Your basic strategy here is to show that your conclusion follows necessarily from a well-established moral principle. This can be a powerful debating tool and often yields surprising results. Theft is the appropriation of property without the owner's consent. Taxes require the appropriation of property without the owner's consent. Therefore, taxes are theft.
Taxes are theft.
Therefore, taxes should be abolished. From a simple definition of theft in the first syllogism, you have arrived at a surprising conclusion. Your opponent would be unlikely to attack either major premise. Criticizing a Moral Argument Understanding the role of the syllogism in moral argument provides an effective analytic device in criticizing your opponent's argument. This is especially true of utilitarian arguments.