Taxes Are Justifiable

Both being insulting claiming that I could not refute any of his points, and claiming that I did not do it in the past round anyway. I will post the following response (part from before I forfeited the round, and continuing, obviously I will pose no new arguments). I would also like to point out that the only reason I have forfeited the last round is because I am at TFA State - Speech and Debate competition and have no had access to the internet for some time, now. I would first like to thank my opponent, Contra, to debating in a manner that was both educational and persuasive, however, I would like to rebuild my case, rebut my opponents, and draw out the voting issues again. First, I would love to even the playing field in this debate in the sense that I easily could have debated absolutely anything I wanted relating to the resolution because Pro did not take the initiative to make it more specific. I will present why this limits the Con ground. ====Limits Con Ground==== Essentially, but posting a resolution as vague as Pro's we can assume it is one thing, or another, or another, etc. This multiplies the Pro's ground to an unfair level in that he can debate absolutely anything he wants, whereas he can also say that I debated the wrong topic. Pro will not change the debate resolution from what I understood it as, because that is where my case is centered. If Pro does this, not only does he limit my chance of votes to zero, but presents an unfair debate in total. Pro easily could have said the same thing about any portion of the resolution I debated against. I could have said something completely different, and again, he would have turned it so I would not have been able to debate with a unique case. Therefore, conduct still goes to Con. ====Spelling and Grammar==== Debate. org presents the wonderful opportunity to check your spelling. Unlike my fault of making a type-o and not being able to pick up on it within this website, Pro had every opportunity to correct his own mistakes. Spelling mistakes are essential to this debate in that all plans are rejected immediately it there is one spelling error found. However, being that this is an online community of debaters, the vote goes to the contender with the least amount of these errors. Pro cannot explain that his computer does not have a spell check, because simply enough, debate. org provides one. This claim is false. I would also like to pose the argument that he claimed only one of his mistakes was an accident and did not see my correction of another term, as well, so I have still made less errors. Spelling and Grammar votes go to Con. ====C1: Government and Taxes = PRO==== Pro adds evidence to this claim in the last round, all examples will be thrown out as there cannot be any new claims/warrants in this round. Pro claims taxes = government. We all know this is not true. "You cannot have on easily without the other. " Pro, in this claim, says that you can have one without the other, just not easily. Case in point, you can have government without taxes, admitted by pro. C1 goes to Con. Under "Taxes are justified" because they fund for this, that, and the other, is refuted by my point that there are other private funds for these programs. Income inequality will always be a factor, and always has been in society as a whole. Reducing it is too vague in that this could mean less income for the rich and more for the poor, this is not just to the rich. We see this topic brought up a lot in today's society in that the rich pay lower taxes than the poor, we solve by having everyone pay the same percent tax. I have also already proved taxes are not critical for government. Government can exist without taxes, as conceded by Pro, therefore, all points under "Government Is Needed" have been refuted because government still exists without taxes, therefore, all point are available without taxes. On the point that it would lead to anarchy, I have refuted this as well, proving that government will still exist. My source citation at 3 was shortened due to debate. org's limit on length of a link, his point about my source not being about nomads will be thrown out, because it was a citation for the point that we did not evolve for government, but that we evolve to survive. ==Infrastructure== I did not ignore this argument, Pro looked over it and did not understand that the lottery itself is an infrastructure in that the money is collected, it is sent to one area, it is then banked for a check, that check is sent. This proves my point that the lottery is an infrastructure, whether it be a "huge" one or not, it is, and my point stands. ==How the Rich - Got Rich== You can cross apply my argument on Infrastructure, as again, Pro has looked over my previous argument. I would also like to point out the constant abuse by the Pro in that he says I ignored his points just because my responses are not sufficient to his standards. ====C2: Funding For Government with Voluntary private entities==== Again, Pro proposes a new claim, this is thrown out. Though the Contention stands, new claims cannot be added, only refutes to previous arguments. I would like to argue the Roman Empire point, but will not because it is of no use as a voting issue. Besides, again, it has already been proved that governments can survive without taxation, maybe not "easily," but they do. ====C3: "All" Taxes Need to Be Justified=== Cross apply my first point on the limit of ground to the Con. The fry point will be thrown out because it proposes no sufficient warrants to the point. Also, "Difference. " is not a sentence, it is a single word. (Grammar will go to Con. ) ====C4: Tax Havens/ "No taxed" nations==== I will concede to this contention because it does not affect the debate as much, as I have already proved the resolution in Con's favor. "Nope. " is also not a sentence. (Grammar will go to Con. ) "In fact, the nations with the lowest taxes actually tend to have weaker economies (with USA and Singapore being the only exceptions). Some nations with the lowest taxation rates: Burma, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. " This will be thrown out because it is, again, a new argument in the final round. ====C5: Income Inequality==== Everything under this heading will be thrown out. By putting previous arguments into a fifth contention, Pro acts as if this is a new argument, therefore, a new point for me to refute entirely in the last round. We have established this as unfair, already. ====C: Taxes Are Justified==== Pro has not argued my point that the Goodwill tax is just. Therefore my argument stands. Pro cannot make this last argument because I have proved that by limiting Con ground, he can change the resolution meaning at any time, my point stands, and Pro's refutation will be thrown out. =====Conclusion:===== I have proved that not all taxes are justified, as did Pro himself. I have proved that the resolution limits Con's ground too much by Pro's interpretation being too vague. I have proved that spelling and grammar votes go to Con. I have proved that conduct votes go to Con because of abuse (and limits). I have proved the resolution (by default interpretation) to be false.