The Instigator
moneystacker
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
notyourbusiness
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Resolved: we must remove the patrioct act

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 3 votes the winner is...
notyourbusiness
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 63491
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

moneystacker

Con

This is just for refrence

1. Pro just backs up what I put and con just attacks it in anyway they want with any argument

2. try to post arguments in time.

good luck
notyourbusiness

Pro

I thank Con for instigating this debate. I am assuming that "patrioct" is a spelling mistake and the word refers to "patriot". It is unclear whether first round is for acceptance but since Con has not stated any arguments, I will assume this is the case.

I look forward to seeing Con's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
moneystacker

Con

moneystacker forfeited this round.
notyourbusiness

Pro

I see that Con has forfeited this round.

1. Privacy
The PATRIOT Act is a form of deploying secret intelligence on civilians, which violates the basic human right of privacy.

2. Government's Role
The PATRIOT Act twists the responsibility of the government. It is the government's role to protect citizens, not spy on them. There are many other ways to prevent crime or terrorism, many alternatives to the immoral act of spying. In almost every place, Information collected by illegal means (spying without a court warrant) is inadmissible in a court of law. This, again, is due to moral issues. If information collected by spying illegally (the PATRIOT Act violates a basic human right!) is not admissible in a court, why should it be allowed? Laws justify this rule because such acts (illegal spying) are immoral. Alternative ways including monitoring select targets after a court warrant has been issued. Spying on citizens will only lead to distrust of the government.

3. Freedom of the Press
if governments are able to spy on reporters they will also be able to block certain reports or information and prevent them from reaching the public

4. Opportunity for data theft
With the huge collection of data and information inside, the databases of the PATRIOT Act are at high risk from hackers who want to steal confidential information from citizens, such as their bank count information (banks converse with clients via phone too!), address, or even corporate secrets, which I will elaborate on later in point 7.

5. Abuse of power of Government
The PATRIOT Act also paves the way for the government to abuse its power. No one wants George Orwell's 1984 to become a reality, and no one wants V for Vendetta to show the future. NSA agents have been reported to be using data for private purposes, such as selling information to others or tracking down lovers. The government is using "crime prevention" as an excuse to violate privacy.

6. Not as efficient as thought
The PATRIOT Act has actually not stopped any attacks. Many terrorist attacks, such as the Boston Bombing, were actually not prevented due to many other mishaps. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was already on the FBI's radar screen prior to the bombings. Despite that, the NSA and FBI's tools failed to identify and prevent the incipient plot. AS for Zazi bombing the NY subway, the NSA's secret tools were actually not necessary; Zazi's existing links to terror organizations would have allowed the FBI to use its standard tools.

Imagine data to be a haystack, and criminals/terrorists to be a needle. Bruce Schneier, top security expert American cryptographer, computer security and privacy specialist, says that collecting such a mass of information would only expand the haystack and make it too big to actually search for the real terrorists.

The database of the PATROT Act demonstrates exactly what Schneier was referring to. According to an unusually blunt Senate investigation of so-called "fusion centers"released last month, the TIDE (i.e. suspected terrorist) database was full of information of innocent people that have nothing to do with terrorism. The report gave examples of: a TIDE profile of a two-year old-boy and even a TIDE profile of Ford Motor Company.

And isn"t it absurd that the United States can"t finish a simple border fence to keep out potential terrorists, can"t stop a would-be terrorist in the U.S. army who gives a powerpoint presentation on why he is about to shoot people (Major Nadal Hassan), can"t follow up on Russian intelligence warnings about Chechen terrorist contacts (the Boston bombing), or a dozen similar incidents, and thus must now collect every detail on every civilian?

7. It violates trade principle
Spying on corporates/employees of corporates (EVERYONE is included in the PATRIOT Act) will violate the trade principle of promoting fair competition.

