The Instigator
craft105
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Andromeda_Z
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Resolved: Post 9.11 security measures outweigh the harms to personel freedom

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Andromeda_Z
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,936 times Debate No: 18496
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

craft105

Pro

Well this is my first debate ever so i guess you can establish the rules and definitions :D
Andromeda_Z

Con

Thanks for the debate, welcome to DDO, and good luck!

Rules
1. No new arguments in the last round.
2. Any forfeit will result in loss of the conduct point.
3. Dropped arguments will count as concessions.

Definitions
Post 9/11 Security Measures - Any security measure implemented after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the intent of increasing national security. This includes the USA PATRIOT Act, and a variety of other measures.

Personal Freedom - The right to own oneself.
Debate Round No. 1
craft105

Pro

First i would like to state that i stand in the strong affirmation of Resolved: The benefits of post 9.11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

Contention 1. Is AgroTerrorism

The potential of terrorist attacks against agricultural targets (agroterrorism) has increasingly captured the attention of national security analysts, especially after the events of September 11, 2001. In this context, agroterrorism is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease with the goal of generating fear, causing economic losses, and/or undermining stability. Agroterrorism is a subset of the more general issues of terrorism and bioterrorism (see CRS Report RL32521(pdf)). Although agroterrorism has been recognized as a possible threat for many years, the issue has received increased attention over the past year. Two bills, S. 427 and S. 430, have been introduced in the 108th Congress to improve preparedness for agroterrorism. On November 19, 2003, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held heari ngs on agroterrorism. On January 30, 2004, the White House released a homeland security presidential directive, HSPD-9, to establish a national policy to protect against terrorist attacks on agriculture and food systems. On December 17, 2003, HSPD-7 added agriculture to the list of critical infrastructure for protection against terrorist attack.

Now this is what you have to understand the u.s. agricultural industry produces over 100 Billion in pure profit gains and without these post 9.11 security measures we would have lost a key part of our econemy, heck you all know the economic mess were in right now just imagine if 2 or three attempts had gone through. It would have been disastrous for our econemy.

Contention 2. Maslow's hierarchy of needs
If your not familiar with this then just let me give you a brief overview- Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory of human needs it states that first for humanity to survive we need food, water, sex, sleep. then we need security of body and employment. Notice how FOOD COMES FIRST this is a key componet of my first two contentions basicly it's saying that food comes before security so you must vote for the affirmation because without food we would have nothing to secure and if we didn't have the security we wouldn't have survived.

Contention 3. The Patriot Act

Before 9/11, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies were limited by law in what information they could share with each other. The Patriot Act tore down that wall -- and officials have praised the act's value.

As former Attorney General Janet Reno told the 9/11 commission, "Generally everything that's been done in the Patriot Act has been helpful, I think, while at the same time maintaining the balance with respect to civil liberties."

And as Attorney General John Ashcroft's recent report to Congress makes clear, this change in the law has real, practical consequences.

Information-sharing facilitated by the Patriot Act, for example, was critical to the successful dismantling of terror cells in Portland, Ore., Lackawanna, N.Y., and Virginia. Likewise, the information-sharing provisions contained in the act assisted the prosecution in San Diego of those involved with an al-Qaida drugs-for-weapons plot involving "Stinger" anti-aircraft missiles.

It also aided in the prosecution of Enaam Arnaout, an individual who had a long-standing relationship with Osama bin Laden and who used his charity organization to obtain funds illicitly from unsuspecting Americans for terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida, and to serve as a channel for people to contribute money knowingly to such groups.

These are not trivial successes. On the contrary, they're part of an enormous, ongoing effort to protect America from further terrorist attacks.

We cannot, of course, say that the Patriot Act alone can stop terrorism. But every time we successfully use the new tools at our disposal to thwart a terrorist organization, that's a victory.

Yet, remarkably, some of these vital provisions allowing the exchange of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies will expire at the end of next year. So here's a second truth: If Congress does nothing, then parts of the law will return to where they were on the day before 9/11 -- to a time when our government couldn't, by law, connect all the dots. Nobody wants a return to those days, but that is where we are headed if Congress does not set aside its partisan debates.

