The Instigator
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

A government should value the civil rights of its citizens over the welfare of the community.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Cody_Franklin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,083 times Debate No: 8140
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Cody_Franklin

Con

I'm open to any debater, and i would ask for at least some adherence to a Lincoln-Douglas format.

As per the L-D Format, I'll let the Affirmative have the first go.
InfraRedEd

Pro

Government and welfare. What a combination. They even have their own definition of "welfare" but I hope we will not be using that one because it may be somewhat flawed.

Government's latest attempt at welfare in the broader sense, however, may be a disappointment.

I refer to the http://www.washingtonpost.com... eight hundred nineteen billion dollar. Stop right there. That's thirty-five thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in America. Our government, if we are to believe it, has spent an enormous amount of money to stimulate the economy.

Take a good look at this plan and tell me how it is supposed to stimulate the economy. It is obviously a plan to spend a lot of money without any economic impact except its gigantic cost.

Filling potholes for people who didn't ask for their potholes to be filled will not generate income due to gas savings. It will give someone a temporary economically unsustainable job who will be paid with, and then pay taxes on, their own money. These jobs do not create any wealth and simply drain labor from the labor market in competition with the private sector, and create more debt, making economic recovery that much more remote. And there are an enormous number of "jobs" that will be "created."

Assistance for unemployed workers and struggling families 45.7 billion

Health insurance for the unemployed, 40.8 billion.

86.5 billion for the poor, about ten percent. The poor are getting ten cents on the dollar for their money.

So a family of four could receive as much as $79 per month increase in food stamp allotment. They must be celebrating already as they start saving to pay for this plan for years to come.

So it is not that great a deal for the government to pretend to place value on our welfare. Thanks a lot.

At least when they take away our freedom they are not pretending to give us more.

Freedom. Let's start with China.

Students and teachers were locked down for over an hour while police dogs searched for drugs without any probable cause. Since no drugs were found, this "drill" was a great success, the government claimed. It gave the police dogs a good experience with real-life situations.

We already know how the Chinese are about drugs and freedom anyway so this is not really surprising. One wonders why it is even in the news. We have problems of our own after all.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com...

Except it wasn't China. It was Arizona. And also participating were the people who run private prisons just in case this turned into more than a "drill." They want more "clients." Might as well take them straight to the Big House and eliminate the middle man with all that legal fuss anyway. You know that's where you are going and they are not going to bring the prison to you. They have an excellent escape plan since they want you to bring all your friends back with you when you return. That means more profits.

We already know how Arizona is about drugs and freedom anyway so this is not really surprising. One wonders why it is even in the news. We have problems of our own after all.

The Patriot Act is not an Arizona law.

It is the most egregious assault on our freedom in history. It and the hysteria surrounding it are more damaging to our civilization than the economic meltdown ever could be. We might learn to grow our own food and make our own clothes but we can not make our own freedom so easily.

It makes a mockery of the Constitution, except that has already been done quite well.

By immigration "reform." Border patrol vehicles pulling up right behind police cars on routine traffic stops. Our friends and neighbors are disappearing right before our eyes.

This is not what America was supposed to be about. We are supposed to be about freedom and equality but instead we are turning into a Third World police state with neighbors encouraged to rat on neighbors.

So it is not the government that needs to be concerned about our freedom after all.

It is us.
Debate Round No. 1
Cody_Franklin

Con

I negate the claim that individual rights supersede community welfare, on the grounds that for a functional society, both the individual and community deserve to be respected.

No definitions will be necessary, as all terms are self-explanatory.

The value will be Justice, defined by Amitai Etzioni as the equilibrium between autonomy and social order; a balance between individuals and their communities; if the interests of both are balanced, society will be functioning optimally.

The criterion for today is Communitarianism. Etzioni writes, "Respect and uphold society's moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy." This brings about an equilibrium, because society only institutionalizes the autonomy of the individuals as far as they respect the values and laws of their community. This acts as a check, since the individuals give community its power, and in turn, community grants individuals protection of autonomy.

Contention I - A focus on individual rights destabilizes society.

A: A focus on rights is unbalanced.

