Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun

RebuttalI first want to address an argument from PRO that I overlooked in round #3:R12) PRO: "Well, sure, if a person does not break the law, the government does not usually get out the guns but I said usually. People who have not broken any laws have had guns pointed at them by your feds. Teachers do not break the law by taking a job in a government school by teaching. Their paycheck comes from behind the point of a gun. Is it breaking the law?" As long as no one is breaking the law, a teacher's paycheck does NOT come from behind the point of a gun, or a knife, or whatever. PRO is assuming the argument here. The only reason coercion would become an issue is if the law was being broken.Now, onto the rest of the debate.R13) PRO: "I told you how to prove it. Call your local tax office and ask them what happens if you do not pay your property taxes."Anyone who fails to pay taxes they owe is breaking the law. Breaking the law will get the cops on your trail. R14) CON: "PRO must prove that every time someone pays taxes, there is literally a government agent with "a literal gun" standing there to ensure you pay your taxes."PRO: "No sir, you are highly mistaken. They are there with the guns when you do NOT pay the taxes. Do you understand the difference? I am not sure you do."PRO makes a mistake here in interpreting his own resolution. In order for government workers and welfare recipients to get "government money", other people must first pay their taxes...otherwise there's no money for the government to give out (unless they print it, but that's another story).Therefore, in order for the resolution to be affirmed, PRO must indeed show that government baddies are there with guns when you DO pay your taxes. R15) PRO: "And the FED is not the government."lol, that's like saying that the POTUS is not the government, or the FBI is not the government. The FED is part of the government, just like the POTUS, FBI, DHS, etc..."...the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government.""http://www.federalreserve.gov...R16) PRO: "Now, with all due respect and in light of the fact that I said nothing positive or negative about bartering but only mentioned it to explain something else, are you on some kind of drug right now...either prescribed or illegal?"Entertaining as this is, this is rather insulting and a clear breach of conduct.R17) PRO: "Where did I say anything about not paying taxes? Where? Where? Where?"Here:PRO: "Now, the question is "where did that money come from." It comes from the county government. Where does the county government get it? They get it from property taxes of landowners. How do they get it? They send a notice in the mail once a year and the landowner pays it. What if the landowner does not pay it?"R18) PRO: "Pointing a gun at someone to tell them to stop threatening your family = moral."PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."I hope it is self evident that PRO's statements here are contradictory. The contradiction highlights the absurdity of his view on morality; PRO's absurd sense of morality is the ideological foundation behind PRO's resolution.R19) PRO: "You are dead wrong, sir. I can trade cow manure for broccoli if the broccoli grower is willing to make the trade."Que?R20) PRO: "You have lied repeatedly about what I said..."Ok...this is a serious charge. How does PRO know I'm lying? Admittedly I'm not taking his arguments very seriously because of their absolutely absurdist nature, but in no way did I ever misrepresent PRO's position with intention to deceive. I again ask that conduct be taken into consideration.R21) PRO: "No, we are not a democracy. You have fallen for a lie."lol, I will concede this point, that we are a constitutional republic and not a strict democracy. Therefore, I will adjust my argument to compensate:PRO fails to consider that WE live in a constitutional republic. WE pass laws by electing representatives who serve our interests. If PRO thinks that elected officials do not serve the electorate, I don't know what else to say to that. Perhaps we should just have PRO serve as dictator for life, in order to make him happy.R22) PRO: "By you even mentioning police and firefighters, you are really showing your butt to me suggesting that I want anarchy. I just hate lying debaters."I don't understand PRO's complaint here. Police and firefighters are indeed paid by GOVERNMENT MONEY, so they are quite relevant to this resolution, as relevant as PRO's (erroneous) schoolteacher example.R23) PRO: "So you have some evidence that I am "non-compliant with the tax system." Please, for all of our audience, submit your evidence."PRO's entire case rests upon one question - "what if you don't pay your taxes?" This is non-compliance with the tax system.R24) CON: "By claiming "Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun", he is claiming that the government should be shut down out of some inane moral bias."PRO: "Nope, you are lying again. If you were not lying, where did I say any of that? You are lying and you cannot stay on topic."lol, allow me to explain myself. I think PRO/CON both agree that it's not a good thing to be needlessly threatened with a gun, therefore, if the resolution is affirmed, then we shouldn't be paying anyone with government money. Well, if the government isn't hiring or paying anyone, that's pretty much the government shutting down. We're shutting it down because threatening people with guns is bad. So, basically, if the resolution is affirmed, we are indeed saying that the government should be shut down, and given point #R18 this round, it's rather evident that PRO's moral position is contradictory and convoluted, and thus inane.ConclusionThis round was easier to rebut than I expected. The basic message still stands:"The resolution is absolutely and totally ridiculous and has no basis in reality. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen, Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun."None of the bad things PRO outlines will happen to you if you pay your taxes and follow the law. Those bad things only happen to you if you break the law. "Receiving government money" has nothing to do with PRO's gripes against government.I also want to remind audiences that this resolution requires that PRO prove that there are government agents with guns (and not taser or rottweilers) present whenever you file your taxes. This is an extraordinary claim, and I will be extremely surprised if PRO can possibly meet burden. I've filed taxes for myself and others for many years and have never encountered this scenario.