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

RebuttalPRO's incessant accusations of deceit are getting irritating. I have addressed his accusations (even though I should not have to)...I ask that conduct be strongly taken into consideration.R25) 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?""Let me ask you again a little slower...where....did...I...say...anything...about...not....paying...taxes...in...that....paragraph?""it" = "property taxes"Sigh... PRO then goes on about big meanies doing bad things to people. These people broke the law...they are not exactly good people.R26) 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."PRO: "Well, yes, they are contradictory...if you completely misquote me you lying piece of garbage! What I said was: "Pointing a gun at someone demanding money = immoral." You conveniently left out that part about demanding money showing once again that you are trying to sway voters by using the art of deception."This is a false charge...PRO made two contradictory statements without admission of clarification. Anyone doing a quick search of the debate will find I quoted my opponent perfectly, indeed I copy/pasted his statements. I was fully justified in making my comparison and did not misquote my opponent.As it is, "pointing a gun at someone demanding money WHEN THAT PERSON HAS RENEGED ON A CONTRACT AND OWES YOU MONEY = moral" We can continually play this game, but in the end, the main problem stems from PRO's inability to articulate a convincing moral position at the beginning of this debate. PRO has changed his moral position on more than one occasion, and has made clearly contradictory statements.R27) PRO: "Nowhere in this debate did I advocate not paying taxes. Not one word of one paragraph."This is simply false. See #R25 in this round. Is my opponent lying? Highly doubtful, although it is clear PRO is having quite a bit of trouble articulating a clear and defensible position.R28) CON: "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."PRO: "Using your logic, anything we get does not come from behind the point of a gun."Again, as long as you're following the law, guns will not get involved. R29) PRO: "I can kidnap children and demand ransom and as long as you pay me, I will give you the children back. See, no point of a gun, right?"This is when PRO's resolution becomes absurd. Sometimes, people kidnap children using a gun, sometimes they don't. Relevant to this resolution, sometimes the cops use guns, sometimes they don't. See point #R1 in rounds 2 and 3 regarding this point...the resolution is negated by PRO's ridiculous insistence upon the specificity of an actual gun.R30) PRO: "The USA can tell some tiny little island country that we want it and they know how much stronger our military is than theirs so therefore, they can submit to us and we can get that island and make it ours without one gun being drawn. All they have to do is obey us."This is exactly how we annexed Hawaii. Not sure how this is relevant to the resolution.R31) PRO: "With your logic, government can LITERALLY do anything they want to the citizenry and and as long as we obey their laws and submit to what they want, no one points a gun at us."Correct, except that in our country, WE elect the representatives that write our laws. We don't write laws, because we're not trained to write laws...this is why many of our representatives are lawyers by profession. So, the government is quite literally doing anything WE want. To separate the government from the citizenry is rather absurd.Laws are not necessarily the tools of oppression PRO would have you believe they are. Good things come out of good laws, bad things come out of bad laws. That makes it imperative that we elect the right people to represent our interests and do what is best for us.Ronald Reagan is an excellent example of a libertarian president who was elected on the belief of "good government", i.e. a smaller government more responsive to people's needs (I know this is debatable, just bear with me, lol). Most people view Reagan positively...it seems we do get it right sometimes.R32) PRO: " You think that government demanding money from behind the point of a gun is nonexistent if we obey the laws. What do you think a law is? A law is something that, if broken, force will become involved."If a gun is the only thing that prevents you from breaking the law, I sincerely hope you do not own a car, as without a cop in the backseat with a gun to your head, you'd be driving on the wrong side of the road.R33) PRO: "What do you think is behind government force? A gun or guns."Again, PRO's myopic focus on "gun or guns" is ridiculous. Government force utilizes tanks, RPGs, nukes, etc...this myopic focus by PRO is enough to negate this resolution, as PRO continually insists upon a "literal gun."R34) PRO: "Certain taxes are collected morally as in use taxes (roads, parks, etc.) and certain taxes are collected from behind the point of a gun. "This is a concession of the resolution by PRO. PRO concedes that there are certain forms of tax that do not involve coercion, and do not involve guns. Regardless of whether or not I agree with PRO's assertion, it clearly follows that Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT NECESSARILY COME from behind the point of a gun.ConclusionAt first, this debate was a rather light-hearted attempt by me to argue against a libertarian position, but PRO's incessant and unfounded accusations of lying and deceit have made this debate an extremely unpleasant experience. I would like audiences to note I have not reciprocated in lobbying charges of deceit, as they are wholly unfounded for both PRO/CON. I would like to ask for conduct against PRO, as such charges are wholly inappropriate.Furthermore, PRO insists upon the literal use of a gun when people pay their taxes. I don't know why PRO insists upon such a literal interpretation...several people in the comments of this debate pointed it out before this debate started, and I gave PRO the chance to clarify, to which he insisted upon a "literal gun". So be it, that makes the resolution nearly impossible for PRO to prove. Sometimes the cops use guns, sometimes they don't. This is enough to negate such a ridiculously specific resolution.I'd also like to mention that PRO got quite caught up in his insults and rebuttals...he didn't even forward a cogent case in his final round. I remind the audience that PRO has burden of proof.Some more key points dropped by PRO from the debate: - If the resolution is affirmed, we are indeed saying that the government should be shut down, which is absurd. For example, the dollar is part of our governing apparatus; most people would agree that we are better off having a unified currency than a barter society.- 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. PRO has not met this burden of proof.- If you point a gun at someone, it is not necessarily immoral. This refutes PRO's ridiculously inaccurate moral standard.- Without law, there are no rights.In the end, in order for this debate to have any meaningful substance, one needs to put it in the context of legal and illegal acts. If you do things that are legal, no government baddies will come after you. If you do things that are illegal, then the guns and tanks come out.Therefore, if you typically don't break the law, the resolution is false:Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT come from behind the point of a gun.Vote CON. Thank you.