Individual privacy is more important than national security
Debate Rounds (5)
The concept of the Amendments persists to be used as the only defense to a protection of privacy over the security of safety. Although an integral part of American society, the Amendments do not reflect society's best interest. They provide basic rights and responsibilities that all participants must abide by. The repeal process is intensely vigorous and near impossible with the exception of prohibition. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anyone would really consider going through the process of eliminating such vital American rights, so the fact they have not been repealed is not indicative of citizens content with specific details. Lastly, there exists no amendment which states the government cannot pursue possibly threats. We live in an age of terror. Can we really afford to not be cautious?
"We live in an age of terror. Can we really afford to not be cautious?"
The argument you are making is actually an act of planting terror in minds and there's no proof of we are living in danger. 'Being cautious' does not mean in any ways of violating individuals' private rights. The nation is consisted of individual citizens. If citizens' privacy and security cannot be protected, how can the citizens unite together and protect the interest of the nation when they don't even agree or trust the government? National Admittedly, privacy and national security are both necessary. Security should be established on the basic of individual's privacy.
Bin Laden Associate Abu Ghayth Charged | Conviction
Sentencing in Plot to Bomb New York Federal Reserve
Portland Christmas Plot Conviction | Sentencing
Plot to Attack Seattle Military Processing Center: Abdul-Latif Sentencing | Mujahidh sentencing
Cleveland Bridge Plot Sentencing | 2013 Guilty Plea
El-Khalifi Sentencing for Capitol Bomb Plot
Daniel Patrick Boyd Sentencing
Bin Laden Killed
New York Terror Plot Convictions
Faisal Shahzad: Guilty Plea | Sentencing
Smadi: Guilty Plea | Sentencing
Najibullah Zazi: Press Release | Story
Khalid Ouazzani: Guilty Plea
Liberty Six Convictions
Kassir Material Support Conviction
Ali Al-Marri: Guilty plea | Podcast
Holy Land Foundation
Torrance Plot: Story | Sentencing
Fort Dix Plot
New York Airport Fuel Tanks Plot
International Drug-for-Weapons Program
Operation "White Terror"
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali
Ali Asad Chandia and Mohammed Ajmal Khan
Gale Nettles, Homegrown Terrorist
Abdurahman Alamoudi: Story | Press release
Operation Pop Concert
Earnest James Ujaama
Hamant Lakhani: Story | Press release
Beltway Snipers: Part 1 | Part 2
USS Cole bombing
With all of these major instances in mind (and many minor ones along with the attacks that have occurred 2014-2015), I again question the logic that the privacy of cell phones, for instance, far outweighs the thousands of lives taken through the above events. Government agencies such as the TSA, FBI, CIA, and NSA do not care what you had for breakfast or what time you are going to the mall. They were established on the pretenses to protect all Americans from threats both foreign and domestic. What they are looking for, then, IS potential threats. In short, if you are not doing anything wrong, the government will not and need not pay a mind to you.
On the question of "government surveillance not being in the constitution," I simply resort back to my previous answer which you must have missed or evaded comment on. The Constitution was drafted at a time when surveillance was not necessary nor did we have the means to do so. This is the era of technology, and with that, comes both opportunity and opposition. There are more mediums for violence now than the founding fathers could have ever predicted. I don't know about you, but I enjoy getting on a plane with little to no worry that I will get off safely at my destination.
The surveillance that is conducting by the government is under the general "unreasonable searches and seizures", therefore, it is banned by the constitution.
In your previous argument, you stated that if the citizens are not doing anything wrong, the government doesn't need to pay attention to them. It is only reasonable if the government agenciesfind someone suspicious of terrorism, and then monitor the suspect with a search warrant.
Lastly, I would like to conclude with a rather bold point. Circling back to the original focus question of this debate, as stated in the title, I believe a rewording is in order to better reflect the severity of your statement.
The title should read as follows:
Do you value privacy more than your life?
lagessemsc2015 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Objectivity 1 year 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF
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.