The Instigator
arrowjaw
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 87439
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

arrowjaw

Pro

Hello Debaters,

I welcome you to this debate, which has the resolution:

Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

In this debate, the Pro/For/Affirmative debater will be stating that the resolution is correct; that it is true. He/she will be stating that citizens' rights are more important than national security. The Con/Against/Negative debater will be stating that the resolution is not correct; that it is false. He/she will be stating that a nation's security is more important than the rights of the citizens.

I welcome you to bring your own definitions and interpretations of the resolution, as those make debates unique. We must, however, have rules.

1. No kritiks
2. No trolling
3. No unsupported evidence (that is not widely known; use common sense) all unsupported evidence is considered bogus
4. Respect everyone
5. One forfeit round allowed, no more. Keep in mind that you are giving your opponent more time and chance to place forth his arguments.

Structure of the Round:

In this debate, the first round (1st) will be acceptance, thanks, questions, etc... The second (2nd) will be opening arguments, no responses. The third (3rd) will be responses to opening arguments (rebuttals). The fourth round (4th) will be responses to the responses in the third round (3rd). The fifth round (5th) will be closing arguments.

To the debater(s):

Please do your research before the debate. Let's keep this clean as well, no cursing or vulgarities. Also, I would prefer that we keep theology out of the debate, thanks.

To the voter(s):

Please vote on this debate! Read the entirety through before voting.

TheRussian

Con

I thank my opponent for bringing up this interesting and relevant topic.

I will be arguing that national security should take precedence over the rights of the citizens, to a reasonable degree.

I don't feel the need to define any terms, as I think we can use the commonly understood definitions.
Debate Round No. 1
arrowjaw

Pro


Hello fellow debaters and voters,



I would first like to thank my opponent, TheRussian, for excepting my debate. I am excited to begin.



First and foremost, I feel that it is only right to define my role in this debate. In this debate I am the Pro/For/Affirmative; therefore I must affirm the resolution:



Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.



Thus, my stance is that the citizens' rights' importance surpasses that of the nation's security.



Definitions: In any debate, it is important to have definitions so that not fallacies of ambiguity or equivocation occur. As my opponent has not, as of yet, implemented any definitions of his own, he automatically accepts mine.



Nation: "A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country."


[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]



Rights: In the resolution, the word rights is pretty vague, so I will define it as human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3, Line I)


[http://www.ohchr.org...]



Citizen: "A person who legally belongs t o a country and has the rights and protection of the state" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]



Security: "The state of being protected or safe from harm."


[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]



Resolution Analysis: In the resolution analysis, I will help the voter make more sense of the resolution and the debate.



I: The resolution does not give a particular country to which the resolution applies, thus my opponent and I must defend all states.



II: The resolution does not say that to grant rights, a nation should throw security out the window, neither does it say that to grant security, rights must be obliterated.



III: The resolution states that the security of the nation itself takes precedence, not that of the individual citizens.



My Stance: Though my position in this round is already apparent, I want to clarify some ambiguity. I am not arguing for the complete riddance of security. In fact, I am arguing for security. I am arguing for the safety of the rights of the citizens. Ronald Reagan once said: "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." Thus, my stance is that national security is important, but retaining the purpose of government, to protect the people and not controls them, but the rights of the men and women in the country are more important.



Contentions: The contentions are the meat of my arguments; they are the reasons you should vote for my side of the motion.




I: Valuing Security Over Rights Results in the Violation of Rights



When governments use surveillance techniques to view the private lives of citizens, they are violating the very rights they were instituted to uphold. When governments compile personal information on citizens, security of person is breached and violated. If the government turned corrupt, an agent defected and took information with him/her, or another government/organization hacked into the databases, the information could be used to harm individuals in significant ways, violating the right to life. Surveying and compiling data on people violates their liberty. Their private lives are being observed by unknown people. Thus, when a government tries to monitor its citizen's actions, it violates the security of person right, and possible the right of life. It also violates the right of liberty.



