The Instigator
runforthehills7
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

The benefits of post 9 11 security measures outweigh the harms of personal freedom

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,979 times Debate No: 18076
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

runforthehills7

Con

Ok I'm gonna let my opponent start with their case, then I will follow with my rebuttals, then we will have Q&A round, then we will make our final speeches. So the debate will look something like this:

-my opponent's case
-my rebuttals
-their questions
-my answers and questions
-their answers
-my final rebuttals and closing speech
-their closing speech
thett3

Pro

Thanks for the topic!!! I will now present my affirmative (written for class hastily, so please excuse all the "my partner and I" stuff, too lazy to delete it, and please excuse its low quality.)



My partner and I affirm the resolution: The benefits of post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

Post 9/11 security measures- Security measures enacted after 9/11 to reduce the likelihood of another attack and to fight terrorism.

Personal freedom- freedom of the person in going and coming, equality before the courts, security of private property, freedom of opinion and its expression, and freedom of conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public. Merriam-Webster

C1: Post 9/11 security measures hinder terrorist activity.

One of the federal government’s responses to 9/11 was the controversial PATRIOT act. The Justice Department reports on the PATRIOT act statingFrequently, time is of the essence in terrorism investigations, as law enforcement officers may have only a very brief window of opportunity to prevent a terrorist attack. In the past, investigators had to waste precious time petitioning multiple judges in multiple districts for search warrants related to the same case. The USA PATRIOT Act, however, streamlined this process, making out-of-district search warrants available to law enforcement in terrorism cases.” The same report also cites an example:

“In 2002, a package intended for a New Jersey man was mistakenly delivered to another person. Inside the package were fraudulent identification documents. Law enforcement investigators learned that the identification documents had been sent by a man in Texas who was found to possess a large quantity of weapons, including chemical weapons such as sodium cyanide. A subsequent search of the New Jersey man’s residence revealed many guns and gas masks, numerous knives including those made to avoid setting off a metal detector, a crossbow, and thousands of rounds of ammunition including hollow point and armor piercing bullets. As a result of section 219, law enforcement agents were quickly able to secure a search warrant in New Jersey for a search of Vermont properties associated with the New Jersey man, rather than having to go through the additional time and effort necessary to secure such a warrant\ The search subsequently revealed over 10,000 rounds of ammunition and over 70 firearms including an AK-47 gun, an Uzi firearm, and the barrel of a .50-caliber weapon. Investigators believe that their ability to search the Vermont properties quickly was important in the recovery of the weapons and ammunition. The New Jersey man subsequently pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the transportation of false identification documents.[1]”

This shows us that the federal government now has a greater ability to stop terrorism and fulfill its obligation to protect the safety of its citizens. The PATRIOT act has also increased cooperation among our intelligence service by allowing the CIA and the FBI to share evidence on suspects, according to USA today[2]. Indeed, the Heritage foundation reports that Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement. The two notable exceptions are the passengers and flight attendants who subdued the "shoe bomber" in 2001 and the "underwear bomber" on Christmas Day in 2009. Bottom line: The system has generally worked well. But many tools necessary for ferreting out conspiracies and catching terrorists are under attack. Chief among them are key provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire at the end of this year.”[3]

The countless lives saved by the greater consistency in our intelligence services greatly outweigh any harms caused. It is the moral responsibility of the government to defend its citizens from attacks of enemy combatants. The event of 9/11 was an act of war, and the responses from the federal government were justified. As former President George W. Bush once said “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” The greater surveillance allowed by post 9/11 security measures bring our enemies to justice.

The Transport Security Act passed post 9/11 also greatly improved U.S. airport security. A look at the TSA homepage shows that in 6 days (August 8th-August 14th of 2011), 18 firearms were found at checkpoints, and 4 passengers arrested for fraudulent papers and suspicious activity. While these may not be cases of terrorism, presuming that as an average week we have since 9/11 over 6000 cases of fire arms being found, and over 2000 cases of people attempting to board planes with false documents. Even if we assume that a ridiculously small amount, like 10%, of these cases to be with malicious intent, that still leaves us with over 800 thwarted incidences. Since airport security has been massively improved post-9/11 it’s logical that many of these incidences would not have been stopped without the TSA.

Historical precedents alone show us that the security measures are working. Pre 9/11, the most recent terrorist attack (Oklahoma City bombings) took place in 1995, a period of 6 years. It has now been 10 years since 9/11 with no significant success for our enemies.

C2: Post 9/11 security measures have caused no serious harms to personal freedoms.

According to New York University law school the PATRIOT act does not limit personal freedom, “Despite the appeal of the First Amendment argument, a subscriber’s free speech claim faces more significant doctrinal hurdles than scholars have recognized: The First Amendment does not directly protect privacy, making a chilling effect claim hard to sustain. Furthermore, the standard of review in First Amendment cases may be too deferential to the government because the Patriot Act does not directly target speech, only data related to communicative activity.”[4]

Rather than harmingus, post 9/11 security measures have greatly helped us by keeping the citizens of the United States safe from terrorism. Most of the supposed “harms” are merely inconveniences, and cannot outweigh the benefits brought to U.S. security. The few real cases of harms are isolated incidents, and must be addressed on an individual basis, and cannot be accepted as enough to condemn post-9/11 security measures.

The bottom line is that post 9/11 security measures deter terrorism and save lives. As a society we have a responsibility to protect the lives of the innocent, even if it causes us a slight inconvenience, therefore we urge a Pro ballot for this round.

Sources:

****Note, since this was a case made for class, I only have to sources on paper. If my Opponent asks for a specific source I will find it and provide a URL.
Debate Round No. 1
runforthehills7

Con

runforthehills7 forfeited this round.
thett3

Pro

cool debate bro...
Debate Round No. 2
runforthehills7

Con

runforthehills7 forfeited this round.
thett3

Pro

figures...
Debate Round No. 3
runforthehills7

Con

runforthehills7 forfeited this round.
thett3

Pro

This was a really close round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Kaboom
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
Agreed. :/
Posted by YYW 6 years ago
YYW
This has been disappointing.
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
YYW: Thanks!
crackrocks: Ok. Says that guy with a 0% win ratio.....
Posted by YYW 6 years ago
YYW
I'm glad to see that someone picked up the pfd resolution. Looks good so far, guys! It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 6 years ago
MassDebator255
runforthehills7thett3Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: can anyone say WALL OF TEXT...its a draw
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
runforthehills7thett3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Looks like Con ran for the hills.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
runforthehills7thett3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited multiple rounds therefore losing all 7 points.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
runforthehills7thett3Tied
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's forfeit left a potentially interesting debate at a standstill...and as a waste of Pro's time
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
runforthehills7thett3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bomb and con forfeited thus losing the debate
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
runforthehills7thett3Tied
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 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: Forfeits, ergo conduct and arguments. CON's grammar wasn't too special either.