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
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!"
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.
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
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.