The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

We need taxes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 36511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




My argument is that we need taxes.


1. First round is for acceptance

2. My stance is that we need taxes. "We" meaning the people of the USA.

3. Con will agrue for no taxes.


The human species needs a number of things to survive, such as air and food. All of the things humans need can be found in nature. Man-made things such as taxes are not needed to survive. Nobody needs taxes.
Debate Round No. 1


1) first round was for acceptance

2) "we" was defined as the people of the USA in the first round. So to sustain the current system we live in, we would need taxes.

Taxes provide public goods that the private sector otherwise wouldn't account for. Taxes help to fund national parks, police, military, education, our national parks, social security, healthcare programs, and more. Without these goods we would be defenseless, have poor environmental sustainability, no retirement for social security workers, as well as no healthcare (Medicare and Medicade) along with other concerns.

I await my opponents rebuttal


1.) My apologies. This is my first debate, and so I wasn't sure what "first round is for acceptance" meant.

2.) My opponent is moving the goalposts. That is to say, he has changed the rules of the argument to give himself an advantage. I agree that the United States needs taxes "to sustain the current system we live in." However, as long as it can be argued that the current system is not needed, then it follows that taxes are also not needed. We could go back to the days when we lived in caves and hunted for food, or we could head into a future in which money is no longer needed as goods and services are provided instantaneously. In either scenario, taxes would not be necessary. Again, to sustain the current system, taxes are necessary, but that was not mentioned in my opponent's argument until just now.
Debate Round No. 2


Welcome to DDO and I'm glad that you chose this as your first debate.

We "need" taxes to sustain our current economic system the same way we "need" water or food to sustain our life. If we don't have taxation, the U.S. economic system will fail for the reasons I specified in round 2. If we don't have food or water, we will die. Focusing on the definition of "need" turns the focus of the debate into more of a semantic argument which isn't conducive to a constructive resolution.

Basically your agument is this: Since I said "need" and taxes are not needed in different circumstances, then it follows that we don't need taxes.

I'm focusing on the circumstance of "we" the people in the USA as stated in round 1. As I said in the previous round (with your agreement), that we "need" taxes to sustain our current economic system.



Of course we need taxes in our current system. Our current system was designed to be sustained by taxes. If we didn't have taxes, it wouldn't be our current system anymore. It would be silly to argue otherwise.

However, you didn't initially say, "We need taxes to sustain our current economic system." You said, "We need taxes."

Modern humans lived about 45,000 years before the invention of the tax, which means that people back then didn't need taxes. However, you defined "we" as as "the people of the USA." So, the real question is, do Americans need taxes? No, because there is nothing that sets us apart from our ancestors other than the fact that we do things differently.

Basically, taxes create major benefits to society, but it's important to remember that a benefit is not the same as a need.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NobleSavage 3 years ago
This is a poor debate but I like the question.
Pro puts forward that taxes are necessary because they provide the many basic goods that the private economy doesn't such as police, fire service etc.
In the late 1800's as the railroad was being blazed across the west, the government found it very hard to secure and protect the settlements that popped up along the routes. The railroad, a private enterprise, had a very large incentive to make sure that people felt that the railroads and the towns along them were safe so they could make money shipping goods and people across the country. As such, they invested their own money to hire a police force to investigate crime and enforce law.
Now if the police force suddenly disappeared overnight, that would indeed be bad because no one would be able to instantly replace it. But in the long run, a demand would attract a supply of some sort even without the help of a government enforcing taxes.
Posted by Sandy8 3 years ago
We might need taxes, but that doesn't mean we need HIGH taxes.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jingle_Bombs 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Human beings don't need taxes to live.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
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 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: Con accepted that Taxes are necessary. While he tried to explain how we don't need taxes because we don't need government, he still accepted that the Government must tax.