides, again, it has already been proved that governments can survive without taxation, maybe not "easily," but they do.

====C3: "All" Taxes Need to Be Justified===
Cross apply my first point on the limit of ground to the Con.

The fry point will be thrown out because it proposes no sufficient warrants to the point. Also, "Difference." is not a sentence, it is a single word. (Grammar will go to Con.)

====C4: Tax Havens/ "No taxed" nations====
I will concede to this contention because it does not affect the debate as much, as I have already proved the resolution in Con's favor. "Nope." is also not a sentence. (Grammar will go to Con.)

"In fact, the nations with the lowest taxes actually tend to have weaker economies (with USA and Singapore being the only exceptions). Some nations with the lowest taxation rates: Burma, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, and North Korea." This will be thrown out because it is, again, a new argument in the final round.

====C5: Income Inequality====
Everything under this heading will be thrown out. By putting previous arguments into a fifth contention, Pro acts as if this is a new argument, therefore, a new point for me to refute entirely in the last round. We have established this as unfair, already.

====C: Taxes Are Justified====
Pro has not argued my point that the Goodwill tax is just. Therefore my argument stands. Pro cannot make this last argument because I have proved that by limiting Con ground, he can change the resolution meaning at any time, my point stands, and Pro's refutation will be thrown out.

=====Conclusion:=====
I have proved that not all taxes are justified, as did Pro himself.
I have proved that the resolution limits Con's ground too much by Pro's interpretation being too vague.
I have proved that spelling and grammar votes go to Con.
I have proved that conduct votes go to Con because of abuse (and limits).
I have proved the resolution (by default interpretation) to be false.

For all of these reasons, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
The nations that CON listed to have no taxation actually have more taxes than the USA.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
CONS CASE:

His argument made no sense... PROS case was much stronger as taxes are essential for many items and the government itself. Although PRO dropped this argument, this argument made no sense anyways...

PRO WINS!!!!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
RFD 1/2

--> Arguments

~Pros Case~

Pro had a very good case and showed that without taxes many things we know and take for granted today may no longer exist. Taxes, as pro pointed out, fund infrastructure and defense, law enforcement, as well as many other things. Taxes are justified to keep these things working. PRO wins this argument.

Pro then showed that without taxes government would wither. But then CON provides evidence where countries without taxes still have a government and function correctly, CON wins this argument.

Then pro argues income inequality. I disagree with that, but pro proves that taxes actually do this, and at times are good for crime rates and other points linked in society. CON claims is a punch line. PRO wins this argument.

PRO then cites multiple programs that are beneficial and funded by taxes. Many of those programs re actually fails, but many others are needed. PRO proves that without taxes these programs may be cut or destroyed. Many of things are essential and need taxes. CON then cites they can be paid in other ways. PRO countered the other ways may not work. This argument is TIED.

pro wins 2/4 args, con 1/4, tied 1/4. So based off of the PRO's case one can already assume pro will win the debate. He did anyhow. He defended the majority of his arguments with interesting insight that has broadened the issue in my mind. I am running low on room, I will have a second RFD for CONS CASE.
Posted by TheBrorator 5 years ago
TheBrorator
I will not defend taxation for defense.
Posted by Freeze44 5 years ago
Freeze44
would accept if it was "All Taxes are Justifiable" because the current is too vague and it is the contender's burden to prove that all forms of tax are bad even taxes to pay for local defense.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
ContraTheBroratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
ContraTheBroratorTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Aside from the factual inaccuracies of Con's argument concerning which countries have no taxes, he has a surprisingly weak refutation of Pro's contentions. For starters, Con's counter for the national defense argument was that national defense is unnecessary. His counter to the infrastructure point was the lottery. It is difficult to convey in words the flawed strategy of the negative case. It is as though he does not "defeat" Pro's arguments, but merely "protests" them.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
ContraTheBroratorTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
ContraTheBroratorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: spelling and grammar was about tied. Pro lost conduct for the cartoon attacks on the Republican Party. Con forfeited so Pro got argument. Con's edu source won me over for sources, as it tipped the reliability in his favor.
Vote Placed by ThePhilosophersDeduction 5 years ago
ThePhilosophersDeduction
ContraTheBroratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that there can be no evidence that taxes are what is needed to make a society thrive. Conduct to Tie though because Con did not explain the list of the others, and pro won on his argument about the other factors that contribute money to a government. So it has to tie. Though, Con still won most of the arguments, so Conv-Args goes to Con, Spelling-Grammar goes to Con for obvious reasons, Sources to Con for the general win of this debate.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
ContraTheBroratorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though Con forfeited a round he still showed that there is no hard evidence that a society needs to pay taxes to thrive.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ContraTheBroratorTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
ContraTheBroratorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: cons entire debate for why taxes are not justified is because we could rely on charities instead.... which doesnt make any sense at all..... Arguments to Pro, Sources to Pro, conduct for the one FF, easy win