The Instigator
stuforyou
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
PericIes
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
stuforyou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 79753
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

stuforyou

Pro

Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy because they keep us safer. They survey public areas for illegal behaviour and often can be reviewed to identify criminals and other security threats. A lot of times, security footage is what incriminates suspects. Many people say that it is an invasion of our privacy to be spied on like this, but I think that if we don't do anything wrong we shouldn't have to worry about being seen by law enforcement. What do you think?
PericIes

Con

Everything that you just said is irrelevant as to whether public security cameras are an invasion of privacy.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 10: "The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable."

I could go on.

Debate Round No. 1
stuforyou

Pro

stuforyou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
stuforyou

Pro

All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy. Continuing on from my last argument, if people thought that being videotaped was intruding into their personal life, going out in public would be considered an intrusion as well. Security cameras are placed in public areas like human eyes are. We look at people, people look at us. If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans? The one thing that is different about cameras is that they don't lie and they always remember what people look like and what time it was. Cameras are much more reliable in a police investigation than witnesses, because their memories of the events aren't forgotten or altered. If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.
PericIes

Con

"All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy."

The why of the matter is irrelevant. This debate is over the what, which, as you've said, is clearly established by these documents. These laws are also clearly being breached, and said breach is a violation of the rights that are laid out in the aforementioned documents. Therefore, your entire argument this round, which is based on why, not what, is rendered moot.

However, because I'm feeling sporting, I'll pick at some of the pieces of your rebuttal.

"If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans?"

For one thing, avoiding humans entirely isn't really practical for the vast majority of people. For another, human eyes don't store in perfect condition data on your whereabouts, activities, appearance, etc. for the uses of a potentially malevolent and definitely corrupt and power-hungry government without your consent and against the law.

"If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped."

I'd like to film you 24/7. Sleeping, eating, on the toilet, everything. If you refuse, according to your logic, something is up with you, and it would be a good idea to have you taped.

Also, it is irrelevant what the "average person suspect[s]." Democratically-based governments exist to see the wishes of the majority realized as long as they do not infringe on human rights, even if the humans in question are the minority. If the average person thinks that I need to be taped, then the average person can go anally fornicate with a cactus.

People being "very aware and private" about their decisions is not a bad thing at all, yet you say it like it is one.

I apologize for the lukewarm arguments, but I really didn't have to put any effort into them because, as I said, your entire point is invalid.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
Also, where was I condescending?
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
"Con's citing (without sources, mind you, not a good idea) of the bills and Amendments and such are good at explaining what the laws are regarding invasion of privacy, etc, however are ironically irrelevant. "

Those laws establish what our rights to privacy are. Their violation constitutes a violation of privacy rights. Since this debate is over violations of privacy rights, they are hardly "ironically irrelevant."

I do agree, however, that I should have cited sources. I don't know why I didn't do that.

"Throughout all of Con's round 1 'argument,' I was waiting for him to actually explain how security cameras are invasions of privacy, and in round 2, Pro said exactly what I was thinking, "]'...they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy.'"

I did explain how they are an invasion of our privacy. They are violating the laws that establish what privacy is, legally speaking.

"Con again COMPLETELY drops this point, and calls it 'irrelevant.'"

The why IS irrelevant, as long as the what (in a debate only concerning the what) is clearly established, which it is.

"After Con drops the actual argument, he successfully refutes everything else Pro says, regarding why humans aren't worried about other humans but are worried about security cameras, and how being recorded 24/7 isn't that good. However THESE (the ONLY things Con argues against) are the actual irrelevant things, and Con spends his time on these instead of the actual resolution."

Yeah, I wanted to make my round at least a paragraph, and I needed material. You should be criticizing Pro for bringing up trivialities, rather than me for addressing them.

"So all in all, Con didn't do a single thing to fulfil his side of the resolution..." Yes I did. I brought to attention the laws which establish what privacy is and that they are violated. I would have gone on to explain how the laws can logically be considered to be violated, but Pro did not bring this up.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
An incredibly poor display of argumentative skills on Con's behalf. Seriously. Come on.

Let's look at the resolution: Security Cameras Are Not An Invasion Of Our Privacy.

It is on Pro to explain how they AREN'T an invasion of privacy, and on Con to explain how they ARE an invasion of privacy.

Con successfully destroys his entire argument by saying "The why of the matter is irrelevant." This one sentence alone is what awarded Pro the win. But I'll dive into the rest of the debate... Because I'm feeling "sporting."

Con's citing (without sources, mind you, not a good idea) of the bills and Amendments and such are good at explaining what the laws are regarding invasion of privacy, etc, however are ironically irrelevant. After claiming EVERY SINGLE THING Pro says is "irrelevant," Con goes on to explain the laws regarding privacy, and DOESN'T explain HOW or WHY security cameras are in fact an invasion of our privacy.

Throughout all of Con's round 1 "argument," I was waiting for him to actually explain how security cameras are invasions of privacy, and in round 2, Pro said exactly what I was thinking, "...they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy." Con again COMPLETELY drops this point, and calls it "irrelevant."

After Con drops the actual argument, he successfully refutes everything else Pro says, regarding why humans aren't worried about other humans but are worried about security cameras, and how being recorded 24/7 isn't that good. However THESE (the ONLY things Con argues against) are the actual irrelevant things, and Con spends his time on these instead of the actual resolution.

So all in all, Con didn't do a single thing to fulfil his side of the resolution, didn't do a single thing to argue against Pro's points pertaining specifically to the resolution, and instead focused on the irrelevant arguments. 3 points to Pro.

Conduct is also null because even though Pro FF'd, Con had an overall condescending tone to his
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
stuforyouPericIesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.