The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
TheGreatDebate
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The PATRIOT Act takes away rights and therefore is bad.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,266 times Debate No: 428
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (9)

 

policydebategod

Pro

The Patriot Act does 3 things:
- allows the government to wiretap our phones, internet and live
- gives the police the right to not have a warrant or alert a person of the fact they are searching property
- allows the government to not give people a fair trial

People may argue that the PATRIOT Act makes us safer but it only tears down the principals that our country was built on. Who is to say that if the terrorists do not like what we say then we take out our freedom of speech? Or that we stop freedom of religion and convert everybody to Islam? The PATRIOT Act is a catalyst to the terrorists being allowed to control our country.

I expect you to respond to all 3 things that the PATRIOPT Act does.

Who will guard the guards?

I now stand ready for cross ex.
TheGreatDebate

Con

First I would like to pointout that you made 3 assertions with no evidence to back it up.

Ok, point 1. First off, its the FBI/CIA that use the resources of the Patriot Act, not the feds. (Bush isnt doin it) But what is it that they do? Thet do not wiretap our phones, internet and live, they DATA MINE, they type a word into a computer lets say bomb, and press enter. They ONLY see documents and what not with that word in it. They do not see anything else. The Government isnt spying on us. There is nothing wrong with DATA mining, and the ONLY way they will wiretap, is if they have a reasonable cause. Whats a reasonable cause? A reasonable cause is if they see an email that says something like: Hi Achmed, praise Allah! I am building a bomb and plan to blow up the U.N.

To your second claim: gives the police the right to not have a warrant or alert a person of the fact they are searching property. Once again, they do not do this without a reasonable casus, like the example I gave before. Now here is the kicker, since they only do it with reasonable cause, it is FULLY CONSTTUTIONAL!!!!!!! What does it say in the 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 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....."
They do it upon Probable cause, and are fully constitutional, they are not taking away our rights.

Point three: Where do you get the idea that they don't get a fair trial? I have not heard of anybody who was caught in a terrorist act, not getting a trial.

The Patriot Act is a good thing, if anything, it helps to protect our Liberties by keeping us safe. The people of the United States will guard the guards, by electing the right people (NOT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON or BARAK OBAMA!) into office. Our rights are being upheld, and our lives kept safe.

I would like to once again show that you have brought up NO evidence or proof or logic for your statements. I have.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

- Thet do not wiretap our phones, internet and live, they DATA MINE, they type a word into a computer lets say bomb, and press enter.
+ I never said that they wiretap phones. I said that they have the power to. They have a gauranteed supeena. (Section 2703(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as redesignated by section 212, is amended--
(1) by striking `entity the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber) All they have to do is type a name, or anything and they can listen whoever's phone they choose. What happened to unreasonable search and seizure?
- They ONLY see documents and what not with that word in it. They do not see anything else. The Government isnt spying on us.
+ They can just type your name and listen to your conversation.(Section 2703(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as redesignated by section 212, is amended--
(1) by striking `entity the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber)
- There is nothing wrong with DATA mining, and the ONLY way they will wiretap, is if they have a reasonable cause. Whats a reasonable cause? A reasonable cause is if they see an email that says something like: Hi Achmed, praise Allah! I am building a bomb and plan to blow up the U.N.
+ They need a warrant for that. Imagine if the government converted everybody to Islam for the purpose of stopping terrorism. Where will destroying the constitution end?
- To your second claim: gives the police the right to not have a warrant or alert a person of the fact they are searching property. Once again, they do not do this without a reasonable casus, like the example I gave before. Now here is the kicker, since they only do it with reasonable cause, it is FULLY CONSTTUTIONAL!!!!!!! What does it say in the Constitution?
+ Procedure is to go to a court room and get a warrant except in the PATRIOT Act.
`(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.'
'`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.'

- "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 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....."
They do it upon Probable cause, and are fully constitutional, they are not taking away our rights.

+ They need a warrant and a judge must decide that cause is probable. Nobody decides the cause is probable except for the seizer of the property.

- Point three: Where do you get the idea that they don't get a fair trial? I have not heard of anybody who was caught in a terrorist act, not getting a trial.
+ `(ii) If the court orders disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such time, and under such conditions as the court may direct.

`(3) Any action under this section shall be tried to the court without a jury.

- The Patriot Act is a good thing, if anything, it helps to protect our Liberties by keeping us safe.
+ It destroys our rights as people. Bush can be a dictator next if he wants to.

- The people of the United States will guard the guards, by electing the right people (NOT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON or BARAK OBAMA!) into office. Our rights are being upheld, and our lives kept safe.
+ Bush was the guard andhis lack of being guarded caused our constitution to be violated.

- I would like to once again show that you have brought up NO evidence or proof or logic for your statements. I have.
+ Try the direct quotes from the PATRIOT Act. Please stop the name calling. It does not help your case.

