The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

security >> liberty

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 383 times Debate No: 55703
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




it is common, and frankly par for the course, for people to quote many great founders, that say that he who wishes for security over liberty, deserves neither liberty or security.

i draw issue. would you rather die, or have your 'rights' compromised? i agree that there is an issue with proportion. frankly, i would guess most people even if they didnt come out and say it, would be for some slight compromises so as not to die. heck, if you put it that way, most would take some major compromises. it's just not politically popular to admit. and not something people really think about enough to admit.
and i could possibly agree that major compromises should not be allowed for the most part.
it is mostly an issue of proportionality. what it is not, though, is all all or nothing liberty being trumped by liberty.


My opponent made false dilemma "would you rather die or have your rights compromised". This is not the case. Our choice is "would you rather fight back the oppressor or have your rights compromised". Founding fathers won.

In this debate I will argue that liberty is better then security.
Debate Round No. 1


con is actually the false dimemma starter. if it was simply rights comprised versus fighting those who might compromise them (the oppressors), there would be no tension. the reason there is tension, is because our lives are often at stake. the government could wire tap our phones, and invade people's houses, all without warrants, and you can be sure that some terrorist threats would be stopped with the information and people they attacked. of course, i wouldn't be constituitional. our rights would be compromised.

do you seriously argue that those examples wouldn't provide safety?
if you don't argue that, then how do you call it a false dilemma?

most people at least acknowledge that we could be better off with safety without compromised rights, but they just argue that we shouldnt allow it, or that ti's not worth it. con is very much an outlier, and probably because his position is so, frankly, silly.


Pro stated that when we enter a fight, our lives are often at stake. That fact is not relevant for my argument.

Government tapping our phones does provide safety from non-government terrorists, but government has became worst of all terrorists.

I will ask voters to take into account my opponent's flaws in spelling/grammar.

I will now make arguments why liberty is better then safety.

1) We will all die anyway. We can only live longer by submitting to oppressor. It is better to have shorter good life then longer painful life.

2) Our oppressor would shorten our lives by forcing us to do chores and by making physical punishments when we are not doing our job as well as he expects us to do.

3) If we are slaves, our children will be born slaves as well, if we fight back, there is a chance of our children being free.
Debate Round No. 2


wiretapping has given us information to save lives and stop terrorist threats. no one can be taken seriously who says otherwise. i could provide sources if you insist, buti t's an insult to everyone to ask for it. serious people argue that wire tapping and such isn't worth it, despite what it provides.

con is now arguing that liberty is better than safety. before he said it was a false dilemma, as if we could have both. only now does he get into something to be taken seriously.

1. if it was as easy as extreme life of pain or shorter life, yes it would easy. you didnt take any proportinoality into your situation, as i said in the get go is important. if the government wire tapping a few people without a warrant saves new york from getting bombed, so be it.

2. i have no idea what you are talking about. what oppressors are you talking about who make us do chores? this is a non sequiter.

3. we are not slaves. do youmean subject to government intrusion? that's true if so. but it can also be said that our children can be safer if we dont fight back so much.

your arguments are extremely simplistic. it's hard to think you are taking this debate seriously. either that, or .... yeah.


In Serbia we are not tapping anyone's calls, but yet only one to bomb us so far was NATO. US media did a great job scaring people, but information they provided is not factual.

This debate's name is not "Government wiretapping". I was talking about liberty in general.

Here is some information about government tapping calls and reading e-mails:
- Nothing can stop security agencies to sell some data to big companies, who need them to make profit.
- Nothing can stop security agencies to sell data about individuals to big organizations who want to kill them.
- Congressmen and Senators are spied upon as well, so security agencies can blackmail them.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Security IS a prerequisite to liberty, but Con (somewhat) pointed out that it's not always one or the other.
Vote Placed by Progressivist 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were back and forth, and equalized. I will give Spelling and Grammar points to Con.