Is taxation theft?

Alright , so we have our courageous friend here.

Look , let's clear the air. I stand on and argue my positions. Now I do that relentless and folks would rather me relinquish and agree with them. I don't expect you to do that so need not to expect it from me. Nothing to get emotional about or frustrated with .

Now debates have a section called cross -examination. Within that, you have two sides engaging. I encourage questions and answers between two sides and it's dishonest to say less than that.

When I ask the opposing side questions, it's one side engaging with the other. That's two sides and nothing less as claimed or complained about.

The stipulation was put out there because I notice people duck and dodge questions.

Understandably so to avoid refutation. If you have a strong defense, your position can be examined as a lawyer commits to in cross examination. The opposing side's answers should be able to stand up to the scrutiny of the questions. The answers should be direct . If they can't be direct, it is an evasive tactic.

For example, a yes or no question.

What is sufficient is one or the other. If an explanation is requested, one will be requested.

That's what it is and this works both ways. The opposing side can ask questions in attempt to have me invalidate my own position. Making an argument is not the only way to debunk a point. The answer to a question will prove or demonstrate one thing while falsifying another. Lawyers, prosecutors, judges do it as a profession.

Some may not be good at questioning and just rather have rehearsed arguments.

But people will believe what they will and perceive whatever it is based on the given situation.

One thing further , this is about so called sources. Sources have their places. Remember, I am debating your position and not what somebody else wrote. Really a source of information is only needed if it is not believed of what the person is saying is true. If there is no issue like that present, there is no source necessary to provide.

A source is not evidence anyhow other than showing an agreement with you or backing up that somebody said this particular information you're saying before you .

Also , in regards to words, words are tools. I and the opposing side can use tools to get a job done. That job is conveying communication. So one tool is used to convey this meaning of communication and another tool for the other.

Ok, so the topic, Is taxation theft?

My stance is no. The opposing side has taken the side of yes which is naturally the affirmative so I'll allow the opposing side to say what the person has got to say.

This is in explaining why paying the government funds is the government taking funds unauthorized with out consent and permission and unbeknownst, right.

The funds that hire an administration to control people living in the land through what are called laws and regulations via legislation and voting, petitioning , rallying, lobbying and protesting.

The opposing side will explain the funds collected out of your wages, charges added to your purchases is thievery.

That they're unauthorized, non consensual and so forth.

I extend over to the affirmative. There's seven days time to give a response . No rush, take some time. Just some time.

"I'm perfectly happy to answer every question with a "Yes, and...", "Yes, but..." or "Yes, only in these cases..." but I'm not going to limit myself to one-word answers, as that restricts my ability to debate my points. Is that acceptable?"

Yes.

That's the answer to the question.

Just keep in mind , a yes or no to a question may have you agree and concede regardless of explanation.

Also if I didn't request an explanation, I'm not bound to respond or counter it because the question wasn't asking for it.

The yes or no if you're skilled enough will be able to defend your case or it won't.

If you don't think it will, you can refuse to answer or say you can't answer yes or no.

Then I may ask a different way if necessary.

"One thing first, please note that my opponent has not provided any definitions in the description of the debate, so this may come down to the semantics of the words "Taxation" and "Theft". If so, I'm willing to accept that, but both sides must provide ample evidence as to why their definition is better."

One thing I like to point out with all respect due , is reading comprehension.

If you read carefully, I explained the context of the topic within regards to taxation, funds, government, society, etc.

Things are not just explained by the format of .....word - definition.

Also I just went over this in the first round about words. Looks like I have to reiterate:

"Also , in regards to words, words are tools. I and the opposing side can use tools to get a job done. That job is conveying communication. So one tool is used to convey this meaning of communication and another tool for the other."

Once more, with all respect due, reading comprehension. We're not debating over definitions and what words should mean. You can use a word the way you use it as long as it communicates the point and I can understand it.

The opposing side could of asked questions prior to accepting the debate if there was a sense of any uncertainty with what is meant by any word or how words would be used.

But , the opposing side just accepted, went straight into this blind.

Now again, I made clear the context of this discussion. I gave the opposing side a week to understand, get an angle or read on the context and prepare to rebut exactly what was said.

If the opposing side brings forth anything not relevant to what I've said, the charge of moving the goalpost will be made.

I'll say it again what the context is.

"The opposing side will explain the funds collected out of your wages, charges added to your purchases is thievery.

That they're unauthorized, non consensual and so forth."

There it is, the context of the topic. The funds collected out of your wages. Taxes, right. What's the topic? Taxation.

"I merely have to prove that taxation is the forcible removal of property from its owner."

I reiterate:

"The opposing side will explain the funds collected out of your wages, charges added to your purchases is thievery.

That they're unauthorized, non consensual and so forth."

If the "property", is not "wages ", the opposing side is already off context of the topic .

"I'd also like to point out that consent is not a part of this equation. "

It actually is. Again , the context of this topic.

"The opposing side will explain the funds collected out of your wages, charges added to your purchases is thievery.