Thank you.
TheGreatDebate

Con

I find it funny how everyone is like: "I don't want anyone listning in on my conversations", then they go walking around a mall talking on ther cell phones surrounded by 3000 people :)

The problems you state are almost irrelevant, because even if they were allowed to do it without a fair trial, there have been no cases where there wasnt a fair trial, The Government dosent look at ANY personal records of ours, unless they have reasonable cause (If you don't like this, yell at the Constitution)

The PA is not taking away peoples rights, if anything it protects them. And the PA can and will always be "shut down" for lack of a better term, one a war is over.

G.W. Bush has been a fine gaurd.

But I have a question. You told me to stop calling people or you or somebody names. What are you talking about? I never called anybody names.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

- I find it funny how everyone is like: "I don't want anyone listning in on my conversations", then they go walking around a mall talking on ther cell phones surrounded by 3000 people :)
+ WTF? Everybody does not do this. And if the person is listening to your conversation, they more than likely dont have a relationship with every country in the world, a prison system, an electric chair, a nuke system, the ability to take all of your copyrights, take your house. Point blank: the government has alot of power that they can abuse. And what mall has 3000 ppl at a time, especially within earshot anyway. The only reason that I even took this random point seriously is so that you would not run it again.

- The problems you state are almost irrelevant, because even if they were allowed to do it without a fair trial, there have been no cases where there wasnt a fair trial, The Government dosent look at ANY personal records of ours, unless they have reasonable cause (If you don't like this, yell at the Constitution)
+ They dont require a reasonable cause. And even if there is a reasonable cause EVERYBODY DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL!!!
They can just type your name and listen to your conversation.(Section 2703(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as redesignated by section 212, is amended--
(1) by striking `entity the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber)
+ `(ii) If the court orders disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such time, and under such conditions as the court may direct.

`(3) Any action under this section shall be tried to the court without a jury.

- The PA is not taking away peoples rights, if anything it protects them. And the PA can and will always be "shut down" for lack of a better term, one a war is over.
+ THE PATRIOT ACT BARELY PROTECTS US AND EVEN IF IT SAVED 100 LIVES A DAY IT WOULD STILL TEAR DOWN OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TERRORISTS. AND WE CANT AFFORD NOT TO LISTEN TO OUR CONSTITUTION. THAT DOCUMENT IS THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY, LITERALLY.

- G.W. Bush has been a fine gaurd.
+ The wole who will guard the guards thing was not really an argument. It was just a persuasive phrase. It is actually a latin phrase: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Intelligence officials often use it.

- But I have a question. You told me to stop calling people or you or somebody names. What are you talking about? I never called anybody names.
+ "I would like to once again show that you have brought up NO evidence or proof or logic for your statements. I have.
it is FULLY CONSTTUTIONAL!!!!!!!"
It is not offensive just not substantial and franlkly annoying.

- What if we started taking away rights like freedom of speech or religion ro "protect us"? Were on a slippery slope to no constitution. Also even if you bbelieve that they need reasonable cause then you must consider that they dont even need a warrant, they should noot have that right. Also no fair trail or trial at all is a HUGE DEAL!!!
TheGreatDebate

Con

TheGreatDebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
the patriot act was not passed through proper legislation
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
qwerty, you dont use evidence in the first speech because you are just saying your point and evidence at the beginning ruins the debate and gives them a leg up o your arguments.
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
good job pro, i feel you have done a good job of finally saying why the act is bad with evidence. nice call.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
Of course the FEDERAL bureau of investigations and the CIA are federal programs. and you should check out some guantanamo bay prisoners who haven't gotten a trial for nearly 5 years in some cases.
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
Although I agree the pro has done nothing to really back anything he has said (ironic considering he is a policy debater) i still believe the patriot act to be bad. How can you can claim that the FBI/CIA are not parts of the federal government? FEDERAL bureau of investigation and the CIA is also a part of the federal government, these are not state, county, or any other local authorities, but they have FEDERAL authority. Next although Bush is not the one to actually to do the spying, he is the main advocate of it, not to mention he and congress have to sign off on it. With that let us go ahead and group your second and third arguments since they both deal with "reasonable cause." I find it really funny that you use the word "reasonable cause," but you cite in our constitution "probably cause." You are mixing the idea of probably cause and reasonable suspicion into reasonable cause. They are not the same thing.. "In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is supported by other evidence." The constitution calls for "probable cause" and not "reasonable suspicion" so this act is not constitutional. In regard to the nobody getting a fair trial argument, I am pretty sure that Jose Padilla was locked up under the patriot act. It took him 3 years to get a trial. The patriot act does allow the government to detain people indefinitely with no contact to the outside world, minus a little bit with a lawyer. most of the people's names currently being held have not been released.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by monetary_sniper 9 years ago
monetary_sniper
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by TheGreatDebate 9 years ago
TheGreatDebate
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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 
Vote Placed by hjfrutwiufy 9 years ago
hjfrutwiufy
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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 
Vote Placed by FunkeeMonk91 9 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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 
Vote Placed by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
policydebategodTheGreatDebateTied
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:03