The Instigator
kw7319
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
near
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should the National Security be valued over Privacy?

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 1 vote the winner is...
near
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 804 times Debate No: 59336
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

kw7319

Con

The first round will be acceptance

I will take the position of privacy

The other person will defend the position of National Security

Good luck!
near

Pro

I accept. This is my first debate so don't go hard on me. Appeal to pity is sometimes important although fallacious in nature.
Debate Round No. 1
kw7319

Con

I believe the 4th amendment assures the right to privacy.
near

Pro

Pro failed to define the following terms, so I will be creating the definitions. However, it seems that pro was able to limit the debate in the US context, thus all arguments presented must be in the context of the United States.

Definition of Terms:
1. National Security - is the requirement to maintain the survival of the state through the use of economic power, diplomacy, power projection and political power.
2. Privacy - the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people
3. Value - the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something

Pro started his argument with the presentation of the US Constitution 4th Amendment which in it's unedited form states that "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.".

However, one thing that pro forgot to realize is that the constitution per se only exists in the motion that the US exists. Thus, the eradication of the United States will also result to the constitution being null and void.

Conclusion: If one's privacy is to maintain under protection by the law, it is rather important to ensure the survival of the law and the state promulgating such regulations. National security has to be valued over privacy as far as the survival of the state is concerned which also in return will maintain the protection of the privacy of its constituents.

Sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kw7319

Con

kw7319 forfeited this round.
near

Pro

Since Con (pardon the error of my statement in the argument presented above) did neither presented new arguments nor rebutted my former points. The arguments I have presented will hold true at the time being. Also, let us avoid the straw man fallacy here, my stand on the issue is that national security should be valued more over privacy, my intention is not to eradicate privacy per se but to give more attention to national security when it is needed as deemed by the law.

Continuing my defense on why national security has to be valued over privacy in the context of the United States:

I have only one point in this debate and if the con can negate or provide proof that makes the argument wrong then I forfeit the rest: national security ensures the safety of the state and its constituents - first and foremost, the general welfare of the public is the main concern of the government. Con may argue that it is also the government's duty to respect its citizen's privacy but the former argument stands than the latter. The government has to ensure first the survival of the state which in return seeks the security of its people giving them privacy.

Conclusion: National security should be valued over privacy as far as the role of the government is concern.

Just to disclose my reply, there are several measure to ensure national security - why am I saying this? Con may argue that the context of this debate only circles around national surveillance which of course is not the only way national security can be ensured. Other types of methods include: using diplomacy to rally allies and abolish threats, ensuring effective armed forces, implementing civil defense preparedness programs and others does not really violate one's privacy. Thus it is ineffectively wrong to say that privacy is always harmed by national security.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
kw7319

Con

kw7319 forfeited this round.
near

Pro

Swish, there was no response again. Thus, all my previous arguments will hold true.

Conclusion (1): If one's privacy is to maintain under protection by the law, it is rather important to ensure the survival of the law and the state promulgating such regulations. National security has to be valued over privacy as far as the survival of the state is concerned which also in return will maintain the protection of the privacy of its constituents.

Conclusion (2): National security should be valued over privacy as far as the role of the government is concern.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kw7319 2 years ago
kw7319
I concede

My laptop broke, and It took 7 days for the store to fix it.

Sorry.
Posted by near 2 years ago
near
If nobody accepts this in the next 12 hours, then I will.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
kw7319nearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Essentially a full forfeit from Con. Conduct for those forfeits, and arguments for Con's failure to address Pro's case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.