The Instigator
jameswalters
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

is snowden a hero?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2013 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,802 times Debate No: 37462
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

jameswalters

Pro

Edward Snowden showed us what was by law our right to know. Revealing the secrets that the government has been breaking laws to provide more security which makes little sense to me because wouldn't that statement cancel out? security is trust and trust should be private as the individual allows it (as an example "you tell your friend a secret, that secret should be private, and your friend keeps it a secret, but a criminal (this example of a criminal personifying the government is the only example I could find and I'm deeply sorry if this offends anybody)comes along and hits the friend (looking for information that the government is currently doing) and the friend tells the criminal the secret) your privacy should be at your own discretion and nobody should take away your own private knowledge. The trust we put in the government is depleting little by little due to the immoral acts that the government has done, and its our right to know that our privacy is being breached.

For those who don't know who Snowden is then here is a extremely basic background.

Born in North Carolina in 1983, Edward Snowden worked for the National Security Agency through subcontractor Booz Allen in the NSA's Oahu office. After only three months, Snowden began collecting top-secret documents regarding NSA domestic surveillance practices, which he found disturbing. After Snowden fled to Hong Kong, China, newspapers began printing the documents that he had leaked to them.

(http://www.biography.com...)

"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things ... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."
" Edward Snowden

(to whosoever I'm debating with I must say I'm limiting this debate to 8,000 characters so you can say as much as you want)

I'm James Thomas Walters and I have said what needs to be said.

edited by Steve Sean Cadena.
Debate Round No. 1
jameswalters

Pro

I thank you Mikel, I just want to say that this is my first debate not counting the one a year ago on the death penalty (of which I have posted on debate.org a year after my presentation) and I hope I have a chance doing a good job. (I have seen your flawless victories so far and I hope I do a good job and that you find this debate a challenge last personal thing I will say is that I hope you have as much fun as I will).

Edward Snowden has shown us what should be exposed to the United States of America. Its obvious that the NSA is breaking our rights set down by our own laws. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

(http://americanhistory.about.com...)

If you just think... It is our proper right to have free speech and it's should be our respected right to honor the ability to keep our words private. Privacy of the individual should be sacred and the words that come with it should be too.

Edward Snowden has good reason to proclaim these cruel dark lies, he had done the fair and just thing in showing us what is legally supposed to be shown to the world. Snowden's honesty has exposed the world to the lies and deceit that the United States of America has held ever since November 4, 1952 and it has been unjust and unfair to shroud this in a vail of lies. Edward has also exposed us to the questionable actions that the government has been executing with unfair reason.

Many of us have been spied upon by the NSA and spying is something that cant be protected from.
Our rights as Americans to be free to say what we want and to whichever crowd we choose, if the statements are given to the masses or in private is what is being fought about in this case. When the phrase said above "to the masses or in private" was announced the meaning was there are two types of ways to send messages, the first way of speech (to the masses) is websites and newspapers like Skype, Facebook or the New York times (news paper for those of you who don't know). What is really meant when the words in private is used in this document it means the things that are personal and from person to person, would you enjoy the NSA looking at a letter that you sent after a long time of not seeing your beloved ones.

Just speculate on those words for awhile.

I'm James Thomas Walters and I have something to say and I have just said it.
Mikal

Con

I would like to welcome Pro officially to the debate site of DDO.

Let us take a look at this topic and go over some terms we are discussing.

Edward Snowden - This does not need much of one, since pro broke whom he was down in his stances. We all know what he did and whom he is, if we read Pros argument or even turned on the news.

is - this is present tense. It means as of this moment, and not was which is past tense.

Hero -(A) a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

(B) A person, whom commits courageous acts while posing no harm to others.




So now lets get to my contentions


Contention 1

What is a Hero

As I have shown in my definition, a Hero is often classified by acts or qualities that he does that will make him adored by most. Heroes that we can think of off hand are superman, batman, and any other character of this magnitude. While they are not real, they epitomize what it is to be a hero. A real life hero is someone who acts accordingly to these principles and could even possibly die for them.

