Our Current Mandatory Taxation System is Immoral
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
A341
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 8/11/2014 | Category: | Politics | ||
Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 787 times | Debate No: | 60302 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)
First round is for acceptance only.
Definitions: Taxation: "A means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities." Immoral: "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality." Mandatory: "Required by law or mandate; compulsory."
I'll accept the debate, good luck to my opponent. I'm looking forward to a great debate. We've agreed to debate over this structure: round 1 for acceptance only, round 2 for cases, round 3 for rebuttals and disproof and round 4 for conclusion and rebuttals. |
![]() |
I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. I should say this is coming from a British perspective. Also while I can make a case for why we should hold the moral standards I use here since you accepted the definition of morality I gave I don't see that I need to. Paying For Violence Every bomb that is dropped, every bulled that fired in anger, every missile, every shell and every explosive is owned by the tax payer in fact a fraction is owned by you specifically. The tax payer pays the salary of the soldier who kills a child in cold blood and the politician who orders a drone strike on a school. The tax payer pays for all the horrors of modern warfare and all without any choice. There are those who do not want to pay for war and violence and if they fall out of line what happens to them? They will be taken away from their lives by force and thrown into what is basically a rape room. In what way could this be considered remotely moral. Extortion Extortion (defined as using coercion to obtain value) is more or less universally considered immoral. Now apply that definition to the government use of force (a form of coercion) to obtain tax dollars (a form of value) from residents of the country. Non Aggression Principle The non aggression principle is one of the most basic and widely accepted moral standards ever devised and it has some interesting implications when applied to areas that it usually isn't. The non aggression principle is simply that: It is not justified to initiate coercion (physical force, blackmail/threats or fraud) against another and that the only time coercion can be used is in defence against coercion initiated by another party to end their coercion or reclaim any property lost because of the coercion of the other party. Now if you apply the N.A.P. to the idea of enforced taxation you almost certainly will come out with the realisation that the initiation of coercion by the government (either through threats or physical force) is immoral. ludwiglindau forfeited this round. |
![]() |
I will wait.
ludwiglindau forfeited this round. |
![]() |
My opponents account appears to no longer be active.
ludwiglindau forfeited this round. |
![]() |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
A341 | ludwiglindau | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | ![]() | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | ![]() | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 7 years ago
A341 | ludwiglindau | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeiture by Con.
A341 - If I can figure my brain out, would you be willing to debate me on this subject?
round 1 for acceptance,
round 2 for cases,
round 3 for rebuttals
and round 4 for conclusion and rebuttals?
This debate sounds really intresting to me, just a question:
I suppose this debate is meant to be a debate with like no facts/information and a more own idea debate, cause that would be great.