II: Countries That Uphold Security Over Rights Abuse Those Rights



Many countries over the years have tried to make themselves as secure as possible. Unfortunately, these countries turn into authoritarian powers which utterly abuse power and the rights of citizens. Two example of this includes North Korea and the Soviet Union. In Russia, after WWI, the government became highly centralized, trying to protect its people from hostile neighbors. As a result, however, the living condition of people went down, and the corruption in the new Soviet Union went up. In the country of North Korea, the same issue has occurred. The state has tried to cut itself off from the outside world, but has only managed to all but destroy its population. Therefore, when countries value security over rights, the eventually slip into corruption and abuse of those rights.



III: The Systems of 'Spying' Currently Implemented Have Done Little to Limit Crime



Since the 9/11 Attacks (I am sure we are all familiar with this), after which the USA and other countries implemented serious security measures, in the USA alone twenty-seven terrorist attacks have occurred, leaving a total of ninety-three dead and an unknown number affected. These attacks include the 2015 San Bernadino Shooting, which left fourteen people dead; the 2015 Charleston Church Shooting, which left nine people dead; the 2012 Sikh Temple Shooting, which left six people dead; and the 2009 Fort Hood Shooting, which left thirteen people dead. These are the shootings that have occurred solely in the US, not including the recent attack in Europe.



These facts show that the surveillance of citizens is not working. Instead of ending crime and saving lives, the governments of the world are wasting money, resources, and human capital to violate the rights of innocent people. Trillions of dollars that could have been diverted to more important projects have been used to observe people all around the world and these dollars have paid for nearly nothing.



Conclusion:



Thus, the surveillance of innocent citizens to increase security has done virtually nothing to help the rates of crime and to curb violence. We have also seen that when countries try to enhance security, they trample the rights of citizens. Therefore, I urge you, the voter, to vote for my side of the resolution.


TheRussian

Con

I agree with all of my opponent's definitions, and will now present my main arguments.

I would like to make it clear that increasing rights and personal freedoms of citizens does not necessarily mean decreasing military strength and security and vice versa. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. HOWEVER, it should be noted with only several exceptions, the most powerful military powers throughout history have been authoritarian governments. Once again, authoritarianism is not necessary for a strong military, but it is certainly easier to maintain tight national security when the government has tighter control of the people. One example of this is mandatory military service by at least part of the population.

I. National Independence
Having a military is having power. A powerful economy leads to a powerful military which can then be used to further increase economic power by influencing weaker nations into decisions that will benefit the stronger nation and keeping other nations from making decisions that detriment the strong one for fear of military action. As a result, the economy benefits, which then allows the military to be expanded etc. If a nation does not have a formidable military, then it can easily be "bullied" by other nations. Being heavily influenced and threatened would be the best scenario in this case, occupation and a puppet government owned by the more powerful nation is the worst case scenario. Either way, the nation and its people lose their freedom and dignity as they are forced to act by the will of another nation, for someone else's benefit. It is certainly worth sacrificing some "personal freedoms" of the citizens in order to maintain national independence.

II. Survival of the nation's people
In a more extreme example, a nation might be totally overrun or eradicated by a neighbor with more military might. Personal freedom doesn't win conflicts, and it is necessary (for the very survival of the people) to maintain a military that is on par with its neighbors. If the nation in question is conquered, then there would be oppression, loss of culture and internal turmoil that could've been avoided.

III. The government exists to protect the people
Why do the people of the world not embrace anarchy? Why not annihilate the government structures and live with total freedom? People created a governing body for many reasons, but the single, largest role the government plays is ensuring the safety of its people. It is supposed to do what's best in order to hold its borders, keep its citizens safe from criminals as well as neighboring, potentially aggressive nations. The government, by its very existence, must strive to maximize the security of its citizens to a reasonable extent.

IV. Trust and Order
Even if people are limited in certain ways, it is certainly worth the feeling of security. If people feel safe, then they trust their government and the nation becomes more united as a whole. A stronger security force or military is also good for national propaganda, which also serves to unite the people under one flag. If the people feel insecure and don't trust their government to protect them, they often take matters into their own hands which leads to disorder and increased criminal activity as every person wants the best for themselves and doesn't want to depend on the government to make things better.

