The Instigator
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
flaskblob
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Are the recent incidents regarding the IRS and Fox News an example of government overreach?

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 2 votes the winner is...
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 34011
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN

Pro

Here are the rules for the debate. Breaking of these means a forfeit.

1)No Swearing
2)No Name Calling
3)No forfeiting a round.
4)No continuing argument in the comment sections
5) First round is acceptance only.

Thank you and look forward to it.
flaskblob

Con

I accept and submit to vigorous criterion of the debate which my opponent has so thoughtfully laid out in his R1.
Debate Round No. 1
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN

Pro

The resolution before us today is "Are the recent incidents regarding the IRS and Fox News an example of government overreach?" The answer is obvious" of course.
I will first deal with the incident regarding Fox News.
For those who do not know, the Department of Justice (DOJ) accused James Rosen, the Fox News D.C chief correspondent, of committing a crime by asking government officials for information regarding the North Korean situation. They said that he aided and abetted an espionage ring. The ring included several government officials that are accused of leaking classified information. They said that Rosen was involved in it by just doing his job. Because of this James Rosen"s personal e-mail was read for 30 days, his parents" home phone was tapped, and Fox News"s political hot lines to Paris, D.C, and others were tapped.
Now, let me go to my first contention (C1)
C1-It is an invasion of privacy.
How would you feel if you worked for a news agency and you were investigated and called a co-conspirator in an espionage ring just for doing your job? You would have no argument against what I am saying. It is simple logic when you think about it with a level head.
Now, I will deal with the IRS issue.
First, we will deal with background.
The IRS was found and proved to have targeted conservative, patriotic, and tea party groups who were filing for tax exemption. They had, according to Fox News, a "look out for these groups" list. They were not to give them tax exempt status. They also targeted for audit some individuals who donated to conservative politicians. One woman was even visited by the counter-terrorism department. This is obviously overreach.
Now, to my second contention. (C2)
C2- If this is not overreach, than the government has the right to target any political group that they disagree with.
This is absolutely nonsensical. Do you want the government to be able to target YOU if they disagree with you? Of course you don"t!

Conclusion- If you want the government to be able to reach out and read your e-mails because of you just doing your job, or if you want them to be able to target you because of a disagreement, then go ahead and vote con. But if you want the true America to prevail and prosper, VOTE PRO!

Sources-
http://www.foxnews.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.reuters.com...
flaskblob

Con

The government in question is a representational democracy.

That representational democracy has enacted the patriot act which hasn't been overturned by house or senate despite being in place for 10 years.

This is the same society that allowed unwarranted house to house searches in the boston bombings

This is the same society that allows the NSA to download every piece of content from phones and the internet in real time and run text search algorithms through it to detect people who are "anti-government"

This is the same society that killed its own citizen for mere words.

The US has a long history of Gerrymandering to keep incumbents in power.

Government can only overreach its bounds if the voting base puts restrictions on its powers. The voting base has only done the opposite by removing restrictions that were put in place hundreds of years ago. The government is only doing what the voted base elected them to do, preserve the "safety" of the US citizen while stripping away rights when convenient.
Debate Round No. 2
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN

Pro

OK, let us first start by defining debate. Debate is CLASH. The burden of that clash falls with Neg. or Con. My opponent (con) has failed to carry his burden. However, Pro"s burden is that of proof. I have so far carried this burden. But because for there to be debate there must be clash, and not "two ships passing in the night", I will carry both burdens.
You mention the PATRIOT ACT. Is that mentioned in the resolution? Nope. That is a discussion for another time. That may be government overreach as well. The PATRIOT ACT is of no importance to this debate. You then mention Boston and the NSA. Again, this is of no importance to the debate.
Then you talk America killing its citizens for "mere words." WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Please give an example of this.
Then you mentioned gerrymandering. OK, this doesn"t matter to the debate either.
Finally, you say "Government can only overreach its bounds if the voting base puts restrictions on its powers." That is an outright lie. The measure of governmental overreach is the Constitution not what the people vote for.
Now, I will discuss my arguments. Please extend all my previous arguments.
I will now provide another contention regarding Fox News and the IRS. (C3)
C3-Both of these incidents are a violation of the First Amendment.
In the Fox News incident, it impedes James Rosen"s right to the press as a journalist.
In the IRS incident, it impedes the public"s right to free speech to choose who they want to support.
When these rights are taken away, America as we know it is over.
Because he has not yet disproved my arguments no further are needed.
In conclusion, because he has failed to clash, because I have taken both burdens, and because his arguments are not related to the debate, Vote Pro.
flaskblob

Con

flaskblob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN

Pro

VOTE PRO!!
flaskblob

Con

flaskblob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN

Pro

VOTE PRO!!!!!!!!!!!
flaskblob

Con

flaskblob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TULIP 3 years ago
TULIP
Bummer :/ sorry you couldn't finish the debate Number_1red_so_x_fan..
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FANflaskblobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FANflaskblobTied
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: Pro, I do not believe you made a strong case. But then, obviously, Con failed quite utterly. I may come back and give a reread to decide on other points, but I can at least give conduct for Con's forfeits.