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

Government Surveillance

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  
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: 9/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,491 times Debate No: 38244
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Should government be allowed to watch our every move, monitor our telecommunications, emails and Internet usage? having an ultimate, all knowing, superior government makes me extremely uneasy. The biggest threat to a democracy is the government itself. So if nothing can stop it, then we are no longer living in a democracy, merely a soft tyranny.



Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition was clearly unable to concretize his own arguments on how the government, if given the power to check on our internet usage and whatnot, will harm democracy. He did not even give examples on how monitoring government surveillance will prove to be detrimental! He only gave mere assertions, which do not form arguments, but rather, generalizations, that in most cases, prove to be faulty.

To add to his lack of any concrete examples and myriad assertions, the only argument that I could actually see coming from his side was that "it would make the citizens feel uneasy". Really? Is the interest of one individual, or a few isolated persons, more important than the general interest of the entire population? I will further expound on this in my substantives, on how the interest of the government weighs heavier than the interest of a few individuals.

It is for this reason that we regard all the arguments of the opposition void.


Moving on to my substantives, I would like to point out WHY THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE NATION, IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A FEW INDIVIDUALS. We on the government bench believe that since the government represents the whole population, their interest weighs so much more heavier than the interest of the chosen few. You see, if the government appeals to the requests of a chosen few, it would be unjust for them to have a preferred group of people. In addition to that, the requests of the chosen few may not be in line with the needs of the entire population. Individuals tend to only seek for what they believe are their NEEDS, disregarding the fact that the government serves for a higher purpose- which does not include their own personal needs. For example, a rich family may be against the whole ideal of government surveillance to hide their tracks that their wealth came from illegal sources. In such scenario, the government should not appeal to the need of this one family, but instead, to the entire nation that may be placed in detriment due to the illegal acts of this family.

It is with these concretized examples I move on to my second substantive, which is that government surveillance appeals to the needs of the entire nation. The whole population may disagree to this idea because they do not realize their own needs. Therefore, it is the task of the government to reinforce precautionary measures, such as government surveillance. This is to show the people that although the irrational members of society may disagree to this idea, the government is putting the needs of the entire nation of security before individuals wants.

It is for the following reasons we are proud to oppose.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly I'd like to thank you for your argument in favor, nut would point out that firstly a government is elected to serve the people, not the other way round, also governments do very often serve a specif group of people, whether that be rich people of a minority group. Governments do not always act in the best interests of the people they are elected to serve, as for evidence that Governments and the agencies they run are over stepping the mark when it comes to spying on what we all do, you only have to look at the recent events concerning the NSA in the States and GCHQ in the UK. the following links will inform you fully about how the Governments of the UK and US are monitoring us


Thank you for your quick reply.

I do concede to your point that the government is elected to serve the people. However you've again neglected that in order to serve people, they must put the interest OF THE MAJORITY forward, rather than their own. And in this debate of government surveillance, the underlying principle of monitoring activities of the state's citizens is for safety. Now safety wouldn't be a concern of the state if they could not care less about the activities of its citizens. The reason they want to implement government surveillance is to be able to track down alleged perpetrators of crimes, and get ahead of citizens who plan to commit illegal acts. Now if the government does not do government surveillance to monitor terrorists and whatnot, all because it's citizens, who are not even knowledgeable of the needs of their WHOLE NATION and only focus on their own selfish needs, how will the government be able to serve its people rightly? How will the government be able to fulfill its purpose of being of help to its citizens, if they do not differentiate the needs of the entire nation to the needs of certain individuals?

To summarize, it is very clear from the beginning of this debate that the opposition has only been making assertions, generalizations, and contradictory statements that cannot be trusted. While on the government bench, I have been able to very well illustrate how government surveillance and its intention is for the betterment of the country. I did not make assertions, but rather, concretized examples and expounded on topics thoroughly so as my substantives would be more credible.

It is for these following reasons that I am proud to say that the government wins this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by andyjfraser 3 years ago
I appreciate your comments but I have a question of my own. Who watches the Government to make sure they are not over stepping the boundaries of privacy and civil liberties? If its not we the people who put them in office then who?
Posted by CATC 3 years ago
In debate, it is absolutely illogical to assume that some adjudicator would go through the hassle of such. You are quite lucky, however, that i am of high intellect to have actually read them. And reading such, and even more so your 'barrel of news' about government surveillance (if you actually sent them), does not, and will not, change my stand point. Its more of a question of trust you have with your government, and judging by the kind of subjective arguments youve been giving, i believe you have no trust in your form of government. Thank goodness that i trust my government.

Anyways, i throw back the question at you: If you do not take precautionary measures, when will you know if what the government is doing will ever be enough?
Posted by andyjfraser 3 years ago
Plenty of support for the governments and government power but little understand about the dangers that too much surveillance can mean, we are all after all entitled to privacy
Posted by andyjfraser 3 years ago
You clearly did not read the media reports that I sent you links to in my reply, and I could have sent you a barrel full of them, you may think its safe for governments to watch everyone of its citizens that way but their dangers in going down that road too far, after all when is enough enough?
Posted by andyjfraser 3 years ago
You clearly did not read the media reports that I sent you links to in my reply, and I could have sent you a barrel full of them, you may think its safe for governments to watch everyone of its citizens that way but their dangers in going down that road too far, after all when is enough enough?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro managed to show that Con's arguments were not valid.