It seems clear that security of a nation takes priority over the rights of its citizens.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
arrowjaw

Pro

Hello debaters and voters,

In this round of debate, I will be responding to my opponent’s arguments. In my own opening arguments, I showed how valuing security over rights results in the violation of those rights, countries that uphold security above rights have always ended up abusing the rights of the citizens, and the systems of protection currently implemented have done nothing to aid in security.

Response to Contention I:

In his first contention, labeled “I. National Independence”, my opponent essentially states that a powerful military means having a secure nation. This seems like it would be true, but let us look at it a little closer. I am going to use the example of the Soviet Union again. After WWII, the Soviet Union was under the control of the dictator Stalin. Stalin had instituted a system a government known as communism, which involves a highly centralized government (a centralized government is one in which the government controls most if not all facets of society). In this government, the military was of the utmost importance. The Russians devoted massive human and physical resources to the military, building one of the strongest states the world has ever seen. Their armies had millions of highly trained warriors. And yet, the Soviet Union fell quickly. Why you might say? Despite having a strong military, the rights of the Russian people were being disregarded, and the government was abusing power. The History Learning Site made the following statement, which sums up life in the Soviet Union:

"The people of Russia had to read what the state allowed, see what the state allowed and listened to what the state allowed.”
(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...)

As we can see, this is a blatant violation of the rights I introduced in my opening statements.

Thus, though the Soviet Union had a powerful military, the controlling government, which valued security very highly, ended up trampling the rights of the people, causing its eventual downfall.

Response to Contention II:

In his second contention, my opponent makes a blatant assumption I feel must be addressed: “Personal freedom doesn’t win conflicts…” I would say the only thing that wins conflicts is the morale of the troops and people of states at war. I think we can all agree that personal freedom and the support of one’s rights gives much more morale than lack of individual liberty and the abuse and lack of rights. The great military commander Chiang Kai-shek stated:

“War is not only a matter of equipment, artillery, group troops or air force; it is largely a matter of spirit or morale.”

The Greek scholar and soldier Xenophon also stated that:

“…it is not numbers or strength that bring the victory in war. No, it is when one side goes against the enemy with the gods’ gift of stronger morale that their adversaries, as a rule, cannot withstand them.”

As we can see, both logic and the experiences of ancient and contemporary military commanders prove that morale is one of the most important aspects of conflict and a nations stability.

Response to Contention III:

My opponent’s third contention states that the government exists to protect the people. This may be true, but let us look more closely at it once more. In the late 1700s, the British Empire was the largest, most powerful empire in the world. No country could stand to its might. It was known as “the empire where the sun never set” because of the vast land it covered. One of England’s most profitable colonies was New England, in the New World. This New England provided things such as cotton, tobacco, and a large amount of timber. Thus, the government deployed many troops to protect this area. Despite this, we all know the story of the American Revolution, in which the colonials rebelled against their British oppressors, who trampled the rights of the New Englanders.

Thus, just because a government protects its people does not mean that the people will be content.

Response to Contention IV:

In his final contention, my opponent states that even if the peoples’ rights are limited, security is worth it. The people of the world and I disagree. A Boston Globe poll shows that more than 60% of participants say that they value privacy over surveillance for security reasons. Thus, my opponent’s contention ia proven invalid.

(https://www.bostonglobe.com...)


In conclusion, I have shown that my opponent’s first contention is invalid, as having a powerful military does not confirm security. I did the same for his second and third claims by proving that morale is one of the most important aspects of war and by showing that just because a government protects its people does not mean that they will be content. And I disproved his final contentions with a poll that shows that people most definitely prefer the freedom of rights to extreme security measures.

TheRussian

Con

I will now respond to my opponent's opening arguments.

Rebuttals:
Opponent's Contention I:
"Surveying and compiling data on people violates their liberty."
I disagree. Realistically, the observation of the citizens by the government makes virtually no difference in the citizens' daily lives. Did you change your behavior when you found out that the NSA monitors your every text, email and Google search? Of course not, because it simply does not affect us in our daily lives.

While I agree that there is a risk of the data being abused, my opponent has provided no real evidence to support this as a plausible scenario.

