The Instigator
SnaxAttack
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Boesball
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

National Security is more important than privacy.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Boesball
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 856 times Debate No: 78111
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

SnaxAttack

Pro

This debate shall be about whether or not National Security is far more important, than privacy. I am Pro meaning that I am on the side that "National Security is far more important, than privacy". My opponent shall argue the opposite.

Rules:
1st Round: Acceptance and any needs of clarification
2nd Round: Opening Argument (Try keeping it short)
3rd Round: Rebuttals and any new arguments
4th Round: Rebuttals and Closing Argument

Definitions:
National Security: A concept that a government, along with its parliament(s), should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of "national" crises. In this case, giving up privacy for security.

Important: A great significance or value of an idea.

Privacy: The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.

Any need for clarification, or questions can be inserted within the Comment Section, or first round of the debate. I will answer in the comment section.

Good Luck to whoever accepts the challenge!
Boesball

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
SnaxAttack

Pro

For this round, I will keep my opening argument short. In today's topic, we are arguing if National Security is more important than ones privacy. The definitions have been defined in the first round, and me and my opponent both agree with the definitions.

To begin the argument, I will discuss on how privacy is not really worth it, compared to National Security. Privacy, like defined before, is "The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people". I admit we need our privacy at times, but the safety of ones country is much more greater. Think about it like this, do you have anything to hide? Are you doing anything illegal? If not, then why worry?

Secondly, the National Security did work until Obama enlisted the use of Government Transparency. Government Transparency is defined as: "Government's obligation to share information with citizens". It can be good and bad, depending on how one looks at it; but I will prove on how its bad. Stated under the article "The Truth About Transparency - Why Wikileaks Is Bad for All of Us", it states that the reasoning it is bad, to have Government Transparency, is because of us, the viewers, learning what the Government is doing; and have many disagreements with their actions. In fact, it actually takes away the Governments privacy, which is way more important than an unknown individuals privacy.

And the benefits within the privacy of the Government is the allowance to do missions, and accomplish those missions which protects society; with no interference. And well as the fact that the Patriot Act is actually being wanted to be renewed. Stated under the article "Americans Say They Want The Patriot Act Renewed ", it states that 61% of people want the act renewed because of the safety it has promoted within the country.

Sources:
http://www.shaheen.senate.gov...
http://www.dhs.gov...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.npr.org...
Boesball

Con

Privacy rights may be the most important rights that American citizens posses. Justice Louis D. Brandeis, an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, once said this: "The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men"the right to be let alone" (1). Our founding fathers believed in the necessity of confidentiality and privacy. Privacy shouldn't be something infringed upon by our government. It is one of the things that our military should be used for to protect.

When our government was founded, we had a Bill of Rights for a reason. Our founding fathers did not want an invasive government. They wanted one that stuck to its core enlightenment values, and they didn't want it to be like Britain was. We've seen throughout history that governments who restrict freedoms like privacy misuse their power against their people. Wouldn't Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler have loved to use surveillance cameras? I think we all know that it would have been better for their citizens to know what they were up to rather than their government removing the privacy of their citizens. People would've been revolted if they more knew what Stalin and Hitler were up to, and lack of government transparency was the cause of it. If someone as corrupt as these two men rose to power in America, they would be able to use measures that do increase National Security to strip us of all the freedom we have left.

One important thing that privacy gives us is the ability to rebel against our government. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said explicitly this: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" (2). If our government isn't giving us the liberties we were promised in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we deserve a new government. If we don't have privacy, we cannot take back these rights because our government has the ability to spy on us.

Privacy is important because it's talked about in our Bill of Rights. I would argue that amendments two through four all deal with this.

Amendment two:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (3).

Amendment three:

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" (4).

Amendment four:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (5).

