do you think the government spying on us is a very sufficient way of finding "terrorists"
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
"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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.