Opponent's Contention II:
"As a result, however, the living condition of people went down, and the corruption in the new Soviet Union went up."
I request a source for both of these claims. In fact, I'd like to directly contest your first point by saying that under Stalin's centralized government, women were given equal rights in terms of employment and education. Advancement in the field of healthcare increased the average lifespan of Russians, and most of the Russians had universal access to hospitals and medicines. The prevalence of some dreaded diseases of those times, like cholera and malaria, dropped to record low numbers. This does not sound like a decrease in living standards.
http://www.buzzle.com...

"The state [North Korea] has tried to cut itself off from the outside world, but has only managed to all but destroy its population."
I would like a source for this claim as well.

"Therefore, when countries value security over rights, the eventually slip into corruption and abuse of those rights."
I would like to note that in this contention, my opponent failed to establish a link between SECURITY and abuse of human rights. He has only attempted establish a link between authoritarian governments and the abuse of human rights. My opponent states that " Many countries over the years have tried to make themselves as secure as possible. Unfortunately, these countries turn into authoritarian powers..." as a link between authoritarianism, military strength and the abuse of human rights, but this is not necessarily true. Take the US for example, which has an enormous military spending, yet is usually considered the opposite of authoritarian and/or abusive of human rights.

Opponent's Contention III:
My opponent first lists several incidents of terrorist attacks and then concludes "These facts show that the surveillance of citizens is not working." This is completely false logic. That's like saying that because we still get sick, that medicine/vaccines don't work. Security measures such as surveillance are by no means guaranteed to obliterate every trace of crime, but they do indeed decrease it. Surveillance cameras, for example, can be found in many public areas, but crime still occurs. Does this mean that surveillance cameras don't work? No, and studies have shown that surveillance cameras can decrease crime rate by up to 50%.
http://journalistsresource.org...

My opponent here also fails to take into account additional factors that could affect the rate of terrorist attacks, such as the rise of organizations like ISIS or general sympathy towards particularly aggressive sects of a religion. Also, the overall mental health/access to weapons of a nation's individuals has not been considered. My opponent's third contention is faulty in several important ways, that results in it being invalid.

I would like to note that my opponent's first two contentions are...sort of irrelevant. He is trying to prove that personal rights should take precedence over national security, and his first two contentions are essentially that "security often decreases personal rights". It merely tries to show that increased security can often mean decreased personal rights, which is irrelevant to this debate because it doesn't show WHY that's bad or WHY it shouldn't be that way. He should be arguing that "a nation's citizens' rights OUGHT to take precedence over its security", not: when security DOES take precedence, it decreases citizens' rights. I hope this makes sense and I hope all participants understand why my opponent's first two points are in the wrong direction, and why the third is simply faulty.
Debate Round No. 3
arrowjaw

Pro

Hello debaters and voters,


In this response to my opponent’s response to my opening arguments, we have a lot to cover.


So let us get to it.


In his first response to my contention one, my opponent states that surveying and compiling data on people does not affect their everyday lives.


I have two responses for this:


1: How would you (the voter) feel if someone you have never heard of walked into your room and began rifling through your belongings? That sounds unpleasant doesn’t it? Just because it causes no direct harm to you does not mean that your liberty is not oppressed.


2: My opponent does not even address how the compilation of data not only violates the rights of freedom (see 1) but can also break the security of person and a right to life (See original Contention I).


My opponent then agrees, “…there is a risk of the data being abused…” but then dismisses it because it has no evidence. This is a logical assertion, thus, my claim does not require empirical evidence as I have given sufficient logic to support it; I demand a reasonable response if my opponent wishes to rout my claim sufficiently.



In his next response, my opponent tries to make Stalin out as a hero, pointing out the good things he has done. In the very article that my opponent uses it shows Stalin to be a cruel and ruthless dictator:


“[The economic progress that Stalin dreamed of for Russia] came at the cost of losing many human lives.”


“He introduced the policy of collectivized agriculture due to which, the land was taken away from peasants, reducing them to the status of serfs again.”