Amendment two is an explicit protection of privacy because it stops the government from taking our guns. If we wanted a society that is completely safe, the government would place security cameras in everyone's homes, and they would guarantee that no one possessed a weapon of any kind. That would be a bad scenario, as it would be taking into consideration the benefits of National Security before privacy. Humans deserve the private decision to equip themselves with weapons to make them feel safe if they want. The government should punish them if they use them to harm or strip the liberty off someone else, but if that doesn't happen, gun rights should not be infringed upon.

Amendment three talks about how the military shouldn't be disruptive towards its people. If we wanted a secure society, military members would be in all of our houses, and no one would ever do anything wrong. That is not freedom, though. We choose to have privacy.

Amendment four talks about warrants and how the government cannot take your stuff. Private property is an important value in America. The government cannot take your stuff unless you use your stuff to infringe on someone else's liberty. They must have a warrant to invade your private property. If you want nasty government officials walking into your house, be my guest. My tax dollars will not support such an abomination. Sure, this would increase national security, but it doesn't seem like it would make society more free. Our government is supposed to protect our freedoms, and if they don't, I hope we get taken over by a country that will give it to us.

My last point of my relatively short opening argument is about what we are protecting. National Security's main use is the protection of a nation's laws and constitution. If we aren't using our constitution, then why do we have a military protecting us in the first place? Also, why are you so glad to trust the government? Democrats and Republicans both are beginning to put their faith in the government, and it's scary. The IRS, which is supported by Democrats, has targeted conservative Tea Party groups (6). When you give government, an entity which uses force to make us give it money, the power it wants, it will misuse it. Even if they say it's for security, do you really believe politicians? They lie for our votes, and they constantly end up in scandals. We shouldn't trust government as much as we do. I'd rather risk 9/11 happening again once every ten years than give up the privacy that I deserve as an American citizen. There is no right that is more treasured than privacy, and I insist that privacy is an essential part of liberty.

Next time, please denote where your sources are being used in your argument. It was a little confusing to read. Also, I was a little confused when you forgot to use an apostrophe at the end of the third paragraph. Other than that, it was a great first round and I'm excited to hear your rebuttals!

(1) http://fee.org...
(2) http://www.archives.gov...
(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu...
(4) https://www.law.cornell.edu...
(5) https://www.law.cornell.edu...
(6) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SnaxAttack

Pro

For this round, it will be both a rebuttal form and any new arguments anyone wishes to provide. To begin, I wish to rebuttal against my opponents argument. I will try to do a better format, like requested from my opponent, when doing my rebuttals and new arguments.

Why Transparancy is Bad:
In my last argument, I discuseed on why Government Transparency is not good for our civilization of a country. I previously stated: "It is bad, to have Government Transparency, is because of us, the viewers, learning what the Government is doing; and have many disagreements with their actions". And in this round, my opponent stated this within his opening argument "People would've been revolted if they more knew what Stalin and Hitler were up to, and lack of government transparency was the cause of it". First off, I wish to show some evidence disproving my opponents claim about Hitler restricting the use of Government Transparency. Stated under "Transparency in a New Global Order: Unveiling Organizational Visions", it states that the lack of Government Transparency was not the answer to the problem with the Holocaust, but was actually the fault of Hitler. We must remember that he was the one who executed the order, and those who opposed of him were killed. He began to dictate the country of Germany, and many actually knew that their country was actually becoming a Dictatorship; not knowing about it. The answer was more fear, than not knowing. Many did know about the occurence of the Holocaust, but were restricted in truly doing anything about it.

Secondly, the thing about Government Transparency is the trust factor that comes along with it. In society, trust is something we all desire and our Founding Fathers agreed with this idea. Said by Samuel Adams, he said: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man". The quote simply means showing hih standards for the people, which at the time was for the protection of the people. And other Founding Fathers stated that the security of the people, like George washington where his idea was "Washington warned against leaving the nation’s security 'to the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger. By then, it would be too late. In his Farewell Address, Washington urged Americans to remember 'that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it". Basically we need to prepare for any conflicts ahead of us, before they pose a threat towards us. Government Transperency restricts this idea, when our Founding Fathers wished to grant us security.

