The Instigator
badassdebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lol101
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

do you think the government spying on us is a very sufficient way of finding "terrorists"

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 395 times Debate No: 78214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

badassdebater

Con

i don't think the government should be spying on us. i get so paranoid about it and it makes me panic
lol101

Pro

I accept.

I assume that Round 1 is acceptance, since you haven't provided any arguments.

The BoP lies on Con to argue that the government should not spy on us.
Debate Round No. 1
badassdebater

Con

we all have private content that we do not want to show anyone, i think that they are violating our privacy and personal interests. when i take a photo, i don't want it to be analysed at the government , i don't want to feel the pressure. imagine capturing a bad picture , and then they saw it and u feel paranoid . your phone, laptop, radio is yours and the government has no right to spy on us . we but these devices for personal use , we buy them for our own personal interest, and just because they are the government doesn't justify their action .
lol101

Pro

Although it may be unsatisfying for the government to spy on our devices, there is a great benefit out of said action that makes up for the lack of showing privacy. The government (as you state in the resolution) spies on us so that they may know what sort of terrorism is being planned in the U.S.A. I am going to be arguing that it is more important to make sure terrorists do not create major problems in the future than to make sure that those with devices are getting privacy.

I will be leaving you with two questions to consider:

1. Is it really worth having a second 9/11 or mini Holocaust just so people can have their privacy? I believe it is not. If we have government officials spy on us through devices, the chance that they will catch a terrorist red-handed will be increased. If not, terrorism will occur more often and will increase. The government needs to know if someone is planning to form a terrorist party similar to that of the well known ISIS. People will then get murdered and tortured hideously more often then they already do. I don't want this to happen.

2. How can we be so sure that just some average citizen is not a terrorist? You could be a terrorist, the guy who lives next to me could be a terrorist, etc. The government needs to make sure that certain people are not terrorists. After all, not every terrorist has to be your stereotypical thug with a ski mask. A terrorist could be a psychopathic 17 year old with a gun who (for inserted reason) wants to kill people. The government cannot know for sure who is and isn't a terrorist who may be planning something horrible unless they spy on citizens.

I also have a few rebuttals for your argument.

" when i take a photo, i don't want it to be analysed at the government , i don't want to feel the pressure. imagine capturing a bad picture , and then they saw it and u feel paranoid ."

You wouldn't feel paranoid if you aren't a terrorist. If you are not a terrorist, then they wouldn't share your information on media or news. They are not interested in a bad photo taken by someone. The government makes sure that a citizen like you doesn't even KNOW that they're being spyes on. But you wouldn't find out because a) they are secret about their work and b) they are uninterested in your bad picture. But if you are a terrorist (I am not saying you are), then you deserve to be spied on. Bottom line: Either way you slice it, you either are unaware of being spied on, or you simply deserve it. If the government were to share the information where other citizens can know about, that would be unfair. But they are completely uninterested in bad pictures.

"your phone, laptop, radio is yours and the government has no right to spy on us ."

Kind of like how terrorists don't have the right to kill people. If the government chooses to be nice, then terrorists will break WORSE laws. If they productively spy on us to decrease terrorism and prevent big attacks like 9/11, they are breaking a law, but are doing more right than wrong. See my rebuttal above for clarification. Whether they spy on us or not, lies are going to be broken. And like I said, bad things will not come out of the government spying on you in terms of embarrassment. You won't even know when a government official is spying on you. And even if it was that big of a deal, we still need to decrease and slow down terrorism, which is MUCH worse.

I would like my opponent to talk about terrorism in his next argument, since he mentions it in the resolution, and doesn't even argue about it. I would like you to consider my rebuttal as a challenge for you to step up your argument. I feel as though you haven't fully justified why it's not necessary for the government to be spying on us. Your point may be a little bit convincing, but is weak and should be expanded on. It was quite easy to rebut your argument, so I would like you to add on to your argument.
Debate Round No. 2
badassdebater

Con

the government has all leads on terrorists, the government knows all leads on terrorist on American ground. do u really think the CIA are that stupid? the violation is just a way to keep track of citizens across the country, in order to prevent uprisings such as the ones that took place in the Middle East due to social media. The government uses 'terrorists' as an excuse to breach rights of privacy for their own interests. do you think terrorist organization are so stupid as to use social media as means of communications, obviously, they have other mediums to communicate and plan out their motives. thank you
lol101

Pro

You did not really refute my argument here, you only come up with unsupported claims that are weak at best.

"the government has all leads on terrorists, the government knows all leads on terrorist on American ground. do u really think the CIA are that stupid?"

Did you read my previous points? ANYBODY could be a terrorist, so they need to spy on more than just the people who are confirmed as terrorists. I don't think that the CIA are stupid, but they are not smart and advanced enough to know about every terrorist in the U.S.A. Like I said, if you aren't a terrorist, they simply are not going to care.

"the violation is just a way to keep track of citizens across the country, in order to prevent uprisings such as the ones that took place in the Middle East due to social media."

And why is this bad? Do you want another uprising to happen? You make my point with this claim. Read my previous arguments, because I really don't need to be repetitive.

"do you think terrorist organization are so stupid as to use social media as means of communications, obviously, they have other mediums to communicate and plan out their motives. thank you"

Lots of people are stupid. You know who uses social media? ISIS does. How can you assume that every terrorist out there is smart? Some use devices, but only secretly. That is why the government spying on citizens, because it's hard to catch a terrorist without doing so. Some terrorists are just downright stupid, and there will always be stupid people. The government could just get into one of their devices to see what's going on, that's just how stupid and unaware they can be. Getting rid of terrorism matters more than privacy, especially considering that you won't even know when you are getting spied on. It only sucks for you if you are a terrorist. And plus, if the government is not stupid, then they surely wouldn't do something dumb like share your bad pictures on the media. You can't be embarrassed if you didn't know what happened. You didn't even refute my argument, you only came up with another weak case that was left unjustified. So in the long run, you failed to fully fulfill your BoP. You never told me exactly why it's worth giving people privacy over terrorism, how none of the terrorists are stupid, etc.
You never gave me any clear reasoning for why we should NOT have the government spy on us, and for how the government knows about ALL terrorism.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Boesball// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, S&G). Neither used sources or had conduct mishaps. However, con failed to give a quality argument, and his rebuttals were not sufficient. Also, con didn't capitalize or use punctuation correctly.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The arguments vote here is incredibly vague and could be applied to any debate. The voter must show that they read the debate and interpreted specific arguments therein. (2) The S&G point is insufficiently explained. The lack of capital letters and misuse of punctuation doesn't automatically make an argument difficult enough to read to warrant this point. The standard here is that understanding must be substantially reduced.
******************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I appreciate that. We're doing our best, and I think for most people on the site, it's paying dividends.
Posted by lol101 2 years ago
lol101
Yes. I was astounded when I saw the vote. I'm still working on getting my privileges back with bladerunner, but I am learning. It's great that we have moderators to keep this site well organized.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
My bad. I was going through these very late at night. The vote wasn't much better than that in any case.
Posted by lol101 2 years ago
lol101
But that's alright.
Posted by lol101 2 years ago
lol101
whiteflame, you made a mistake. That was his vote in the texas debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: RepublitariansUnite// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Arguments, S&G, Sources) 1 point to Con (Conduct). DON'T YOU DARE TAKE THE NAME OF TEXAS IN VAIN -Sandy Cheeks

[*Reason for removal*] (1) None of the point allocations are explained to any degree. (2) The voter clearly employs his own biases in the decision. (3) Saying "good job" to a side doesn't explain how they got any points, nor does expressing one's distaste for the topic.
******************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.