Second Harvard Debater: My opponent is right about one thing: Thoreau was a Harvard grad; and, like many of us, a bit self-righteous. He once said, "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one...." Thoreau the idealist could never know that Adolf Hitler would agree with his words. The beauty and the burden of democracy is this: No idea prevails without the support of the majority. The People decide the moral issues of the day, not "a majority of one."

Second Harvard Debater: You can't decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. If we could, I'd never stop for a red light. My father is one of those men that [sic] stands between us and chaos: a police officer. I remember the day his partner, his best friend, was gunned down in the line of duty. Most vividly of all, I remember the expression on my dad's face. Nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name we give it.

What is the key claim of this argument?

What is the evidence that supports that claim?