The Instigator
SpiffyTexan
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
DebayushChakraborty
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

National Security Ought to be Valued Over Freedom of the Press

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
SpiffyTexan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 680 times Debate No: 59159
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

SpiffyTexan

Con

"No government ought to be without censors, and where press is free, none ever will."
It is because I agree with Thomas Jefferson that I must negate the resolution resolved, that National security ought to be valued over freedom of the press.
Infringements upon essential freedoms in the pursuit of safety and security betray priorities contrary to the fundamental values of democratic nations, and often fails to result in improved security. My value, or what I'm striving to achieve is Liberty, While my value criterion, or my means of achieving the value is The Protection of 1st Amendment Freedoms, seeing as it is utterly imperative to have a government system that is entirely transparent to their citizens as to what they are doing. If our government is allowed to listen to all of our phone calls, track our location, and read our emails, let's face it! people may choose to sport middle age technology once again if this absurdity continues!The primary problem with this, is that the world was incredibly short on carrier pigeons last I heard. Let's move now to my three contentions.
Contention 1: The Constitution
The constitution clearly specified how our government was to operate, without exception.Freedom of the press was placed in the first amendment because the founders deemed it most valuable. And if the government is allowed to take this essential freedom away, who's to say they won't take away another? The constitution clearly stated, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press." Not, "whenever the government happens to have a whimsical urge that they don't want publicized" As a popular joke summarized "A man walked into the library and asked for a copy of the constitution, the librarian then replied, "I'm sorry, we don't carry periodicals." The constitution was put in place to keep the government from becoming what it wasn't meant to be. And freedom of the press is arguably the most influential right in keeping the government accountable. Which brings me to my second contention:
Contention 2: The removal of freedom of the press inspires tyranny.
In keeping the government accountable, a free press hinders the government from doing other than what it was put in place to do. As Vladimir Lenin said, "It is freedom of the press, and freedom of the press alone, that halts our headlong course into socialism." Where freedom of the press is in place, tyranny is impossible. For more than 215 years, the United States has managed to flourish in the absence of of any federal legislation directly prohibiting the press from publishing government secrets. Freedom of the press is a principal pillar of a free government, and when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on it's ruins. Freedom of the press served one purpose in America, to remove the the fear of of the common law doctrine of seditious libel so that citizens could freely speak or publish, without license, their grievances against public policy, or conduct of public officials. One of the distasteful things found under the common law was the government practice of shielding itself through requiring license to publish any criticism that they felt made people dissatisfied with their government. Certain rights should be limited, such as the right to drive 95mph through a school zone drinking alcohol with no seat belt, but not freedom of the press. Because freedom of the press is foundational in protecting the rights that deserve to be protected.
Contention 3 Liberty is the preeminent value and is upheld by a free press.
If we valued life over liberty, this country would not be alive today. Our founders seceded Great Britain, one of the most nationally secure countries, in favor of liberty. As Patrick Henry so eloquently stated, "Give me liberty or give me death!" If the government is allowed to define a national security emergency, then it will do whatever it wants to during that time in the name of national security. For example, in the case of Frank Olson, this man was unknowingly given a dose of LSD, a hallucinogenic, after he discovered the location of secret torture sites in Europe. The next day, he "accidentally plunged out of a window to his death 13 stories below. All of this information was recently discovered because the CIA restricted freedom of the press in the name of national security. If the general public knew about this wile it was going on, they would have expressed their concern and prevented further actions.
In conclusion, freedom of the press is the most important right in a nation because off the freedom and equality it brings a nation and it's population, while national security, when valued over freedom of the press, promotes a corrupt and overpowering government.
DebayushChakraborty

Pro

I would just clearly disagree to what Con says. If our government(I mean to say US Government) wants to suppress something which is for our welfare, I think it is better to avoid Freedom of the press then. Because what the government does is for our welfare. So at that case I think should avoid the freedom of press. And I really disrespect jokes about the constitution.

Con's argument please.
Debate Round No. 1
SpiffyTexan

Con

Unfortunately for my opponent, he has failed to address any of my points. And since silence is concession, I should win the round. My opponent stated that what the government does is for our good. However, going back to my previous case, I would argue that Frank Olson would say that a 13 story drop is severely detrimental to health, and therefore, our own good.
DebayushChakraborty

Pro

DebayushChakraborty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SpiffyTexan

Con

Due to the forfeiture of the last round by my opponent, this debate deserves a negative vote. But in the interest of fairness, I will continue. My opponent gave me very little to refute in the last round as far as quantity, but to begin I would like to address his 1st argument. It was a bit confusing, but I believe he was trying to say that if a government does something, then it must be in the interest of the people. However, we can see by the case of the Watergate scandal that the government does not necessarily have our best interest. And I do offer my most sincere apology at any offense taken at the joke about the Constitution, by saying that it was considered a periodical I was not meaning how it should be, I was merely making a theoretical example of how things are.
I would greatly appreciate an argument by the affirmative at this time.
DebayushChakraborty

Pro

DebayushChakraborty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SpiffyTexan

Con

Seeing as how my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds, I'm guessing he won't respond to this one either. So technically I could say whatever I wanted to and get away with it, but in the interest of fairness, I guess I won't. First off I would like to point out that the "show previous arguments" button does very little when there are no previous arguments... Let that be a lesson to all of you who see refutation as an option, not an imperative. Corny joke, corny joke, filler, filler, filler. Am I at 5,000 characters yet? No? Okay, filler, filler, filler. Getting old yet? On the bright side, with all of this filler, the glass could not be considered half empty. So anyway, with all of the puns aside, I still feel as though I should prove further that National Security should not be valued above freedom of the press... But my fingers are getting tired, so I shan't press the matter further. And in the incredibly sophisticated English accent I say, Vote Con! I feel like an anarchist saying that because cons belong behind bars, although I would be lying if I said we didn't have more than a few in public office. Live long and prosper, it has been a pleasure typing for all of you faceless internet users :-)
DebayushChakraborty

Pro

DebayushChakraborty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'll be watching this. I suggest con space his paragraphs a little better, and use titles for each section so it's easier to read.
Posted by TheDebateWinner 2 years ago
TheDebateWinner
you don't understand how confused I was when I started reading your first constructive with the mindset that you were Pro. I was about to accept this debate until I realized you were Con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SpiffyTexanDebayushChakrabortyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
SpiffyTexanDebayushChakrabortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Vere_Mendacium 2 years ago
Vere_Mendacium
SpiffyTexanDebayushChakrabortyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF