Neither speaker talks about whether people are capable of making good choices without governmental interference. The discussion never touches on how the presence or absence of governmental interference changes people’s behavior.

Neither speaker considers the importance of virtuousness on the part of citizens. How citizens behave is actually pretty irrelevant to this discussion, which is about what role the law should prioritize.

Sarah would likely agree with this, but Glen never expresses an opinion. Glen only mentions the dangers of government focusing on individual rights, and doesn’t talk about the possible dangers of government focusing on virtue.

Glen agrees with this, but Sarah doesn’t disagree. Sarah’s argument is that the alternative (government being too concerned with virtue) is worse. She never actually contradicts Glen’s claim about overprotecting individual rights.

This is the conclusion of Glen’s argument, meaning Glen agrees. Sarah’s argument, on the other hand, supports the unstated conclusion that this is not the case and that the law should focus on other roles. This is the disagreement.