References:
http://www.un.org...
http://www.wto.org...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Debate Round No. 2
moneystacker

Con

Apology: sorry about not posting argument was busy
Intro:Yes the patriot act has certain things that should be repelled or changed such as privacy. In fact some things in the patriot scare the living crap out of me. But there is one beneficial part of it that shouldn"t be eliminated and that is the protection this act provides for American citizens.
1.Stops terrorism
"Protects power grids from being hacked by terrorist, power grids allow electricity and energy for people"s homes-Washington post
"According to a 29-page report to Congress released by Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, Justice Department terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against 310 people and have yielded 179 convictions or guilty pleas. The report says the Patriot Act was central to those cases.-Washington post
"Information-sharing facilated by the Patriot Act was critical to the successful dismantling of terror cells in Portland, Ore., and Virginia. 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.
Source=NY times
"The act also aided in the prosecution of Enaam Arnaout, who had a relationship with Osama bin Laden and used his charity organization to obtain funds illicitly from unsuspecting Americans for terrorist groups-NY times
2.Enhances security
"Patriot act allows businesses and other private organizations to share threats which in turn enhances security
"Causes businesses to report fraud and protects borders as a whole
3.Saved lives
"The patriot act has even helped crime domestically by saving lives
"The report provides as examples lengthy accounts of non-terrorism cases in which the Patriot Act played a central role, including investigations of a couple who allegedly defrauded widows and orphans, and of an Indiana man accused of filming the sexual abuse of his 13-year-old daughter. Sensenbrenner highlighted the case of the Wisconsin woman, 88, who was kidnapped in. She was rescued after officials used the Patriot Act to obtain information from Internet service providers.-Washington post
4.Find ways to eliminate some of the things patriot act has access to
What I mean here is that I believe we should remove parts of the patriot act not the whole thing. Like there are some parts of it that violate privacy to much like I mentioned in intro, that can be removed.
Cont 5: Even if you remove the patriot act privacy and violations will still be a problem since the NSA will still be active. So their is no reason to remove a beneficial program that saves lives since privacy will still be a issue. Also most people don't even know what the patriot act is so they are not worried about privacy violations which takes out all his privacy arguments they are only aware and worried about NSA since NSA has more access then anything. They even have access on other countries.

Response: I will attack certain contention's in my opponents case
cont 1: privacy
I believe that since the patriot act is saving lives and stopping terrorism activities then the benefits of lives outweighs privacy and again I mentioned some parts of patriot can be removed instead of the whole thing to ensure less privacy is violated. Also patriot act has restrictions like NSA that keep it from sharing the info. So yeah if you have nothing to hide nothing to fear

His cont 2: Patriot act has supervision and must have approval before action in order to get a police force or whatever to go get the criminal/suspect. Also not like they spy on you 24/7 not possible.

Cont 3: honestly not sure about impact here so will not touch

his cont 4: hackers
THe patriot act actually stops hackers from hacking into power grids and hacking our electricity and other stuff. So patriot act actually helps stop hackers and ensures Americans can have electricity. Also many secrete databases are at risk of hacking.. stuff the Pentagon has, NSA,CIA,FBI any secrete database has a risk of being hacked its logical.

his cont. 5: may use info for tracking lovers ,selling info.
This is a argument I hit often doing this for PF. Heavy restrictions on NSA and patriot act that keep info from being sold. There is massive oversight and also popular websites like google, yahoo, facebook, Instagram, twitter, etc. signed agreement saying they wouldn't release or sale this data to anyone for any cause.

cont. 6: didn't stop Boston bombing/not needed for one attack
I have also hit these arguments. First of all that is one instance out of the 300+ benefits/instances I mentioned in case so patriot act has been needed more often then not.

