Debate Rounds (2)
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro managed to show that Con's arguments were not valid.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.