Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)
Debate Rounds (4)
1.You are only aloud to make 1 argument.
2. Keep good conduct, no cursing, abusing racism etc.
3. All examples that counter my argument must be referred to as something that once happened POST 9/11. you don't have to say who it happened to or if it is backed up by sources then don't feel the need to say the person mentioned is you. If it happened before 9/11 it does not apply to the argument. (you will see why soon).
4. Try and show sources as much as possible.
6. The format goes like this:
R1: PRO: rules and definitions.
CON: Acceptance only - no arguments.
R2: BOTH: Arguments only
R3: BOTH: Rebuttals only
R4: BOTH: Counter-rebuttals and closing statements only.
My arguments will always be posted between 5 - 8PM GMT.
7. If you forfeit, you miss the opportunity to do the thing happening in the next round. If you miss R3 for example, you can't rebut and therefore you are stating that my argument is completely true.
Remember that you can only provide one argument - over to you.
CommunistDog forfeited this round.
1. Many people are without jobs because of the lack of jobs or being inexperienced, thus leading to criminal activities to get money and supplies
2. If security were removed, then more people would be jobless, adding to part 1
3. There will never be a world where there is order. People will always make up void arguments or might not know what's right or wrong. We live in a dangerous world. Never, will there be order throughout it.
R1: The title was not "we should remove all security" but "security is jot a threat in the modern world." The point is that nearly every action you do is to protect yourself. When I touch the keyboard my fingers instinctively bend. The higher levels of security is all sorted out by the people who work in that sector. But if Random individuals speak out about security like in the recent 'not in parliament' five way UK election debate  then the government must speak out and reveal security plans that only worsen security that ultimately we shouldn't be worrying about. The only person who wanted trident was Nigel Farage anyway who, well, lets face it is, a bit rubbish (although I do believe he is NOT racist, we can debate about that some other time). He isn't a very good debater either , so it may have been a little desperate. I think that if these views had not of been publicly revealed we could leave it to people who really know what they are doing without oppositions knowing.
I think that my opposition hasn't quite taken the message correctly and so that is why you should vote pro. Of course it has been a fantastic debate but my opposition hasn't quite understood what he is meant to say.
I speak here today to say that we should not underestimate potential problems; terrorists, cyber hackers, and criminals. Some people in this world end up to be major criminals; whether it be because they need money to supply for themselves or because they're crazy. To support my claims, I would like to use the Sony Hacking as an example. Sony is a popular and rich company, which was protected by strong firewalls. Yet, hackers become stronger and stronger. There will always be a way to destroy the protections that we keep. Sony was hacked, potentially damaging some of its works. With security, computers will be harder to be hacked. Less security gives internet criminals the ability to look at private information or even permanently damaging things like nice photos of you or important school essays. I am also sure that everyone who is reading this values their life. Our noble local police and our brave army soldiers took a vow, to save our lives if we were in danger, even if it meant giving theirs. The police and soldiers have tried as best as they could to abolish criminal activity but there is no way of stopping it completely. There will always be a chance you could get robbed or hurt from criminals. Decreasing the amount of police officers will mean increased damage of crimes towards you or others. Decreasing the amount of soldiers means an increased amount of terrorism. To add onto the importance of soldiers intervening in international affairs, I would like to bring up the Darfur genocide. Darfur experienced massive accounts of genocide, with over 500,000 deaths. The government most likely were the people responsible for this. The nearby Nigerian army tried to intervene and help the people of Darfur at risk. Unfortunately, they usually go without ammo or weapons. Lessening the amount of security might mean removing all funding towards the army and will let the genocide go on.
In conclusion, security is needed in this newer world; one that is revolutionizing in technology, as well as criminal activity. I assure everyone here, that with more security, we will be safe from the dangers in this world. The military will protect us from international dangers. Firewalls will protect us from hackers. The local police will protect us from criminals. Lessening the amount of security in this society will greatly increase the chance of theft, injury or DEATH.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.