The Instigator
KingDebater369
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

National Security[pro] vs Digital Privacy[con]

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,945 times Debate No: 55262
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

KingDebater369

Pro

Resolved: The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national
security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens.

[The resolution was too long to actually fit in the title, so I had to shorten it. We will be debating the resolution I have stated here.]

This is the topic for LD debate Nationals, and i thought it would be fun to debate. I'm kind of a new debater, so please excuse any mistakes I make. This debate is going to be styled very much like an actual LD debate. Since it is an LD topic, i'll structure the rounds as similar to an LD debate as a I can.
Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2 Aff: Affirmative Case
Round 2 Neg: Presents Negative Case, and then rebut's to Affirmative's Case

Round 3 Aff : Affirmative Rebuttal to Negative's case
Round 3 Neg: Rebut's once again to Affirmative Case

Round 4 Aff: Rebuts once again to Neg's Case
Round 4 Neg: Forfeit's round (This is only so that everthing works out evenly. The fact that Neg forfeits should not be taken into consideration when voting!)

Good Luck!
Raymond_Reddington

Con

I Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater369

Pro

KingDebater369 forfeited this round.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Before I begin I would like to point out that due to my opponents debate structure he is not allowed to present his case in the following rounds. Because the burden of proof is shared, and he is not allowed to produce any arguments, it will be virtually impossible for him to win. Any arguments presented by pro should be disregarded as they are now a breach of the rules. He can still do his best to rebut my arguments, but even the slightest evidence given by me will be more evidence than presented by Pro giving me the points.

Argument 1: Privacy is Constitutional
The fourth amendment to the Constitution bans all "unreasonable search and seizure". The government collecting digital information from citizens is a clear version of these banned searches. The founding fathers had good reason when they ensured that Americans would have rights protecting them from government intrusion. The fourth amendment stemmed from numerous incidents involving British General Warrants giving excessive power to the government to search colonials.

"The Founders believed that freedom from government intrusion into one’s home was a natural right and fundamental to liberty. During the colonial era, lawyer James Otis argued in court against British use of writs of assistance, which were general search warrants allowing British officials to search wherever they wanted without having to say why. His arguments were observed by John Adams, who noted that Otis’s argument against this form of British tyranny marked the beginning of the American Revolution. George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that general search warrants were 'grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.'" (http://billofrightsinstitute.org...)

Argument 2: Increased Digital Surveillance Leads to Misuse of Power
The use of the Patriot Act is an example how laws can unjustly take the freedoms of Americans. "the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of national security letters, a majority against U.S. persons, and many without any connection to terrorism at all." The Material Witness Statute has also been misused in order to wrongfully detain and imprison US citizens. (https://www.aclu.org...)
(http://www.ccrjustice.org...)
The past shows us that the excuse of National Security can lead to the loss of basic human rights. During WW2 Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps and went through severe hardships.
"In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated."- George W. Bush
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
What we can take away from this is that personal privacy is a fundamental right, and taking away that right, even in the name of national security, carries a large risk of that power being misused in a potentially very harmful way.

Argument 3: The War on Terror is not a Conventional War
The war we are in that now demands we lose our right to digital privacy is not like WW1 or WW2 or most other regular wars. The war on terror is an open ended war without a clear enemy and it is not clear how victory will be reached. Loss of personal privacy has the potential of lasting many years.

Summary
I believe that it is American individualism and personal freedom that makes it stand apart from many countries. Many of the people we fight in this war on terror believe this outlook is fundamentally wrong and is harmful to their traditional way of life. Sacrificing our liberty is now way to stand up to the people we now find ourselves at war with.
(http://www.scu.edu...)\



I'm only speaking for myself here but I trust Lucius Fox more than I trust a bunch of NSA workers...
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater369

Pro

I'm sorry for forfeiting the round. According to my own format, since i forefeited, everything is just really screwed up, and so I will give up this debate. Please vote CON!
Raymond_Reddington

Con



Thanks pro. Can you type something for the next round real quick so we can finish up?


Debate Round No. 3
Raymond_Reddington

Con




















Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KingDebater369 2 years ago
KingDebater369
oh i see what you're saying. The reason why is because in a real debate, Affirmitive would get to talk one more time than the negative side. But actually it's not uneven because in the second round you will present your case AND rebut. Post another comment if you still have any concerns.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Since i'm only accepting in round 1 I need to be able to argue in the final round so we have an equal number of rounds.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Con gets all points.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 2 years ago
Rhodesia79
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Goes without saying.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gracefully concedes.