But what of the abuses, you ask? Time for a third truth: There is no abuse of the Patriot Act. None. The Justice Department's inspector general (who is required by the Patriot Act to examine the use of the act and report any abuse twice a year) has reported that there have been no instances in which the Patriot Act has been invoked to infringe on civil rights or civil liberties.

Others agree. For example, at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the Patriot Act, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff . . . asked (the ACLU) for instances of actual abuses. They . . . said they had none."

So the fiction of abuse can be laid to rest. The government is not, to take but one popular myth, invading libraries and scouring your book records. It's a convenient fiction that calls to mind (as Joseph Bottum, a contributor to The Weekly Standard, has written) the appealing image of "white-haired and apple-cheeked (librarians) resisting as best they can the terrible forces of McCarthyism, evangelical Christian book-burning, middle-class hypocrisy, and Big Brother government." But no matter how appealing the image, it has no more reality than any good Hollywood movie.

Government's obligation is a dual one: to provide security against violence and to preserve civil liberty. This is not a zero-sum game. We can achieve both goals if we empower government to do sensible things while exercising oversight to prevent any real abuses of authority. The Patriot Act, with its reasonable extension of authority to allow the government to act effectively with appropriate oversight rules, meets this goal.

And the truth eventually catches up to the fiction.

(Rosenzweig, an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University, is a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.)

So now you can clearly see that the patriot act has done nothing but do good things for America like "Find and detain 3 major terror cells." And notice how the how the America Civil Liberty Union "ACLU" when asked could not find ONE instance where an american citizen had been truely stripped of there liberties BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T!

Now for the reasons encompassed i see no other alternative then to vote for that of the affirmation.

Sources: http://www.spokesmanreview.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs
Andromeda_Z

Con

You have a lot of text here, so I won't be quoting too much to save room. Rather, I will respond to your contentions more generally.

C1 - Agroterrorism


The government bills don't prove that protection against agroterrorism outweighs the harms to national security, nor do they show that agroterrorism is being effectively prevented. Legislation is notoriously ineffective at preventing the thing it is designed to prevent. For example, there is currently legislation that prevents you from "possession, sale and display of...broad tipped markers" in New York City. This is intended to prevent vandalism, however, there is still vandalism in New York City. There are numerous examples of ineffective legislation, and I see no reason to believe that the agroterrorism bills will be any different. Rather than preventing harmful behavior, the agroterrorism and anti-graffiti legislation only unnecessarily limits the freedom of law-aiding citizens. Those that are willing to vandalise and attack agriculture aren't likely to mind breaking additional laws.


This is irrelevant. The debate is over whether security takes precedence over personal liberty, there is nothing at all to do with the economy.

C2 - Maslow's hierarchy of needs


Food does come first, but you must also note that security is second. We first need the freedom to procure food. For example, there are people that sometimes commute from one country to another for work-related reasons. The focus on security impedes them, as there are many things that can prevent or significantly delay someone from crossing international borders or boarding a plane. This is harmful to the ability to procure food because it may make the person lose their job due to inability to complete their duties. Without a job, you can't purchase food. Food comes first on the hierarchy of needs.

C3 - USA PATRIOT Act

"and officials have praised the act's value"
Of course they have, it has drastically increased their use of surveillance and has made it legal to do so without a warrant, making their job far easier. This is clearly beneficial to law enforcement, but detrimental to the privacy and personal rights of individuals.


"These are not trivial successes." No, they are not, however they only show one side of the story. The act is heavily biased against foreign students (among others), forcing them to declare more information than anyone else in order to receive an education in America. This inhibits both intellectual freedom and the economy, because these students will get their degrees and then create innovations and successful businesses. It also made it illegal to support any group on the State Department's terrorist watch list. This is unconstitutional (it violates the right to assemble peacefully), going against the principles on which the nation was founded. As such, it does not increase national security. Rather, it destroys the nation at the most basic of levels. There is no debate over whether security takes precedence over freedom in this instance, because this inherently damages both security of the nation as we know it and personal freedom.



My Argument
The right to own oneself necessarily entails the right to do as one wishes with one's own body. As it is your body, the government has no right to do anything involving it that you do not consent to. In many cases, the actions and legislation regarding national security (the USA PATRIOT Act in particular) permits and encourages searches without consent or a warrant, and other such actions. This makes it an inherent violation of personal freedom on the most basic of levels.



