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

RebuttalR1) CON: "PRO has stated that this debate is about a "literal gun" and so this debate gets carried into absurdist territory."PRO: "(shaking my head in utter amazement)"My opponent clearly drops this point. This point alone, as ridiculous as it is, is enough to negate the resolution. Even if PRO convinces the audience that the government is full of bad guys that want to give you a hard time, there is no reason to think they will only do it with a gun, as this ridiculous resolution clearly states. There are no government baddies with guns pointing at you if you go to H&R Block and file your taxes. There are only government baddies when you break the law...and they may not even use a gun.Again, I gave my opponent a clear chance to properly define the resolution, and my opponent has clearly failed to do so. Therefore, all we are left is this absurdly specific resolution, the burden of which is impossible for PRO to prove. 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. This is prima facie absurd, and thus the resolution is negated.Anyway, I will continue to address the rest of my opponent's arguments in case the audience actually is interested in a substantive debate. Regardless, I ask the audience to note that this resolution is extremely poorly crafted, and that PRO has decided to forward a prima facie absurd resolution. The responsibility for this absurdity falls on PRO's lap, not CON's. Therefore, subsequent debate will be about topics wholly irrelevant to the resolution.---------R2) PRO: "The money does not come from the Fed. The government merely prints that green paper with dead presidents that the Fed authorizes. The green money is simply a median of exchange. "Money IS a medium of exchange. That's all money is:"something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment"http://www.merriam-webster.com......therefore money DOES come from the Fed.PRO then discusses barter, implying that a barter system is preferable to what we have today. This is PRO's burden to prove, as he is advocating against the status quo. As it stands, I will repeat what I said in the prior round: "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."R3) PRO: "What if I want to exercise my right to buy property? That makes no sense. Are you suggesting we all commit suicide so we don't have to pay certain taxes?"a) CON is not the one with the tax problem. CON has no qualms about paying taxes. CON does not break the law, so CON will buy property, and pay property taxes. CON will not get a visit from government baddies with guns, bazookas, and rottweilers, and CON will own property.PRO on the other hand seems to like to delve into illegal activity, and does not seem to want to pay taxes whenever taxes are due. That's PRO's problem. One way to solve it is to not buy property in order to avoid paying property taxes.Taxes are defined by law. Play by the rules, and no one will get hurt. No one with guns or rottweilers will come sniff you out.b) "Rights" are also defined by law. The "right to buy property" is a right encoded by law, specifically property law (http://en.wikipedia.org...). You do not have rights to buy property that do not conform to the law. For example, you cannot buy a chunk of Mars, because there are no laws that stipulate how Martian property is going to be managed, how title will be held, etc...I know the point sound ridiculous...it is because at a certain point, the myopic focus by libertarians on some sort of magical set of "rights" everyone MUST have independent from government becomes absurd. Without law, there are no rights.c) PRO: "it is not about the morality of taxation. It is not about how to avoid paying certain taxes."PRO completely ignores evidence that he can find ways to not pay taxes legally, thereby completely avoiding the big government baddie looking to scare him with their guns and tasers and dogs with big teeth.R4) PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral."CON: "What if I pointed a gun at someone threatening my family? How is this immoral? Basically, there is such a thing as justifiable violence."PRO: "What does this debate have to do with anyone threatening your family????????????"PRO does not seem to be able to follow his own line of argumentation. Clearly in the example above, I state that if you point a gun at someone, it is not necessarily immoral. This refutes PRO's ridiculously inaccurate moral standard.R5) a) PRO makes the absurd claim that "What the Fed has been doing with money printing is counterfeit." This is ridiculous. What the Fed has been doing is printing LEGAL TENDER. If we used gold as money, it would only have validity as LEGAL TENDER. Why? Because gold would then be part of contract law, and only LEGAL TENDER can be valid in contracts. All of this requires government sanctioning, else any Tom, Dick, or Jane would just pick up a shotgun and find their own way to enforce a contract. Gold by itself, without government sanction, is NOT money. You cannot walk into a grocery store and buy some broccoli with your gold nuggets.PRO's charge of counterfeit is thus absolutely absurd. b) PRO also claims that "the median of exchange has nothing to do with this debate", even though this debate is centered around GOVERNMENT MONEY. Again, absurd. The resolution is absurd, PRO's point is absurd, and PRO's arguments in general are all absurd. R6) PRO: "Let me guess: You took one look at my profile, saw the word "libertarian" and jumped to 43 conclusions about me and my views? How am I doing so far? At least I have a profile instead of hiding behind complete anonymity, including my age."This is ad hominem and poor conduct. I made no assumptions stemming from PRO's profile, I reached conclusions stemming from this particular debate. R7) PRO: "Let me quote George Washington for you: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." But I suppose you think government is this peaceful entity that exists to serve us while we ride our unicorns over the rainbow in search of the fountain of youth. Whatever."None of this has anything to do with this myopically and ridiculously specific resolution.R8) PRO: "Did you not know that everything government does is "legal?"" Then you'd better ensure that what your government encodes into law is in your best interests, instead of making useless appeals to fallacious moral standards.R9) PRO: "If they pass laws against exercise, would you say to me "Well, just don't exercise and you won't be breaking the law. Problem solved.""PRO fails to consider that WE live in a democracy. WE pass laws by electing representatives who serve our interests. The government is part of US.R10) PRO: "What law did I mention that I have zero respect for?"Tax law. Laws surrounding Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, the military, courts, police force, firefighters, etc...anything and everything that is paid by "GOVERNMENT MONEY", per this ridiculous resolution.PRO has zero respect for any and all of these institutions. PRO's line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous and does not conform to reality.R11) CON: "thus [PRO] finds there are many problems in his life."PRO: "Again, conclusion jumping and you know nothing about my life."I know that PRO has a lot of problems stemming from non-compliance with the tax system, and the tax system is part of just about everyone's life.ConclusionPRO's gripes and complaints are absolutely absurd. 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. There are several benefits that a government provides that make having a government desirable. As long as you do not break the law, you will not be exposed to any of the big bad meanies that PRO seems so absolutely terrified of.Therefore, 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.