And finally, I have a few questions I wish to ask my opponent to answer within this round. Do you have anything to hide that is criminal like? If not, then why worry about someone randomly spying on you if you have nothing to hide? Also, in society, everyone is someone random; even me and you. What are the true chances that you will be spied upon daily for just doing your average daily duties? What are they going to do? Report about me going to the grocery store, even thogh there is nothing wrong with it. Typing this argument, someone could have been watching me type; but are they doing anything against me? No, they are not! As well as the fact that everything was going fine until the report of us being spied upon. Before Government Transparancy was initiated, many did not question and continued on with their lives. There was no interferance, but when the report came in; everyone started to freak out, even though things were fine before.

Rebellion Against the Government
In this argument, my opponent quoted: "One important thing that privacy gives us is the ability to rebel against our government". I wish to bring up a statistic on how the events of 9/11 showed our idea of National Security, and restraining privacy. Stated under "Balancing Act: National Security and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 Era", it states that after the evets of 9/11, 55% of people argued about restricting their privcy for the country. While in 2011, that number dropped slightly to 40% than the 54% for privacy. Its funny how people wanted to give up their privacy for the good of the country, yet they deny this for the good of the country. Why? But in 2014, in another statistic from "45% of Americans Think Online Privacy is More Important than National Security"; it states that only 45% of the population did not want heir privacy observed. The other percentage said they would rather have their privacy not be "private" in order to bring National Security to the people. The reason why this statistic has increased since 2011 is because of the foundings of ISIS. When a threat comes, people always fall back to the government; but if we try to give too much privacy, who doesn't say that we will fall into another terrorist attack? People change their minds at the drop of the dime, and if we put at least 75% of privacy towards the government, National Security will come.

Constitution Argument
For most o my opponents argument, he only refers to one source being the constitution. I will agree that this debate heavily puts a focus upon the constitution, but I must ask; "How much does our Government follow the Constitution"? In reality, not much. In fact, most of the situations happening with our country is breaking the constitution. Stated by Ron Paul, he said "Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed". If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken.

But if we do follow the constitution, it does. Stated from "A Costitutional Basis for Defense", it states: "Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense". It has actually been proven to be effective, as stated under "The Patriot Act: Does it actually work". It states: "
Three alleged terrorist plots have been foiled in recent weeks in three U.S. cities: Dallas, New York and Springfield, Ill. Officials say the cases involved men who, in separate plots, wanted to bomb a federal building, a subway and a skyscraper. Failure to prevent these alleged plots could have had catastrophic results. But these alleged plots are not the only ones foiled since the 9/11 attacks. In fact, authorities have stopped at least 26 others since Sept. 11, 2001 (and perhaps many more that aren't publicly known). Numerous operatives have been arrested and convicted. Much of the credit should go to the Patriot Act". So it does technically follow the rule given in the Constitution.

Government "Anarchy"
In my opponents final opening argument, he brings up a lot of "possible" situations if we do not watch out for the Government. Previously, I stated that the Government should deserve more trust than others. My opponent makes ridiculously strong claims that if we give the Government privacy, everything will fall into anarchy. I can say that this is false, and crazy for my opponent to think. I must ask, who runs the Government? The answer, human beings. Do human beings have morals? Yes, they do. Most humans will have a love of some sort, and when we look at the people running the government; they are like just me and you. Regular old citizens that have a little bit more power. I do not expect a member of the government to go insane because of having power, especially when the people elect that individual in the first place. And if we want to get factual, instead of philisophical, stated under "Only Humans have Morality"; it states that we, in society, will always make the right decision, compared to others who have mental issues. Do people within our government have mental issues? No they do not, so my opponents claim is just ridiculous on making an assumption without facts.

Sources:
https://www.truste.com...
http://www.heritage.org...
http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.newrepublic.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
https://books.google.com...-
http://www.heritage.org...
http://www.freerepublic.com...
http://www.newswithviews.com...
http://articles.latimes.com...
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Boesball

Con

My opponent made this statement, and it really disturbed me. I hope it disturbs most of the voters as well, as it reflects a major problem in Washington.