One that comes to hand is MLK Jr. His stance on segregation helped changed the world as we knew it. He died and lived his life by this belief and the world was forever changed.

If we even try to compare Snowden to someone of this magnitude, he pales in comparison. Whether or not someone thinks it is justified, he leaked top secret information at the expense of this nation. While it did show us what the government was doing, this could severely harm us in multiple ways. It allows a chance for foreign enemies to have a glance at this info along with other people whom do not need to see it.

While people may think Snowden did something courageous,and even if that was his intent he went about it in the wrong way.


Contention 2

Is Vs Was

This will play a little off the ending sentence on the last contention. Since he went about it in the wrong way, what is the repercussions. He is seeking asylum in multiple countries, and set out to get a pact with Russia because he is scared to face the consequences of his actions. Any of the Heros we think of, often bear the burden of their choice. King and others gave their life for the cause, but Snowden commits this act and runs away from the judgement and repercussions of his choice. So even if there was a possibility he was a hero at the time he committed the act, he is no longer a Hero because of the road he is choosing to take.


Contention 3

How do we judge a Heroic act, and does the act alone make you a Hero

If you commit a Heroic act does that act in itself make you a hero, and if so how do we judge the act itself? First we must analyze if the choices he made were heroic. I have shown the negative effects and also stated that he could have handled it better. Consider however the option that it was an heroic act. Does one heroic act make someone a Hero? If I chose to stop a robbery and die for it, am I a hero? Most would say yes. There was only good to come from that situation, therefore it is heroic.

What happens If I rob a rich person, to help feed a poor family who needs food. Then I run away and flee the crime scene after I helped feed the poor person. This is entirely subjective based on someones view point. While the poor family would consider me a Hero for giving them food. The family of the rich or even others would not perceive me as such. I took something that was not mine and that I did not earn, to help feed someone who needed food. This does not make me a Hero in that regard. In fact it goes against laws that we have set in place, and I could face jail time for my choice.

Now take for example, how that situation could have been handled better. Perhaps instead of robbing the man, I could have started a petition or went up and had a talk with him and convinced him to give the poor family food. This is an action that would make me a hero. I saved someone, without taking something that did not belong to him and went about it in a justified way. I also completed the situation with evil coming from it.


Contention 4

Snowden had ill intentions from the start.


While most people think he went in, and found out that the government was doing something shady and therefore he leaked info to the people and ran. This is false information as of late.

Snowden himself admitted that he had planned to leak info since he accepted the job. He admits this

""My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago."

Then went on to say this

"If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment"

This is the definition of a traitor, in its entirety. He did not just leak information to the American public but sought to leak classified documents to other countries as well. This jeopardizes our nation as a whole, and definitely does not classify him as a hero. Nothing about this is noble or heroic.



Contention 5

Does doing evil make evil right


Does one wrong action justify another? His actions were corrupt however we look at it. He stole information from the government and sought to leak it to other countries. While the government may have been wrong from hiding this information from the people, does Snowdens intent to leak this to foreign intelligence help fix the situation?

It actually makes it worse. Now we know what our government is doing , but there is a possibility that foreign enemies will have info and access they can use to exploit.


In Closing

While Snowden may be a hero to my adversary or some other people consider him a hero, this does not make him a Hero objectively. He has committed crimes against the nation, and is in fear and running form the consequences of his actions. Nothing he has did will ever earn him the title of Hero. He has caused more harm than good and put an open wound in our nation by leaking classified documents to anyone he could find, whom wanted them.






http://www.scmp.com...

http://www.usatoday.com...


http://www.newyorker.com...


http://articles.washingtonpost.com...