The book Civic Repentance outlines the fact that to lead too far towards rights leads to anarchy, and to lean too far towards order leads to authoritarianism. After examining this it is clear that a focus on individual autonomy cannot be tolerated, because doing so will lead to a destabilization of the communitarian equilibrium; as more and more rights are bestowed on citizens, they come to expect more and more privileges, yet with less and less responsibilities. Through the communitarian paradigm, however, we can see that if citizens are not doing their part in community, and not serving even a basic function, community has no obligation to respect that individual's autonomy, on the grounds that society's moral order is being neither respected nor enhanced.

B: Excessive liberty dampens respect for law.

Gordon Bazemore writes that as people are granted ever more legal rights, they tend to lean on court systems to resolve conflicts, as opposed to one-on-one dispute resolution. This translates into a complete dependence on courts to get the job done, and this will lead to abuse, as people run to the courts for even the most minute incidents; whenever anyone perceives a threat to their rights, that would become ground for legal intervention. The laws and courts of a nation would become abused for personal gain, but only because such rights and privileges were bestowed upon the populace.

C: Enhancing individuals weakens the community.

Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill and Contractarian philosopher John Locke discussed how, for a society to be functional, individuals must be ready to sacrifice excessive liberty and absolute autonomy for protection in society. With the focus that government puts on rights, individuals have to sacrifice less, and can do more. Abundant autonomy will only lead to further rights violations for citizens, and leads to an overall feeling that sacrificing for society is unnecessary; individuals will begin to believe that they no longer need community, and this will lead to a decay in the moral strength of communities, and will thus lead to increased crime rates. Overall, the focus on individual rights will lead to a perceived lack of need for communities, which means that individuals will be robbing themselves of society's protection.

In close, Neither individuals nor society must receive the most attention; however, to achieve balance under this particular condition, the spotlight must be taken off of the individual (to restore the individual's need for community) and overall, restore the balance between autonomy and the moral order of society.

Please note that my opponent has not provided an ultimate value or a weighing standard for the round, so everything needs to be weighed through Communitarianism to ensure that the balance between order and autonomy is served.

To cover what the PRO has said, let me quickly begin by pointing out that societal welfare equates the well-being of the society, not federal welfare programs as he suggests; therefore, his arguments about federal welfare are really inapplicable in this debate, and you can throw them out the window.

He moves on to freedom, talking about these random searches and seizures, and private prisons are also included; two responses here, first of all is going to be that private prisons are not in the best interests of society, so the argument doesn't work for the PRO, but second, my opponent does nothing here to discuss why civil rights are so much more important. When you look at my case keep in mind that absolute freedom must be given up; as far as search and seizure is concerned, all I ask you to keep in mind is that these students are on school property (especially for charter schools) and so while students have some right to privacy, keep in mind that they sacrifice absolute privacy for the safety of the students and staff (remember that we have to maintain a balance between both).

Also, notice that my opponent is being extremely specific to the United States, which, while it is a valid example, he cannot base his entire view of the debate on only our own country; however, even if you choose to do so here, the Supreme Court case New Jersey v T.L.O. ruled that such searches and seizures were entirely constitutional, but that searchers had to have 'reasonable suspicion' to prevent power abuse; and, as the United States claims to be a nation of laws, then we would have to accept the decision of the highest court in our land; even if this were an unjust decision, however, then look back to what I've already said about how the PRO is in no way defending a social focus on the civil rights of individuals.

To conclude, I'd like to really highlight the last thing my opponent said, and I quote:

"So it is not the government that needs to be concerned about our freedom after all.

It is us."

In this single statement, he has essentially given me the debate; look at the topic: "A GOVERNMENT should value the civil rights of its citizens over the welfare of the community." You've heard it yourself. The government need not be concerned about freedom. In doing so, the PRO has conceded that the government should not be focusing on civil rights; with that forfeiture in mind, I ask you kindly for a CON vote to make sure that both community welfare AND individual rights are respected, balance, and enlarged.
InfraRedEd

Pro

I negate the claim that individual rights supersede community welfare, on the grounds that for a functional society, both the individual and community deserve to be respected.

That is the first sentence of my opponent's argument.

I have been ambushed. He is arguing that his own debate topic is inferior to his own other debate topic.

He is an experienced debater and should know better. In debating, once you define a position, you are not allowed to change it.

He must not be permitted to bait and switch. If he can then I can.

This is a terrible topic anyway.

How in the world can I argue the position that it is not the case that "for a functional society, both the individual and community deserve to be respected?"

