W-2 is better than AFDC.

" According to you, it's relevant; you brought it up in the first place: "This means that taxes are evil, because they initiate force. Both W-2 and AFDC are taxpayer funded, therefore, both are evil, requiring that we eliminate their perpetrators if they fail to repent." " Ignoratio elenchi. I was saying they initiated force against taxpayers, you were trying to make it sound like it was the welfare recipients who were the victims. " Taxpayers are not "enslaved" any more than with the AFDC program. The only difference is with the job training from W-2, you won't be paying these taxes for nearly as long. " People keep being born, which means, yes, in fact, you will be. Longer, since it's harder to get rid of the program. " Okay, not making more themselves but making money themselves. Who cares? You should get my point. " The objection was not to the "more," it was to the "Themselves." They are not doing it themselves if the government enslaved people to help it along. " I'm not talking about welfare money, I was talking about the number of recipients. And if the the number of recipients decreases, so does the amount you have to pay." It's not the number of welfare recipients that matters, it's how long the program lasts. Because welfare is just one chunk of tax money, it has to be eliminated along with other things, and so speed is of the essence in dealing with it. " I haven't heard of any government that didn't have some form of taxation." That's because they haven't tried it. "So they might as well be inevitable, necessary." Just because something "has always been the case" it's "inevitable" now? Used to be that it had "always been the case" that you had to do all farm work by hand or with horses. That didn't mean it was inevitable, now we've got tractors. "eople fund the government anyway (i.e. lobbyists)." Lobbyists fund the government? Ha! They fund politicians if that's what you mean. Different concepts entirely. "Besides, this isn't the point of the debate" It is a premise of my position, so yes, it is the point of the debate. If you can derive a conclusion about the resolution from the statement "Taxes should be abolished," which I have, the truth value of that statement is logically relevant. " Well, you just conceded to my argument. I don't see why we need to finish this debate now. " Don't make up straw men. The resolution is not just "W-2 is more efficient," it is "W-2 is better." My argument shows why "efficient" is not the same as "better" here, in fact it's the opposite. You are ignoring my argument, which means you have no evidence against it. Since you have no argument against what I've said, only against what you wish I've said, it's clear you didn't think this through very well. W-2 is very efficient, efficient at making sure the welfare state continues being a welfare state. That is not a good thing, the welfare state steals from the populace. My opponent has offered no arguments to this. As such, anyone disagreeing with me at this point should abstain from voting until they have posted a comment displaying precisely what their argument is, so I have a chance to address it. I came here for a logical debate, not a practice in tracking down an evader.