The Instigator
love4debate2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Right to Individual Privacy be valued above the National Security

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 1 vote the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 77278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

love4debate2

Pro

The Terms for this debate round be the LD debate round.
1. 1AC
2.C/X
3. 1NC
4.C/X
5. 1AR
6. 1NR
7. 1NC
8. voting period.
No using Wikipedia as a credible source.
Do you accept these terms?

Aff: Fundamental Rights
Why should we live in a nation that values protection above our rights? We shouldn"t live in a nation that values protection above our rights as citizens. We need our fundamental rights to secure our individual privacy. I am Resolved that When in Conflict the Rights to Privacy is more important than national Security because we need our Privacy to secure our fundamental rights.
To clarify the debate round, I need to define some keys term.
1.National Security defined by U.S Legal Dictionay: "National security is a corporate term covering both national defense and foreign relations of the U.S. It refers to the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets. The term national security encompasses within it economic security, monetary security, energy security, environmental security, military security, political security and security of energy and natural resources"
2.Individual Privacy is defined by U.S Legal Dictionary : "Under the Constitution law, The right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters; under the common law, the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny, whether such scrutiny comes from a neighbor"s prying eyes, an investigator"s eavesdropping ears, a news photographer"s intrusive camera, and in statutory law, the right of people to be free from unwarranted drug testing and electronic surveillances."( http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)

This leads me to my value which is The Rights as citizens or the Fundamental rights. Our Government should not be taking away our rights for protection.
My criterion is protection citizens" Rights lead to individual Privacy.

Contention 1: National security should not be over-valued.

While national security is important, as it protects the lives of citizens and even allows the nation to continue its existence, national security can lead to tyranny. James Madison said, "The means of defense against a foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." (http://www.brainyquote.com... accessed February 28, 2014) There are numerous examples of nations that have been secure, but have not had their rights protected. These nations include China, the USSR, Nazi Germany, and the list could go on.
Ultimately, the government is a powerful instrument that must be kept in check and held accountable. The press provides this accountability. As George Washington said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." (http://www.brainyquote.com... accessed February 28, 2014) One example of how this actually played out is during the Watergate Scandal when the press was largely responsible for uncovering the corruption of the Nixon administration. (Gergen, David. [a former White House advisor to four Presidents and a professor at Harvard University] Eyewitness to Power: the essence of leadership: Nixon to Clinton. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2000. Print.) National security, when over-valued, leads to tyranny.

Contention 2: The Right to Free Speech leads to Individual Privacy.

The Right to Free speech is the important right that needs to be still be here and not taken away. According to Ayn Rand, free speech is this, "The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas." But when that right is taken away, he has no right to express his ideas. When the Government values national security more, it leads to extraction of our rights like the Right to Property and the Right to free speech. Our government cares more for National security than individual privacy which is wrong. Our government should value Individual Privacy more than National Security.

Contention 3: Overreaching Government leads to destruction of our rights.

Application: The Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was not a good thing because it violated the rights of the citizens because they used secret surveillance camera to spy on us. According to this website: (http://usbillofrights.org...) it states that these rights were clamped down because of the Patriot Act.
1. The Freedom to Expression, this website states this about this first right, "Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation."
2. FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: " Government may search and seize Americans' personal records, business documents and telephone/internet activity without probable cause to assist terror investigation" See if our government does searches without a warrant, it is a violation of our constitution the 4th Amendment "Search and Seizure"

This is two of many Examples of how an Overreaching Government can lead to the destruction of our fundamental Rights.