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
jameswalters

Pro

First thing I have to say is that you are good, and when you said "I would like to welcome Pro (me) officially to the debate site of DDO" I felt thankful to have started my debate with you Mikel, And its especially my honor to have started off with such an expert. I didn't know how good you are at debating until I saw your debates and saw your impressive score of 51 wins and 0 losses. You prove a good point and let me say that I"m enjoying this entire debate, Except the fact of the sleep I lost last night due to, (A) my medication change, (B) the fact I didn't go to sleep until 11 o"clock due to my parents insisting that we say at a friends house, (C) but most of all the thing that kept me awake most of all was the anticipation of reading your debate in the morning, but I hope it doesn't turn my writing style weak.

I will break down all the things that you said, just like the way you broke down the title of the debate.

I can"t tell if you were complementing me on the mini-biography displayed about Edward Snowden (50/50 kind or it could be sarcasm (your choice)).

When you declared, when you were breaking down the title "Is - this is present tense. It means as of this moment, and not was which is past tense. " When I wrote my articles (if you would permit me to say that) my intention was in the present tense, I did mean to ask you if he is still a hero because he is still releasing data to the world.

"Hero -(A) a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage
(B) A person who commits courageous acts while posing no harm to others. "

A quote from you Mikel.

"Snowden should be held in high esteem for his courage or else we would still be blind to the fabrications that the government was doing.

"Snowden does "commit" as you put it his courageous acts without harming others (even himself). Snowden didn't put any body at risk, its other whistle blowers that have hurt the people in the United States of America by giving away names and the precious words that I see as sacred.

In Contention 1 you said"

"A real life hero is someone who acts accordingly to these principles (the ones mentioned above),"
Snowden had acted accordingly to the principles that was set down by all our own laws in the constitution

While people may think Snowden did something courageous, and even if that was his intent he went about it in the wrong way.
when you stated that I wondered is there a right way to do what Snowden did? And is it possible to do a right way of going through with what

Concerning Contention 3...

You said "How do we judge a Heroic act, and does the act alone make you a Hero?" it is a heroic act when you your work for a just cause, in this instance searching for the knowledge for all.

"I have shown the negative effects and also stated that he could have handled it better," I must say what is the better way that he could have done it all you say is that he could have done it better but never gave an example. like getting the death penalty for treason (staying) or continue posting on the internet showing the crimes the government has been committing (leaving the United States of America and giving the world a peek of the hideous things being tucked away by a shroud of lies).

P.S. This is extremely enjoyable for me and I'm loving every second of it.

All quotes from (http://www.debate.org...)

I'm James Thomas Walters and I have spoken my mind.
Mikal

Con

I would like to thank Pro again for proposing this debate. I was not being sarcastic by accepting you definition of Snowden, because it showed whom he was. Therefore there was no need for me to explain it twice. I would like to also thank Pro for his kind words.

Now I will offer up some rebuttals.

Rebuttal 1

"When I wrote my articles (if you would permit me to say that) my intention was in the present tense"

That is what I was trying to point out. I imagined that was the tense in what you were referring to him. That is why I mentioned the point how can we call him a hero as of now. In the past some people may have considered him leaking private falls a heroic act because it revealed that the government was invading our privacy without our consent. Since he has leaked those files he has been on the run and seeking refuge in multiple countries, and has just worked an asylum deal out with Russia. That is not very heroic.


Rebuttal 2

"Snowden does "commit" as you put it his courageous acts without harming others (even himself). Snowden didn't put any body at risk, its other whistle blowers that have hurt the people in the United States of America by giving away names and the precious words that I see as sacred."

Either you misinterpreted or I misrepresented what I was intending to say for this point. I believe Snowden did put a majority of people at risk because of how he handled the situation. By leaking these files, it gives foreign intelligence information they should not have about the USA. It also exemplifies how weak our security is, and gives them security in the fact that we are weak. This is not a belief anyone should hold. If at anytime this country appears weak, we risk loosing the freedoms that we have fought so long for. Snowden put that at risk in the way he leaked the files. I have shown that he took the job with the intent of leaking it to foreign intelligence. This by definition is a traitor

There are multiple ways he could have did this better and become a real hero without jeopardizing our national security. He could have tried to go to someone who would have addressed this from a legal standpoint, or even found a way to try and keep the information within America only.