That position is indefensible. My opponent has replaced a very good debate topic with a very bad one.

There are a number of problems adapting debating tournament rules to online debating.

No results found for "distance technology in debating class".

My opponent has spent the entire round attacking his own debate topic. It was a good debate topic to begin with.

I have better things to do than debate an opponent who keeps attacking himself.

He is debating what he said he is debating and he is not going to change it.
Debate Round No. 2
Cody_Franklin

Con

Let me start this out by saying that the PRO has essentially dropped everything which I posted last, and he has resorted to attacking my method of debating this topic.

Let me also clear up a misconception; my opponent is claiming that I pulled a bait-and-switch, when I clearly have not. My burden is not to prove that community welfare is preferable, but to prove that civil rights should not be the main focus of government; and considering that my opponent has dropped every argument against his position, the round has to go CON. I am not, as he claims, attacking the topic; By providing the position that civil rights ought to be balanced with community welfare, I am merely trying to provide the best of both worlds; however, respecting civil rights is not the same as focusing solely on those rights, and so, I have again proven that the topic deserves negation; to put it simply, I did not offer another topic; I merely offered my thoughts as to why a state ought not focus on the maximization of civil rights.

So, to sum things up, this topic comes down to two things: One, you accept that the PRO has dropped every single argument in this debate, and give CON the vote; or two, you can vote based on my opponent's personal attacks, which honestly should carry no weight in the round.

In conclusion, allow me to restate our topic one last time: "A government should value the civil rights of its citizens over the welfare of the community." While PRO never directly answers the topic (in that he never supports the claim that civil rights are more important than societal welfare), CON easily proves that the one must necessarily be balanced with the other, to prevent a shift towards anarchic individualism or authoritarian collectivism. I ask you, please give this round to the CON.
InfraRedEd

Pro

The rules:

1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative.

The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution.
The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement.
(1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life').

(2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution.

(3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety. Unless of course he is the one who proposed it.

Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent.

2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so.

My opponent would have you believe that "My burden is not to prove that community welfare is preferable."

It certainly is and we are not proceeding until this is straightened out.

If my opponent got his "big box full of awards" with sleazy tactics like this he should return them.

Also he claims that "he never supports the claim that civil rights are more important than societal welfare," although that is exactly what I did, and that "that the one must necessarily be balanced with the other, to prevent a shift towards anarchic individualism or authoritarian collectivism."

We are not debating whether "one must necessarily be balanced with the other, to prevent a shift towards anarchic individualism or authoritarian collectivism." This may or may not be true and I am not going to address that subject because that is not what we are debating.

We are debating, to remind my opponent, whether A government should value the civil rights of its citizens over the welfare of the community.

My opponent is debating the con to that and that is what he is debating and that is what he is going to debate and nothing else and I am not wasting any more time stating this or supporting it or debating it. If my opponent believes otherwise then we do not have a debate.

If we do then my opponent is of course free to start another debate or even challenge me to one but I have wasted enough time on this one.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I have to admit that did slightly bug me; especially considering that he tried to read off the LD rules to someone who has done it for 3 years, when he himself doesn't follow anything remotely close to the pattern. However, the voting is up to other people, not myself. So, what am I going to do, right?
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Yes, but i am sick of people requesting LD and him ignoring it.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Oh, don't fault him for it, this was before the round; he was in no way trying to insult my debating ability, but was simply offering me a place that I could go to debate (though I do already debate for my high school); so while I may not agree with the way my opponent debates, I don't see that as any reason to attack him personally, especially when he is only making a suggestion. Have to give respect to get respect. :)
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
"Crack debating team right in Bartlesville. A great opportunity. Attend all their debates and learn about real debating and get saved also."

God, you NEED to learn how to debate, Ed.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Oh trust me, I'm with the debaters at Bartlesville High school, they're definitely some of the most talented people around. And they've helped me win a big box full of awards.
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
http://www.acsb.org... Crack debating team right in Bartlesville. A great opportunity. Attend all their debates and learn about real debating and get saved also.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
That's unfortunate. I might start another tonight or tomorrow and we can do that if you'd like.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
But I couldn't make it in time...
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
It's longer.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
(longer voting period...)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Cody_FranklinInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Cody_FranklinInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Marine1 7 years ago
Marine1
Cody_FranklinInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60