In Conclusion, we looked at my value which is Fundamental Rights. We looked at my criterion, and then finally we looked at how an Overreaching Government can lead to the destruction of our rights as Americans. You, voters, can come to a conclusion that America's Government first duty is to protect the rights of our citizens and not to harm them. in this first speech
Thank You Now ready for Cross Examination.
daley

Con

National Security should be valued above individual privacy because:

1) You can't have any measure of individual privacy if you're dead, so government must take whatever measures are necessary to obtain the information necessary to protect us from terrorism both from at home and abroad. Too often we only find out after the genocide that the perpetrator left many clues behind to what they were they planning on their cell phone, facebook, twitter, emails, etc. Sifting such information to get the intel that prevents terrorist acts before they happen saves millions of lives, and is more important than keeping things private so you can face what should have been a preventable death. Government cannot just sit back and wait for terrorists to attack, they must stop them before they attack. Monitoring bank accounts to see where money goes and tracking phone conversations is necessary to do this. Just imagine what could happen if they didn't? The loss is much worse without surveillance and more privacy that with more surveillance and less privacy. You choose. I mean, isn't keeping us safe what counts? A majority of Americans think so from this poll: http://techcrunch.com... Even here in Barbados where I live, workers are the Port Authority protested when cameras were installed; they said it violated their privacy, but just a month or two later the police arrested a number of them for criminal activity. Just shows why being safe trumps the need to satisfy someone's ego with guarantees of being private.

2) Internet hackers and other criminals are not going to play by the rules. The people seeking to destroy this world will hack your computer to find ways to overpower you. Would it not be good to have a government who watches over our accounts to record, track, and stop, anyone who does this to us? Most of us won't even know we are hacked until the bank sends us the bill and shows our credit card was used up. I believe the authorities should increase their surveillance, not just for the sake of national security, but even for individual security, so that hackers won't get away with, and would be more afraid to attempt, this kind of crime. Someone needs to watch over those who can't watch over themselves.

3) Only bad guys are targeted once information is gathered on the public, so once you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Simply obey the law and you'll be fine. The government has no interest in revealing to the public who is cheating on their spouse or any such personal detail, so why fear the gathering of phone records or increased immigration controls? Its hysterical to think that every single person who makes a phone call is literally being listened to by someone who will act on this information to that persons embarrassment or detriment. Its only if that person uses "key" terms connected to terrorism or classified government information, or is contacted someone red flagged by government that the conversation will even be looked at. So where is the problem? Most of us put our personal information out there for the world to see on facebook and twitter anyway.

These are my opening arguments. I will give rebuttals in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
love4debate2

Pro

I Forfeit this round, I'll post my agruments the next round
daley

Con

Fundamental Rights

Contention 1: National security should not be over-valued. Yes, NOTHING should be OVER-VALUED, including privacy. To over-value privacy means that the government cannot access private records even of persons who are suspected (with good evidence making such suspicion warrented) of planned terrorist activity. So national security being over-valued doesn"t mean it should be valued less than privacy, or vice versa.

Pro admits that national security "protects the lives of citizens and even allows the nation to continue its existence," which one would think that the right to life itself is more important than the right to individual privacy because without life there can be no privacy. Without privacy one can still have life. And people can live meaningful lives unaware and to a large extent unaffected by the surveillance of government.
Yes, national security can lead to tyranny, IF ABUSED (or taken to far). But this debate isn"t about if it should be abused, but if it should be valued above individual privacy when these two conflict. Individual privacy can also lead successful terrorist attacks on a nation when government is unable to access vital information on potential threats. The point is that anything can be abused. People use to much salt or sugar and get health problems, that doesn"t mean we should not value salt and sugar or use them at all; the same is true for national security. But this holds true for democracy, because unbounded freedom, choice without limits equals chaos; there needs to be restrictions. So anything can lead to bad consequences. Religion can lead to bad consequences, so can philosophy. So showing something can have bad effects when misused doesn"t show it is worth less than privacy or has no positive effects at all. Just imagine America with no national security, no armed forces, no police, no intelligence gathering, completely open to attack. Then imagine the nation with all these things but no privacy. In which one would you rather live? No the first one, because you would not be able to live in that one at all " you"d be dead.
As George Washington said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." (http://www.brainyquote.com...... accessed February 28, 2014) This is a red herring. I"m not arguing that we should not have freedom of speech. The government"s ability to find out what you said doesn"t stop you from saying it to whom you choose. Once you are not saying anything that is against the law, such as engaging in defamation of character, or treason, what do you have to fear?
Pro says "the press was largely responsible for uncovering the corruption of the Nixon administration," so they had the right to pry into Nixon"s affairs to find out if he was doing evil, right? Why then should not government have the same right to spy on the people to determine who else is up to greater evil, such as a planned genocide? And what is the fear anyway of national security? What do you fear government will do with your secret information?
Pro also has not actually shown that national security leads to tyranny. He merely gave examples of tyranny in countries that had national security, but we can also find examples of tyranny by persons who allow privacy, does that show the privacy is responsible? Pro has to show how one caused the other. How did government eavesdropping lead to Nixon"s corruption? And does it follow that the act of finding out people"s personal information automatically leads to using this information for bad purposes? Parents tend of have personal information on their children, does this lead them to corruption?