That is not the case though, he went directly to any broadcaster whom wanted the knowledge. American and foreign alike, and leaked it.

He committed these acts with the intent to bear harm, and that is not the traits of a hero.


Contention 1

The bottom line

I agree that the information the government was hiding from us needed to be revealed, but not in the way Snowden did. He risked jeopardizing freedoms to expose evil at work. I committed evil to stop evil. This is hard to justify.

The resolution of this debate from Pros R1 stance, was more "Did or was Snowden Justified in leaking this information" rather than "Is he a Hero"

If pro would have worded this "He is my Hero" , or "He is a hero to some". That would remain uncontested and could not be argued. He is claiming that Snowden "is" a hero. Is meaning present tense as we have already reviewed. This is an objective stance, and is almost claiming that he is a hero even to people whom do not see him as one. This is impossible to gauge because of the context in which it is stated. For him to be a "hero". this would have to be an objective statement and be true to everyone. Just because Snowden is a hero to pro, and a hero to others does not make him a hero objectively.

Remember this is not DC or Marvel where characters were designed with the intent of being a hero. No one can question whether or not spider-man is a hero because he was made with that purpose in mind. That is an objective fact. To be a real life hero, you must earn that title with actions.

Snowden has not met those requirements. I have stated this before and hold to the fact that the information needed to be made known to the American public. I just don't agree with Snowdens actions and how he went about doing it. I could not, nor should anyone ever condone this because of the security risks that comes along with it. Especially with him admitting, he meant to leak the information to foreign intelligence from the start.

In Closing

What the government did was wrong, but what Snowden did was equally wrong. An old saying says it best "two wrongs do not make a right". Snowden could have been a hero had he handled this situation properly, but he went in with ill intent and risked our security for his sense of personal justice.
Debate Round No. 3
jameswalters

Pro

I thank you for your good manners (to tell you the truth I thought my first debate was going to have swearing in it so thanks for giving me a good introduction to this website).

Before I start I must say that in a few areas what your doing is taking my argument bit by bit and not looking at the whole picture I'm trying to "paint" with colorful language (pun intended) but on a good side I will say thank you for pointing out some of my mistakes I know for a fact that I'll be a better debater after this.

In rebuttal one

When I said "if you would permit me to say that" I meant that I was applying that statement to whether or not I could refer to my short rounds as articles. (It was but a minor mistake on my part).

For rebuttal two

When you said that "it gives foreign intelligence information they (other governments) should not have about the United States of America." Snowden never did give foreign intelligence any information he was only pointing out that the NSA is being unjust, and this debate only involves America, if china (for example) wanted to search for information, china would have done so by now, and china has already done this (see our losses in the cyber wars), even more important if other nations wanted to steal information from the NSA they could of just go to 9800 Savage Rd, Fort Meade, MD you can find the location in numerous locations on the Internet, it might be a fake location because the government is paranoid.

A metaphor

Snowden didn't have an evil objective he wanted to show the United States of America what is being hidden from most people on earth. Snowden had a Nobel cause and he was pointing out that it was one of the rights of man to have privacy. Asking if Snowden braking the law is morally wrong is like asking the question is it wrong to kill a murderer to save who took five lives. The most likely choice is is that killing the murderer, according to the (current) odds it's 66/34 this is only the opinion of the people the two debaters opinion is at their own discretion.

http://www.debate.org...

The reason the moral dilemma is being referenced is because the murderer (in this case the government killing our rights to privacy, (no offense is intended, sorry if it is taken that way)) will strike again and if you don't strike early eventually he would become more of a problem and eventually can't be stopped James Moriarty in the Sherlock series is a good example despite him being fiction there are people who could be like him. Most importantly the killer is more likely to strike again. The earth needs people like Snowden to keep the laws in order (stopping the killer in this metaphor) and stopping a killer is heroic in the eyes of most.

