Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.
4 rounds/72hrs/6000 characters/Select Voting
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguements
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing statements (No New Arguements)
(Just in case Zaradi happened upon this debate.)
Government: “the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed:” (1)
Ought: “used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like:” (2)
Protect: “to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.” (3)
Citizens: “an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises.” (4)
By "themselves" I mean the citizens, not the Government.
Please comment if interested.
Resolved: Governments Ought to Protect Citizens from Themselves
To negate con must demonstrate either premise 1 or 2 false. Furthermore, as P1 and P2 are affirmed that Governments ought to protect citizens from harm and, that citizens can and do harm themselves, it follows logically that Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.
Restated another way;
It is evident that people are subject to harm, including self-induced. The purpose of Governments includes protecting citizens from harm. As the Governments protect citizens from themselves, Governments prevent harm. By doing so Governments are able to “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare” etc. As the impact shown here is the function and purpose of government, it can consequently be concluded that Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves.
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. 
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 .
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 .
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 .
: http://www.ushistory.org... and http://www.pbs.org... and https://en.wikipedia.org...
: http://www.npr.org... and
 http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com... and
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.
"Qualified Immunity": it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs" rights. 
*If Pro made the mistake about including the US Government, then why did Pro not also exclude the excerpt from the US Constitution? Notice how Pro did not say that including this excerpt was a mistake. Thus, while Pro states in Round 2 that he does not want to talk about the US Government, he implicitly states that he in fact does want to talk about the US Government by means of the ideals set forth in the US Constitution.
Pro hand waved his three mistakes with a simple "The Fallacist"s Fallacy" excuse. He is claiming his conclusion is always correct. His Conclusion is not "always correct".
Ideals are great and all, except when the government exempts itself from having to follow those ideals. In the Supreme Court Case Town of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, the Supreme Court finds that federal agents have "qualified immunity". In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court extends this protection to police officers. The Patriot Act was arguably one of the worst offenders against the Constitution"s ideals . The DOJ released "White Papers" which illustrate how constitutional ideals mean nothing when there is a potential threat to national-security . This is to say that ideals are only relevant to government so long as government abides by the ideals.
Round 2 was supposed to be opening arguments which is exactly what I presented: cases in which government harm citizens. Governments should not protect citizens from citizens when governments are the ones doing greater harm to citizens than citizens are doing to citizens. The Supreme Court agrees with this position: "An agent acting - albeit unconstitutionally - in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own." 
Citizens do not spray each other with mustard gas. Citizens do not spread biological weapons through towns for the sole purpose of seeing how people will react. Citizens do not run over other Citizens with tanks (Tiananmen Square). These are some evils governments have done when given power to protect their citizens from their citizens. This is why I believe Pro"s conclusion is not "always correct".
[Patriot Act] http://www.gpo.gov...
Con asks “If Pro made the mistake about including the US Government, then why did Pro not also exclude the excerpt from the US Constitution?”
I am not sure if con is intentionally trying to cause confusion or is simply confused. This debate is about governments in general. This is clear via, the resolution, definition, and my arguments. I do cite the Constitution of the U.S. as an example outlining the proper role of government and do so because it is as I stated “Perhaps, the most well-known and accessible description of the proper role of Government.” It is also clear that this was intended as an example of and not the subject of the debate as I then conclude,It is reasonable to assume these goals and purposes ought to be the goals and purposes of all governments.
Con did respond 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. I was only able to demonstrate this by presenting an example of the ideal goals governments have.
Essentially I get from Con’s arguments that governments can harm citizens. Sure this is true. This does not impact my arguments whatsoever.
Con seems to have misunderstood my initial observation. This resolution is based around “if” a government should, not “how” it should. Thus all contentions that she offered demonstrating issues with “how” miss the mark and are dismissed. This throws out every contention she has made.
I mentioned early in the debate that my conclusion follows logically from P1 and P2.
P1: Governments ought to protect citizens from harm.
Con does not contend the meat of this argument and I extended it. It still stands. The ideal goals of government (in general) cannot be met if governments do not protect citizens from harm.
P2: Citizens can and do harm themselves
No contention was presented. This premise stands.
We can thus conclude that
C: Governments ought to protect citizens from themselves
This debate is a clear win for pro.
Thanks for reading and voting.
(Round 3) When Pro evoked the Fallacist"s Fallacy, he stated:
"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." "
He conceded that my statement [With Premise 1 invalid (aka false)] is a fallacious argument and [the conclusion is also false] is a true conclusion. I accept his concession that "the conclusion is ... false" to be a true conclusion.