Taxation is Theft

First, I'll respond to Pro's main case: The first syllogism's first premise ("If taking justly owned property is not immoral it is moral or neutral") is false, because it confuses a necessary quality for a potential quality. Remember, my contention so far has been that taking justly-owned property is not inherently or necessarily immoral. So, it's not necessary for "taking justly owned property" to be either moral/morally neutral or immoral, as far as the alternatives to Pro's case are concerned. However, Pro's case rests on the assumption that it's always/necessarily wrong, which he hasn't supported. This premise being false negates the second premise and the conclusion conclusion. It also negates the second syllogism (because defending just property won't be necessarily moral or immoral). However, I'll offer another quick comment on the latter: "Justly-owned property", as it has been defined so far, has no inherent relationship to morality. After all, many things that fit into Pro's definition (acquired without force or fraud) are obviously immoral, like slavery. In pre-Civil War America, wealthy plantation owners did not need force to buy slaves, let alone fraud. Obviously, that's not to say "justly-owned property" in general is immoral, but that it can be moral, immoral, or otherwise. So even if we grant the first, false premise, the second syllogism doesn't work. With both premises shown false, the third syllogism has no legs to stand on. In sum, Pro has failed to meet his BOP. Now, to defend my earlier arguments: 1. Pro is just plainly wrong when he says that I didn't support my "first premise. " I did in Round 3: "[if Pro's definitions reflected colloquial understanding] most people would already think taxation is theft [because] the provided definitions treat both as the exact same thing. " Pro did not explain why that justification is wrong, either, he just handwaved it. Since Pro still hasn't addressed my point, this means the weight of my initial argument still holds. Pro's definitions are not colloquial, and he has to justify using them as premises. Pro also complains that I didn't use other definitions, which is both false and pointless. My job as Con is to explain why taxation is not theft, not to tell you how you should be thinking of taxation and theft, precisely, to any extent beyond that. I also provisionally agreed with earlier definitions, so Pro can't say I haven't proposed anything better. 2: (A) Pro's point here makes no sense. Where am I equating my "own definition of theft" (whatever that is) with the "moral/colloquial" definition? I've said before that the only definitions proposed, so far, are those that I consider to be those that meet moral/colloquial definitions. So I have no idea what he means. Either way, my argument doesn't use precise definitions either way, so Pro's counter doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong. The point is that we shouldn't talk about very different things like they're the same, or like one is just a simple subset of the latter; if that means revising the definitions provided so far, all the better. (B) Pro doesn't explain why this is a non-sequitur either. Remember: The point of my arguments isn't to "deduce" anything from Pro's definitions or the earlier definitions that I accepted for the earlier rounds. The point is to give us a concrete reason to separate both concepts. Pro hasn't given us a reason to dismiss the role of the government to taxation as opposed to theft, or the obvious social and political significance of this role, so Pro hasn't challenged the actual thrust of the argument. Conclusion: - Because Pro's criticism of my attack on his use of definitions failed to address my position, voters can extend the argument. - Pro's main arguments rest on two false premises, so he has not met his own BOP. - Pro's critique of my positive arguments for treating taxation and theft as distinct miss the point, and make false assumptions about whether certain definitions are relevant to my arguments at all. They can be extended too.