Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.

Thanks Sarra for your round. Clarification: I did notice that there is a typo in my first round. The above is premise one as indicated in my argument summation in round 2. Under the section though, I accidently put the “U.S. Government.” I am arguing government in general not just the U.S. Government. The Fallacist’s Fallacy : Con argues that my first premise is based on a fallacy and is thus invalid. From this assertion she concludes “With Premise 1 invalid (aka false), the conclusion is also false.”This is a textbook example of the fallacist’s fallacy. This is because “Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.” (1) This is “a special case of denying the antecedent”(1) Ironically, con has committed the fallacy that she is accusing me of committing. For pro to negate premise, one more is required than claiming it fallacious. Defense of Premise 1: “Governments ought to protect citizens from harm.” I argued that a main role of government is to protect citizens from harm. To demonstrate support for this premise I quoted the U.S. constitution. This demonstrates goals of a specific government. I argued that the goals listed would be unattainable if Governments did not protect citizens from harm. Con contends that “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.” Sure, there may be “at least” slight variation in the specifics of the goals present, but the argument stands that the ideal goals of government (in general) cannot be met if governments do not protect citizens from harm. From what I see here, con does not contend this point, and thus I extend it. Con asks “are you arguing for the concept of "Spreading Democracy" across the world?” Certainly I am not arguing that in this debate. Not sure where that assumption arises from. But…. No. The example con gives of FDR and other government officials imprisoning those of Japanese descent in camps violates the observation I made. Remember, the scope of this debate is not to argue specific examples or “how” a government might accomplish what it ought. Rather we are arguing “if” governments ought to protect citizens from harm. Only after we have established “if” as this debate is designed to do, could we reasonably argue the question of “how.” Defense of Premise 2: “Citizens can and do harm themselves.” Con does not contend this premise, so I extend it. As I have extended both premises, the conclusion stands that “Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.” Rebuttals: Con presents three contentions. Unfortunately they are all attacks on methods, not ideals. Though it seems redundant, here is what I stated in my opening argument. This debate is about what a government ought to do as in “if” it should, or “if” it should not protect citizens from themselves. This debate is not about how the government ought to go about accomplishing that, that is to say the question of this debate is not “how.” Such a debate over “how” would be important to have after concluding “if.” Consequently, any and all arguments and contentions involving “how” are not on point and should be dismissed. By this standard all three of Con’s contentions can be thrown out as they argue against methods used to accomplish the resolution…. but don’t address the resolution itself. Overview: Cons arguments are not on topic and easily dismissed as they don’t address the question of the resolution. P1 and P2 are affirmed and thus the conclusion logically follows. Governments Ought to Protect Citizens from Themselves. Vote Pro! Sources: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...