Contention 2: The Right to Free Speech leads to Individual Privacy.

Having the right to say what you want does not mean 1) that you have the right to say things you should be ashamed of that would lead government to want to take action against you, such as leaking state secrets, defamation of character, or spreading propaganda without facts to back it up; or that 2) government has no right to know what you said. Knowing what a person has said does not take away their right to say it. I challenge Pro to explain to me how government recording this debate right now takes away my right to engage in it! If you are not saying anything illegal, why fear government surveillance of it? It"s like a child who wants privacy in his room from his parents. If he has nothing to hide, why shouldn"t his parents have the right to check his room to make sure he is walking the straight and narrow?

Contention 3: Overreaching Government leads to destruction of our rights.

Application: The Patriot Act.
1. "Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation." Good, because librarians have no business giving out information related to government obtaining information during a criminal investigation such as a terrorist threat. Leaking such to the wrong persons could alert terrorists that government is onto them. Just imagine if a terrorist escaped because a librarian told one of his spies that government had obtained information on him!

2. See if our government does searches without a warrant, it is a violation of our constitution the 4th Amendment "Search and Seizure." Which means the 4th amendment needs revision, because not all terrorists will have a record in the system before they plant a bomb. Sometimes the only trace of their intentions is their actual phone records, and internet messages. Not every single terrorist is a prior suspect on record, so the only way to prevent terrorism before it happens is to keep tabs on everybody. You should be willing to pay that price to be safe. Its worth it.

I await my opponents rebuttal to my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
love4debate2

Pro

love4debate2 forfeited this round.
daley

Con

I await Pro's reply to my arguments
Debate Round No. 3
love4debate2

Pro

love4debate2 forfeited this round.
daley

Con

Still awaiting Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 4
love4debate2

Pro

love4debate2 forfeited this round.
daley

Con

daley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by love4debate2 1 year ago
love4debate2
I have quit the Debate. You are a great debater. I have deactivated my account!
Posted by love4debate2 1 year ago
love4debate2
Just Accept. It is nothing too major with the format. just the last three rounds are rebuttals so that you can strengthen your case and not bring any new evidence in the rebuttals.
Posted by daley 1 year ago
daley
I want this debate with you, but don't understand the format you outlined. what do those abbreviations mean?
Posted by Gareth_BM 1 year ago
Gareth_BM
I don't was that not clear from my statement. I said remove our people's freedoms is hypocritical.
Posted by love4debate2 1 year ago
love4debate2
Well, I am talking in the Context of U.S Government like NSA, TSA, Snowden these are all examples of how national security comes into conflict with Individual Privacy. But Individual Privacy Should come first. Why do you value National Security over Individual Privacy?
Posted by love4debate2 1 year ago
love4debate2
You should debate me.
Posted by Gareth_BM 1 year ago
Gareth_BM
I believe it is hypocritical of western governments to remove their people's freedoms and privacy and drastically change legal systems in response to the not actually that big threat of Islamic extremists when a main reason why we are fighting this war on terror is to up hold our beliefs and maintain our way of life.
Posted by love4debate2 1 year ago
love4debate2
Love4debate2 is for the Individual Privacy and my Competitor is for the negative side which is National Security.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
love4debate2daley
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con literally beat Pro so bad he deleted his account. Lol seriously though, Pro did concede and forfeit. Pro could have won this debate if he pushed forwards his points properly, but I still feel Con had a stronger case. What Pro could have done is talk about how us losing our liberty and rights would negatively effect the nation. For Con: Good job, I don't have much more feedback than that.