Kohai (PRO)Note to readers: This debate is for the Platonist Tournament of Philosophy. Many thanks to edeb8 for providing this platform to debate and I wish my opponent the best of luck in the tournament.
The government has two primary duties: to protect the freedom of its citizens and to provide national security. How are we to balance these two important duties of government? I will be arguing in this debate that when freedom and security is in conflict (and it is not always in conflict), then freedom ought to be chosen over security.
I. Threats of terrorism are overblown
The selling point that governments often use to sacrifice freedom from security inevitably befalls on terrorism. Less than 6 weeks after 9/11, Congress rushed through and President George W. Bush signed into law the PATRIOT Act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act of 2001. The PATRIOT act was probably the most expansive power grab in U.S. history giving the government unprecedented powers of surveillance.
The threat of terrorism, however, is greatly overblown. There is simply not enough evidence to show that terrorism has increased or grown more powerful than in recent decades. Dick Myers writes:
"The threat of terror...is massively exaggerated in both the public and official mind. The facts are indisputable. The risk of death by terrorist act is infinitesimal. The risk, in the lexicon of statistics, is trivial. We are spending billions hoping to marginally reduce the risk of a real but very remote danger."
...
"Proof and perspective are scarce. Collective phobia is immune to evidence. Fear trumps facts, especially when the people in charge warn about phantom enemies and exaggerate the strength of the real ones."
And indeed, the chances of someone being killed by terrorism is small. In fact, one is more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist! And according to the CDC, one is more likely to starve to death than be killed by terrorism.
Conclusion
In summary, as Ben Franklin stated, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The threat of terrorism is overblown and the government has enough resources to fight it. We should not be forced to give up our freedoms in the name of national security.
I'm sorry I did not get to write more. I have been very busy and eagerly await your reply.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-03 13:28:04
| Speak Round
Crow (CON)The oppositional position believes that no freedom can exist without security.
That no freedom can exist without security
The affirmative position agrees that the role of the government (more specifically the state) is to protect freedom for its citizens, when he said "to protect the freedom of its citizens and to provide national security."
The affirmative position makes the mistake of declaring the protection of freedom and national security as separate. In reality, these are two mutually exclusive things.
When a person is not secure, they are then taken advantage of. When somebody is taken advantage of, they then have the lowest state of freedom possible. They are now being controlled. Often they die.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I would rather be alive in an oppressive world, then dead in a free world. I love both, but without adequate security, people die. That is why we should value security before freedom.
Let's clarify what the affirmative position did and didn't do in his opening arguments.
- He argued that terrorism is overblown
- He failed to point out why freedom is more valuable than security
The terrorism argument is counter-intuitive. Has the affirmative position questioned whether the reason terrorism is so unthreatening, is because of the increased security? It isn't easy to perform a terrorist attack inside the western world, and that is because of national security.
That argument reduces all security threats to terrorism. There are enemies who would seek to destroy us with weapons of mass destruction, and often our own civilians work in collaboration with them. There are also hundreds of armed militias with anti-US sentiments on American soil, and plenty of radical groups in the rest of the free world.
The primary matter is that there was no explanation of how freedom is more valuable than security. What does freedom matter if one is to die?
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-06 12:01:30
| Speak RoundCrow: Can people be happy without absolute liberty? Such as in the context of a child? Kohai: You need to define absolute liberty. Can absolute liberty even exist?Kohai: What liberties and to what extent should we be willing to give up in the name of security?Crow: Absolute liberty exists when one is not being subordinate to another. Liberty, after all, is what is made permissive by our overseer.Crow: The extent at which liberties should be sacrificed, is the point at which one can safely call themselves secure. There is no objective understanding of what constitutes being secure, nor is there an objective answer as to what liberties should be sacrificed. Crow: Under the context of my recent clarification, do you believe people can be happy without absolute liberty? Kohai: Sure, but happiness is not really related to the resolution. People can be "happy" in an absolute dictatorship (i.e., North Korea), but happiness is not related to the debate. Kohai: Do you agree that there are liberties that are too valuable to be willing to give up (i.e. Habeas corps, the right to vote, the right to a fair and speedy trial).Kohai: And in reverse, people can be "happy" and "unhappy" in either absolute freedom or without absolute freedom. Happiness is too subjective to be used as a standard.Return To Top | Speak Round
Kohai (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-11 12:02:01
| Speak Round
It would be a little better if the title was, "That liberty should come before security". It makes a little more sense that way. Though it is not a big deal anyways. Posted 2016-08-10 13:48:10
@Crow I have noticed. I saw your account was gone for a few days. I was hoping that you'd be back. I'd hate to see you forfeit. Posted 2016-08-06 16:38:31
@Kohai
As you can see, there are some technical issues that are literally preventing me from position.
Trying to get this worked out. Posted 2016-08-06 11:30:53
Note to readers: This debate is for the Platonist Tournament of Philosophy
Posted 2016-07-31 08:35:28