The Instigator
Tarentz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Darckshado99
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

In a democracy, The public"s right to know should be valued above the right to privacy of candidate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 119018
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Tarentz

Pro

"Any adequate justification for privacy must rely on a view about what the democratic process requires. " " Dennis F. Thompson, The resolution states that In a democracy, The public"s right to know ought to be valued above the right to privacy of candidates for public office. I affirm the resolution and shall prove it. First I will state definitions and observations to set the premise of this round. First, The right to know in the context it is used in the resolution pertains to the right to know sensitive information about someone which is why it is compared with the right of privacy of a candidate. Privacy is defined as the state of being free from public attention. Public office is defined as a position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public, Especially within the government. The resolution directly compares the rights of the people with the rights of a candidate running for public office. This means I will have to prove that the people rule over the candidate in the case of a democracy, But are still equal under the law.

Public vs. The candidates personal lives. A candidate for public office will the hold responsibility of affecting the lives of thousands, The right to know is a big factor in an election. The candidate will be responsible for civil rights, Social injustices, Reproductive rights, And their everyday lives. A perfect example of how a candidate's personal life mattered in a campaign is John Edwards. Edwards is a former U. S. Senator and was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 until he was caught in an affair. While some may argue that such an example being brought would be an example of misuse of the right to know, First let me clarify what took place. According to ABC News, "When Elizabeth Edwards confronted her husband, He told her that Hunter was just a one-night stand, But their affair continued, Even when Elizabeth's breast cancer returned, This time, Incurable. " When wife was revealed that she had the incurable cancer, The New York Times wrote "that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, He would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York" If Edwards had been elected president who knows what could have taken place. This was obviously an immoral man that allowed his lust to take a hold of him and lie to his dying wife. If could do such a feat what makes you think that he wouldn't do so the entire country. The right to know protects innocent citizens while privacy protects shady candidates like Edwards that could have been voted into office.

Law of the land. If the public"s natural right to privacy can be infringed, Why not the candidate after all no one is above the law. The right to privacy is not an essential right. In fact, It helps governments to fight crime all the time. An example of this would be the privacy act of 2001 that was enacted after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The act allowed the collection of personal information if it were linked to terrorist motives. To protect candidate"s privacy while neglecting the people"s privacy would be to put them over the law. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, A democracy is a government by the people especially: rule of the majority. In a democracy the power should go to the people, In comparison the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you were to, However, Put a person over the law, You are not only violating the law of the land, But the entire basis of democracy which is that power should go the people. In article 7 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. " In Article 29 it states These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. This means that by valuing the candidates right to privacy over the people"s right to know you are violating two human rights. Proving that there is a reasonable cause in this case to infringe the right of privacy to the candidate.

Right to know has better qualities. The right to know has better terms and qualities than privacy. One the right to know gives transparency between the government and the people allowing for better relationships and builds trust. Two while privacy may protect sensitive information the right to know protects citizens from being represented or ruled by candidates that could malicious intents. While some may the right to know overbearing at times there is no doubt in their mind that they are safe because of it. Whether you are at the mall with security cameras or at TSA checkpoint. There is a reason why many governments don"t have a right to privacy and it is because the right to privacy doesn"t ensure safety.
Darckshado99

Con

First off, I wished to clarify a piece of information that is massively important to the way that we discuss this very sensitive topic. The very definition of Public office shows that this is not in fact a Democracy but a Republic. Whether one is better than the other is a different debate but This fundamentally changes how we look at those who hold office. The reason the people of the United States of America should be voting on members of office should be because their views align more with them than any of the others running for office.

Going after Personal lives, I agree to a degree that some information being told to the public should be given. I would personally like to know if our Public Office elect has committed a crime worse or equal to that of homicide, But beyond that, Its simple as the very constitution itself dictates the right against unlawful seizure. If previous actions have been taken care of then they are the past. If you got spiked one night and you saw a video of yourself streaking you wouldn't want that brought up if you ever wanted to run for office and its the same for everyone else. Claiming otherwise would either mean that you would be willing to bring up every embarrassing and horrible thing you've ever done to literally everyone in the United States, And while you might be confident enough to I know I am definitely not. And ultimately by focusing on the admittedly horrible actions of John Edwards you are detracting from any value that his economic and political ideas might have had. Its fair to say that In the previous Presidential election if the Elector's scandals were not allowed to be brought up and simply a test of the strength of their ideas and their ability to lead the nation into the future, It would have been a much more civil election. Despite this with everyone focused the bad, The vast majority of Americans didn't know the policies of those they voted for, If they even voted at all. As for what John could have done if he had been elected to Public office, Its clear from an examination of history that morals and the ability to bolster the strength of a nation are not connected. Look at Great Britain, A country that ruled a large amount of the world, Yet despite this they still decided to, As a country peddle opium on a world scale resulting in not one but Two wars with china (opium Wars).

Currently, Yes with Section 215, It is possible for the government to look at records it deems at being tied to terrorist activity, But as many Americans would agree, That's fundamentally wrong and a break down of trust between the state and its citizens. The situation is not Candidates being held out of what everyone else has to do, But the reverse. The citizens of the United States are being pushed down while the Government officials are being ignored and left to do what they wish. Also, By your own quote "In article 7 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. " ", Which means that if you ask a candidate to do something that a vast majority of the American people aren't supposed to do you are discriminating upon them based on their preferred profession. That would be like if only Fast food Workers needed to take drug tests.

Its true, Trust between Government and their people is of the utmost importance and your not going to get that by having a political figure give their worst enemy weapons against them and vice-versa. Its up to the people of the United States to show that what we really care about is the policies that promote what we want and that are actually followed through with and aren't just talk to get elected. There is a difference between true safety and what is often mistaken for it, Security Theater. For the longest time, I honestly trusted in things like the TSA and Security Cameras to protect people in case someone tried to commit a crime, But when I recently did some researching I realized that most of this is simply security theater. The TSA barely stops crimes and even when they find a firearm, As when they found 150 in 2 weeks ("TSA discovered 150 firearms over the last two weeks in carry-on bags around the nation" [from TSA. Gov ill give link if you want it] ) it seems like a lot until you look at the numbers and realize that they only stopped. 0001% of people when they searched everyone and most of what they found could have been done without most of the hassle by a simple Metal detector, And the fact that the TSA can't stop any new ways terrorists find to pass the System, And Security cameras stop crimes by their existence. If you were a robber, Would you go someplace with or without cameras? The difference between what actually helps and what simply seems to help can get very blurry. I don't doubt that what you are trying to do is with the very best of intentions, But the implications would simply turn every debate into another "who has done worse? " contest and that's not what I at least want from my politicians, I want those I elect to be smart enough to win their way to leading positions from nothing more than the very merit of their ideas because when we are dealing with millions of people's lives, Is it really important to bring up a topic that makes you distrust people more?
Debate Round No. 1
Tarentz

Pro

Tarentz forfeited this round.
Darckshado99

Con

In hopes that this was a simple mistake on the part of my opponent, I pass the round and hope that Pro returns to the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Tarentz

Pro

Tarentz forfeited this round.
Darckshado99

Con

Darckshado99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Darckshado99 3 years ago
Darckshado99
@Omar2345 Apologies but I must beg to differ, Give me a moment and this challenge will be accepted
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
What debate was that Evan_Hermes?
Posted by Evan_Hermes 3 years ago
Evan_Hermes
why did you take on my debate with not intention of finishing it? Or debating at all? Thats not cool
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Tarentz

I highly doubt the against could put up a solid defence for privacy being more important then transparency.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.