The Instigator
j.holt_02
Con (against)
The Contender
paintballvet18
Pro (for)

Government Surveilance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
j.holt_02 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 314 times Debate No: 101150
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

j.holt_02

Con

Government surveillance is a controversial subject. I, however, am on the cons point of view.

What about privacy? The idea of government surveillance violates the fourth amendment directly. The United States citizens have a right to privacy. The government cannot commit unreasonable searches. While they would be going through our calls, texts, emails, and internet searches they would be violating that amendment. Not every single citizen in this country is a suspect of a crime. They have no reason to search us. If they are allowed to break that amendment, how far will they go? What else will they do to control us?
paintballvet18

Pro

I accept and will present my arguments in Round 2.

I ask my opponent to answer a few questions (please answer in Round 2).

1. It's your burden of proof to show why these searches are unreasonable. So... why are they?
2. You insinuation of a big brother government is hilarious. Please explain how the government controls my life. We voted them into office (the US is a democracy remember), so how do they control us?
3. In a society where the internet is becoming more and more prevalent, how is the idea of privacy going to be protected outside of the scope of governmental actions? Isn't our privacy already breached by other ways?
4. If we eliminate surveillance, how do you propose the government stop violent crime?

Thank you, and I expect your answers in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
j.holt_02

Con

1. The 318.9 million people that currently live in the United States are not all guilty of a crime. The only reason these government searches are allowed is for suspicious crime activity that goes through a judge. What are they going to do? Accuse every single United States citizen of some sort of crime?

2. How have you not noticed? They control what news is released, how much we know about our government, who can marry another human, where you can and cannot smoke, when you can and cannot have a gun/defense weapon, how much women are paid in comparison to men, how much money we are expected to give to them out of our own income, and they even tried to control who can come into our "free nation"... Need I go on?

3. Sure, our privacy is breached by hackers. But there's nothing we can exactly do about that. By allowing the government to search through our texts, emails, calls, and internet history, we are giving up our privacy. We're making ourselves vulnerable. There are things you can do to prevent hackers and anyone who wants to steal your private information, but once the government has their hands on it, there's absolutely nothing we can do. No one will have privacy except within their own walls.

4. The same way they always have. It's worked so far, hasn't it? Forensic departments and police are there for the important stuff. They don't need to know every single person in the United State's private information to find criminals. They can keep going the same way they always have.
paintballvet18

Pro

I'll first examine my opponent's answers, then look at my own case.

1. I don't remember the government ever accusing every single United States citizen of a crime... I'd like my opponent to show me how that actually happens in the status quo.

2. How does the government control the news? What news is controlled? What is not being told to us? All of these questions are completely implausible to answer because then my opponent has no ACTUAL evidence to show for. His entire case is based on hypothetical situations that can be disregarded. Not fact. Answer how the government controls the news.
Answer what we don't know about the government. Answer how they control marriage. Answer how the control where you can or cannot smoke. Answer where you can and cannot have a gun. How much women get paid. How taxes work.

Oh wait... you can't. Yes please go on. You waste your time with things that have literally NOTHING to do with the resolution. But I'm amused...

3. Your answer here is laughable. It still doesn't show why a breach in privacy is actually a BAD thing. I'd put national safety in front of my privacy any day. Prove to me why that's wrong.

4. You didn't answer the question. Forensic and police departments don't always stop crime. Most of the time, they intervene AFTER crimes happen. Only surveillance solves for this.

NOW TO MY CASE:

According to Business Insider, "Online surveillance has been effective and is an important tool in the fight against terrorism. Lawmakers have said that data mining stopped attacks in the United States and overseas. The programs also provide U.S. authorities with leads on potential and existing terrorists. One NSA official told the Washington Post that PRISM provided a "field of dots" which allowed authorities to connect the relevant ones."

We literally didn't know about government surveillance until Snowden blew the whistle. In fact, it had been going on since the Bush administration, even without a warrant. So what's the big deal? It happened and your life wasn't affected. So... I see no problem with it then, so there is no problem with it now.

Not to mention, the government isn't the only one collecting your information. Every time you input personal information into the internet, private businesses collect it for advertising and profit. So, which is worse? Profit, or national security?

I can, just by going on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or Twitter, either explicitly know the information about a person, or deduce it from posts. The American public is literally practically compliant with the status quo, which further proves that there is nothing wrong with what's going on.

Nothing socially is going wrong, and since my opponent admitted during cross-examination that surveillance is legally admissible (judges sign off on it), then there is also nothing legally wrong with it either.

Roughly 56 percent of (the 319 million) Americans (that the Pro believes hate surveillance) believe it is "acceptable" for the spy agency to secretly collect the telephone call records of millions of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. More than half of the US thinks that it is admissible for this to happen. So... Further proof in favor of surveillance.

---

The Con literally can't prevent crimes in his world. The Pro can.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
j.holt_02

Con

To answer your responses (as a woman, by the way, not a man):

1. In order for the judges to sign off for a government search of property, the government would have to submit evidence as to why they are looking for the information. Then, there would have to be a limit as to exactly where and what they can look at for each citizen. The government would need evidence against every single citizen for this to actually be legal and moral.

