The Instigator
gonovice
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Tied
14 Points

Liberty Vs. Security

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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,918 times Debate No: 8163
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

gonovice

Pro

In my government class we are addressing the liberty vs. security issues that our country is facing. I personally am for liberty. However, I do believe it would be nice if we could have both. My main feeling is that if we lose our basic freedoms (stated in the constitution) then what is so great about America. The reason we are so "proud" to be American is because we are free and we have a say in the government.

I would appreciate if the person who accepts this debate would take the security side.

Looking forward to debating this!!
~Nikki~
Cody_Franklin

Con

America is a liberty-oriented country. That's very true. However, liberty should not be our main focus. I believe in the value of security; keep in mind that security is defined through Merriam-Webster's dictionary as "the quality or state of being secure; safety."

I'd like to point out first that American society and our Constitution are originally based a lot off of John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government http://www.constitution.org... , and Locke states that the first purpose of government is for the protection and enlargement of natural rights; life, liberty, and property; without the protection of government, man is free to take another man's natural rights without restriction; this is the state of nature. So, while my opponent claims that liberty is our most important value (and believe me, I agree that it IS important), security is a necessity, because without being in a state of security provided by the government, liberty can not be protected, and ultimately we would have no say in our government.

I'd like to quickly differentiate between true security and 'American security'. True security is a state of safety from ALL threats, both foreign and domestic. Things like the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo Bay, Wiretaps; none of these are true security, because while the government may claim to be protecting us from terrorism and foreign invasion, the government itself has now become the threat; to be truly secure, we have to be without these measures, so that ultimately, the government can provide justice and liberty to American citizens. We need the security that the Constitution promises us; so while liberty is essential to American life, we cannot have liberty without the protection and security that just laws (those following our Constitution) would provide; thus, only with a CON vote will we ever be able to achieve both.

A fundamental flaw my opponent makes in the wording of the topic is making it 'Liberty VS Security'. The topic is making the assumption that they are in conflict; that we get one or the other; however, this is completely to unfair to assume that either we are free and liberated, or enslaved (but safe). As I have already proven, only through security is liberty ensured.

So, to quickly sum up, let me just say this: While, only with the security and protection of the Constitution can you have liberty, having too much liberty will undermine security measures, and ultimately the law and order upon which our entire American society is based.

So, I ask you, please give this a CON vote, and I eagerly await my opponent's defense of 'Liberty first!'
Debate Round No. 1
gonovice

Pro

First I'd like to say, thanks for accepting this debate.

I would like to start by pointing out that while I do agree that we shouldn't be allowed too many liberty's, our basic ones should be protected.

I am against our government turning against us while fighting FOREIGN enemies. I don't think that I should have to wonder if the government is listening to my phone conversations or reading my private emails.

I don't think that we can protect ourselves from every single threat. I would mostly like to see the government accept that and take more normal measures towards "protecting" us...We obviously can't put a metal dome over the country and keep out terrorists.

Also, what terrorist already living in our country is going to discuss it before hand.

Also, I agree with you about the John Locke thing...we just learned about that about 3 months ago.

I have more to say but I'm going to say it till the last round.

I disagree with you about the topic name. I really think that right now they are conflicting arguments. They just aren't flowing together right now.

I would love to have both liberty and security but currently they are both up in the air.

I find it hard to believe that I'm currently getting both...
Cody_Franklin

Con

Let me go line by line here.

First of all, I never said that our basic liberties shouldn't be protected. They should. You can also look to John Rawls' Principle of Equal Liberty, in which, to set up a just society, people must be outfitted with a scheme of basic liberties, compatible with the liberties of others. So in this aspect we agree, but the fact is that by taking the position of liberty, I would contend that you have to defend more than just 'basic' liberties. Especially in society, there have been many laws and constitutional amendments granting other liberties as well, so if you yourself agree that too many liberties is bad, then it seems like you have, to some degree, conceded to the CON on that point.

You also misconstrue my point. "I am against our government turning against us while fighting FOREIGN enemies. I don't think that I should have to wonder if the government is listening to my phone conversations or reading my private emails."

I am against this as well, because when the government does this, we are no longer safe on a domestic scale, because our constitutional security is being eroded; what the government is doing with its privacy violations is not justifiable, and crosses the line between security and authoritarianism; thus, I can't be asked to defend the United States' overcompensation for the 9/11 attacks, because these kinds of measures actually decrease security, as opposed to making us a safer nation.

What you say about "taking normal measures" is exactly what I am advocating, but at the point that you argue that, you are really arguing my side for me; I'm supposed to be arguing for security on this topic; I in no way advocate putting a "metal dome over the country"; what I am asking for is for our government to legitimately fall back on the constitution, and make sure that the laws come from the people, and that they follow the Constitution, and achieving that kind of security is far more important right now than securing liberties for the American public; sacrificing a bit of liberty now is insignificant compared to the freedom one can experience in a truly safe America.

Finally, you say "I find it hard to believe that I'm currently getting both." I agree. Right NOW, we are not getting both, but this is what makes security all the more important. While you disagree with my argument over the topic, you never directly address the fact that we have to have a secure nation in order to maximize liberty. Since you agreed with my analysis on Locke (because Locke is great), you have therein agreed to the fact that a government exists to secure and enlarge mans natural rights, and, therefore, security must be a prerequisite to the enlargement of civil liberty; to conclude, that means that, even if the voters buy into your argument that liberty and security are in conflict (which they shouldn't), that security still has to be upheld, because without it, there is no chance of providing and enlarging liberty in the future.

In close, the fact that you have agreed to or not addressed many of my key arguments is overwhelming proof that this round has to go to the CON.

Thank you for this debate so far, and I look forward to seeing your final arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I'm PRO "Liberty vs. Security" too.

Learn how to write a resolution.
Posted by gonovice 5 years ago
gonovice
I definitely would appreciate that. Especially since it's a tie. It would just be great to know what we could have done to get your vote and break the tie!!

Thanks,
~Nikki
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Yeah, it would be greatly appreciated if people were to leave their RFD (Reason for Decision) after they vote; it helps my opponent and I learn what we are and are not doing correctly.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I know, right? That's the position I was trying to argue.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 5 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Without proper Security, you can lose all your liberties.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I'm very sorry to hear that. I'm glad I could help give you some info on the topic, though. Like I said, it's always wonderful when people actually WANT to learn about things like this.
Posted by gonovice 5 years ago
gonovice
I honestly wasn't doing it for the debate, I was doing it to get an opinion. My class is very immature and we got nowhere today in class. Thanks for the info and opinion...
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Alright, well I did not see that there was not a round 3, so I apologize for the part of my post dealing with 'final arguments', seeing as there won't be a round 3 in which to post them.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Quite a nice topic! It's good that you want to debate and learn more about this.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I am too borderline to take a side. Otherwise, this is an interesting topic and I'd happily accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
gonoviceCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
gonoviceCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bighead815 5 years ago
bighead815
gonoviceCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by gonovice 5 years ago
gonovice
gonoviceCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70