Higher Tax Rate on Millionaires

IntroductionI am glad that Con has accepted my argument as generally correct. He asserts that he can make a small adjustment to the premisses of my argument and it will prove his conclusion. He then offers several reasons why the argument fails. For this round I will demonstrate that Pro's adjustments to the premisses make the argument unsound and that his objections are unsatisfactory.When Con copied my argument, he did not adjust any of the text so that he became speaker. Instead, he offered a direct quote from me (properly credited) with some modifications, which he noted. Thus, the word 'Con' is still used exactly as it was before. Furthermore, when “jimtimmy” (actually me, because I am the acknowledged author of his argument) uses the word 'I,' it is clear that the 'I' intended by the statement is still me, Grape. Remember, he credits this as a quote from me with only those modifications made, which means that there is no reason to assume that the referent of the pronoun 'I' has changed. It is merely as though I, Grape, had said something different. Either Con has a multiple-personality disorder and is referring to himself in both the first and third person as though there are two entirely different people, or he must concede that this interpretation is correct. This posses several problems for him.If Con insists that he is the author of the argument and that the word “I” does indeed refer to him and not to me, then he is guilty of plagiarism. Furthermore, this would totally fail to explain the refers to “I” and “Con” as two separate people. The repeated use of “Con” thorough Con's argument can only be in reference to himself.Con's Unsound PremissThe statement, “I think that it would be funny if a higher tax rate were not placed on millionaires.” is false. I think it is funny to raise the tax, and I do not think it is funny to not raise the tax. This means that Con has failed to justify P1, and the entire argument is not sound.Con's Self-RefutationBy contending the truth of the statement “it would be funny if a higher tax were not placed on millionaires,” Con has also asserted that the statement “it would be funny if a higher tax were placed on millionaires” is false (by the axiom of non-contradiction). That means Con has challenged me. In Round One, I wrote:“If Con wishes to challenge this, I have a reply:1. He who does not see the humor in life is a prude.2. A prude is not to be taken seriously.3. Con does not see the humor in life.4. Therefore, Con is not to be taken seriously. “Con copied this argument verbatim, an obvious indication of his agreement. Thus, Con's own argument demonstrates the truth of the conclusion “Con is not to be taken seriously.” That just about settles the debate because both Con and I agree that he is not to be taken seriously. As Con and I both write:“The first two premisses are quite agreeable and accessible to anyone; I do not think they require explanation. The third would be evidenced by Con's behavior in disagreeing with my assessment of the tax hike as humorous. The conclusion would then once again be entailed by the premisses. And if Con is not to be taken seriously, how can we side with him in the debate? We cannot.”Con has explicitly asked you not to vote for him. I am in complete agreement with him on this matter (he even did me the honor of quoting my own words to assert his position on the issue), and I advise only that you heed his suggestion.The exact same problem occurs again under P2.Con's Counterarguments:All of Con's counterarguments apply just as well to his argument as mine. I could repeat:How does Con know that what he (actually me?) thinks is funny is funny?What if what is funny is not enjoyable to everyone?I don't actually need to address any of these points because at face value they are just as much of a problem for Con as me and pose no disadvantage to me. However, I will demonstrate that they hurt Con's argument but not mine.First, Con's own argument had demonstrated his agreement that what I (Grape) think is funny is funny so it is just plainly contradictory for him to assert that this isn't the case. To quote Con:“The first premiss is at least very plausible [Whatever I (Grape) think is funny is funny]. When I (Grape) go to comedy movies, I (Grape) tend to laugh at the same scenes as everyone else (though there was that incident during The Diary of Anne Frank...). It should be assumed that my (Grape's) comedic sense adequate.”Con has demonstrated his own agreement. I suppose his internal contradiction is to be expected of someone with multiple-personality disorder and thus should not be held against him, but it does not advance his position in the debate. This argument, presented by Con, is perfectly sufficient to answer his question, though.Con then tells us that there are some things that he thinks are funny that do not bring joy to people. This is a non-issue because we have both agreed that only what I think is funny is relevant. Finally, I think this is just evidence that my sense of humor is sound and Con's is not. What kind of person enjoys the suffering of others? Not only does Con have multiple-personality disorder and suffer from persistent delusions, he is also a sadist.ConclusionCon's sanity is seriously in question here. He is plainly very unsure of who he is and who's side he's on in the debate. His argument, quoted from me, has an unsound premiss and is not deductively true. Furthermore, he directly asks us not to vote for him. This is not even dependent on the use of the word 'I' because the word 'Con' is explicitly used. That is effectively a forfeit.