The Instigator
Militant_Pacifist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Burgergirl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Government should value security over individual privacy

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 46811
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Militant_Pacifist

Pro

The full motion is:

Government should value security over individual privacy (in drawing up a framework for our intelligence services to operate under)

Rules

1. No sources may be posted that would extend that debaters arguments. (ie posting a link would extend your argument past the word limit in this case 10k). Dictionary definitions are permissible.

2. Unless agreed retrospectively failure to post an argument results in a automatic concession.

3. Round 1 will contain no arguments only pleasantries and an agreed definition.

4. Round 5 will contain some light rebuttal and a summation of your case no new arguments.

Not rules but just to clarify.

The debate takes place as a government of a western liberal democracy, as I`m British perhaps we could agree set the debate within Britain democratic and judicial framework for simplicity. Or to prevent one side gaining "home field advantage", within an average "western liberal democracy", which is assumed to have democratic/judicial institutions such as courts, select committees and McDonald's.

Normally I would include definitions but as this is a principled debate I hope any one who wishes to accept it will know what security, individual privacy and intelligence services are. If you don't perhaps you shouldn't accept this...

Good luck to whomever accepts this.
Burgergirl

Con

I accept your challenge.
I do understand the rules and will follow as closely as a I can. Please, your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Militant_Pacifist

Pro

Militant_Pacifist forfeited this round.
Burgergirl

Con

Burgergirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Militant_Pacifist

Pro

This is fun, given that both participants have forfeited (in my case due to getting lost in the Scottish highlands!). A fair interpretation of the rules would mean that this debate is draw.

Militant_Pacifist
Burgergirl

Con

Burgergirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Militant_Pacifist

Pro

Militant_Pacifist forfeited this round.
Burgergirl

Con

Burgergirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Militant_Pacifist

Pro

Militant_Pacifist forfeited this round.
Burgergirl

Con

Burgergirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 3 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
You cannot use sources to make an argument, in the same way you aren't allowed to plagiarise an other persons work. Use sources to verify claims for example consider this poorly made argument:

98% of Nigeria's export revenues come from oil, as this will eventually run out Nigeria should focus on developing sustainable industries that dont harm the environment. (Insert source for Nigerians export revenues).

In this case the argument and all of the analysis are predicated on a fact sustained by a trusted source; this is fine.

What is outwith the rule is posting a link to perhaps a opinion article or a documentary that makes this argument for you.

This artificially increases your character limit, and does not requires you to understand the argument to make use of it.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
You can't use sources?
Posted by Contra 3 years ago
Contra
Change "individual privacy" to "individual freedom" and I'm game for this debate.
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 3 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
For example I think that the five second rule doesn't exist because myth busters showed that it doesn't see this.

The person hasn't proven anything from first principles and deserves no credit. He has also managed to use only 160 characters to articulate an argument which should of taken a few thousand, effectively extending his character limit.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
"No sources may be posted that would extend that debaters arguments. (ie posting a link would extend your argument past the word limit in this case 10k). Dictionary definitions are permissible."

I don't even get what this is supposed to mean, though I surely wouldn't want to participate in this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.