In these two quotes from the article my opponent used, the author condemns Stalin as a dictator who is not afraid to kill his people to accomplish his goals. But wait, there’s more:


“[Stalin] has been held responsible for the Soviet famine of 1932-33, in which


millions of people lost their lives.”


The Wikipedia article on Stalin states that:


“After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of 799,455 executions…around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement-with a total of about 2.9 million officially recorded victim in these categories.” (https://en.wikipedia.org...)


History.com says:


“[Stalin] ruled by terror, and millions of his citizens died during his brutal reign.”


“Once in power, [Stalin] collectivized farming and had potential enemies executed or sent to forced labor camps.”


(http://www.history.com...)


The BBC iWonder says:


“[Stalin’s] regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions.”


(http://www.bbc.co.uk...)


As we can see, Stalin was a man who violated all of the fundamental rights of humans just because he tried to make Russia a more robust and secure nation.



My opponent then wants me to provide evidence for the fact that North Korea has cut itself off and abused its people. Thought I would dispute this as common knowledge to anyone with the slightest awareness of the world, I will provide evidence anyways.


The nominal GDP (gross domestic product) per capita for the USA is $54,629 USD, meaning that each person makes an average of $54,000 a year. In North Korea, the GDP is $621 USD. This means that the average person makes on $600 per year. To put this into perspective, a McDonalds part-time employee makes $150-$200, a week. This means that a McDonalds employee makes 1/3 of the yearly salary of the average North Korean, every week.


(https://en.wikipedia.org...)


(https://en.wikipedia.org...)


Human Rights Watch says the following about North Korea:


“North Korea remains among the world’s most repressive countries. All fundamental freedoms have been severely restricted…”


“A 2014 UN Commission of Inquiry found that abuses in North Korea were without equal in the contemporary world. They include extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions, and other sexual violence.”


If you (the voter) need more evidence than this, see the Wikipedia article on North Korea.


(https://en.wikipedia.org...)



In his next response, my opponent states that I failed to establish a link between security and rights when I said: “Therefore when countries value security over rights, the[y] eventually slip into corruption and abuse of those rights.” I assert that the main point of this statement is a correlation between rights and security. As I have proven both in rounds II, I and now in this one, when a country values security too much it ends up abusing the rights it was made to protect. This is WHY countries should assess citizens’ rights over obsessive security.


My opponent then brings up the example of the USA, which I live in. He says that the USA is an example of how security can take precedence and rights not be abused. I disagree with this assertion. The majority of America’s military power operates forward in the world; this means that not all of the security is focused on the homefront. The people of America have been increasingly agitated with the government’s observation of people, which is a big topic in our upcoming presidential elections. Another point my opponent misinterpreted was that having a large military means abuse of rights. That is not what I was asserting. I contended that a government obsessed with security would result in a large military. The USA uses most of its military not to protect at home and to control the people, like the CCCP/USSR and the DPR of North Korea, but to operate forward in the world. Thus, my opponent’s example is refuted.



In the next response, my opponent makes the assertion that just because terrorist attack have not decreased since the implementation of surveillance techniques, does not mean that the monitoring methods are not working. To back up the claim he makes an analogy that just because we have had advancements in medicine does not mean we stop getting sick. This is “false logic”. There has been a marked decrease in death from illnesses that once ravaged the human population, and live expectancy has risen to an all-time high. My opponent then relates the surveillance methods to security cameras, saying that they have shown a marked decrease in crime by 50%. Once again, the monitoring techniques have shown no significant, marked reduction in crime and have only cost government massive amount of money.



In his final paragraph, my opponent tries to disrelate my first two contentions from the resolution of the debate, by saying that I am not showing WHY it is bad. I am doing precisely that. I am showing why surveillance of civilians is bad. I do not know if my opponent missed my contentions on how the surveillance of citizens violates inherent rights and can lead to the violation of the rights to security of person and life? Did my opponent miss my contention on how governments, which value security over rights turn corrupt and abusive of those rights? This entire debate has been the showing of WHY security over rights is bad. My opponent then goes into semantics, arguing what terminology I should be using and how my incorrect terminology makes my arguments invalid. This is the typical case of looking at a tree and not at the whole forest. My opponent is trying to tear down my responses without looking at them on a full level. I have consistently proven that when security takes precedence over rights, those rights are often abused. I have successfully refuted my opponent’s argument against that claim and have refuted the arguments for his allegations. For those reasons I urge you to vote for the Affirmative/Pro/For motion: “Resolved: a nation citizens’ rights do take precedence over security.”


