Hitler IS not a criminal

Pro seems to be arguing for a different resolution. As I said, Rule 8 ["Con must argue that Progressive Consumption taxes should not be implemented, I must argue that it should be"] overrides the title.Thus, the resolution is: "The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax." Pro has not, in ANY manner whatsoever, defended this. Therefore, I shall only build a small case on this. -- RESOLVED: The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax --Contention One: Taxation Is ImmoralSub-point A: EthicsAny resolution involving "should" is a moral issue. Since taxation is an ethical issue, we must look at *what* "ethics" is. Ethics is the field that deals with values and actions taken to obtain those values. For such moral values and entitlements to exist objectively, one must *accept* all these values *without* enforcement, thus deeming *freedom* the most important value of all. If freedom is overriden, it is considered immoral. Since taxation overrides freedom by forcing one to pay taxes, it may be considered unethical, and, hence, immoral. Sub-point B: Force Contradicts MoralityTaxation involves taking money by force, only legally. The very essence of morality is freedom, and overriding freedom via. force is never acceptable and, therefore, immoral. Thus, most taxation may be considered immoral. Contention Two: An Economic Case Against the Progressive Consumption TaxSub-point A: General Disadvantages of a Consumption Tax"Under [a consumption tax] system, a potential disadvantage is that some consumer goods or services could be taxed at a higher rate than others, based on arbitrary rules such as one item being seen as a luxury or by way of a “sin tax.” Alcohol, for example, could be taxed at an exorbitant rate to discourage purchasing it. Such use could be abused even further, and used politically to undermine a particular industry or company. Businesses cannot simply soak up higher costs or pass the burden to the consumer without overpricing their goods, and if their products are taxed at a rate far higher than that of other companies, they won’t be able to compete. The cost of materials will be also be taxed at a higher rate, causing manufacturing costs to go up." [http://www.wisegeek.org...] As seen, in a non-idealist world, a consumption tax would be disadvantageous due to abusing taxation based on different products. Sub-point B: A Low Flat Tax Would Be IdealWhile many economists hailed a progressive consumption tax, especially a Bradford X-tax, to be the "best tax system", such as Bill Gates, Acosta-Ormaechea and Yoo (2012) wrote in their paper, "Tax Composition & Growth", that a low flat income tax would be ideal. [https://www.imf.org...] -- RESOLVED: Hitler Is Not Criminal --Contention: Hitler Was Related to CrimeMy opponent defines "criminal" as "involving illegal activity; related to crime." Therefore, even in that interpretation of the resolution, if I show Hitler having broken the laws and being sent to prison even ONCE, the resolution is negated. "In Germany, Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler is sentenced to five years in prison for leading the Nazis’ unsuccessful “Beer Hall Putsch” in the German state of Bavaria. ... Sent to Landsberg jail, he spent his time dictating his autobiography, Mein Kampf,and working on his oratorical skills. After nine months in prison, political pressure from supporters of the Nazi Party forced his release." [http://www.history.com...] Since Hitler WAS convicted and sent to prison for a legitimate reason, he WAS and IS related to crime, thus is criminal. The resolution is resoundingly negated.