Taxation is Theft

"1: Pro says that his special definitions are of "normal moral/colloquial terms." If this is true, most people would already think taxation is theft; after all, the provided definitions treat both as the exact same thing. But this isn't the case, so Pro's definitions cannot be colloquial. Pro can argue that these should be the colloquial definitions, of course; but given that he is using them as premises for his argument, he has to give us reasons to grant him that much." - Your argument in a syllogistic form would be P1. If Pro's definitions are colloquial/moral terms then taxation would colloquially be referred to as theft P2. Taxation is not typically colloquially viewed as theft C . Therefor Pro's definitions are not colloquial terms First, you've yet to provide your own (as doing so would show that these terms are colloquially used, as your definitions would lead to absurdity) Your argument also begins with an unproven premise, (premise 1) since you didn't support these premise the argument is not yet valid, and can be discarded. "2: Pro is wrong that I did not make a case using other definitions. I did agree to an earlier form of the definitions (seen in Round 1), because they fit colloquial understanding. There is an important difference between the two systems: - in the first, theft is defined as both immoral and "[the] taking [of] justly-owned property" - in the second, theft is understood as being immoral because it involves "taking justly-owned property." This makes its definition mostly the same as the one provided for "taxation."" - Immorality is a consequent of theft, the definition never changed. Not an argument :D "The critical differences are that - definition #1 implies that it is possible to take "justly-owned property" without being immoral - definition #2 is just the same as his definition for taxation. I explained why this is misleading in Round 2." - Strawman, the definitions never changed, and never implied that taking justly owned property could not be immoral, as immorality is a consequence of taking justly owned property. "For Pro's case to not totally fall apart, he has to explain that taking "justly-owned property" is necessarily immoral. He failed to do this in Round 1, did not do so in Round 2 (where he re-defined taxation, but maintained the link with morality) either, and continued the tradition into this round too." - Oh, I see....I was confused, I apologize, here is my arguments for why taking of justly owned property is always immoral. Ima' start from the very beginning and clarify the stuff I didn't in round one. P1. If taking justly owned property is not immoral it is moral or neutral P2. If two people conflict over justly owned property, then the aggressor (theif) is being moral/neutral. C . Therefor if premises are true, then defending justly owned property is immoral P1. If defending justly owned property is immoral, then property cannot be justly owned P2. Property can be justly owned. (You've already admitted this) C . Therefor theft is immoral P1. Theft is the non-consensual taking of justly owned property P2. Taxation is the non-consensual taking of justly owned property C . Taxation is theft P1. Theft is immoral (A->B) P2. Taxation is theft C . Therefor taxation is immoral "3: Even if we grant Pro's arbitrary, self-serving re-definition, his case is still hollow. Let's grant, to be very abstract and ignore the obvious social connotations of the word, that "theft" includes taxation. Given this, to reiterate, Pro still has not demonstrated that such taking is inherently immoral. Instead, all he has done is assume it is immoral, and try to stretch how many things he can cram into that assumption." - Just did. Also argumentum ad populum fallacy... "4: To make a new argument, there are positive reasons to think that theft and taxation are different things: a) Theft and taxation incur different social costs. While taxation is, at worst, protested or begrudgingly tolerated, theft is punished wherever possible. The very act of calling something theft is usually insulting. So, it's very clear that taxation and theft are very different socially. b) Theft is conducted by non-state actors (whether individual citizens, foreigners, or groups), taxation is conducted by the government. The idea of governments "stealing" isn't even popularly applied to cases of international interactions like conquest, for example." - So for argument (A) your argument in a syllogistic form is P1. Theft is socially repressed/punished P2. Taxation is not socially repressed/punished C . Therefor taxation is not theft You've committed an equivocation fallacy. You've conflated the moral/colloquial term of theft with your own definition of theft. Your second argument (B) is... P1. Theft is conducted by non state actors P2. Taxation is conducted by the government C . Therefor taxation is not theft Well, you see...I kind of had a problem putting this argument together, because I didn't think you would commit a non-sequitur fallacy, but you did. I could add a 3rd premise in for you, excluding the state, but then I'd actually misrepresent your argument (and it'd be a special pleading fallacy)