This conversation is only limited because of your presentation. I'm not the one presenting only one option. That's you. This is your logical fallacy of the false premise. And yes, since contrabution is not limited to only tax, your definition is incorrect. It is too narrow as we are discussing a broader issue. The definition is only part of the whole. It mirrors what you are doing in the debate. You are narrowing the definition because the other parts don't support your argument... you are trying to disenfranchise certain members of the population because they don't support your polices. You feign that it's about equity, but it's all about eliminating competition.That there are other ways to support the government does not limit us here when discussing this way to support the government. You think this conversation is limited, it isn't. You are wrong. We can dissect support and discuss them individually. Your confusion here is that we can't. The fact that you havent' even suggested other ways to support the government is telling. Your further confusion is that just because there are other ways to support the government makes this definition wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Just because there are other ways to support the government doesn't negate adding this definition.
You have failed to present any kind of logical argument at all. Thus far, everything you've presented has been based on a false premise. An illogical beginning means that anything that stems from it is invalid or at least is not proven because of it. The only other thing you've attempted, completely unsuccessfully btw, is to project the lack of logic and failures of your position onto me. What you fail to understand... along with the fact that your entire position is based on a false premise, is that when you limit voting on an arbitrary factor based on elitism, you head towards fascism. This is what you are proposing, and it is completely silly to pretent that no one's rights are being taken away. That's just dishonest.Now you are relying on shifting the burden fallacy so that you don't actually have to present a counter argument. You have completely failed on all counts. You have further failed to understand what fascism is or means. So I am glad you have stopped debating me because your arguments are illogical, fallacious silliness that have no merit and doesn't stand up to review. Instead of you actually debating me, which you haven't by the way, you have have just called this fascist erroneously and produced excuse after excuse as to why current arbitrary limits on voting are okay but this limit on voting is not. You have stated citizenship equals the right to vote. Well guess what, it doesn't. We limit rights on voting all the time. This is just one more that say if you are taxed you get representation, if you are not, you don't get representation at the same level. No citizen has their rights stripped from them anyway as all citizens still get to vote.
Not at all. The fact is that you don't have a logical argument to begin with. When you do, I'll be happy to debate it. Until that happens, I'll just keep pointing out how your position has no logic behind it.The fact is you don't have a logical counter argument. You only have an emotional one.