The Instigator
jsutesfan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

The benefits of post 9-11 security measure outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

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 4 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2013 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,654 times Debate No: 29039
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

jsutesfan

Con

Hey! Let's go.
bladerunner060

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for this debate.

My opponent did not specify that this first round was acceptance-only, so I will be posting my opening remarks.

I will not be taking the position that the benefits of all post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom, but rather that some, at least, of the post-9/11 security measures have outweighed the harms to personal freedom.

I generally agree with the premise that many 9/11 security measures are either failures or do not outweigh the harms to personal freedom involved in their implementation. However, I think my opponent overstates the case with the blanket declaration that "The benefits of post 9-11 security measure DO NOT outweigh the harms to personal freedom" that is implied by his taking the Con position.


The TSA, for example, first of all exists (which it did not before), and second of all handles baggage inspection. The benefits of checking airline luggage for explosive devices outweigh the harm of the search. This does not mean the implementation has been without its failures; but the concept of checking luggage for explosives more frequently is a security measure that outweighs its cost to personal freedom.

Putting Air Marshals on planes are, in principle, an effective security measure. While there has been a great deal of corruption in the ranks of the Air Marshals, none of that corruption has been part of the system, and to my knowledge none of it has affected “personal freedom” in general; thus, while legitimate complaints exist about the program, the benefit of the measure outweighs the non-existent cost to personal freedom.

I can cite other examples, however, I will wait for my opponent to state his case.

Debate Round No. 1
jsutesfan

Con

jsutesfan forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Pro

My opponent has not posted an argument.
Debate Round No. 2
jsutesfan

Con

Now, Do you want to know how much money we are spending on these "security measures"? We are spending 2.5 billion dollars on SEAPORTS ONLY! We are also jacking up mcdonalds. SORRY!!! I'm james's brother and i like to jump on cheetahs. James is going to kill me when he sees that i posted this... MEOW!!!!!!!!!!
bladerunner060

Pro

Well, I HAD hoped for a spirited debate, particularly since I actually DO think that there have been awful abuses of personal freedoms since 9/11.

Oh, well. Technically, I should respond to the post from my opponent by pointing out that the cost in money has nothing to do with the cost to personal freedom.

Assuming the last post actually WAS from Con's brother, let me say in his brother's defense: he should remember that he'd already forfeited R2, so he shouldn't be TOO mad that his R3 was trolled by his brother. Maybe he'll kill you less if he remembers that...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
jsutesfanbladerunner060Tied
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: Only argument that Con said was that security measure costs too much money when Pro gave a decent argumentation throughout his rounds. This debate obviously goes to Con.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
jsutesfanbladerunner060Tied
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: Troll.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
jsutesfanbladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no arguments in his first round, forfeited his second round and made a weak argument that was easily refuted by pro in the third round.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
jsutesfanbladerunner060Tied
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: The instigator (Con) presented no evidence in support of his perspective and forfeited. Points to Pro for more convincing argument (the only one to present any) and for conduct (forfeit != good conduct).