The Instigator
mendicant0
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
DemocraticChampion
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

National Security ought to be valued above the Freedom of the Press

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
mendicant0
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,563 times Debate No: 37714
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

mendicant0

Pro

Rules: Opponent's Case must follow Lincoln-Douglas Case structure (Value, Criterion, contentions, Resolutional Analysis, etc.) Failure to follow structure results in automatic forfeit of the round. First round is for acceptance and opening arguments. I look forward to an edifying and helpful debate. Thanks to my opponent and to all who vote.

MY ARGUMENT FOLLOWS

As the affirmative today I am upholding National Security over Freedom of the Press. Before I go any further though, I want to address something. When we hear National Security, we have a tendency to think of bad people in dark rooms with evil laughs making what we call national security decisions that are really just them planning their next big way to invade our privacy. Please, voters, remove that preconceived notion of what national security is, and any others that you might have. That's not reality, that's Hollywood. When we're talking about National Security, we're talking about the protection of lives. Let me go ahead and define a couple things first.

National Security: relates only to those activities which are directly concerned with the nation's safety (Cole v. Young, http://definitions.uslegal.com...)
Freedom of the Press: the right to publish news and opinions in the press without the government removing any of the information (http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...)
the Press: newspapers, magazines, and other businesses that communicate news to the public by print, television, or radio...(http://dictionary.cambridge.org...)
Ought: moral obligation (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

With that out of the way I'd like to clarify that we are discussing the Resolution within the context of Government, as they are the only ones capable of restricting the free press or making national security decisions.

My value in today's debate round is LIFE. My criterion, or the reason why Life is valuable is the NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY. I know my criterion sounds complex but it really isn't. All the Natural Rights Theory says is that by observing nature we can discern certain rights that belong fundamentally to every person. Furthermore, we can observe that life is the most foundational and most important of these rights, and I'll illustrate why this is with a simple example. If a criminal walked onto your property and pointed a gun at you, what would you be worried about more? The fact that he's infringing on your right to property, or the fact that you're about to get shot? Yes, he is infringing on your property, but the bigger problem is that he's pointing a gun at you, about to take away your life. Our natural tendency will be to save our lives first, then worry about our property later. Through this, it's clear that Life is what we naturally value highest. So let's move now to my three contentions.

CONTENTION 1: LIFE MUST BE UPHELD
We've already established that life is the most foundational right belonging to each person, and I think we can accept that individuals must uphold life. But do governments have this obligation too? Absolutely, Governments are morally obligated to uphold life. This obligation stems from two places.
Sub-point A: The Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes, one of the foremost Social Contract theorists said "The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone. (http://www.brainyquote.com...)" He then goes on to say "[before government men lived] "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short [lives]. (http://www.thisnation.com...)" The Social Contract was the solution to this problem. It outlined the commitments governments made to their citizens. It made clear that men gave up some of their liberties, like the ability to go as fast as they want in their cars, in order to have their lives protected. It follows then that a government is obligated to protect the lives of their citizens because of the contract between a government and the people.
Sub-point B: Natural Law
The Natural Rights Theory is a sort of subset of Natural Law. Natural Law states that we can discern moral obligations from nature itself. Because of the value of Life, Natural Law says that we have a responsibility to protect life to the best of our abilities. This responsibility applies to governments as well since they are moral agents.

These two sources of moral obligation clearly allow us to say that governments are morally obligated to uphold life. So how do they do this?

CONTENTION 2: SUCCESSFUL NATIONAL SECURITY UPHOLDS LIFE
By definition National Security is concerned with the nations safety, and included in that is the safety of that nation's citizens. National Security then is the method used by governments to fulfill their obligations stemming from the Social Contract, and Natural Law. If we refuse to allow the Government to keep secrets in order to protect life, we take away the tool they use to fulfill the obligations they have. In order for this to be justified there must be a massive benefit that comes with restricting a government's ability to uphold life.

