Privacy is endemically bad thing
Debate Rounds (3)
and secondly this argument may seem short but I wished to be consice and clear.
Now first of all I will start with the definition of privacy , I am going to use for the purposes of this debate.If my oppent disagrees with this definition I encourage him to challenge replace it.
1.The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
2. The state of being free from public attention.
sourced from the google result for a unbiased opinion
My point (yes point) is a simple and fundemental one whats the point of privacy? Can anyone give me a reason to hide something from another person unless it is something of the worst nature. In other words why would you hide something that is not bad ?
Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern age.
My opponent claims that there is no reason to have Privacy; I will refute that claim with the following points, please note that these are also my arguments:
1) Privacy protects our dignity.
2) Privacy protects our personal selves.
3) Privacy protects us territorially.
I have noted how my opponent defined the word 'privacy,' but didn't actually show what it implied in his definition. I state the different aspects of privacy that we will be dealing with here:
Information Privacy, which involves the establishment of rules governing the collection and handling of personal data such as credit information and medical records;
Bodily privacy, which concerns the protection of people's physical selves against invasive procedures such as drug testing and cavity searches;
Privacy of communications, which covers the security and privacy of mail, telephones, email and other forms of communication; and
Territorial privacy, which concerns the setting of limits on intrusion into the domestic and other environments such as the workplace or public space.
my first argument is that privacy is good because it protects our dignity. Consider the affirmative teams case. Why hide if you have nothing to hide?
This is a common quote used throughout the privacy debate and I would like to point out that it is flawed in the sense that it doesn't accurately reflect the issue being debated.
In terms of human dignity, you may as well add a bit on the end to make it consistent with the Affirmative's claim: You have nothing to hide in a personal relationship with someone else. You have nothing to hide when using the toilets or showers. You have nothing to hide at all in your own home.
When all is said and done, we all know that there are some secrets which we would prefer that the rest of the world didn't know about, and quite obviously, places and times that we want private too.
The Affirmative does not share these beliefs, and if that is the case, then I say he is very inconsiderate towards other people.
My second point is that Privacy protects our person. Imagine this scenario; you are standing in a bus stop waiting for a bus and suddenly someone comes up to you and starts rummaging through your pockets. That is an invasion of privacy. Nobody wants that to happen to them. That's why its illegal.
Privacy also protects our person when it comes to finance. Is it really everyones right to know your credit card details or your PIN number?
Privacy protects other sensitive information too, names, birth dates, contacts and addresses.
These sorts of information are supposed to be private from everyone else due to safety. A simple fact.
My last point is that Privacy protects us territorially. Trespassing is a form of privacy infringement. One cannot simply walk into someone Else's house.
In conclusion, Privacy is a fundamentally good thing for humans, it protects our dignity, person, and information. The claim that it is an endemically bad thing is unconscionable.
Also my opponent points out that privacy is a fundamental human right but he does not me tell why this is the case his opening phrase is certainly a nice rhetoric but it it is not usefull in the context of this debate.
My opponents al point out that "there are times we dont want the rest of the world to know about" now I am a little confused about this could my opponent please clarify.
Also finally ,my opponent also points out that imformationin a form of a key such as a pin or a locker combo is a bad idea to give out, I completly agree with him because imformation such as that represents something other an it is more like a key than pure information and and therefore outside of the purview of this debate.
In conclusion privacy is something that encompasses alot of different fields and that is not very clearly defined, it is something that blurs the line with other subjects and the etherial nature of it makes it hard to debate about , but I hope that I have made this debate clearer.
In his first paragraph, Pro points out that his case is based on the argument that '...[privacy] does not achieve anything useful or meaningful.' I would like to state some errors with this type of thinking. Assuming Pros definition, then privacy does indeed have a beneficial use.
I don't wish to have an argument about utilitarianism, so we will work from the assumption that Comfort is a positive thing that makes people more happy. With this in mind, I would like to question the Pro's claim that Privacy is worthless given that it provides us with a level of peace of mind.
A sense of Anonymity gives most people further peace of mind too. It is rare to find someone who enjoys having other people stick their noses into his or her business.
Now that we have established that Privacy has a use to us, Pro has a BOP to support his claim that Privacy is a fundamentally bad idea.
In his second paragraph, Pro attacks one of my arguments and says that I need to state why privacy is a fundamental human right. I will not however, as that is irrelevant to the debate. Furthermore, even if it were relevant, I don't see why I would need to explain why its a right. I was just stating that Privacy is a basic human right, recognised in 50 countries.
Pro says in his last paragraph that privacy is not very clearly defined, So I will ask him to refine his definition simply because all of my arguments fit perfectly into it. If he does not, then due to the insubstantial rebuttals, my arguments will stand.
jamie56 forfeited this round.
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.