"If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken."

There are a lot of things wrong with the statement other than the fact that my opponent misspelled "withheld". First off, if our nation is taken over, what would be the difference if we are not adhering to the values of limited government our nation should be about? If we reject the notion of privacy, as we have, what would be the issue with a nation that has an evil government taking us over if we have the same style of evil government? If our government uses the constitution properly and gives us the privacy we need, we actually have something substantial to defend.

If our constitution has failed, then why do you most likely support some of the other parts of it? Do you not support freedom of speech? That's a part of our Bill of Rights in the same way that privacy is. If privacy isn't important, then there is nothing stopping the government from convincing people that gun rights aren't important and that freedom of speech and press both are not important. That would be a dangerous situation, and with voters that do not care about their own rights, it may come soon. Government already uses their excessive power to weaken the religious liberties of Americans. Cake shop owners have had to pay thousands of dollars for using their freedom of speech to not bake a cake for a gay wedding (1). Instances where freedom has been denied to individuals would be even more numerous with an expanded NSA and bulk collection system. We don't know that the government will only use these devices that destroy privacy for just fighting terrorism. If we give the government too much power for national security, they will be tempted to use it against us. Government officials have always aimed to increase their power over us, and diminishing it isn't their forte.

Another thing my opponent did that was faulty was their assumption that diving into the percentages and statistics of the desires of the American people is a good way to determine whether it's a good policy. Most American people do not know what the government knows about them. Because of the lack of government transparency, they do not the knowledge they need. Like many American people, I do not have anything to hide. I also do not have anything that I would like to share. The government may use information about me to take advantage of me, and the government is the only entity that can legally use my private information like this because the government is the only entity that can use force to hurt me. I do not trust the government. Countries with big governments have taken advantage of their people in the past, and a government with the power to use my information against is one I do not trust. Also, the notion that terrorism is occurring because of a lack of surveillance is ridiculous! With the Patriot Act and other security measures instituted because of 9/11 have not worked. The FBI even admits that there has been no act of terrorism that has been stopped by the Patriot Act (2). How can we continue using the Patriot Act if it doesn't work? Also, how does President Obama, a member of the Democratic Party which often supports civil liberties, continue to allow these measures to take place even though they are controlled by his branch of government? It's because the violation of privacy rights is the first step towards despotism. Once the government knows what you're up to all the time, they can violate your liberties and rights extensively. Our founding fathers would have gladly joined my side on this issue, as it was one of the main reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. Similar to the way you are arguing, King George used the excuse of terrorism to try and guilty people into rejecting their human rights in pursuit of security. The terrorism of the day was smuggling, and British soldiers used warrantless searches to try and stop these deeds from taking place (3). Obviously, our founding fathers did not like these warrantless searches, and because of the violation of civil liberties and other reasons, they overthrew their corrupt government and made a constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment clearly contrasts our current way of business.

You state that the safety of our Americans is worth more than the rights of Americans. That is simply false. We use our national security to protect our rights. The biggest of these rights is our liberty and privacy. Liberty and privacy go hand in hand. Liberty in America is the idea that anyone can pursue the lifestyle they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Privacy in America is the idea that we all have a right to be left alone by government unless we did anything wrong. Claiming that giving up these rights in pursuit of safety is as stupid as guarding a safe with a rare jewel and selling that rare jewel to get armed security guards to defend the safe more effectively. It's denying the main purpose of America's existence to have a minuscule improvement of the chance of stopping the next 9/11. It simply isn't worth it.

I would like to reassure the voters that our founding fathers were indeed in favor of privacy rights (8). I've said in the past that liberty and privacy do go hand in hand. In fact, privacy is a liberty. It's in the Bill of Rights, and it was a central motivation to the founding fathers. After all, Patrick Henry had the famous statement "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!" (5). This statement shows the attitude of the founders. They would've been on my side, as they were willing to die for these liberties. Now, we choose to throw them away in pursuit of false security. Benjamin Franklin hit it right on the mark when he said this: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." (6). Franklin could not have been more clear. The freedoms our founders demanded have been slowly removed, and if they were around today, they would want to rebel against the government once more.