Now about the Boston bombing and I am glad you bought that up. My opponent says many attacks and not the Boston bombing but the Boston bombing is the only major terrorist attack not stopped since 9/11 and the only major one that has happened since then. I will attack this in a few ways
1. Since there has only been 1 major attack since 9/11 counter terrorism tools like the patriot act are working
2. What my opponent is saying is that since the patriot act failed once it is done but that is unrealistic. For example police don't always catch criminals, the military sometimes fails to solve conflicts like in Vietnam and Iraq, The U.S. government as a whole has made mistakes but does that mean they all should be removed then?? Obviously no nothing is 100% accurate but as long as it works more then doesn't it should be kept and the patriot act along with the things I mentioned works more often then it doesn't work.

his cont 7: spying on corpates
As I mentioned in my case above the patriot act Patriot act allows businesses and other private organizations to share threats which in turn enhances security. Causes businesses to report fraud and protects borders as a whole

Conclusion: As you can see the patriot act has benefits and again I mentioned we can remove certain access/uneeded parts of the patriot act to lower privacy violation however even if that wasn't possible consider this when voting. Do you value lives over privacy, or privacy over lives? Also most people don't even know what the patriot act is so they are not worried about privacy violations which takes out all his privacy arguments they are only aware and worried about NSA since NSA has more access then anything. They even have access on other countries.
notyourbusiness

Pro

I thank Con for his arguments.

Rebuttals:

1. "Stops terrorism"
I believe Con hasn't read point number 6 in the previous round? There I made it clear that "The PATRIOT Act has actually not stopped any attacks". This was actually admitted by the NSA spokesperson.

2. "Enhances security"
The good effects of the Act stated by Con are not unique to the PATRIOT Act. Normal police databases and Interpol actually have that function too. We do not need something that intrudes on everyone's privacy to "protect" businesses by offering them security that they can get elsewhere.

3. "Saved lives"
While Con manages to give two examples in which the Act has saved lives, let us be reminded that should there be preparer evidence, the FBI, NSA or police can actually get a court warrant and spy on selected targets to protect lives through proper and legal channels.

4. "Find ways to eliminate some of the things patriot act has access to"
Con says here that the PATRIOT Act should be altered instead of removed completely. However, Con seems to be not aware that the major problem is the core of the PATRIOT Act-the violation of privacy. The PATRIOT Act allows the spying of telephone calls of every single American citizen, which is why people feel that their privacy has been violated. Removing this violation of privacy would actually be removing the entire Act, since this collection of data is what the entire Act is about.

5. "Even if you remove the patriot act privacy and violations will still be a problem since the NSA will still be active."
True, but does that justify an evil? Would you say that ISIS should not be pursued because even if it is removed, terrorism will still be a problem? This type of logic doesn't work. What the PATRIOT Act is condoning is the violation of privacy. In order to establish a world where human rights are truly protected, the PATRIOT Act has to be removed.

My response to Con's rebuttals:
1. Privacy
Privacy isn't about having nothing to hide. It's just like how stealing isn't about having nothing to be stolen. You cannot say that there is not problem with a thief stealing from you simply because you have no valuables. The act itself, not including the consequences, is illegal and should not be condoned.

2. "Patriot act has supervision"
I suggest Con to reread point 5 in Round 2. NSA agents have been clearly violating their power. Concerning it being "impossible" to be spied on 24/7, I must stress that it is not. Being spied on 24/7 doesn't mean that a team of agents are dressed in camouflage and hiding in the bushes with binoculars spying on a person. These scenes only happen in movies. Spying 24/7 can be a machine tapping your phone non-stop, or a bug planted in your house. These things are machines, and they can carry on for months not just days.

3. I see that Con has failed to rebut my points here.

4. "hackers"
I am unsure as to how Con imagines the PATRIOT Act can stop hackers. Also, just because all databases are at the risk of being hacked doesn't mean that we should create an ultra-large one to increase the incentive. Additionally, The PATRIOT Act's databases contain the information of every single civilian, not that of terrorists in CIA bases, and so hackers will want to get their hands on the information there more. This is because terrorist information is useless to them, while bank account numbers and addresses people give via phone when communicating wight heir bank or ordering a pizza delivery are more useful to them.

