Fallacy:
Long discussion pointing out that force against peaceful individuals is wrong, etc. with stastists defending such force (using some of the other fallacies in the list)
Statist: Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree….
Response:
Often the statist will conclude with both parties will "just have to agree to disagree" or similar after a drawn out debate where their defense of the state and harm against peaceful individuals has been found wanting.
The problem with this seemingly congenial note is that it assumes the discussion was a mere difference of opinion—as though those who oppose violence against peaceful people are on equal moral, economic, and logical footing as those who favor mass organized extortion and enslavement of millions. The existence of government, and more generically, all initiated violence and threats, is necessarily immoral, because it presumes a moral superiority on the part of the aggressor without having to prove himself or herself.
"If 'agreeing to disagree' is your goal, than that still means you must accept voluntaryism, for in advocating government solutions you advocate that I should have no say.
"Notice how if this reasoning were applied to rape, it would not wash: 'Oh, you don't want me to rape you? But I do want to rape you! I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, while I rape you of course."