TheRussian

Con

Contention I:
"And yet, the Soviet Union fell quickly. Why you might say? Despite having a strong military, the rights of the Russian people were being disregarded, and the government was abusing power." "...the controlling government, which valued security very highly, ended up trampling the rights of the people, causing its eventual downfall."
This essentially sums up my opponent's entire rebuttal. However, it is simply false. The fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the "abuse of human rights". It mostly had to do with economy. In fact, it should be noted that the Soviet Union INCREASED personal freedoms of its people, an event soon followed by the disintegration of the nation.
http://www.coldwar.org...

Quite a weak argument here considering that my opponent fails to actually explain the supposed connection between human rights abuse and the fall of the Soviet Union. As seen above, I have actually provided a source that explains the fall of the USSR, an event that had nothing to do with the abuse of human rights.

Contention II:
" I think we can all agree that personal freedom and the support of one"s rights gives much more morale than lack of individual liberty and the abuse and lack of rights."
This is highly debatable. In WW2, the Soviet soldiers were not only facing "lack of individual liberty" and "abuse/lack of rights", but also massive casualties on the front. Despite this, morale remained high enough for a grueling 4 years of brutal warfare in order to win.

"The great military commander Chiang Kai-shek stated..."
The commander my opponent called "great" and quoted was a military leader during the Chinese Civil War and it should be noted that this "great military commander" lost the Chinese Civil War and was exiled to Taiwan along with his forces.
http://www.history.com...

"As we can see, both logic and the experiences of ancient and contemporary military commanders prove that morale is one of the most important aspects of conflict and a nations stability."
My opponent's logic here is that freedom=morale=victory in conflict. By such logic, there is no way a dictatorial nation could win in a conflict against a more free nation because of lack of morale. This is simply false, as we can see many, very powerful, dictatorial nations in history that were very successful (at least initially) in conflict. Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire in WW2, for example. Yes, both eventually fell, but their defeat had nothing to do with a "lack of morale" because of a "lack of rights". In fact, it is known that despite a "lack of rights", both the Japanese and Germans fought to the last, relying on civilian assistance in guerrilla tactics to defeat the enemy even in the face of defeat.

Contention III:
"Despite this, we all know the story of the American Revolution, in which the colonials rebelled against their British oppressors, who trampled the rights of the New Englanders. Thus, just because a government protects its people does not mean that the people will be content."
I sort of understand my opponent's point, but as soon as the British were defeated, what did the Americans do? Create a new government to protect the new nation. The purpose of a government is to protect its people, so shouldn't that be its focus?

Contention IV:
"The people of the world and I disagree"
My opponent's source only had Americans as respondents, so saying "the people of the world" is quite misleading here.

"A Boston Globe poll shows that more than 60% of participants say that they value privacy over surveillance for security reasons."
60% is a bit over half, that's not really heavily outweighing those who say they value surveillance for security more. Also, what people THINK is irrelevant. I demonstrated previously that surveillance cameras in public areas can have quite a large impact on the crime rate. How could one possibly say it's "not worth it"?

"In conclusion, I have shown that my opponent"s first contention is invalid, as having a powerful military does not confirm security."
I meant security in a military sense. Security in an economic sense (what the USSR lacked) had little to do with military or personal rights.

"I did the same for his second and third claims by proving that morale is one of the most important aspects of war and by showing that just because a government protects its people does not mean that they will be content."
My opponent merely provided two quotes from two "military personnel" as proof of his claim. The first was written by a military "loser", and the second was written by an ancient Greek soldier. I find such "proof" quite unsatisfactory. While I agree that morale is important, it doesn't necessarily correlate with "personal freedoms", as I have shown with examples of Japan and Germany in WW2.