2. How does the government control the news? Are you honestly asking me that? The government is controlling how much we know about where the money is going, what they're testing.. why are they so afraid of hackers if they have nothing to hide? The government censors what they don't want us to see, what they don't want us to know. They're taking away our freedom of speech.
Only recently was the gay community allowed the right to marriage. Control. Women are paid an average of 20 cents less than men for doing the same job. Control. The government controversy of gun rights is a large debate. The signs saying 'no weapons allowed'. Control. Taxes are monitored by the government. They want something done, a wall for example, they will increase the taxes. We have no say. Control. The signs all over public places, banning smoking. Control.

3. The big reason for government surveillance is to protect our nation against terrorist attacks. This is saying that our nation is in danger of receiving an attack every day. That our families are constantly in danger. I don't know about you, but I don't see terrorist attacks happening every day in our country. So why would you put up your privacy for our government when we aren't even at risk every day? If the government holds our information, it would only make our country more of a target. Other nations would want our information. Doesn't that only increase our danger?

4. There are many other ways to stop crime in our country that aren't looking through the citizen's private information such as increasing officers, gun controls.. there are plenty of moral ways to go about this.

... And my response/rebuttal:

If the government surveillance was such a harmless act, why was it such a big deal when Snowden blew the cover off the operation? Why keep it a secret? People like to know that their privacy is protected by the amendments. When one of their amendments is broken, people tend to react. Privacy is something to be valued, not stolen by governments.

With social media, people are willing giving away their information. They know the risks. They know what they're doing. They know what they're giving away. With the government, people don't have a choice. Their privacy and information is stolen and put in the hands of our government. People don't have a choice what the government sees.

What does that make us as a nation? Our government is stealing our information as we create it.

Now, if we allow the government to watch/listen to our calls, texts, emails, and internet searches, how far will they go? If they're allowed to break an amendment, what's to stop them from putting up camera in our houses? Tracking our locations? Constantly listening to our conversations? People will learn to fear the government. Is that how a nation is supposed to be? Is that what we want to be known by? The government that's taking over it's citizen's lives?

I do realize that's a little on the extreme side. If you were to support this cause, you have to think about the future and what it holds. From all of my world history and basic common sense, I know this: People are greedy. Once they have one unreachable thing, they will strive for the next thing, and the next. Where does it end? Where will they stop?
paintballvet18

Pro

I thank my opponent for a speedy response and will now refer to her as "she".

The debate ends in this round.

My opponent just admitted in Round 3 that surveillance is ok. We're done. This admittance when looking at the first question essentially means that she concedes the entire debate, and you can vote Pro just for that.

But, if you don't buy that argument, let's go line by line.

She says in Round 3, "How does the government control the news? Are you honestly asking me that? The government is controlling how much we know about where the money is going, what they're testing.. why are they so afraid of hackers if they have nothing to hide? The government censors what they don't want us to see, what they don't want us to know. They're taking away our freedom of speech."

Provide me with specific examples please and thank you. Your speculation is noted however.

She says in Round 3, "Only recently was the gay community allowed the right to marriage. Control. Women are paid an average of 20 cents less than men for doing the same job. Control. The government controversy of gun rights is a large debate. The signs saying 'no weapons allowed'. Control. Taxes are monitored by the government. They want something done, a wall for example, they will increase the taxes. We have no say. Control. The signs all over public places, banning smoking. Control."

Can you please go point by point and explain why these forms of control are actually detrimental to society. Now I know the answer to gay marraige, but I'm interested in your answers.

She says in Round 3, "The big reason for government surveillance is to protect our nation against terrorist attacks. This is saying that our nation is in danger of receiving an attack every day. That our families are constantly in danger. I don't know about you, but I don't see terrorist attacks happening every day in our country. So why would you put up your privacy for our government when we aren't even at risk every day? If the government holds our information, it would only make our country more of a target. Other nations would want our information. Doesn't that only increase our danger?"

ACTUALLY, that's the point of terrorism. You don't see them until they strike. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. That why we must use surveillance against people to make sure that they aren't terrorists plotting to go against our country's ideals.

She says in Round 3, "There are many other ways to stop crime in our country that aren't looking through the citizen's private information such as increasing officers, gun controls.. there are plenty of moral ways to go about this."

GIVE MY A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE!!!! Stop jumping around the issue.

She says in Round 3, "Privacy is something to be valued, not stolen by governments."

Um... why should it be valued, and please finally provide me with a specific example of how the government is stealing it.

She says in Round 3, "With social media, people are willing giving away their information. They know the risks. They know what they're doing. They know what they're giving away. With the government, people don't have a choice. Their privacy and information is stolen and put in the hands of our government. People don't have a choice what the government sees.

What does that make us as a nation? Our government is stealing our information as we create it."

You do know the government has as much access to our social media as you and I do right? It's called public domain for a reason. lol

She says in Round 3, "
Now, if we allow the government to watch/listen to our calls, texts, emails, and internet searches, how far will they go? If they're allowed to break an amendment, what's to stop them from putting up camera in our houses? Tracking our locations? Constantly listening to our conversations? People will learn to fear the government. Is that how a nation is supposed to be? Is that what we want to be known by? The government that's taking over it's citizen's lives?

I do realize that's a little on the extreme side. If you were to support this cause, you have to think about the future and what it holds. From all of my world history and basic common sense, I know this: People are greedy. Once they have one unreachable thing, they will strive for the next thing, and the next. Where does it end? Where will they stop?"

Alright, I get the point. You're speculating because you don't actually have any evidence. That's fine.

--
--
--

I rest my case. I've won already because of the concession and the lack of Con evidence.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.