The Instigator
jdurrani
Pro (for)
Tied
22 Points
The Contender
200machao
Con (against)
Tied
22 Points

Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act

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 7 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,473 times Debate No: 14118
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

jdurrani

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge, and I would ask that we follow standard Lincoln-Douglass Debate protocol in this round.

I affirm. Resolved: The US is just in passing the Patriot Act.

My value for the round is justice, defined as giving each his due. This value must be paramount in the round because:
1) because of the word "just" in the resolution, meaning justice is implicit and must be debated as so.
2) without justice, a well functioning society cannot occur, because each person must be considered and cannot be overlooked during a government's decisionmaking.

My criterion for the round is that of Adhering to Locke's Social Contract. In short, Locke's contract says that the government and the people have a long-standing relationship with eachother, in that the people give up certain rights to the government in exchange for the government's protection. This must be the main criterion when evaluating this round as because the Patriot Act gives up certain rights to the government, it allows for the protection of the people in that it allows the government to better protect its people.

Contention One: The Patriot Act keeps terrorist organizations in check.

Under the Patriot Act, the government is allowed to monitor the people, to make sure of their loyalty to the US. If the government catches a terrorist organization plotting an attack, it can intervene and stop a catastrophe from happening before innocent lives are lost.

The impact off of this is that when we choose the Patriot Act, we are going to be allowing for more justice in society in that we will be saving innocent lives and making sure these dangerous terrorists are not allowed to harm American society. By doing so, we are going to be adhering to Locke's social contract in that the people will be giving up their right to privacy (albeit in a very small sense- as per the Patriot Act, only those suspected of terrorism are monitored) in exchange for government prote
200machao

Con

I negate
I value Human Worth(respecting rights autonomy, and life of an individual)
prefer for 3 reasons:
first: without human worth a govt can never be just in its actions because it isn't doing its job of protecting the people
second: human worth is prerequisite to any moral framework because morality concerns ourselves with the treatment of others
criterion: Preventing the permanent state of exception
Agamben defines the state of exception as "similar to a state of emergency but involving the ability of a sovereign to trascend judicial laws"
The state of exception is simply when governments call a state of emergency due to often a single incident to justify the violations of inherent rights, most often privacy. Many examples of state of exceptions have arisen, and none of them were beneficial. Agamben writes "The entire third reich of the Nazi was a state of exception" as well as "japanese internment camps, in whic thousands of japanese were forcibly removed from their homes because of world war 2"

Contention one: Patriot act is state of exception
The patriot act fulfills the requirements for a SOE. Agamben explains "a SOE has... suspension of judiciary activities... invasions of rights..." Agamben himself says "9/11 was a state of exception"
The alternative is to reject the aff and reject Patriot Act

On to aff case

My value is more encompassing, it encompasses justice because justice concerns the treatment of others

Criterion: Its a metaphorical contract, nobody really signed it, he says everybody in us signs it when they enter, but nobody chooses where they are born, also sc says people have a right to revolt against unjust and infrniging laws
warrant for locke: He was quoted by founding fathers, sure, so that means he's the god of justice?

C1: No statistical or imperical evidence of if this has worked, aff says the only evidence is there is no attacks, but timeframe is too short to determine success.

Too little space btw
Debate Round No. 1
jdurrani

Pro

1) Kick the affirmative case, it is irrelevant. Vote neither aff or neg because of this.

2) The state of exception is non-unique. aka: the state of exception is applied to literally every decision the government makes.

3) Is the kritik on Human Worth

A) Freedom To Choose Values Is Key to Happiness and Life

1) WE EACH MUST CHOOSE OUR OWN PATHS – MORALITY IS HARMFUL AND A POOR POLICY GOAL.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1881, Daybreak, p.63
Insofar as the individual is seeking happiness, one ought not to tender him any prescriptions as to the path to happiness: for individual happiness springs from one's own unknown laws, and prescriptions from without can only obstruct and hinder it.- The prescriptions called ‘moral' are in truth directed against individuals and are in no way aimed at promoting their happiness. They have just as little to do with the ‘happiness and welfare of mankind' - a phrase to which it is in any case impossible to attach any distinct concepts, let alone employ them as guiding stars on the dark ocean of moral aspirations.

2) FOLLOWING ONE'S OWN RULES IS SUPERIOR TO CONFORMING TO SOCIETY.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1882, Der frohliche Wissenschaft
Lured by my style and tendency,
you follow and come after me?
Follow your own self faithfully –
take time – and thus you follow me.

B) Link: The affirmative case is based on philosophy, moralism, and promoting a universal cause. This was clarified in cross-examination.

C) Implications

1) PHILOSOPHERS BIGOTEDLY DENY LIFE, CAUSING IMMENSE HARM.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1888, Gotzen-Dammerung
Let us consider finally what naivety it is to say ‘man ought to be thus and thus!' Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the luxuriance of a prodigal play and change of forms: and does some pitiful journeyman moralist say at the sight of it: ‘No! Man ought to be different'? ...He even knows how man ought to be, this bigoted wretch; he paints himself on the wall and says ‘ecce homo!'
200machao

Con

Affirmative case:

ok, i do not understand the purpose of his rebuttal. first of all he is pulling out citations o the rebuttal, which is unfair. second, he just said kick the aff case is irrelevant, but he is affirmative so he just attacked himself.
he knows he is losing, and is merely trying to have a tie, don't let him do this, he started the debate, he should accept a win or loss.
He is running a k on morality, but i am not running a moral framework, i am running human worth, that can encompass morality but doesn't have to be morality. He basically just destroyed his entire case with his own K because he crittiqued morality yet justice concerns moral decisions to ensure fairness

He attacks my case by saying the state of exception is involved in every decision a government makes but he doesn't explain how. I'm pretty sure not every action the US government takes conflicts with the constituition

He says philosophers deny life, but the person saying this is a philosopher, so what is the purpose of this?