The fact that the government knows more about us than we want them to is scary because big government already exists. Civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate says the average American commits three felonies a day (7). Obviously, most of these crimes do not hurt anyone. They do not even hurt the government, but because of vague laws that can be interpreted in various ways, we may be accused of these felonies at any time. You probably have committed a felony without knowing. Because of the limited privacy rights we still do have, you have not been convicted. I'm glad for that, and I'm glad I have not been convicted either. My point is that if government knows so much about us, they can theoretically target people they don't like by looking for ways to convict people. This can be easily done through surveillance, wire-tapping, and other data-collecting techniques, and it's quite scary. If the government wanted to find a felony to convict us, they could. They have the power of being the only entity that can use physical force legally to get us to comply. Why should we trust that they won't go after people that are on their "bad list"? We should not trust the government. So, even though I have nothing to hide, I am still concerned about the government knowing my business because the combination of their power and their possession of my private information can be devastating. I do not think I have participated in criminal-like behaviors, but because of how government officials interpret laws to fit their goals, I do not know if I have. The same applies to you and the voters of this debate as well.

I hope my argument made you think deeply about the situation. I have chosen the side of liberty, privacy, and freedom, and I also believe the constitution is still worth fighting for. The Revolutionary War was fought and won for a reason, and it was not to make things like they were under King George again. It was to institute a government that didn't fail its people by denying the most important right of all: the right to be left alone. This right is privacy, and it is greatly cherished. I do not want this right taken away because of Washington officials fear-mongering the American people. If that is the case, and if we do lose our privacy and our liberty, then the terrorists have won, and we have lost the reason for America's existence.

(1) http://www.foxnews.com...
(2) http://www.washingtontimes.com...
(3) http://www.juancole.com...
(4) http://www.founding.com...
(5) http://www.history.org...
(6) http://www.goodreads.com...
(7) http://www.wsj.com...
(8) http://townhall.com...
Debate Round No. 3
SnaxAttack

Pro

Before I state my conclusion for this debate, I wish to Rebuttal some of my opponents flaws within his argument.

Quote from Last Round:
In the previous round, I mentioned a quote, which my opponent has brought up in the last round, which was: "If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken." I will admit on one thing, I spelt the word "withheld" wrong; forgot an "H", but the main point is that my opponent either didn't see, or wanted Voters to see, what else I said following the quote. What I said previously was: "Stated by Ron Paul, he said 'Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed'. If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken". This basically means that our Constitution is not being followed all the time, and if it isn't; the advantage of it can be used for the safety of our people.

Also, my opponent says "If our nation is taken over, what would be the difference if we are not adhering to the values of limited government our nation should be about"; in which I respond with that if we focus more on National Security than privacy, we wouldn't even be invaded in the first place. We would be one step ahead, than the enemy and the only price is to give up a little privacy. If you think about it, giving up a little privacy for protection is far greater than not being safe at all. Then my opponent continues on with saying "If we reject the notion of privacy, as we have, what would be the issue with a nation that has an evil government taking us over if we have the same style of evil government". Some fatal flaws and contradictions in this statement, the first is that my opponent admitted about the Government is already rejecting privacy, and claims that we have an "evil" government. Let me ask, has the Government done anything wrong with rejecting our privacy recently? No, they have not; and I even stated this within my last argument. I stated: "In society, everyone is someone random; even me and you. What are the true chances that you will be spied upon daily for just doing your average daily duties". So if my opponent has stated that we are being spied upon, has any "evils" impacted us recently?

