Morality should be legislated

It's the last round, so I would like to address pro's case quickly and then summarize my case. I will be quoting and analyzing the flaws of some of pro's points. Pro-"If you believe something is "wrong" enough, you will want all practice of it outlawed." This is false. How wrong I believe an action is has no bearing on whether I would ban it. Almost everyone believes cheating on a spouse is morally detestable, but it is not illegal. Justice may fall under the umbrella of morality, but they are not synonymous. Pro-"What is my objective standard? The liberty that people should possess to govern themselves." This is no objective standard. According to pro, any action is permissible if the majority approve. This is almost the definition of subjective. Also, pro's "liberty" of democracy is really the fallacious assertion that each person is owned by everyone. However, it is illogical to assert that someone else has an equal right to control you as you do yourself. Pro's "objective standard" is neither a standard nor objective. Pro-"If 99% of the population of Georgia doesn't want their children "indoctrinated" with evolutionary teaching, why shouldn't their will be enforced?" It's not too bad for them to not teach there own children evolution. However, by banning the teaching of evolution by anyone, the 99% would be stopping the children of the 1% from learning science. Pro clearly has no respect for the 1st amendment by stating this is OK. As the resolution undermines an objective standard of what should be legislated, pro has no platform on which to say whether the government should or should not do this. Pro-"Is theft not wrong if it isn't done forcefully? Is deception regarding certain important issues not illegal, and rightfully so? As I pointed out earlier, the NAP cannot address breaches of civil contracts. Under the NAP such would not be illegal." Theft is by definition the use of force against property. Fraud is equivalent to theft, as is violating a contract. Pro-"If there is nothing inherently "right" about rights (conduct point for pun, please!), then why should we protect them?" If conduct points were that easy to come by, I would win a lot more debates. 😃 Alas. Anyway, I never said that morality played no role in government, only that morality itself shouldn't be legislated. Ok. Time for a brief recap of important points. Based on the simple right to self-ownership, one can reasonably deduct that the government's role is to protect persons and property from the use of force. This is known as the NAP. Pro provided no real refutation to this. To legislate morality means to legislate beliefs about right and wrong. There are two interpretations of this. Firstly, the government makes it mandatory to believe certain things about right and wrong. However, this constitutes the use of force against a nonaggressor and is therefore illegitimate. The second is that things which are wrong should be illegal simply because they are wrong. However, I have demonstrated that there are things which are wrong, such as cheating on a spouse, that are not and ought not be illegal, defeating the resolution. Pro tries to spin the resolution by claiming laws should be based on some moral principle. However, the resolution is that morality as a whole, not some aspect of it like defining justice, is to be legislated. Pro's case rests on this faulty interpretation of the resolution. Finally, pro failed to provide a justification for the existence of a government. Without a government, no legislation can exist, and the resolution is defeated. Merry Christmas!