Snowden has done the right thing and is supposed to be able to walk free among us.

I'm James Thomas Walters and I have no problems with what I had written above.

P.S. Thanks for the good sportsmanship.
Mikal

Con

Rebuttal 1

Alternate motives and the fallout

I will summarize most of this into one rebuttals since that is what it was focused on.

(A) "Snowden didn't have an evil objective he wanted to show the United States of America what is being hidden from most people on earth."

(A) I have sources cited and have shown where Snowden took the job so that he could actually leak the information knowing that it could cause harm. While evil is subjective, this act in itself is not acceptable. Whether or not he thought he had good intentions, the route in which he took put classified information in public and foreign hands and portrayed a sense of weakness to other countries that were observing.



(B) "Asking if Snowden braking the law is morally wrong is like asking the question is it wrong to kill a murderer to save who took five lives"

(B) I am not stating that because he broke the law, it made it an evil act. I am saying the harm that his actions could and did bring, made it an evil or wrong act to commit. While killing a murder to save lives is justified, if you could find a way to save the lives and not take the life of a murder, would that not be a better option? That is the point I am making. Snowden had the option to pursue a better path to expose the knowledge that was being hidden, but chose to expose it to the media without thinking of the consequences. This makes it a wrong path to take. To refer back to your example, he could have saved the life of the hostages while simply putting the murder in jail for life. If there is no need to take a life, why take it?



(C) "When you said that "it gives foreign intelligence information they (other governments) should not have about the United States of America." Snowden never did give foreign intelligence any information he was only pointing out that the NSA is being unjust, and this debate only involves America"


(C) It is actually being reviewd and contested that he also leaked the info just not to American reporters but mentioned the information to different people as he has been on the run.

Hypothetically save he did not give it to a foreign source directly. Is there still harm that came from him doing this?

It drastically messed up our foreign relations with Russia and other countries for one. This is a recent article about the repercussions of Snowden gaining asylum in Russia.

"On Thursday, nuclear arms control advocates shuddered as Washington erupted in rage over Russia's decision to grant temporary asylum to the former NSA contractor. With Republicans in Congress demanding retaliation and White House officials openly casting doubt on a planned Moscow summit, the worry is that Obama's ambitious goal of reducing deployed strategic nuclear weapons by one-third may have just flown out the window."

here is more

"Today, both White House and State Department officials noted their "extreme" disappointment with Russia for refusing to return Snowden to the U.S. On top of that, spokesman Jay Carney said "We are evaluating the utility of a summit," referring to Obama's scheduled visit to Moscow ahead of the G-20 gathering in St. Petersburg next month. "We are extremely disappointed that the Russian government would take this step despite our very clear and lawful request in public and in private," Carney said."


This exemplifies what I was stating earlier. His actions indirectly affect foreign policy and portrays us as a weak nation. There is a severe fallout because of his actions, and one that threatens the jeopardy of the USA.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com...
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com...
http://www.voanews.com...




In Closing

While me and my adversary agree on the issue that the information needed to be revealed, we disagree with the fact in how it was done. He believes this puts Snowden on a platform, and I believe it shows that he was irrational and selfish. He merely thought about himself while doing this, and the limited thought he gave to the America people does not condone the fall out that has occurred because of his actions

He is no Hero.

Debate Round No. 4
jameswalters

Pro

Dear Mikel,

I thank you for this debate it was interesting and I enjoyed it 100%. I enjoyed the company I had a fun time and I'm filled with the sheer joy that I got to have a civilized debate with such a nobleman such as yourself. I only wish we could talk more but we will say our final words and I bid you adieu (after our final round of controversy obviously).

"Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them."
R13; Isaac Asimov, I Robot.
I see Asimov's point when he says in postulates have a habit of and I quote "Nothing in the Universe can shake them". The postulate I'm using is that Edward Snowden is a hero and deserves to be treated as so, but my assumption does have logic behind it, I have stated many reasons and have proposed many ideas many have been spiked out of the air by your logic but other some we agree upon.

I support Snowden 100% and that's why you disagree with him.

What we agree on is that Snowden has in the metaphor (In section B) saved lives but in harming the killer (no offense to patriots all over America for the reference to the government being a killer).

But,
(B) "Asking if Snowden braking the law is morally wrong is like asking the question is it wrong to kill a murderer to save who took five lives"
(me)
You said...
"(B) I am not stating that because he broke the law, it made it an evil act. "

But an act of evil is sometimes necessary for the world to change for the better, as an example in the American Revolutionary War(According to my history book 1775"1783) the immoral acts of England (taxation with out representation and so on) made what is now the United States of America, and as we all know the American Revolutionary war has started a rise against tyranny and unfair treatment all over the world, thus preventing more evil to be created.

Most importantly you still haven't given a good reason how Snowden could have done it in a different way you have stated the repercussions and the way on how he broke the law but not the actions he could have taken (Like how would Snowden get his information to the general public) is the words I'm looking for.

and this debate goes to a stand still because the real debate is who did the worse crime the government or Snowden.

Why is it that the laws about privacy (the 4th amendment) are before the laws about betraying the governments secrets (can't find a reliable resource), nowhere in the constitution or the bill of rights does it say that the government can keep secrets that break the laws that they set down by the constitution or the bill of rights (just mentioned).

Bill of Rights are found at
(http://www.archives.gov...)

and the information about the constitution were found at
(http://www.archives.gov...)

I'm James Thomas Walters and I have one thing to ask, and the question is did I do a good job?
Mikal

Con

Rebuttal 1

"Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them."
R13; Isaac Asimov, I Robot.
I see Asimov's point when he says in postulates have a habit of and I quote "Nothing in the Universe can shake them". The postulate I'm using is that Edward Snowden is a hero and deserves to be treated as so, but my assumption does have logic behind it, I have stated many reasons and have proposed many ideas many have been spiked out of the air by your logic but other some we agree upon."



Just because something has logical evidence to support it does not make it an objective fact. Take God for example, in most ways people will claim there is logical evidence for his existence. There is no way to in fact prove that he actually exists however. Evidence will not make that objectively true. There has to be empirical, factual, and circumstantial evidence to make something objectively true, and even then if new evidence is discovered to change the initial stance, it can always change.

Example : centuries ago most people believed the world was flat. When new evidence was brought forth that showed this was probably false, it changed the initial stance.

So while Snowden may have thought he was doing good, it does not encompass the entire picture. As we learn more about his intentions, it takes away from the credibility of the act.

There is also something called circumstantial evidence which I think is more applicable to this debate. You have presented evidence that works off the circumstance at hand. The issue with this, is that it still can be deciphered differently by people. While you consider him taking information for the government and exposing it, a benefit to society. I consider it harmful

See previous rounds for why I believe this.


Rebuttal 2

"What we agree on is that Snowden has in the metaphor (In section B) saved lives but in harming the killer (no offense to patriots all over America for the reference to the government being a killer)."

I agreed to the metaphor because the initial premise behind it was "can a unlawful act ever be committed with a just outcome"

So I do agree that the government needed to come clean about this, and that in some way it needed to be exposed. As you have stated I just do not agree with how he did it and believe he could have did it better


Rebuttal 3

"But an act of evil is sometimes necessary for the world to change"

That is true in some cases, but goes back to my original statement. If you can change the world without committing the evil act, why commit the evil act at all. If he could have had the same results without jeopardizing our freedom, why expose it in the way he did?


Then you say

"Most importantly you still haven't given a good reason how Snowden could have done it in a different way you have stated the repercussions and the way on how he broke the law but not the actions he could have taken (Like how would Snowden get his information to the general public) is the words I'm looking for."


