Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions
Debate Rounds (4)
This is my first debate so I copied the structure from other ones. Feel free to post in comments anything you find wrong.
Round 1. Acceptance, No Arguments
Round 2. Opening statements (no rebuttals)
Round 3. Rebuttals
Round 4. Final Rebuttals and closing arguments
1. The burden of proof is shared
2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss
3. No images or videos are permitted. Links to videos or Images may be used as sources, but the media itself may not be posted in the debate.
4. The character limit is 10,000
5. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments.
6. No Kritiks
7. No Semantics
8. No Trolling
9. All sources must be accessible online and all links must be posted to the debate.
10. Violations of any of these rules should be noted by voters in their scores for conduct.
I would like to first thank funny007 for this debate and I hope this debate can go all the way through.
From reading the comments I have come up with this full topic to argue, The instigator has every right to change the topic or definitions.
Politicians with higher functions within the government should be interrogated with a hypothetical perfect truth serum.
a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
ask questions of (someone, especially a suspect or a prisoner) closely, aggressively, or formally.
of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
A "truth serum" is a colloquial name for any of a range of psychoactive medications used to obtain information from subjects who are unable or unwilling to provide it otherwise.
For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
I will be arguing against the interrogation of politicians
Over to pro.
I would like to thank EXOPrimal for accepting this debate and his work on defining the focus and terms.
(Sorry about not posting my argument earlier, I could have but I didn't feel like it)
(What's with the funky formatting?)
A."In the United States, the right to remain silent is designed to protect a person who is undergoing police questioning or trial."(1)
B. It is a person's right to remain silent, by feeding someone a truth serum we would be undermining his/her right to remain silent. We cannot simply undermine the right of someone that has not been proved guilty, if the politician agrees we should be allowed too, but if not we cannot. If we start to undermine rights, who knows where it will lead?
C. There are many parallels between our serum and the lie detector, or polygraph. The police will try to make you take a polygraph test, but you don't have too(2). This should be the same with a truth serum, it would be suspicious if someone declines, but it should be a person's right not to take the serum.
D. In conclusion, all people have right. Even petition's have rights. We cannot undermine these rights because we don't know where it might lead. George Orwell's animal farm illustrates this well. After the animals of a farm overthrow their owner they create their own republic with 7 commandments. Soon the republic was undermined and became a dictatorship. A Pig named Napoleon led the farm. He started by changing one of the commandments from "no animal should sleep in abed" too "no animal should sleep in a bed, with sheets,". Eventually all commandments were erased and replaced with one: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
C2:Lack Of Grounds
A."If the officer interferes with your liberty to move about, he or she should first have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a crime."(3)Is being a politician enough grounds to interrogate someone? Of course not! and it is absence that the terms of interrogation should be because the person we are questioning is a politician. Being a politician is not a crime and provides no ground to be interrogated.
A. Only interrogating politicians would be a form of selective justice. By only using this technologies on politicians we would discourage people to be politicians. We cannot selectively pick some people to be interrogated by a some methods, that cannot be the base of our justice system.
A. Politicians in higher positions should not be interrogated because they are bound to know information the the interrogator should not know. The president is the lead executive and should know many government secrets that he only shares with his cabinet. This information may be leaked, which is not good for the US. Some leaks may not be too major but some could ruin some US executive plans.
In conclusion the interrogation of higher position politicians with a truth serum should not be allowed. This selective irrigation would undermine what the US stands for and may lead to catastrophic damage in the form on information leaks. The interrogation would be arbitrary and not supported.
For these reasons I urge you to vote Con, thank you. Over to Pro
(It's ok with not posting earlier. That's why I set the timer for 3 days)
(I apologize for the funky formatting)
I thank my opponent for making his arguments.
A. My opponent starts by citing Miranda rights and I agree with him. The right to remain silent is designed to protect a person who is undergoing police questioning or trial. However, I still have yet to see a silent politician during his campaign to be elected.