5. "may use info for tracking lovers ,selling info."
Let Con be reminded that this is not "may', but rather "do" or "has". These have happened and there is concrete proof; a Senate investigation proved that. Secondly, Con's point about major websites not releasing information is invalid. The PATRIOT Act mainly targets phone data such as calls and messages, not internet browsing.

6. "didn't stop Boston bombing/not needed for one attack"
I see that Con has failed to give examples but merely figures. Also Con has ignored my points about the PATRIOT Act having actually stopped zero attacks.

7. "Since there has only been 1 major attack since 9/11 counter terrorism tools like the patriot act are working"
As mentioned previously, the PATRIOT Act stopped no attacks. Other attacks that were prevented were stopped through other methods, such as drone-bombing terrorist strongholds before terrorists can take action.

8. "What my opponent is saying is that since the patriot act failed once it is done but that is unrealistic. "
I don't understand this statement so I am looking forward to Con's elaboration and explanation through a comment or message. What is meant by "failed once it is done"? I am unclear as to the meaning of this.

Here I will reiterate my points:
1. Privacy
Con has failed to respond to this point. While Con says that "the benefits of lives outweighs privacy", I do not think that this thought applies to the PATRIOT Act. There are many other proper ways to prevent crime or terrorism without using the PATRIOT Act and without deploying secret intelligence on civilians, such as obtaining a court warrant and selecting target individuals.

2. Government's Role and Freedom of the Press
I see that Con has failed to respond to these points

3. Not as efficient as thought
Con has only picked out one sentence from the four paragraphs of arguments that I gave. Con has failed to respond to the PATRIOT Act being inefficient due to over-collection of data, the core of the point.

4. It violates trade principle
Again, Con has failed to respond to this point. Con has stated how the PATRIOT Act can enhance security, but he has not given a proper response concerning how the PATRIOT Act violates the trade principle of promoting fair trade, which is the core of the point.

Conclusion:
The PATRIOT Act not only violates the basic right of privacy, a human right; but also infringes on trade principle, freedom of press and twists government's role. It provides an opportunity for data theft and abuses the power of the government. Lastly, it is inefficient. The PATRIOT Act has failed to stop any attacks and actually makes it harder to find the criminals within the may innocent civilians. Thus, this act should be removed.

References:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
(Also references used in Round 2)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
While Washington and New York Times are generally known to be reliable sources, they actually cite information on their articles too. If you could go back to the original source (e.g. a study), the evidence would be much more compelling, because generally evidence from a government or official organisation (UN, American Cancer Society, etc) would be more solid and less doubted.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
its Washington post and newyork times. THey have the best evidence out their. I had one example but I guess I see what you mean. It's just hard to find all the details on some things
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
Thanks for the compliment, you brought up some interesting points as well. Concerning sources, I apologise for stating that you cited none. What I meant by "no evidence" is that you simply gave some figures, but not concrete examples. While figures are strong enough concerning percentages and finance, they simply aren't enough in this debate. Isn't it suspicious that with 300+ stopped attacks, there isn't one single one that can be mentioned in more detail as proof?
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
debate im confused on what you mean by no evidence.. clearly I can't provide random numbers and I put wahsington post and new York times... but whatever I guess.

You claim I cited no sources but again.. Washington post and new York times are the best sources out their. But oh well
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
good debate was fun and I learned some reasons to repel the act I didn't know many that I found worth considering but yours were very nice. I enjoyed the debate was fun debating with you.
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
Sure, look forward to seeing your arguments.
.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
my bad I didn't post in time. So you can post argument and I will respond i'm ready and yeah was spelling mistake
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
moneystackernotyourbusinessTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
moneystackernotyourbusinessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made nonsensical statements, did not present enough evidence to back their claims. forfeited a round, made an accusation, made spelling and grammatical errors, and did not cite any sources.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
moneystackernotyourbusinessTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did forfeit one round but then provided good arguments and pro provided more sources then con.