The Instigator
Bray5234
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheOpinionist
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Should The NSA Be Allowed To Spy On Legal Law Abiding Citizens?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
TheOpinionist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 77341
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Bray5234

Con

The NSA has no constitutional right to spy on legal law abiding citizens. My opponent should prove/persuade me that they do have a right to do what they are currently doing.
TheOpinionist

Pro

I would like to clarify that I am playing Devils Advocate here. Hard. I won't post an argument in R1 because my opponent didn't either.
Debate Round No. 1
Bray5234

Con

Bray5234 forfeited this round.
TheOpinionist

Pro

Oi... Vote 4 me.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: SirMaximus// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Con (S&G), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Before the debate, I agreed with Con that the NSA should not be allowed to spy on legal law-abiding citizens. After the debate, I still agree with Con, since neither side made any arguments, which I will discuss shortly. (To be more accurate, I agreed with what Con was arguing, since Pro was playing devil's advocate. I don't know if Con was or not.) Pro had better conduct, because Con forfeited 1 round, but Pro didn't forfeit any rounds. I counted 0 spelling and grammar mistakes made by Con, and 1 spelling and grammar mistake made by Pro, so Con wins that. Con and Pro tie for both convincing arguments and reliable sources, because neither of them made any arguments, nor did either of them use any sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The Spelling and Grammar mistakes are not readily apparent. This RFD does not explain what they are or how they affected the readability of the debate.
===========================================================================
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
4th Amendment: "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."

I don't see a "some" before "unreasonable searches and seizures." This is kind of a one-sided debate.
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
I totally agree with Con but I want an ELO boost.
Posted by TheTimeWulf 1 year ago
TheTimeWulf
I think honestly it depends on how 'legal' and 'law-abiding' a person is, but yet it should still be illegal for people who meet the qualifications to be left alone, and they should be allowed to sue for invading their privacy.
Posted by Bray5234 1 year ago
Bray5234
I mean any collection of it at all. I believe it is unconstitutional.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
To what extent of spying? Do you just mean the collection of metadata or the actual viewing? I believe that the data should be collected, but the government needs a warrent to view it though.
Posted by Bray5234 1 year ago
Bray5234
kasmic, I didn't even catch that. Haha. No I do not believe their are illegal law abiding citizens.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Are their illegal law abiding citizens?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
Bray5234TheOpinionistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I placed a vote before, but it was removed for a violation of the rules. This is a slightly edited version that follows the rules, and with one adjustment to how I voted. Before the debate, I agreed with Con that the NSA should not be allowed to spy on legal law-abiding citizens. After the debate, I still agree with Con, since neither side made any arguments, which I will discuss shortly. (To be more accurate, I agreed with what Con was arguing, since Pro was playing devil's advocate. I don't know if Con was or not.) Pro had better conduct, because Con forfeited 1 round, but Pro didn't forfeit any rounds. I was able to read both Pro's and Con's statements with ease, so they tie for spelling and grammar. Con and Pro tie for both convincing arguments and reliable sources, because neither of them made any arguments, nor did either of them use any sources.