The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Security is not a threat in the modern world. (1 argument debate)

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: 4/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 292 times Debate No: 73717
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Anyone can accept this debate. The first round is acceptance only. There are some rules.

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.


Debate Round No. 1


I should have said the modern world is post 9/11 and a society who don't immediately prioritise saving money, I understand this is partially hypothetical but people do not always go for the absolute cheapest option. Therefore, security is not an issue as you automatically think about it and regulate and come up with your own fantasies. Your human instinct would not let you not regulate your security and if you don't that is only because you believe it is not of any issue. Therefore you would not visit Crimea because your instinct tells you it is not safe to.

Remember that you can only provide one argument - over to you.


CommunistDog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Please note my opponent left his argument in the comments - Please don't penalise I live in the UK - the worlds easiest non schengen country to come into. There is no point in removing security as it will waste money (if everyone removed there anti-virus software the economy will be greatly affected). If people just focus on their jobs everything will calm down because the best of the best will protect everyone so well that government intervention and intervention from others will be unhelpful. People in the states are allowed guns but since I am (generally) talking about this from a British persons point of view we don't have that problem. Since in the US you can have a gun it is worth exploiting that. If we moan though, the security teams are forced to talk when they can work. So there is no threat. It goes without saying that if were completely intervening others security they speak out and tactics are revealed.


My opponent claims to have said that if everyone went to their jobs, then there would be no need for security.
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.
Debate Round No. 3


In my last post rich text didn't appear to work so the first few lines seem badly presented. It is still my fault though so I accept being penalised on the basis that no-one just votes con for spelling and grammar and does not base his vote on anything else.

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 [1] 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 [2], 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.





The underestimation of security that you hold reminds me of the Roaring Twenties. The Roaring Twenties took place in the 1920s. It was a time of economic prosperity in America. Stocks boomed, more money was in circulation and culture revolutionized. Yet, people underestimated rising economic problems. Because of that, America went into the Great Depression.

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.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CommunistDog 1 year ago
My argument:
Technology is increasing in power. Everyday, we find ourselves in more trouble over security. Hackers invade our privacy on the internet. Criminals use weapons to rob stores or kill innocent unarmed people. Nations threaten to bomb others, potentially leading into a large scale war. To this day, America has been given bomb threats. In Sudan, there are rumors of nuclear research laboratories on the brink to success in making an atomic bomb. North Korea threatened to take over America by hacking into highly secured government files.

Everyday, nations find themselves in trouble against others. If we remove our security, America will be a weak nation. Any other totalitarian nation could strike at any moment. ISIS plans to go behead the president and take over the U.S. Capital. Without security, who's going to stop them? The scared nearby unarmed citizens? Allies from nations that are far away from the conflict?

The fact of the matter is, there will always be nations or cults that want to destroy certain nations. Today, we see many examples of those groups such as North Korea and ISIS. Removing most of our security will only worsen the situation.

If we give up the power to fight back and defend our homeland, what makes us a nation? We must have strong supports to protect America. For liberty, and for justice!
No votes have been placed for this debate.