Taxation is Theft

First, Pro's just handwaving my contention with his first premise. He doesn't explain why my response was wrong, in fact, he doesn't seem to be aware of its existence. Instead, he says it the conclusion follows from his premise (I exploded this nonsense in R4). Since Pro dropped the argument, everything he said concerning this point has sub-zero value. Extend. On Pro's second point: I have no idea where he got the idea that our only options are moral absolutism or moral relativism. I can say, for example, that stealing bread to feed your sister's infant is morally acceptable, while stealing bread because you're too lazy to go to the shop is wrong. That would obviously be contrary to moral absolutism (because it means the morality of stealing is not absolute), but it doesn't make me a moral relativist either (because I'm still positing that such are right and wrong irrespective of what anyone thinks). So, Pro's core assumption is wrong. (On a side note, I'm not a moral relativist, and I have no idea how Pro supposes I "showed" myself to be one. Not that it would matter if I were -- I can make anti-relativist arguments all the same. ) Pro states that he established taxation was theft, and that theft is immoral. He didn't, I explained why he didn't, and he's apparently not ready to come to terms with that. He might never. But that's okay. Extend! "Now you claim that slavery is not forced. .. At this point, I don't know if you should be taken seriously. " At this point, I don't know if Pro's supposed ability to read should be entertained. What I said was that property can be traded between parties without the transaction itself involving force or fraud. In the case of slavery, the prospective slaveowner does not have to force of defraud the slave trader to buy a slave. This does not mean that the slaveowner does not later use force to ensure his property; just as it does not mean that we don't ensure our voluntarily-exchanged property from theft by force either. Next point: again, Pro handwaves everything I brought up in R4. Like his first and third points in his confused mess of a response, there's literally no explanation given. That included the defense of my positive arguments (which fulfilled my end of the BOP), and most of my responses to his main cases. So, voters should extend all of it. Finally, Pro resorts to the time-dishonored tactic of making sh! t up and lying that I intended to "deduce" that taxation cannot be theft. That misses the entire point of my case. This is my ultimate point: When we use definitions as premises, particularly to justify defining those very definitions, the debate can not be about pure "deduction" anymore. Particularly, because our would-be premises are also the subject of the investigation. So, instead, the debate becomes about how we should use language. So, no, I'm not trying to "deduce" the definition of whatever; I'm telling you why you should not define two very different things as (largely) the same. Pro can't explain why my reasons were wrong, so that point can be extended. Strangest of all, Pro acknowledges that I anticipated his mistake, but then tries argue that this is a "contradiction. " I'm not sure how that works, but I know Pro isn't either. Either way, he missed the point, and the counter is 100% cr@p. Conclusions: Pro either dropped or misrepresented all my points. So, my positive case holds (thus fulfilling my end of the BOP), as do my criticism of Pro's own arguments. There's really nothing. .. like, at all. .. to salvage or address from Pro's performance thus far, so I rest my case.