The Constitution
In this section of arguments my opponent asks if I support some parts, even if I admit that its dead. I first like to say that I am all for the Constitution, but stating the fact that no one follows it all the tme. If I had to make the decision between the choice of following a set of ideas, or the safety of this country; I would pick safety first. My opponent claims that the Bill of Rights supports the idea of privacy, but I will prove how it is not. Stated under "The Right of Privacy" it states: "The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial". This means that there is really no "true" indication of the Bill of Rights having a requirement to not spy upon anyone. The situations they brought up include "Privacy of Beliefs" and "Privacy of Home", When the Government, stated under "The Government is Spying on Us...", spies on us through our electronics cameras. This does not interfere with the two situations of respecting privacy, where the Government is not making a belief be a law, and does not search your home; but more looks upon the holder of the electronics face. This, in no way, is breaking the rule of privacy stated under the Bill of Rights.

And my opponent continues on about the possibilities of the Government taking over everything, but we must refer to my previous statement I made. I stated: "Do human beings have morals? Yes, they do. Most humans will have a love of some sort, and when we look at the people running the government; they are like just me and you. Regular old citizens that have a little bit more power. I do not expect a member of the government to go insane because of having power, especially when the people elect that individual in the first place. And if we want to get factual, instead of philisophical, stated under 'Only Humans have Morality'; it states that we, in society, will always make the right decision, compared to others who have mental issues. Do people within our government have mental issues? No they do not, so my opponents claim is just ridiculous on making an assumption without facts". And to add on to that, if the President does go insane, there are many members of the Supreme Court who can take down the President if it comes down to it. There are more people in the Government, than my opponent claims; and we must remember that earlier my opponent even claims that privacy was already interfeered, yet we still continue in society like normally. If my opponent admits that we are being spied upon, what has the Government done currently to "control" all of our thoughts and beliefs.

Facts and Ideas:
My opponent even has the guts to say this quote: "Another thing my opponent did that was faulty was their assumption that diving into the percentages and statistics of the desires of the American people is a good way to determine whether it's a good policy". First off, my opponent basically says that Facts do not matter, even though they do. Facts have helped shape our society in knowing what is true and false, and if my opponent claims that statistics does not prove a point; that is a simple indication that my opponent doesn't want to agree with the facts I have given him. And if we look at my opponents case, he has not brought up really any facts, but instead has brought up more ideas from Founding Fathers. Their quotes do not always mean that one thing is true, unless supported by facts which my opponent has failed to do.

But if we do folllow my opponents logic of using quotes to prove a point, I did in the previous round. In this round, my opponent says: "Our founding fathers would have gladly joined my side on this issue, as it was one of the main reasons the Revolutionary War was fought". First off, you did not know what the Founding Fathers wanted, even though I provided a few quotes about them wanting the safety of their people than privacy. A few quotes include: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man (Samuel Adams), and George Washington's idea was: "Washington warned against leaving the nation’s security 'to the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger. By then, it would be too late. In his Farewell Address, Washington urged Americans to remember 'that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it". If they are saying we need to bring protection to our people, we will need to do it with National Security.

To conclude, my opponents argument simply laid upon the idea of following the ideas of the Bill of Rights without no facts. While I provided many facts and ideas about how National Security is far greater than privacy. I looked into many situations with National Security, and have provided a justable answer to each situation. I brought up the fact of Government Transperency and how it impacted this whole debate, yet my opponent argues that it breaks the Bill of Rights; even though National Security is protecting us. As we can see, my opponent puts a heavy focus on a set of ideas than facts, which is his fatal flaw in his argument. In a debate, you give an opinion supported by facts; not give an opinion and support it with ideas.

As well as I brought up the fact that if we came down to a situation where we will need protection, we would go directly to protecting than privacy. Why wait, instead of putting out safety in the first place? On that note, voters I must ask you a question. Are you doing anything wrong? If you aren't, why worry about being spied upon? Also, we must undrstand that if we are being spied upon, the NSA is in charge and not the Government. With that in mind, I urge you to vote Pro! Also, thanks for a good debate my opponent!