So you can basically drop his K and Perm The Alt.

Voters:
He doesn't refute that human worth is more encompassing, winning value debate.
He doesn't attack contention one, so extend that
He doesn't refute the fact the timeframe to determine success is too small and he has no imperical evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
jdurrani

Pro

1) Not unfair. New arguments in the 1AR are acceptable.

2) Not going for a tie. I kicked the case, but went on to the Kritik, which goes un-refuted by the con, meaning you have to default Pro solely off of this.

3) Can't determine human worth without morality to tell us this "worth" that these humans have, which means, whether he'd like to admit it or not, he's still going to be linking into morality and the harms that are explained in the K. He might come back and say something about how with justice i'm going to be linking into morality as well, however, I kicked the case in Round 2, so vote neither aff nor neg based on the case. He's going to tell you that he'll be more encompassing with human worth, but since he's not refuting the fact that human worth is based on morality, he's going to still be linking into the harms explained with morality in the K.

4) The state of exception is nonunique to the Patriot Act, meaning that every possible decision that the government makes can link back to the state of exception, meaning you have to throw out this from the beginning.

The only offense that the con is attempting at is off of the "no evidence/timeframe difficult" argument. However, as seen in CX, I've given you specific empirical evidence that stated that the US has prevented 19 or more possible terrorist attacks with information made possible through the Patriot Act. Meaning, even if you don't buy the K at all, you still are going to be voting Pro based on the fact that I am going to be respecting human worth more in the round as I am saving American lives through the information from the Patriot Act.

Vote Pro.
200machao

Con

Ok

So bacially he is dropping his entire case and trying to win off a Nietzche K.

He says he is not being unfair because in the 1AR new arguemtns are allowed. I agree, however, what you cannot do is read your opponents case and search the internet for a K designed to contradict it. He says he is following Ld procedure, but I'm pretty sure you don't research a K after your opponent has read his case. It's fine if you have a K on you before your opponent starts his case, but you cannot find a K suited to your opponent's case after he reads the case, so vote him down solely for ground skew.

I said justice is linked to his value, but he said kick his case and he should win solely off of the K. He is affirming, so he cannot do this. The affirmative must defend the status quo, only the negative is allowed the option of winning only by disproving an opponent's case. Therefore, he cannot win even if he completely hypothetically destroys my case if he has no case of his own to defend successfully.Also, he is running a morality K. His logic is this. human worth= linked to morality, so I can run a morality K on anything linked to morality. This logic is utterly flawed to a point where you should vote him down just because of this.Basically any action I take could be linked to morality, such as walking or opening a door.
Just because human worth partially concerns morality, that is not the framework i am running. You look at the state of exception and realize human worth is more policy oriented than a moral framework.
He says state of exception is involved in every decision, this is where he is wrong. Whenever a government chooses to uphold the constituitional rights and due process of law, that is when they are preventing the sate of exception

Contention one: he says this is my only attack but he only had one contention.
7 times in which terroists have been apprehended is not enough to justify constituitional violations and the SOE. vote neg.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
The K introduced in round 2 was really bad.
Posted by 200machao 5 years ago
200machao
He is a philosopher, but the SOE is more of policy oriented
Posted by jdurrani 5 years ago
jdurrani
1) Agamben is a philosopher right? He talks about morals, right?
Posted by 200machao 5 years ago
200machao
good for cx
Posted by jdurrani 5 years ago
jdurrani
1) Locke is a philosopher whose writings have influenced the libertarian school of thought, but that does not necessarily single him out as a libertarian.

2) The social contract is not a tangible piece of paper, it is what is accepted when citizenship is given. By being a citizen of the United States, you are therefore agreeing with the Social Contract.

3) Why should we listen to Locke? Locke was cited by the writers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as a main influence when setting up their government. Because he is part of the principles that our country was founded upon, we should listen to him. Not to mention he is a well-accepted philosopher and thinker around the globe.

4) The empirical evidence is this: Since there have been no major attacks since the signing of the Patriot Act, and that at least 19 potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted by the US government because of information recieved made possible by the Patriot Act (http://www.heritage.org...), the Patriot Act has been proven to work in successfully saving innocent American lives.
Posted by 200machao 5 years ago
200machao
1). The person you mention is John Locke, a libertarian, correct?

2). Do you have a copy of the social contract with you?

3). Who is locke to proclaim that people giving up rights to the govt in exchange for safety is just?

4).Do you have actualy imperical or statistical evidence showing this policy works?
Posted by jdurrani 5 years ago
jdurrani
Good for CX.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by durranisucks 5 years ago
durranisucks
jdurrani200machaoTied
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:24 
Vote Placed by xixiangisadouche 5 years ago
xixiangisadouche
jdurrani200machaoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by dbj10 5 years ago
dbj10
jdurrani200machaoTied
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 
Vote Placed by jdurrani 5 years ago
jdurrani
jdurrani200machaoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by ReptiDeath 5 years ago
ReptiDeath
jdurrani200machaoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
jdurrani200machaoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by 200machao 5 years ago
200machao
jdurrani200machaoTied
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