B. He also says "if we start to undermine rights, where will this lead?" What my opponent calls rights very often in history turn out to be privileges. I would like to remind him of the internment of the Japanese american in 1942, when over 100 000 people of Japanese ancestry were incarcerated without any real reason. It was all done by politicians.
C. My opponent makes a parallel between the truth serum and a polygraph and a person's right to refuse a polygraph. I would like to remind my opponent that we are operating under the assumption of a hypothetical perfect truth serum, so the comparison is off topic.
D. The Con side makes a strong case with the quote from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." I do wonder how the story would've looked if everyone knew the pigs intentions.
C2: Lack of grounds.
My opponent says that being a politician is not a crime and provides no grounds to be interrogated. Dictators are also politicians and we know they are criminals.
C3: Selective justice
The Con side says we cannot choose some people to be interrogated by some methods. I couldn't agree more with that. We do not choose some people, we choose those with extreme power
C4: Information leaks
My opponent says that secrets may be shared that shouldn't be. No secrets will be shared if we ask the right questions. And soon those questions will reveal only virtuous politicians.
My opponent's contentions don't take into account the damages a certain group of people with extreme power can do.
(I just realised that R4 in your structure may not be ideal for this debate. It isn't really smart to end a debate on rebuttals. If we rebut in round 4 then I will have an unfair advantage. I would be able to rebut your arguments in the final round and you would have no chance to defend your claims because the debate is over. I think it would be better to make round 4 "Support of argument and closing statements""
Summery:Cases of Corruption
1.Pro introduces a quote from Donald trump where he says he paid of politicians. On this point I would like to note that Donald Trump is not president of the united states, he takes his oath of office January 21st(1). Other than this Pro doesn't do anything else besides saying that with a truth serum we could find out who he payed off.
2.Here Pro introduces a controversy surrounding the Clinton organization, and says that we we could find out. He really just gives another example of corruption.
3.Here pro goes into a case of proved corruption. This was a case of real estate fraud and bribery, and was Spain's biggest corruption trial, with the judge taking over 40 minutes to read out the sentences. Going into this was really arbitrary for Pro, this case of corruption was discovered without the help of a truth serum.
What is "Higher"?
A. In pros third case of corruption was a incident where a mayor was convicted of fraud(2). Are mayor's the definition of higher up in this debate?
B. There are 19,429 mayors in the united states(3), from mayors of big cities to massive ones. Would we question all these people with a truth serum, where a majority for them have done nothing wrong? This massive scale would be completely unrealistic.
C. If mayors are not considered a "Politician with Higher Functions" when Pro's 3rd argument is arbitrary in this debate.
Pro doesn't do anything except throw out some cases of scandal, one of which may not be relevant in the context of this debate. Pro's entire argument centers around trying to figure out some things but he does not go into the legality of the serum.
Thank you, over to Pro
(You are right, thank you for noticing. Round 4 will be "Support of argument and closing statements")
I would like to thank Con for his professionalism in this debate.
The topic of this debate is if politicians with higher rankings should be interrogated using truth serum. Like I said in Round 1, corruption is everywhere around us. I have provided 3 examples, one is admission of guilt by the president elect, one is an email leak and one is a very large case of proven corruption. The first 2 of these cases make me, the usual voter, feel like the bad guys won. I have to admit, Con's contentions about rights are important issues that must be considered closely if and when truth serum interrogations will be implemented. How far these interrogations go must be strictly set to handle only the circumstances of their political carreers and nothing else. But I believe the truth will set us free.
The Pro point of view is radical and Con makes good points about the human rights, but when a group of people has extreme power they should have not only special privilegies, but special obligations to make us look at the country's future with hope. Before you vote I would like you to repeat in your head "I have honest politicians".
I would first like to thank my opponent for debating with me, and I wish him luck on the rest of his debates.
A forced interrogation by a truth serum would infringe on our 5th amendment rights. The truth does help, but forcing out of someone would infringe on our rights. We cannot start to change our rights, because if we do, it will never end. Pro's views are too extreme. We cannot interrogate someone because of their job. Corruption can be solved without bending laws.
For these reasons I urge you to vote Con, please have an RFD.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.