Sources (All):
http://law2.umkc.edu...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...-
http://www.shaheen.senate.gov......
Boesball

Con

You incredibly misunderstand my argument about your quote. I'm saying that because our constitution has failed, we should try to make it succeed. The way to make it to succeed is evident. Ron Paul has a very intelligent solution. Ron Paul's solution to our failed constitution is to actually follow it (1). If we follow our constitution, our privacy rights would not be infringed. If we discard our constitution, we will lose our rights and the purpose of our country.

What I am saying about our "evil government" is something I do not take back. Government collection of data is something that will always be devastating to our privacy regardless of whether is helps us defend ourselves or not. Look at Europe (2). They're probably ten years ahead of us on the extremity of data collection, and it's only going to get worse if we do not do anything. Eventually, we may get to the point where government uses massive amounts of cameras. They may watch our every move, and we do not know what they would do with that information. Government has the power to use force against us. They can hide things from us, and they can force us to pay taxes to fund imperialistic and immoral expeditions of violence against other countries, torture, abortions, and death penalties. The government does these evil things without refunding my taxes, and therefore, I do not trust the government. Why should anyone trust the government? Politicians lie by making promises they do not keep, and they promise to follow the constitution, but they do anything but follow the constitution. When my opponent asks me what the government has done wrong, I can only respond by saying that I do not know. Government that expands will eventually use its power with corruption, and that is dangerous. The famous phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true, and it will eventually be evident to our government if our privacy isn't protected (3).

Once again, you misunderstood my argument about being taken over. I'm going to state it as simply as possible. We are America. We are supposed to be the defenders of privacy and liberty. Our enemies are usually corrupt governments that do not stand for privacy and liberty. If we sacrifice our core values to defend ourselves, we have lost before a single battle has begun. We become the corrupt government, and there is nothing to fight for. We must defend ourselves without moving away from the Bill of Rights. By the way, the fourth amendment is being broken when bulk data collection is happening because the purpose of the fourth amendment is to stop the government from invading private property without a warrant (4). Therefore, we are denying our core values. If we deny our core values so blatantly now, how do we know that the government will not eventually reject amendments like the first amendments? They already deny the second and tenth amendments quite frequently, and they deny us the fourth amendment as well. How can we trust such a government?

People in the government must be insane, or they are corrupt. It is in the congressional oath of office to honor the constitution (5), and in many instances, they do not. It's also in the Presidential oath of office to protect the constitution, and it's evident that neither Obama nor Bush have done so (6). It's safe to say that Obama has violated all ten of the amendments in the Bill of Rights (7). Bush did the same. Why would you trust an executive branch that violates their oath of office frequently with bulk data collection? If they do not have the honesty to follow the promises they directly make to the American people, then they don't deserve to be trusted with our data.

One thing I have yet to mention is how wrong you are when you assume that rejecting privacy actually helps our security in the first place. When the government has used data mining to try and find terrorists, they have failed miserably every single time. The NSA has tipped off the NSA thousands of times since 9/11, and they were all false alarms (8). Trying to find terrorists by using illegal and unconstitutional data collection of innocent Americans is simply a waste of time. It's a needle in a haystack situation. Every terrorist attack is different, and stopping one before hand is nearly impossible. Data mining has never helped, and it never will help. The government knows this, or they are insane. If they know this and continue, then they are corrupt. When government is corrupt like this, we should not give up our privacy rights for false security. Privacy is an essential portion of liberty (9), and Ben Franklin said it best when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (10). That is exactly what we are doing, and it's incredibly dangerous.

