Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Human Rights vs. National Security

Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 2:33:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hello all,
My team is proposing the motion that "Human rights are not as important as national security".
Basically, we are focusing on the argument that the right to life is the most fundamental right that must be protected.
I have been tasked with finding examples of times where things like telephone tapping, or even the airport checking has saved lives by catching something. I have been unable to find any good examples of this sort, so any examples you have to share or point me to?

Thank you
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 10:35:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What the hell is the point of security if human rights aren't important?

Save humanity to keep them oppressed/enslaved? Right.
President of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 10:48:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
~ Benjamin Franklin

I agree with Ben.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 11:03:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 10:48:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
~ Benjamin Franklin

I agree with Ben.

Would he still have this attitude if he lived in the modern age? With a high risk of major terrorist acts co-ordinated via phones and the internet.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 11:05:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 11:03:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/28/2010 10:48:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
~ Benjamin Franklin

I agree with Ben.

Would he still have this attitude if he lived in the modern age? With a high risk of major terrorist acts co-ordinated via phones and the internet.

I would think probably so.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 11:06:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 11:03:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Would he still have this attitude if he lived in the modern age? With a high risk of major terrorist acts co-ordinated via phones and the internet.

Yes.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 11:07:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Fair enough!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:34:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 10:35:59 AM, theLwerd wrote:
What the hell is the point of security if human rights aren't important?

Save humanity to keep them oppressed/enslaved? Right.

Well, we have looked at how to rebutt this point, and have come to the conclusion that they would be looking at oppressed nations (like Burma) and asking questions like "Is the national security of this country at risk?" sort of thing. Mainly, we want to saty away from those and focus on the our Right of Life = most fundamental right argument.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:03:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:34:16 PM, Norphin wrote:
At 1/28/2010 10:35:59 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Save humanity to keep them oppressed/enslaved? Right.

Well, we have looked at how to rebutt this point, and have come to the conclusion that they would be looking at oppressed nations (like Burma) and asking questions like "Is the national security of this country at risk?" sort of thing. Mainly, we want to saty away from those and focus on the our Right of Life = most fundamental right argument.

You can justify a lot of things under the cause of safety. For example. we ought all be locked in our houses. This would decrease the chance of dying in a violent assault. We ought all be required to stay behind big long bars for the duration of our life. This would guarantee our permanent safety.
Sure, we might lose a little liberty, but its all necessary to protect us.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 12:33:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ben Franklin had to deal with terrorism in his day, violent revolts were not uncommon. The United States had a very wobbly beginning.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 4:34:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:33:00 AM, Norphin wrote:
Hello all,
My team is proposing the motion that "Human rights are not as important as national security".

--Human rights are imaginary, we made them up.

Basically, we are focusing on the argument that the right to life is the most fundamental right that must be protected.

-- If that is so, then your argumant essentially fails. You are saying that "because the right to life is the most fundamental right, then national security is more important than rights.". Your defence invokes the importace of rights to attack the importance of rights.

I have been tasked with finding examples of times where things like telephone tapping, or even the airport checking has saved lives by catching something. I have been unable to find any good examples of this sort, so any examples you have to share or point me to?


--The problem with finding such things is: If it works, then we won't find out. If it doesn't work, then all ends in catastrophy. When's the last time you ever heard the news announce, "And, today we weren't attacked by terrorists... again."?

Thank you

--I must say that I agree with what I think you are advocating, namely, that having life is more important than having 'rights'. However, there is no logical way to confirm your motion. National Security is not more important than human rights. National Security is nothing more than a means to protect our rights, such as the right to live.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 4:38:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 3:03:10 PM, wjmelements wrote:
You can justify a lot of things under the cause of safety. For example. we ought all be locked in our houses. This would decrease the chance of dying in a violent assault. We ought all be required to stay behind big long bars for the duration of our life. This would guarantee our permanent safety.
Sure, we might lose a little liberty, but its all necessary to protect us.

--No, you can't justify that in the name of safety. If we were locked in our houses then we would all die because of a lack of food. That does not sound like safety to me.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 4:39:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The country would be perfectly safe if we killed every last person on the planet, in the country and without.

No one would be left alive to commit any crimes or threaten anyone.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 4:53:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 10:35:59 AM, theLwerd wrote:
What the hell is the point of security if human rights aren't important?

Save humanity to keep them oppressed/enslaved? Right.

--Well, the point is, that no matter how few rights you have, you will always have less of them when you are dead. Slaves have more rights than the deceased.

