The Instigator
Flipbook
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The US Government Can Keep An Eye On Everyone

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 2 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 35397
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Flipbook

Con

This Is America

In America, We Are Free.
If we are not free, then we are violating the constitution.
This is why I am against hate crimes, we have the right to hate who we want.

So if we are kept in line by the government, we aren't really free are we?
I am not accusing the government of anything.

Freedom: The power or right to act, think, and speak as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
-
https://www.google.com...

Having the government on our hinds 24/7 is hindrance.

-Good Luck
ConservativePolitico

Pro

The resolution states: The US Government Can Keep An Eye On Everyone

Since no definition of everyone was given, I will provide one.

Everyone: all people within the United States

Now, I must show that this is true.

First of all I want to point out that Con's argument is a jumbled mess. It makes no moves to affirm the resolution. Secondly, I want to say that the Constitution gives us some freedoms but that it also conflicts with Con's definition of Freedom provided.

We cannot act as we want "without hindrance or restraint". We have laws that prevent us from doing just that. So Con's arguments are a jumbled contradiction.

Now onto the resolution...

The US Government CAN Keep An Eye on Everyone

This is indeed true, the US government through the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS and local police forces could indeed keep an eye on everyone. The infrastructure, power and means is there. Via satellites, cell phone trackers, police patrols etc the government easily could "keep an eye", meaning they merely have a diligent watch, on everyone.

A recent article says that via meta data the government could keep tabs on everyone's movements by using their cell services. [1]

The technology and reach of these government agencies do indeed have the ability to merely keep an eye on everyone.

Con can try to negate this but the data coming out of the government now and the recent news stories shows that indeed they have the power to keep an eye on us.

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Flipbook

Con

We don't have an eye watching us 24/7 whether the FBI and Police are there or not. They investigate suspicious crimes, but the average American isn't a criminal. Social Security is not keeping an eye of everyone, social security is for the benefit of the citizen, not the Government. And you really need to look your facts, the CIA, IRS, and NSA are all intelligence services that act to find information outside of the states.

WE CAN ACT AS WE WANT "without hindrance or restraint." We can't commit crimes, and criminals have to be watched by the government. We are free, no one can deny that, therefore we can act as we want without hindrance or restraint.

America is By the People and For the People. Not for the Government. The less Government, the more freedom, this is why the Government can't keep an eye on us, AND THEY DON'T

Also, you are blandly stating my correct and researched definition wrong, give me proof that it is wrong.

Freedom: The quality or state of being free: as

A: The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

(we can protest, we can have sex, we can say whatever we want about whoever we want, and we can announce it. We also have free trade.)

B: the liberation of slavery or restraint form the power of another

(we are free, we are liberated from the power of Britain, we fought so we wouldn't be watched 24/7, so the government can't do it to us)
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Now prove all three one, instead of fail on proving one.

-Good Luck A Second Time, You Obviously Didn't Use The Original Good Luck I Gave You
ConservativePolitico

Pro

My opponent's second and final round is comprised mostly of various definition of freedom. Which is fine and dandy but it has nothing to do with the resolution.

The bulk of my opponent's argument says this:

"Social Security is not keeping an eye of everyone, social security is for the benefit of the citizen, not the Government. And you really need to look your facts, the CIA, IRS, and NSA are all intelligence services that act to find information outside of the states."

First of all, Social Security is not looking at anyone because it is a monetary retirement supplement... as for the others. The NSA and the IRS are very much active inside the United States and while the CIA's main goal is international intelligence, they have the capability to keep an eye on us. That's what the resolution is about.

To keep an eye on -
1. To watch over attentively; mind.
2. To watch closely or carefully [1]

The resolution merely says the government can watch over us attentively or mind us. Which they can. They have every capability and there is new evidence to suggest that they do just that. Throwing out definitions of freedom does not negate the fact that the government has this ability, whether they use it or not is not part of this debate.

There are dozens of government satellites above us. They can collect our data. They have been keeping tabs on our phone. It is entirely possible that the government CAN keep an eye on us. [2]

Con has made no real moves to negate the resolution and I have shown that there the government can indeed keep an eye on us. Thank you.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
FlipbookConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Haha Pro did what I considered doing in the first place. Props to you, CP. P.S. Not a votebomb. S/G- I think it's obvious. Args- Con never negated the resolution. Pro affirmed it in the first round. Sources- Con only used 1 source. It was a reliable one, but wasn't used to support arguments. This goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 3 years ago
1dustpelt
FlipbookConservativePoliticoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not affirm the resolution. Pro proved that through the NSA, etc the government CAN keep an eye on everyone. The resolution was a bit unclear. Con was rather arguing "The US government SHOULD keep an eye on everyone" or "Under the constitution, the US government is allowed to keep an eye on everyone".