Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Can I run an argument by you guys?
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:54:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, I recently came up with a theory argument I would like to start running during my school debates. Consider the following scenario: Pro argues under the resolution 'reduce government surveillance' that the US should ban NSA data mining. Con comes up and says that surveillance must be observation by a human being, data mining determines information based solely on algorithms which then alert the NSA and therefore they aren't actually banning human observation. pro refutes by giving a counter definition, that surveillance is the acquisition of nonpublic information.
My argument, as con, is that this response isn't sufficient. They have given another definition however, is this not a false dichotomy? Just because we read two separate definitions doesn't mean they are in conflict, they could both be correct. So I would argue that they aren't following the resolution. Even if surveillance is the acquisition of non-public information, it is (when combined) the acquisition of non-public information through human (and only human) observation. There is nothing distinctly creating a conflict or contradiction between the two definitions...or in other words, the two are not mutually exclusive and therefore, until the affirmative shows you why our definition is wrong, the judge should assume they are two parts of the same definition and they arent meeting the second portion.