Is privacy more important than security?
The standing best case for and against — a leaderboard of arguments, not a ruling on the question.
“This is why my framing was important, because I agreed that under some pretenses the government can for security reasons invade privacy.”
The line that won it · highlighted from the winning round
Thank you for you Airport response, I appreciate the thought provoking example. This is why my framing was important, because I agreed that under some pretenses the government can for security reasons invade privacy. The problem is your statement is bigger than that, it asserts that security is more important that privacy. Under this logic you have to allow for governments not only to check bags at the airport but put cameras in every house, and phone so that they can track any possible crimes you may commit. While we can agree this would most likely lead to less crimes and therefore more "security." I think we can agree this would be an overstep of Both the first and fourth amendments, as anyone who could be spied on by the government without a warrant could be convicted by that same government who is wielding the power. This means any governmental or political opposition could be silenced before they ever even get the chance to speak and we would have no right to stop the government from doing this. So let me ask you would you allow the government to put cameras in your house to make crimes go down, because this is the plot of 1984 and it should be seen as a warning.
Read full argument
Thank you for you Airport response, I appreciate the thought provoking example. This is why my framing was important, because I agreed that under some pretenses the government can for security reasons invade privacy. The problem is your statement is bigger than that, it asserts that security is more important that privacy. Under this logic you have to allow for governments not only to check bags at the airport but put cameras in every house, and phone so that they can track any possible crimes you may commit. While we can agree this would most likely lead to less crimes and therefore more "security." I think we can agree this would be an overstep of Both the first and fourth amendments, as anyone who could be spied on by the government without a warrant could be convicted by that same government who is wielding the power. This means any governmental or political opposition could be silenced before they ever even get the chance to speak and we would have no right to stop the government from doing this. So let me ask you would you allow the government to put cameras in your house to make crimes go down, because this is the plot of 1984 and it should be seen as a warning.
Held 2 days · survived 1 challenge · closest call 85 vs 79
Challenge The Record — argue FOROutscore 85 in any judged debate on this topic and you take the shelf.
No argument has qualified for The Record yet.
The bar is 70. Set it.
Set the record — argue AGAINSTEvery argument counts
Any judged debate on this topic feeds The Record — no separate mode, no opt-in.
Highest score holds
Beat the standing record in a full judged debate and the shelf is yours.
It never settles the question
Both sides stand. The Record ranks arguments; it does not rule on the topic.
Recent attempts
More Records
The Record shows the highest-scoring argument ever made on each side. It is a leaderboard of arguments, not a ruling on the question itself.