--The only problem occurs when rights are taken away with little to no gain in security. This is the case with overly-oppressive governments. There is always the need for balence. Full human rights with no protection are useless, as your life would likely end soon. However, full protection with no rights is just as bad.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 5:01:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 4:39:56 PM, PervRat wrote:
The country would be perfectly safe if we killed every last person on the planet, in the country and without.

No one would be left alive to commit any crimes or threaten anyone.

--Yes, and unicorns are also safe. Actually they aren't because they don't exist. After everyone was dead, they wouldn't exist, therefore, they would not be safe or anything else but dead.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 8:37:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 2:33:00 AM, Norphin wrote:
Hello all,
My team is proposing the motion that "Human rights are not as important as national security".
Basically, we are focusing on the argument that the right to life is the most fundamental right that must be protected.
I have been tasked with finding examples of times where things like telephone tapping, or even the airport checking has saved lives by catching something. I have been unable to find any good examples of this sort, so any examples you have to share or point me to?

Thank you

So you are saying that you want to be protected more than you want freedom?...That sounds a little perplexing to say the least. Americans have been pumped with so much fear, and rhetoric that they just want to take their medicine without any objections. Have we been beaten into submission that much?

Imagine how other countries who are USED to violence feel?..Americans have been brainwashed so much that it's a shame. Since 911, for all the precautions they have taken, if they were that grand, then the Xmas day bomber would not have had a chance. If a terrorist wanted to strike America there is nothing you or I could do, so defending a fascist state is not intelligent.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 4:28:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 10:48:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
~ Benjamin Franklin

I agree with Ben.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

This is the right qoute?

Your is made up or misqoute.

I still agree with bjf
Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 7:23:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 8:37:38 AM, kelly224 wrote:
So you are saying that you want to be protected more than you want freedom?...That sounds a little perplexing to say the least. Americans have been pumped with so much fear, and rhetoric that they just want to take their medicine without any objections. Have we been beaten into submission that much?

Imagine how other countries who are USED to violence feel?..Americans have been brainwashed so much that it's a shame. Since 911, for all the precautions they have taken, if they were that grand, then the Xmas day bomber would not have had a chance. If a terrorist wanted to strike America there is nothing you or I could do, so defending a fascist state is not intelligent.

For the record, I didn't choose to debate which side or which topic. Part of my debate tournaments system is that you DO NOT choose your topic OR the side you debate on, for extra challenge.

And to clarify, the motion, I believe, would be looking at something like "Some human rights must be curtailed for the greater good ie. lives of millions people."
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 4:10:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The problem with trying to get examples of limits on liberty saving lives is that you are being asked to prove a negative, I.E, prove that people would have died, which is very hard to do, since the action did not actually occur.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 5:57:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/11/2010 7:23:10 PM, Norphin wrote:
At 2/10/2010 8:37:38 AM, kelly224 wrote:
So you are saying that you want to be protected more than you want freedom?...That sounds a little perplexing to say the least. Americans have been pumped with so much fear, and rhetoric that they just want to take their medicine without any objections. Have we been beaten into submission that much?

Imagine how other countries who are USED to violence feel?..Americans have been brainwashed so much that it's a shame. Since 911, for all the precautions they have taken, if they were that grand, then the Xmas day bomber would not have had a chance. If a terrorist wanted to strike America there is nothing you or I could do, so defending a fascist state is not intelligent.

For the record, I didn't choose to debate which side or which topic. Part of my debate tournaments system is that you DO NOT choose your topic OR the side you debate on, for extra challenge.

And to clarify, the motion, I believe, would be looking at something like "Some human rights must be curtailed for the greater good ie. lives of millions people."

I think Thomas Hobbs would be a good philosopher for you to research to start the basis for your arguments. He believed in the "greatest good for the greatest number" of people. I think that may be something that could help. I wish I could expound but I can't remember any of his arguments. I learned about him like 4 years ago and haven't learned much since lol
Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 7:25:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
While Thomas Hobbes and the Social Contract would definitely be interesting points to raise in our debate, especially concerning Hobbes's belief that chaos, anarchy and war could only be averted by having a strong central government, where the citizens will voluntarily cede some of their rights in return for protection, it would be difficult to use this as a very strong example to support my case, though it would not hurt to bring it up. This will certainly be something I will be looking to include.

So, once again, to clarify, my teams main argument that all our points will be centered around is "The right of life (along with the rights that go with life ie. food and water) being the most fundamental right, must be have priority to be protected over secondary rights." or something along those lines. Also, I believe having a strong definition for the endangerment of national security would be useful no?