The Instigator
The_Polish_Defense
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
SenorGramatica
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Its none of your business

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,554 times Debate No: 16594
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

The_Polish_Defense

Con

In this debate, i will be attempting to prove why disclosure of any given personal information is more beneficial than harmfull to the greater good.
to avoid a debate of semantics, the following definitions should be agreed apon:
"IT": any given personal information that is not yet witheld or disclosed but could be
"BUSINESS" : intellectual jurisdiction over the information in question

i look foreward to an intellectual, constructive debate!
SenorGramatica

Pro

It's none of your business.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Polish_Defense

Con

I thank my opponent, new to this site, for recognizing that tradition maintains not posting an argument until round two. Seeing no objection to my aforementioned definitions, I will present my case with no further adue.

What this debate really comes down to is living in a society that protects absolute privacy vs living in one where full disclosure is actively enforced. The enforcement role could be assumed by a number of entities (church, thus living in a theocratic state, citizens alliances, what have you) not necessarily the federal government. Because of this fact, unconstitutionality is irrelevant. Even if my opponent can prove how the federal government could be the only possible enforcer, their point would be rendered irrelevant. In this scenario, we are focusing on a hypothetical country, with features more or less like the united states, but no obligation to maintain stare decisis.
Enacted by president Bush as a direct response to 9/11, the patriot act allowed for the unwarrented wiretapping of phones. While today, many citizens are slightly annoyed by this fact, it rarely affects their daily lives. After all, why should an average upstanding citizen have anything to fear, considering they have nothing to hide? While many seem to have generated an image of what a terrorist looks like, and are fairly confident that with moderate vigilance, can spot After all, why should an average upstanding citizen have anything to fear, considering they have nothing to hide? While many seem to have generated an image of what a terrorist looks like, and are fairly confident that with moderate vigilance, can spot suspicious activity, this image of a terrorist is not only racist, but inaccurate and unreliable. The unibomber was white, and dressed in casual domestic street clothes, as did the Oklahoma city bomber. The anthrax mailer was discrete and faceless. As a more recent and relevant example, the assailant who attempted to assassinate Gabriel Giffords was not only assimilable well in a crowd, he once was lively and well mannered, as described by former friends. But his descent into paranoia and obsession was unmonitored. It was allowed to manifest into hate, and thus the assailant planned and carried out his plans. If, at any point leading up to the shooting, his activity was our business, a tragedy would have been prevented. Just one of the many examples of a missed opportunity due to the love of keeping information from everybody and anybody. Of course, full disclosure would not only be limited to citizen. This obligation would be extended to the government. This would, in the most broad terms, produce two benefits to the average person. The first is perhaps trivial, but enjoyable nonetheless. Nearly everyone has been confronted with the mad rantings of a conspiracy theorist. From far fetched scenarios regarding the jfk assassination, to a coverup at Roswell, these theories usually center around a government entity withholding conclusive evidence from the public. Under a policy of absolute disclosure, all conspiracy theories would either be put to rest, or (far less likely) confirmed. Either way, speculation ends. Time wasted on television entertaining these theories, on channels such as the history channel, would be replaced by programming that is ACTUALLY informative.suspicious activity, this image of a terrorist is not only racist, but inaccurate and unreliable. The unibomber was white, and dressed in casual domestic street clothes, as did the Oklahoma city bomber. The anthrax mailer was discrete and faceless. As a more recent and relevant example, the assailant who attempted to assassinate Gabriel Giffords
SenorGramatica

Pro

You did happen to repeat yourself many times, in examples of course. What we all have to understand is this: our business keeps us safe. Your business is your home address, your social security number, your credit card numbers, your phone number, your FaceBook password, etc. If someone got a hold of your home address they could stalk you. If they got your social security number, they could become you. If someone got a hold of your credit card numbers, they could spend your money. You get the idea. My over-all point is that your business keeps you safe.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Polish_Defense

Con

Many thanks are in order to my opponent for his well thought out arguments.

Let us remember the conditions of this debate. In lieu of arguing the constitutionality of specific "privacy v protection" legislation (which i fear would normally happen to this sort of debate) we have a hypothetical nation. This, as stated before, takes constitutionality out of the equasion, and leaves more room for debating practicality.

In our nation today, no one would argue that identity theft is ruining more and more innocent Americans' financial credibility. The FBI website clearly states "A stolen identity is a powerful cloak of anonymity for criminals and terrorists" [1] A privacy-centric society wouldn't necissarily fix this. Remember that we live in a partial-disclosure society. What ths means in terms of identity theft is that there is enough vulnerable information out there for a criminal to assume one's identity, but not enough to expose them. In a full disclosure society, no longer would there be the anonimity that identity thieves enjoy. When they make a purchase, under full disclosure, not only will a name appear on the cashier's computer, but a photo as well.

Let me remind the voters that my other arguments have yet to be invalidated by my opponent. I have linked, unchallenged, unabated privacy protection with terrorism, and nuissence conspiracies.

Vote con. Because safety IS all our business.
SenorGramatica

Pro

To be honest, I don't think your argument makes any sense. You are pretty much saying that if they will get caught with the information that we have out there now, lets throw more information at them!

If you hadn't turned off the commenting I'm sure that I would have quite a few people on my side. Because who wants some random guy in a trench coat (I am implying that they are a shady figure) running around with their credit car numbers spending their hard earned cash. So, I hope that you will be completely fine with someone becoming you over night, spending YOUR money, and getting YOU into trouble. Then you will be able to understand why "It's none of your business."

Also since you did a little bragging at the end of you argument, I thought that I would correct your statement: "Vote con. Because safety IS all our business."

It should be: "Vote con, because safety IS our business." or "Vote con, because safety is ALL of our business." That was my little bragging thing...or just living up to my name, I'm not sure which is right.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by The_Polish_Defense 6 years ago
The_Polish_Defense
sorry, source's link from last rebuttal
http://www.fbi.gov...
Posted by The_Polish_Defense 6 years ago
The_Polish_Defense
Forgive me for the redundancy. My phone sucks. Technical difficulties.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The_Polish_DefenseSenorGramaticaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con needed to make the case that there is some overarching principle that voids all concerns for privacy. He didn't come close. Con's stream-of-consciousness wall-of-text loses S
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
The_Polish_DefenseSenorGramaticaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: "You are pretty much saying that if they will get caught with the information that we have out there now, lets throw more information at them!" - no they are saying only partial information is a threat
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
The_Polish_DefenseSenorGramaticaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was a bit rude with their abrupt, and short answers. But they did prove their point better than Con.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
The_Polish_DefenseSenorGramaticaTied
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: Con repeated himself too much and did not satisfy his BOP.