Debate Round No. 2
craft105

Pro

To give a brief road map i'll just be going down the flow

First off on Agro Terrorism- My opponent gives a pretty good analogy saying that they banned broad tipped markers in new york, but that didn't deter people from still putting grafiti all over the city, my opponent uses that same basic logic saying that a Anti Agro Terrorism bill wont deter terrorism on our Agriculture, Except for the fact that my opponent has made one Critical mistake in her argument IT HAS. Sure she can name instances in New york where the Anti- Grafiti law has failed, but she hasn't stated any instances where agro terrorism has succeeded, so the voters must default pro considering the fact that it hasn't succeeded, why? you might ask well because of the specific security measures taken on in the bill that have helped secure our nations agriculture. Now like i said the Agricultural industry is key to our economy so in turn if we lose our agg we lose our country because we know the economic situation were in now... just imagine if we were to lose 100 BILLION in profit gains from agriculture

Plus please disregard my opponents assumptions that say "THIS IS MAKIN AMERICANS LOSE THERE FREEDOMS' it's just some random assumption that ALL post 9.11 security measures are bad.

Now onto Maslow's hierarchy of needs

She makes this argument saying 'WELL WE NEED THE FREEDOM TO SECURE OUR FOOD" well nobody said you didn't it just another bladent statement that "AFTER 9.11 THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GETCHA?!" it makes no sense she dosn't back up any of her arguments with any evidence please prefer my EVIDENCE over her ANALYTIC S

Then she makes another analogy saying "if our personal freedoms are impeded then we can't travel across borders to get our food then our food industry is really screw?!" basically she's saying that either way post 9.11 security measures or not our agg is still screwed but i beg to differ WHO SAID THAT THE U.S. TRAVELS ACROSS BORDERS TO FARM IT'S DOMESTIC PRODUCTS all of her arguments are redundant and they make no sense so far you vote pro.

Now onto the Patriot Act-

She first starts out with taking a line out of my evidence and saying " OF COURSE OFFICIALS PRAISE THE ACT ALL THEY WANNA DO IS TAKE OUR FREEDOMS" basically she's making some big conspiracy theory out of all this, that all post 9.11 security measures do is impede our freedoms and DON'T SECURE US AT ALL

but again my opponent makes a very critical mistake.
She doesn't give ONE specific instance of a persons personal freedoms being taken advantage of.

She does make some generic claims like "well they COULD look at your library records and they COULD do that or they COULD do the other" all it is, is a bunch of buts and ifs, I WANT NAMES, ADDRESSES, ACTUAL PEOPLE not some generic "all foreigners are checked out" that's not good enough.

Plus she dropped on very very very very very important piece of evidence, she never responded to it at all.
First let's take into account the fact that she doesn't use any evidence so we can assume that if i have a piece of evidence that trumps her analytic s you vote pro right? OH YEAH I DO HAVE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT TRUMPS HER ANALYTIC S REMEMBER? :D

"But what of the abuses, you ask? Time for a third truth: There is no abuse of the Patriot Act. None. The Justice Department's inspector general (who is required by the Patriot Act to examine the use of the act and report any abuse twice a year) has reported that there have been no instances in which the Patriot Act has been invoked to infringe on civil rights or civil liberties.

Others agree. For example, at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the Patriot Act, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff . . . asked (the ACLU) for instances of actual abuses. They . . . said they had none." and P.S. the aclu stands for AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION so im sure if there had every been some instance of abuse they would have already blew it up and everyone would know about it :D

And even if you don't buy that all that the government can do is check your library records, phone records, shopping records, etc. What do all of these things have in common..... what do they have in common.... OH YEAH you sign a TERMS AND CONDITIONS saying that you allow the government to access your personal information whenever they want so in all actuality there is no enfrengment of freedoms because you told the government that they could :D

And for all the reasons encompassed i see no other alt than to vote for that of the affirmation.

and p.s. even if you don't buy a word i just said PREFER MY EVIDENCE OVER HER ANALYTICS thank you bye :D
Andromeda_Z

Con

Agroterrorism

Rigt now you're just making claims without any evidence to back them up, so I'd like you to provide two things. Th first is proof that the anti-agroterrorism bill you support has actually done its job and stopped aggroterrorism. You keep saying that agroterrorism hasn't suceeded, so the increased security measures must be working, but you never even bothered to show any insances in which someone attempted to harm the agricultural secto of our economy and failed to do so because of the securitymeasures put in place because of the legislation. If it doesn't stop anything, then it harms personal freedom without increasing security and is completely irrrelevant to this debate.