That they're unauthorized, non consensual and so forth."

It says they're unauthorized, non consensual.

It appears the opposing side has decided not to argue against my position and has presented a strawman that the opposing side has rehearsed arguments for to attack it instead.

If the opposing side does not argue against my position, this will be a forfeit.

I can't argue and defend a position I don't have.

So unfortunately, the opposing side has failed to meet the burden this round. That's why I say take a week to cleverly come up with an argument to prove that taxes being taken aren't consensual.

See because that's what theft means in this debate.

I specifically said the opposing side will explain the funds collected out of your wages, charges added to your purchases is thievery.

That they're unauthorized, non consensual and so forth.

So it appears that the opposing side at least from this round agrees that paying taxes is consensual and authorized. Now if the opposing side wishes to call that theft, the opposing side can arrange a separate debate based on that subjective defined position.

Based on my position, taxes are either consensual or they're not. I say they are. The opposite side was to prove they weren't.

So take a week, rethink of something clever to try and prove they aren't. Abandon the position you thought you were debating and debate mine according to what I said in the first round or forfeit.

Take a week, take a week.

Please at least place quotes so I don't get lost in who is saying what.

"Okay, this is stupid semantics, so I'll just end this here. I will not be answering a question with a one-word answer. You don't have to read my whole answer, but if you don't, you won't really understand my argument, and that puts you at a disadvantage."

I'll decide what I'm not understanding. I'll decide my advantage. In a debate, you don't look to give the other side an advantage. You seek your own because you're trying to defend your own self.

I'll decide what I'm not understanding.

That's what you're not understanding. If I need clarity, if I don't understand something, if I require an explanation, it's my call particularly in my topic with my parameters.

That's grounds for your forfeiture in refusal to abide.

You really want to go through all this for fear of your yes or no condemning your position which tells how strong or weak your stance is and has shown to be just the difference between the two anyway.

"I'm going to stop wasting characters on this random, unrelated topic and deal with problems as they come. I suggest that you do the same."

The previous round put my case at a well deserved rest. I predict the circles are coming as typical.

"Okay, but you can't debate whether an apple is red without defining the words "apple" or "red". This is also pointless semantics, so I won't spend too much time on this, but you didn't provide any reasoning as to why my definitions are poor, and you didn't provide an alternative, so I'm going to have to assume you are letting them stand. "

Circles as prognosticated.

"If the opposite is true, provide a reason as to why my definitions are not good, and provide better ones in their place. Do you agree to that? Simple yes or no, with or without an explanation"

No I don't agree . The only definitions that aren't good are the ones you don't know to words being used to communicate out and back to you. I think I've reiterating this. The point in definitions is communicating, not debating.

Now if you want a forum discussion on that , we can do it. Not worthy in debating but we can discuss further.

Plus by the way I think I arranged a high number of characters , so worry not of wasting them.

" I will remind you that this is not a stipulation of the debate. If this definition were in the description of the debate, then I wouldn't be able to refute it under the terms of the debate. However, you just made up this definition in your first round, so it's a part of your argument, and thus, you have to give reasoning as to why you believe consent (or rather, non-consent) is a crucial part of taxation."

You know I have to apologize. You are misunderstanding the setup.

It makes no difference to me what I say is just in the first round and is not in the description. It's how I debate.

Now you sincerely may not be used to that and I give you the opportunity to let us officially cancel this debate and you can prepare. Although you do have a week to prepare.

You are debating me so in order to debate me , you have to counter my position as follows:

"My stance is no. The opposing side has taken the side of yes which is naturally the affirmative so I'll allow the opposing side to say what the person has got to say.

This is in explaining why paying the government funds is the government taking funds unauthorized with out consent and permission and unbeknownst, right."

So I gave the stipulation in the description and my position in the first round.

Now I typically put in the descriptions, to the effect of "if there are any questions on the topic, send a message".

I stopped doing that because people had common sense to ask prior to accepting something blindly.

So we can cancel . I can allow that as me being author of this setup. People can be honest if they're going to vote, recognize the cancellation.

I do however do my debates this way. I may put it in the description. I may hold my points until the first round.

I think in live audible debates , the announcer or moderator just announces the topic and the one side begins. There are no preliminaries to that.

So I can officially cancel this or you take a week to prepare to refute my position as stated in the first round being opposite of what you are to present on taxation being theft.

Of course if you don't disagree based on my stance, that will be considered agreement (conceding).

"That is still a part of this debate, because you didn't include the definition of taxation in the description, and you must defend your idea of theft."

That's not the debate I'm sorry. Genuinely I am . You cannot take over the topic, hijack it and rewrite it .

The topic is not what constitutes as theft or here is the correct or reasonable idea of theft or is it consensual or not. I said we can have a separate debate for that.

So , let me know what you want to do. You can claim I'm dishonest but I communicate and engage and tend to be stand up as that .

No response and a forfeit.

Case closed.

Taxation is not theft.

Thank you.