Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.

First off, I was a philosophy and communication double major in college and have no background in debate. I apologize if I totally butcher the normal debate structure. My intention is to not offend you. Definitions according to http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...: Fallacy (n): A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. A1. Structure of Premise 1 Pro makes three mistakes in the first Premise of the argument. A1 Sub 1. One of these three mistakes occurs when Pro writes: "Here is a sample of those values and goals included by the authors as to that purpose; "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare"." (http://www.archives.gov......) (b -> c) Such governments could only accomplish these goals and realize their purpose if citizens are protected from harm. (b <- a) Moreover, there can be no justice, tranquility, general welfare etc. if citizens are subject to harm that the government could reasonably prevent." (~c <- ~a) In Logic Notation, these sentences become: b -> c b <- a c <- a (principle of equivalence) ~c <- ~a This is an example of Denying the Antecedent Fallacy. This fallacy makes Premise 1 invalid. With Premise 1 invalid (aka false), the conclusion is also false. The second and third mistakes will reference the goals intended by Pro: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare"." A1 Sub 2. The second mistake that Pro makes is: "It is reasonable to assume these goals and purposes ought to be the goals and purposes of all governments Assuming that the goals and purposes specified above ought be the goals and purposes of all governments is not reasonable. No two governments are the same. The culture and heritage of a nationality have (at least) slightly altered goals when compared with the culture and heritage of another nationality. Please correct me if I am wrong, Pro, are you arguing for the concept of "Spreading Democracy" across the world? A1 Sub 3. The third mistake that Pro makes with regards to the first Premise is specifying that "Such governments could only accomplish these goals and realize their purpose if citizens are protected from harm." All I need to do is point out one case in which the only way to accomplish these goal is through the protection of citizens from harm is not the case. Because these goals are specific to America, I feel the need to point out a moment in America's history which a double standard was created. Executive Order 9066 was issued slightly after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. FDR and other high ranking government officials believed that Americans with Japanese ancestry would either spy or fight for the Japanese against America. Because of this fear, the government rounded up 100,000 Americans with Japanese ancestry and placed them in concentration camps. While this action restored domestic tranquility to the citizens of America not in concentration camps, it also achieved its goals and purposes for those who were forced to stay in these concentration camps at gunpoint. In that situation, intimidation was just as effective as protection. Executive Order 9066 was deemed legal by the Supreme Court. [1] My Case I believe there are both situations in which governments should not protect their citizens from their citizens and methods with which governments should not use to protect their citizens from their citizens. C1. US Drones have killed 4 Americans without due process. "The US government has acknowledged the killing of four American citizens," only one of which was intentional. The attorney general has defended the killing of American citizens, even when done on accident." Afterwards, the government decided its' actions were legal and justified [2]. C2. The United States government had several secret projects during WWII. One of the secret projects involved placing military service personnel in enclosed containers and exposing them to mustard gas. These military service personnel were then sworn to secrecy with threats of dishonorable discharges and having to serve time in military prisons. Their exposure to mustard gas was classified for decades, which prevented the personnel from receiving proper medical treatment [3]. C3. The American Military has sprayed large cities with chemical weapons to see how large cities would react. Several families sued the government after their family members died. One of the lawsuits involved the death of Mr. Nevis. The dissenting opinion of Judge Norris reads in part "I cannot agree that General McAuliffe's decision to use a particular strain of bacterium in conducting a simulated biological attack on the City of San Francisco"the decision to conduct a simulated attack on San Francisco was a planning decision"" The attack was considered "simulated" because it was not some enemy state actively attacking the City of San Francisco [4]. Sources: [1]: http://www.ushistory.org... and http://www.pbs.org... and https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://www.csmonitor.com... [3]: http://www.npr.org... and https://archive.org... [4] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com... and http://openjurist.org...