There is economic problems to rejecting our privacy, as well. I have proven that rejecting our privacy for security does no good, but it dangers our economy. First off, foreign countries are less likely to buy from American internet countries because of fear that the United States will spy on them. This is our government denying us our privacy rights and hurting our businesses. Secondly, our lack of civil liberties causes a lack of trust in America. The denial of our constitution and the denial of trust usually leads to a lack of economic prosperity. The United States has plummeted to 18th in an economic freedom poll after being a consistent top tier country. CATO institute said this about the decline:

"Actually, the decline began under President George W. Bush. For 20 years the U.S. had consistently ranked as one of the world"s three freest economies, along with Hong Kong and Singapore. By the end of the Bush presidency, we were barely in the top ten." (11)

Bush was the one who started the data collection that is currently destroying our privacy. The third reason this data collection is devastating to the United States economy is the fact that it alters free flow of information. Capitalism and economic growth is reliant on not only free flowing money, but it also relies on free flowing information. Privacy is necessary for this, and if government is interfering, information and ideas will not be spread as easily online. The fourth reason this government intrusion on privacy hurts the economy is the fact that the government has to create back doors into a company's information, but these back doors allow viruses and other devastating items in. Therefore, our government's snooping around forces companies to spend more time worrying about viruses! Finally, privacy is necessary for creativity to take place. A human mind needs to be left alone without government interference in order to think. Capitalism thrives on creativity and innovation. The new tech age should be an expansion of creativity, but because of privacy rights being violated by corrupt governments, our world is losing its creativity (12). Privacy rights are necessary for a stable society, but as you see, they are also necessary for a prosperous economy.

My opponent states that I did not use facts, but he is incorrect. I quoted and sourced my links properly, and I used proper grammar throughout this debate. My opponent did not do those two things. Who knows where each of his links were used, and who knows if they were really used at all? Anyways, thanks for the debate. Vote con!

(1) http://www.thenewamerican.com...
(2) http://www.theguardian.com...
(3) http://www.phrases.org.uk...
(4) http://criminal.findlaw.com...
(5) http://history.house.gov...
(6) http://www.infoplease.com...
(7) http://rare.us...
(8) http://digg.com...
(9) http://fee.org...
(10) http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com...
(11) http://www.cato.org...
(12) http://www.globalresearch.ca...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
SnaxAttack
Sorry I didn't say "Thanks" at the end for this debate, I ran out of characters. But Good Debate overall, and hope we can debate again in the future.
Posted by Boesball 1 year ago
Boesball
Very fun debate.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Continued - Con"s rebellion argument is, Con"s constitution argument is not standing, and Con"s "anarchy" argument is standing. This is 2-0 in favor of Con. After going through the rest of the rounds, this doesn"t change at all. Both sides fail to add anything new to the conversation, simply restating what they did before. 2-0 to Con in arguments, due to 2 of their arguments standing to the end of the debate, and none of Pro"s.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
RFD -
Arguments to Con, for the following reasons. Con used the constitution, stating many amendments that helped their case. They showed how letting the gov't curb the right to privacy is detrimental to society, and will give the gov't the means it requires to restrict the basic freedoms of their citizens, and gain more power. Pro's argument about why transparency is bad is pretty weak, they state that it lets the people see what the gov't is doing, and they may disagree with it. Pro mentions no downside to this. They also state that the "gov't's privacy," is more important than "an unknown individual," but they do not tell us why. Pro's rebuttals to Con's "rebellion" argument were lacking. They simply stated some stats about how the public feels on the issue. This however has nothing to do with the resolution, as the resolution is debating the importance of national security vs privacy. Public approval does nothing to refute Con"s argument, therefore that argument still stands. For the constitution argument, Pro"s rebuttals again are lacking, they ignore all the amendments that Con mentioned, and simply stated "How much does our gov"t follow the constitution." Just because the gov"t ignores the supreme law of the land in some cases, doesn"t mean that law holds no value anymore. However here Pro gains some ground, after giving examples of how the patriot act prevented terrorism. And shows that the constitution states that the government must provide defense of its citizens. The "government anarchy" rebuttal is lacking as well, Pro simply asks that we should put our trust in the government, and that they probably won"t do anything wrong. This doesn"t refute Con"s argument that it makes it possible for governments to exercise ridiculous amounts of power. There should be safeguards in place to ensure that that doesn"t happen, and simply "trusting the government blindly" won"t ensure anything. So up to this point. Pro"s transparency argument is not standing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
SnaxAttackBoesballTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS