The Instigator
liam2002
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ChristopherCaldwell
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Was Edward Snowden justified?

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...
ChristopherCaldwell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 90304
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

liam2002

Con

My main reason is that preventing Terrorism is more important then phone call privacy. The NSA where using the phone records to prevent terrorism and if they need to listen to my phone calls to do that, i'm okay with it. Snowden also broke the law to do something that he thought was right so how can he be legally justified if he broke the law? I do have some other reasons that I want to save for later. Also please Don't make your FIRST argument all arguing my first reasons. THANK YOU
ChristopherCaldwell

Pro

I believe that Edward Snowden was 100% justified in his actions. While I believe that defense is worthy cause, covert surveillance of personal information is not the way to defend a nation, instead is the way to create a Orwellian authoritarian government. The NSA's actions and the PATRIOT Act as a whole is in violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. I believe freedom is more important than being protected. Patrick Henry said is best; "Give me freedom, or give me death!"
Debate Round No. 1
liam2002

Con

Snowden helped the terrorist by warning them to communicate in an other way. Snowden said that after the war on terror there would just be another excuse to invade americans lives,well There is a difference between an excuse and a good reason and saving lives is a good reason. ( information gathered from newsela.com) The 4th amendment says UNREASONABLE searches and seizures NSA's actions to find terrorist's to save lives where not unreasonable because when is saving lives ever unreasonable.
ChristopherCaldwell

Pro

Spying on American citizens IS unreasonable. "Saving lives" is a vague justification. Imagine this: A solider rams into your house, without your consent, in a time of war. He claims that the government said it was cool and that your consent doesn't matter, the government is protecting you. Now a solider lives with you. What's wrong with that? Your privacy and property have been tainted. That's why we have the third amendment. If you tell people the solider is there, are you a traitor? Not at all
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by liam2002 1 year ago
liam2002
The NSA's phone records does not have any affect on anyone unless you're a criminal/terrorist. Having a solider come into you're house would have a very large negative affect on you. I am opposed to Snowden not the 3rd amendment .
Posted by ChristopherCaldwell 1 year ago
ChristopherCaldwell
@WilliamsP The character limit was so small I couldn't convey whole points or cite sources.
Posted by liam2002 1 year ago
liam2002
Thank you for accepting my debate
Posted by ChristopherCaldwell 1 year ago
ChristopherCaldwell
It was very hard to debate with the character limit, but I'd like to thank my opponent for debating me.
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
jamccartney
Next time increase the character limit to 10,000.
Posted by liam2002 1 year ago
liam2002
I had to take some parts out of my last argument for space, like my 4th amendment information was gathered from www.law.cornell.edu.
Posted by liam2002 1 year ago
liam2002
I Found it
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
jamccartney
The "Post My Argument" button
Posted by liam2002 1 year ago
liam2002
I mean actually get to the typing page, where do I go to type it?
Posted by jamccartney 1 year ago
jamccartney
Try presenting some evidence toward your case. That's generally what people do in a debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 1 year ago
WilliamsP
liam2002ChristopherCaldwellTied
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 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: I agree with Pro, but the arguments were all too vague, and no sources were cited to support claims. I would have liked this debate to be longer and with sources, but it is what it is. Pro made the slightly more convincing argument.