The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Abolish "Patriot act"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 720 times Debate No: 54820
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance only.
I will argue that we should abolish "Patriot act".


I accept. Please post your argument
Debate Round No. 1


Security organisations are keeping secrets from citizens. Secrecy is a fertilizer for corruption. I doubt not that high concentration of power will be misused.
Government may be able to protect citizens from other oppressors, but it is currently worst oppressor of the American people.
Access to e-mails and tapping phone calls is impermissible irreverence of people's privacy.
Another issue I would like to address is presumption of innocence. "Patriot act" is enabling breaking into people's houses and detaining suspects without court's warrant.
I would like to add some quotes which support my views:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; In its worst state an intolerable one" - Thomas Paine


Flipz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


In any event, The PATRIOT Act is a vital tool for counterterrorism, giving intelligence agencies sufficient resources for combatting domestic threats. In fact, at least 50 terror attacks have been foiled here in the United States through the post-9/11 expansion of extraordinary powers, including the PATRIOT ACT. In a world where 21st century weapons " nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical " are becoming easier to attain and disperse, we need additional tools to protect us from those who wish to do us harm.

While I understand Pro"s concerns for privacy, sacrificing this soft freedom helps combat domestic threats. The impulse for survival should strongly outweigh a value whose worth cannot be measured, a freedom only weighed through a subjective viewpoint. This small encroachment into freedom hardly seems worthy of the label "oppression," as Pro dictates. Moreover, the PATRIOT Act has elaborate safeguards, and while warrantless wiretaps are allowed, a judge must still give approval.

Also, abolishing the PATRIOT Act will not end the ability to detain American citizens without a warrant. National Defense Authorization Act, not the PATRIOT Act, enables the indefinite detention of US citizens.

I invite Pro to give his rebuttal in the comments.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Flipz 2 years ago
I don't understand your correlation. The connection between genocide and surveillance is nowhere in evidence. In fact, most of the recent genocides in the late 20th and early 21st centuries occurred in nations with weak central governments, like Rwanda and Sudan. There are many other factors that go into making mass slaughter possible, like racism or religious zeal, and an impartial, strong government is not alone a sufficient condition.

And you should take the threat of terrorism seriously. Thousands have died in sectarian conflicts, and more have been saved domestically because of extraordinary counterintelligence powers. The PATRIOT act has caused no tangible harm, so it should not be abolished.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
I am aware "patriot act" is helping counter-terrorism. But I do not take terrorism that seriously. How come countries that do respect people's privacy don't get much genocides?
I have to remind my opponent that biggest genocides in recent history are done by governments.
Nazi killing Jews, whom were citizens of Germany, internment of Japanese Americans and Yugoslavian army killing its own citizens for wrong religion and nationality.
If you consider non-government terrorism to be that dangerous, I would consider surveillance, but making all data available to every single citizen. This is a democracy. I don't want any form totalitarian government. We must not allow high concentrations of power. And I hope we agree that information is power.
Another issue is federal government not having enough control over security agencies. So, without suspicion they will fall into control of selfish rich people.
Posted by Flipz 2 years ago
Whoops, totally forgot about the 24 hour requirement
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate never really got off the ground. I can't really award arguments points properly. But conduct for the forfeit.