Also, I'd like you to povide some sort of evidence or reasoning to substantiate your claim that " the Agricultural industry is key to our economy so in turn if we lose our agg we lose our country because we know the economic situation were in now... just imagine if we were to lose 100 BILLION in profit gains from agriculture". Our economy consists of more than just agriculture. Although the loss of agriculture may be harmul, you have provided no evidence to support the claim that the loss of agriculture would result in us "loosing our country".


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

"She makes this argument saying 'WELL WE NEED THE FREEDOM TO SECURE OUR FOOD" well nobody said you didn't it just another bladent statement that "AFTER 9.11 THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GETCHA?!" it makes no sense she dosn't back up any of her arguments with any evidence please prefer my EVIDENCE over her ANALYTIC S"
I never once made the statement that the government is "out to getcha", and I challenge you to find a quote of me saying that. All you've done here is made an insult, while neglecting to actually refute my argument. You have also neglected to rovide any reasoning that the voters should "prefer my EVIDENCE over her ANALYTIC S".

'WHO SAID THAT THE U.S. TRAVELS ACROSS BORDERS TO FARM IT'S DOMESTIC PRODUCTS"
I don't know, it wasn't me. griculture is more than just farms, there is also the machinery and equipment involved. Your argument would seem to suggest that all of it is produced here. Care to provide any evidence for that?

USA PATRIOT Act

I'm sorry for not providing evidence before, here's some.

This first piece of evidence directly contradicts your statement "The Justice Department's inspector general (who is required by the Patriot Act to examine the use of the act and report any abuse twice a year) has reported that there have been no instances in which the Patriot Act has been invoked to infringe on civil rights or civil liberties." An audit of the FBI done by the Justice Department found that the FBI was abusing the Patriot Act. http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Inone case, the Patriot Act was used to seize funds in bank accouts in Belize put there by a fugitive lawyer. This case as hardly terrorism. http://www.commondreams.org...

"For example, at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the Patriot Act, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff . . . asked (the ACLU) for instances of actual abuses. They . . . said they had none." and P.S. the aclu stands for AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION so im sure if there had every been some instance of abuse they would have already blew it up and everyone would know about it :D" This statement is incorrect. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Patriot Act in 2003. Contrary to you statement, the ACLU is very much involved in fighting the Patriot Act. http://articles.cnn.com...

"And even if you don't buy that all that the government can do is check your library records, phone records, shopping records, etc. What do all of these things have in common..... what do they have in common.... OH YEAH you sign a TERMS AND CONDITIONS saying that you allow the government to access your personal information whenever they want so in all actuality there is no enfrengment of freedoms because you told the government that they could :D"
Care to quote the Terms of Service on that? Not only have you provived no evidence to show that the ToS actually says that, but you have not acknowledged that the Patriot Act has no clause in it saying that it is only valid if someone agrees to it. That would contraict the whole purpose of having the Patriot Act in the first place, because people with things to hide aren't going to agree to have them looked at.
Debate Round No. 3
craft105

Pro

craft105 forfeited this round.
Andromeda_Z

Con

Well, that was disappointing. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by craft105 5 years ago
craft105
haha ;P im a high school policy debator im aspostto have attitude
Posted by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
It wasn't the caps, mate--it was the attitude.
Posted by craft105 5 years ago
craft105
WHY DOES EVERYBODY ON THIS SITE CRY ABOUT PEOPLE USING CAPS I USE CAPS BECAUSE THAT MEANS IT'S IMPORTANT GROW Up AND LEARN TO ARGUE.
Posted by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
Bad form, Pro. You're losing conduct, here.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
craft105Andromeda_ZTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
craft105Andromeda_ZTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: For now, forfeit. I may come back later to read the arguments, but if not, then Con gets the Conduct point.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
craft105Andromeda_ZTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Pro also makes a lot of spelling errors and overuses caps.