CONTENTION 3: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS DOESN'T UPHOLD A NATURAL RIGHT
Freedom of the Press isn't a natural right, and it doesn't uphold a natural right. What it does do is keep a government accountable, hopefully. Now this is definitely a nice thing, but we have to place limits on it. We have to allow the government to fulfill the commitments we've given them, and sometimes this necessitates keeping secrets.

To sum it all up, National Security upholds a foundational natural right, whereas Freedom of the Press upholds an accountable government which, while nice, is by no means a natural right or more important than Life.

Therefore, I agree with the resolution and stand Resolved: National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press. I urge you to do the same by voting Affirmative. Thank you.
DemocraticChampion

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
mendicant0

Pro

Alright...I did say first round was for acceptance AND opening arguments, but we can have a three round debate. Here goes. Thanks to my opponent fo accepting.

ARGUMENT FOLLOWS

As the affirmative today I am upholding National Security over Freedom of the Press. Before I go any further though, I want to address something. When we hear National Security, we have a tendency to think of bad people in dark rooms with evil laughs making what we call national security decisions that are really just them planning their next big way to invade our privacy. Please, judge, remove that preconceived notion of what national security is, and any others that you might have. That's not reality, that's Hollywood. When we're talking about National Security, we're talking about the protection of lives. Let me go ahead and define a couple things first.

National Security: relates only to those activities which are directly concerned with the nation's safety (Cole v. Young, http://definitions.uslegal.com...)
Freedom of the Press: the right to publish news and opinions in the press without the government removing any of the information (http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...)
the Press: newspapers, magazines, and other businesses that communicate news to the public by print, television, or radio...(http://dictionary.cambridge.org...)
Ought: moral obligation (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

With that out of the way I'd like to clarify that we are discussing the Resolution within the context of Government, as they are the only ones capable of restricting the free press or making national security decisions.

My value in today's debate round is LIFE. My criterion, or the reason why Life is valuable is the NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY. I know my criterion sounds complex but it really isn't. All the Natural Rights Theory says is that by observing nature we can discern certain rights that belong fundamentally to every person. Furthermore, we can observe that life is the most foundational and most important of these rights, and I'll illustrate why this is with a simple example. If a criminal walked onto your property and pointed a gun at you, what would you be worried about more? The fact that he's infringing on your right to property, or the fact that you're about to get shot? Yes, he is infringing on your property, but the bigger problem is that he's pointing a gun at you, about to take away your life. Our natural tendency will be to save our lives first, then worry about our property later. Through this, it's clear that Life is what we naturally value highest. So let's move now to my three contentions.

CONTENTION 1: LIFE MUST BE UPHELD
We've already established that life is the most foundational right belonging to each person, and I think we can accept that individuals must uphold life. But do governments have this obligation too? Absolutely, Governments are morally obligated to uphold life. This obligation stems from two places.
Sub-point A: The Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes, one of the foremost Social Contract theorists said "The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone. (http://www.brainyquote.com...)" He then goes on to say "[before government men lived] "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short [lives]. (http://www.thisnation.com...)" The Social Contract was the solution to this problem. It outlined the commitments governments made to their citizens. It made clear that men gave up some of their liberties, like the ability to go as fast as they want in their cars, in order to have their lives protected. It follows then that a government is obligated to protect the lives of their citizens because of the contract between a government and the people.
Sub-point B: Natural Law
The Natural Rights Theory is a sort of subset of Natural Law. Natural Law states that we can discern moral obligations from nature itself. Because of the value of Life, Natural Law says that we have a responsibility to protect life to the best of our abilities. This responsibility applies to governments as well since they are moral agents.

These two sources of moral obligation clearly allow us to say that governments are morally obligated to uphold life. So how do they do this?

CONTENTION 2: SUCCESSFUL NATIONAL SECURITY UPHOLDS LIFE
By definition National Security is concerned with the nations safety, and included in that is the safety of that nation's citizens. National Security then is the method used by governments to fulfill their obligations stemming from the Social Contract, and Natural Law. If we refuse to allow the Government to keep secrets in order to protect life, we take away the tool they use to fulfill the obligations they have. In order for this to be justified there must be a massive benefit that comes with restricting a government's ability to uphold life.