You are asking me if there are other avenues what are they. I am not fluent with this by any means, but since we are on the topic of can evil justify evil.

He could have blackmailed the Agency to tell the public about it or stop the program all together.

He would still suffer the same consequences. He is already exiled, and this is a way for the government to find a way to show the public what they are doing, for fear of Snowden exposing it. Maybe they would have even ceased the program until they figured out what to do.

I am not saying that is the best possible way or even a viable option, but just showing there are a variety of other ways and that he did not give much thought to it. He just got the evidence and shot it out to reporters where it could be viewed world wide, and not just by the US.



Rebuttal 4

The right to privacy

"Why is it that the laws about privacy (the 4th amendment) are before the laws about betraying the governments secrets (can't find a reliable resource), nowhere in the constitution or the bill of rights does it say that the government can keep secrets that break the laws that they set down by the constitution or the bill of rights (just mentioned)."

I would argue, that no where in the bill of rights or constitution, will you ever see the word privacy. We infer we have that right, and that is generally accepted.

The 4th amendment promises us the right not to be searched without need. Such as cops need warrants to search our house and such. Wire tapping and intercepting calls, is not physically invading your property.

Granted this is semantics, but it is how the government would justify it

NOTE : I do agree the government and the agency iteself was in the wrong with what they were doing. I think Snowden was equally with wrong, with how he chose to present it.



In closing

I would like to thank my adversary for a great debate. We both agree that the government was wrong in what they were doing, we just disagree about Snowden.

I have shown that just because Snowden is a hero to pro, does not make him a hero to all.

I have also shown because of his actions, we are at risk with our foreign affairs. This is mainly in regards to Russia, which we already are at odds with because of the Syria situation. This situation just adds to the turmoil.


While his ideology may have been good, the outcome was bad. We should not consider Snowden a hero. While we all can agree that the government was wrong, I do believe we all can agree that this could have been handled better and without jeopardizing our nations security.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
that would depend if snowden is who he claims to be, which i suspect he isnt.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Well that was a lot faster than I thought. Good debate, it was enjoyable reading it :)
Do not be discouraged if you lose James. Mikal is probably one of the best debaters on this site. You could probably win in a debate against me though XD I am terrible.
Posted by jameswalters 3 years ago
jameswalters
i know Shadowguynick this will take forever (at best 7 days)
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
This will be a long debate...
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Change it to 10,000 words and I will take it
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Change it to 10,000 words and I will take it
Posted by BenFilley 3 years ago
BenFilley
Very well thought out. I don't think anyone here is going to disagree with you on the topic, it's pretty clear he's a hero for whistle blowing whats really going on behind closed door. The government has violated the 4th amendment egregiously.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
jameswaltersMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Interesting debate. I think the debate would've been a lot closer if the resolution had been about whether or not Snowden's actions were justified. I don't really buy Con's argument that the information needed to be revealed but in a different way..how else could it have been revealed? More importantly though, the most consequential argument in my opinion was what a "hero" would do. I like Cons argument that a real hero wouldn't run away, but would rather stand and face the consequences of his actions no matter what. I think Pro could've countered this with some kind of "discretion is the greater part of valor" argument, but I didn't really see this. From the debate I get the idea that Snowden ran away like a bit of a coward, which is not heroic at all, even if his initial action was courageous.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
jameswaltersMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Welcome to DDO James :) Now that formalities are out of the way, here are my votes. Conduct is a tie, both adversaries were extremely amicable to eachother. Spelling and Grammar also a tie. Convincing arguments goes to Mikal. Some of Pro's arguments were hard to read (as in I am not sure what he is saying) and the rebuttals were a bit weak. Recommendation for next time is to organize your arguments better so as to make it easier to discern what you are saying. Also Con had better arguments overall, with more points and better rebuttals. Sources are a tie.