"And I disproved his final contentions with a poll that shows that people most definitely prefer the freedom of rights to extreme security measures."
I once again emphasize that my opponent's source only had Americans as respondents, and that the difference was only 11%. By this, it is unwise to say that "...people most definitely prefer the freedom of rights to extreme security measures".
Debate Round No. 4
arrowjaw

Pro

Hello debaters and voters,

In this last round of the debate, I will be presenting my closing arguments.

Though I would like to respond to my opponent regarding what he stated in the previous round (R4), I do not have time to do so.

Notice that throughout the round, I have sufficiently routed my opponent's claims and applied my own arguments extensively. The only place I find my opponents arguments, much less them being applied in a major way, is in his opening arguments. My opponent oft attempts to refute my claims, but I have shown how his refutations are either mislead or illogical.

I want to draw you, the voter, out of all the muddle of contentions, applications, and sources and give you a look at the whole debate; a look at the forest instead of the individual trees, if you will. My opponent's motion is violating basic human rights, just to try to provide a security method, which is not even working! My opponent also pushes that a country's sole purpose is to protect the lives of her people. I say that a country has a duty to protect the rights of her people. In a Utopia, a country could protect the lives of its people without becoming corrupt and abusive of those rights. As you all know, we do not live in a Utopia. Thus, almost everytime a government takes the security of their people solely into their hands (cough communisms cough) that government ends up abusing the people and their rights, due to corruption.

Therefore, I affirm the resolution: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

Thanks you for this long and arduous debate, TheRussian!
Thank you for reading through this, voter, and please vote for who you though upheld their side of the resolution the best.

Thanks again!

~arrowjaw
TheRussian

Con

For my closing statements...

My opponent's main point rests, again, on the idea that increased security decreases personal freedoms. This does not prove that the citizens' rights OUGHT to take precedence over security. My opponent used personal freedom as the measure of how things should be, so of course by those standards personal freedoms should take precedence. However, such standards were never established in the debate and therefore I don't see how they are an accurate measure of what OUGHT to be.

I think it is clear that security ought to take precedence over the rights of the citizens because, simply put, without security there are no citizens as there is no nation.

I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheRussian 11 months ago
TheRussian
No worries
Posted by arrowjaw 11 months ago
arrowjaw
Hi all,

This comment is meant for TheRussian

TheRussian,

Thank you for this long, but fun, debate.

Please take note that anything I said in the debate was in the spirit of competitiveness. I am sorry for any instances, in which I insulted you personally or offended your views.

Once again, thank you for the debate,

~arrowjaw
Posted by arrowjaw 11 months ago
arrowjaw
Hi all,

This comment is meant for Mr.Speaker

Mr. Speaker,

I am deeply sorry for any insult I offered you when I forfeited the debate we were doing together. I also apologize for not offering sufficent reason for my absence. Many things, including school and some family issues, prevented me from giving my all and fully participating in the debate, and I apologize.

As to your comment...

It seems you have not used your entire logical capacity and are only micromanaging my debate to somewhat "punish" me for forfeiting the debate mentioned in the first part of my comment. I stated "as of yet" in my comment, meaning that their may be developments in the debate, in which my opponent does present his own definitions.

As you are a highly logical perosn, I urge you to put that logic to use in your disagreement with my "usurpation".

Respectfully yours,

~arrowjaw
Posted by Mr.Speaker 11 months ago
Mr.Speaker
Pro says in Round 2:

"As my opponent has not, as of yet, implemented any definitions of his own, he automatically accepts mine."

This is incorrect. Con cannot automatically accept Pro's definitions because Con has not yet had the chance to agree or disagree. I do not approve of Pro's usurpation.
Posted by TheRussian 11 months ago
TheRussian
Mr. Speaker,

Thank you for the warning, I'll keep that in mind.
Posted by Mr.Speaker 11 months ago
Mr.Speaker
TheRussian,

I debated Arrowjaw a few months ago over the American Civil War, namely whether the Confederacy would justified in seceding from the Union.

Around Round 4, Arrowjaw began to forfeit. He never responded to all of my arguments. This is a warning.

Enjoy the debate!

- Mr.Speaker
No votes have been placed for this debate.