The Instigator
TouchtheSky
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
billsands
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should a democracy affirm the public's right to know over a political candidate's right to privacy?

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: 12/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 877 times Debate No: 119407
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

TouchtheSky

Con

The title is fairly self-explanatory. I'll let my opponent make the first argument, But I'll start by offering definitions. If you disagree, Please feel free to contest them.

From Merriam Webster:

-I define "democracy" as a government in which supreme power is vested in the people, And is exercised through a system of representation and periodically held elections.

- I define "should" as a moral obligation.

- I define a "right" as a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or act a certain way.
billsands

Pro

wait i might be confused, I think if you run for office, You have to accept people have a right to know about you, But hers the thing if you tell them its not their business, Then maybe they should just not vote for you, If i get the feeling acandidate is trying to hide something, I just won't vote for him
Debate Round No. 1
TouchtheSky

Con

I will start by addressing my opponent's arguments, And then I will move on to presenting my own.

My opponent argues that if a person wishes to keep parts of their life private, That they should not be voted for in the first place. I negate this on the basis that just because a politician wishes to have privacy does not mean that they have something to hide. Each of us is individually given a right to privacy, And as a person, I would feel violated if details about my private struggles were published in a newspaper. It does not reflect that you are a criminal if you are afraid of scrutiny, Because to a great extent, We all hold some things to be our right to keep private. To expect a candidate to feel differently is to hold them to a hypocritical and salacious standard, And then insult them for protesting it.

For example, Max Mosley, The leader of an international automobile corporation, Was caught in a sex act that some argued should make him lose his job. However, This information had no effect on his running of the Automobile Corporation, And Mosley took the case to court, Arguing that his privacy rights had been infringed upon. The court found the case in his favor.

Now, I will move on to my own arguments.

First, I argue that privacy is essential to a democracy and must be upheld unless there is probable cause for violation, Which status as a political candidate is not. In Article 8, Part 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, It says, "No person shall be subjected to arbitrary and unlawful interference with his or her privacy, Family, Or correspondence, Nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honor and reputation". End quote.

Privacy was first regarded as a right in 1890, When Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis published a world-famous article in the Harvard Law Review. Now, The United States regards privacy as an essential law, And the United States Legal Institute states that, "Privacy is the right to be left alone and free from abuse and misuse of one"s personality. The right of privacy is a right to be free from unwarranted publicity, And to live without unwarranted interference by the public in areas in which the public is not concerned. " End quote.

Second, I argue that if a person's privacy rights are violated without probable cause, This reduces them to the status of a criminal. According to American law, Privacy can only be invaded with a warrant, Permission, Or in the case of an exigent circumstance. The American Legal Information Institute defines an exigent circumstance as "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action was necessary to prevent harm towards persons, Destruction of relevant evidence, The escape of a suspect, Or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts". End quote. Clearly, A political candidate does not apply for any of these circumstances.

Our American judicial system is based on the fact expressed in the 6th amendment that every individual is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. To invade their privacy without probable cause is a direct violation of this.

As evidence, I offer the case of the 1972 presidential election, Where one of the candidates, A man named Tom Eagleton, Was discovered by the press to have been hospitalized for mental stress in 1960. The story exploded over the media, And people all over America insulted and criticised him. Eagleton eventually resigned in shame, And it was only afterwards that medical records revealed that he had completely recovered from his ailment and he had already been putting a plan in place to pace himself and stop himself from getting too overwhelmed over the course of the election. It was also revealed that mental stress the likes of which he had suffered was the second-most most common ailment in the country, Second only to the common cold, And has plagued almost every president that has ever served in America. However, The media twisted these facts, And this "right to know" ended up severely harming Eagleton"s reputation and future career. This kind of press scrutiny only serves destroys the lives everyone involved.

Third, A politician's job is to represent people's needs on a political basis, Not a personal one. The more we scrutinize private lives, The less focused we become on policy, And the progress of our society. Every person has a "right" to know about their representative"s legal status, Public life, And of course, Any crimes that he may have committed. However, This right cannot extend to private life. Unbased attempts to divine personalities of candidates will only lead to the misallocation of the limited time and resources we have to inform the people. The focus of the voters must be drawn towards relevant and applicable issue- namely, The political beliefs and ideology of the candidate. While one"s private life may sometimes be an indicator of their beliefs, Their policy is a far more certain indicator.
billsands

Pro

there is no privacy in the modern world, Look around, And the constitution is largely ignored. . In important aspects, This right to own a gun is crazy. . And it accepted tha when you are in public and in a public position? You forfiet any right to privacy. . The people own your butt. . If you want privacy stay out of politics, If not, Prepare for a long jail sentence. . You have no right to privacy. . Especially if you are an elected officia. . We own you. . You have no secrets, Simple as that. . The constituion is a naive and obsolete document in our dangerous world, We can't afford the luxury rights, Order and security and survivalare what matter now
Debate Round No. 2
TouchtheSky

Con

My opponent countered my points by stating that human rights are unimportant and we should focus on security instead, Saying, And I quote, "We can't afford the luxury of rights. Order and security are what matter now". I negate this on the basis that without rights, There can be no order and security. Human rights are necessary to protect the very foundations on which the world stands, Including justice, Peace, And strength as a nation. Zeid Ra"ad Al Hussein, The UN high commissioner for human rights, Says this: "When the fundamental principles of human rights are not protected, The center of our institution no longer holds. It is they that promise development that is sustainable, Peace that is secure, And lives of dignity. "

He also said that 'when you are in a public position, You forfeit any right to privacy. We own you. You have no secrets. '. However, The implication that every leader is considered to have "consented" to a privacy violation simply because they want to become a leader is unjust and cruel. It denies the chance of any citizen to step up to leadership without being cruelly punished for doing so. If we hold that privacy is a human right, Which, As I have already demonstrated, We must, Then that means that anyone who wants to become a leader is simultaneously consenting to having their rights violated, Which is not only extremely unjust to anyone who wants to step up, But is also denying the goals and desires of people who are naturally scared of media scrutiny, Which, To a great extent, Is a rational fear. The press is constantly intruding on domestic circle in the most harmful ways possible, And the longer we let it go on, The more fear will plague anyone who wants to be brave enough to lead.
billsands

Pro

Without order there can be no rights
Debate Round No. 3
TouchtheSky

Con

TouchtheSky forfeited this round.
billsands

Pro

You go into politics the people own your bottom
Debate Round No. 4
TouchtheSky

Con

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. Time got in the way. I have already explained why my opponent is wrong when he says that 'when you go into politics, People own you'. This is a cruel way of looking at things that denies people of rights that are crucial to our very wellbeing as a society, As I have clearly explained. These rights are not restricting, And they cannot be forfeited at will because, Contrary to what my opponent suggests, Human rights are essential to our strength as a nation, Our justice, And our general peace.

Thank you for this debate.
billsands

Pro

We live in a cruel world, And people give themselves rights they don't have, Rights are imaginary, They don't exist.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
I just have a question. How did you make your debate to last 7 days?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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