CONTENTION 3: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS DOESN'T UPHOLD A NATURAL RIGHT
Freedom of the Press isn't a natural right, and it doesn't uphold a natural right. What it does do is keep a government accountable, hopefully. Now this is definitely a nice thing, but we have to place limits on it. We have to allow the government to fulfill the commitments we've given them, and sometimes this necessitates keeping secrets.

To sum it all up, National Security upholds a foundational natural right, whereas Freedom of the Press upholds an accountable government which, while nice, is by no means a natural right or more important than Life.

Therefore, I agree with the resolution and stand Resolved: National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press. I urge you to do the same by voting Affirmative. Thank you.
DemocraticChampion

Con

i believe we has got the freedom of press and should and we should consider our sides differently
Debate Round No. 2
mendicant0

Pro

I must say, I have to wonder if my opponent is even reading my arguments. He failed to follow the rules in round 1, and has given one sentence of argumentation that fails to refute anything I say in his "opening argument." So far, the debate appears to be futile as my opponnent appears to be beyond uninterested, and isn't offering any sort of valid argument.

His sole point this last round was the we have the freedom of the press and we should. However, I never went against this. I do believe that we should have it, it simply shouldn't be valued over freedom of the press.

Since that's the only argument my opponent presented, I have refuted him entirely and my case still stands. I must say I'm disappointed in the quality of argumentation brought up by my opponent, and I hope that he improves in his future responses.

Regardless, I plan to start a new debate with the same topic and the same argument and I hope that someone who will actually allow for a deep and edifying debate will accept.

Thank you, and please vote Pro.
DemocraticChampion

Con

Freedom of press ftw!!! US consitution is cool
Debate Round No. 3
mendicant0

Pro

It is quite clear now that my opponent is simply trolling. He has failed to construct any real arguments for his side, and has failed completely to deconstruct my own arguments. Therefore, I strongly urge a vote for Pro. Thank you for voting all who do so.
DemocraticChampion

Con

DemocraticChampion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
I'm from Region IX myself. :) That's cool. Well I hope you enjoy it this year, in spite of your dislike for the resolution.

.... Buuuuuuut, if you reeeeeally don't like the res.... there's always TP ;) we'd welcome a good debater like you into our ranks, of course. Haha.
Posted by mendicant0 3 years ago
mendicant0
Wow...that's a big question. Values can be used for many different things and in many different ways. They can be impacted through Resolutional Analysis, or Criterions, and can also be inherently different. There are so many different types of criterion, and some cases don't even have one. Here's a very, very, very, very abbreviated explanation.

Value: The end goal for the debate round. Lincoln-Douglas Value debate is a clash of the values. The core question is "Which value is superior and which side best achieves the superior value?"

Criterion: The criterion is the means of achieving your value. However, if your side of the Resolution (the topic being debated) inherently achieves your value, a criteria is not necessarily needed. A criteria could also limit your value.

Contentions: These are your main arguments. Generally between 2 and 4 in NCFCA lincoln-douglas debate. Contentions can have subpoints.

A standard case goes like this: my side of the resolution achieves my criterion which achieves my value. The contentions should tie in with your criterion and your value, show why your value is valuable, show how your side acheives it, and, optionally, show how the opposing side does not.

So that's a brief overview. However, I would reccommend that you watch this round play out first, and then (since I'm going to open up this same topic again, since I need a lot of practice) accept my next debate. In fact, I would actually prefer that, if you wouldn't mind. It would be my preference to debate someone who's pretty knowledgable in Lincoln Douglas debate.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
I'd accept if I understood what you meant by Value, Criterion, contentions, and Resolutional Analysis. Care to explain in a way that doesn't make you look like you're using complicated language to sound intellectual?
Posted by mendicant0 3 years ago
mendicant0
Region 8. Don't like the Resolution this year but might as well try it out here (since the voters here will be close to the equivalent of community judges.) What region are you from?
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
NCFCA, I presume? :) What Region are you from?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
mendicant0DemocraticChampionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Massive forfeit by the con, but he had lost the debate long before then